Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Environment DA
Contents
WDCA Novice Packet – Environment DA ........................................................................................ 1
NOTES ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Uniqueness .................................................................................................................................. 3
Brinks ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Links ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Aquaculture ........................................................................................................................... 10
Ocean Clean Up ..................................................................................................................... 15
Precautionary Principle ......................................................................................................... 17
AT: Plan Solves Link ............................................................................................................... 19
AT: Federal Law Solves the Link............................................................................................. 22
Impact Modules......................................................................................................................... 23
Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................ 24
Environment Generic............................................................................................................. 29
Biod AND Ecosystem Loss ..................................................................................................... 33
Aff Answers to Environment DA .................................................................................................... 34
A2 – Brink .................................................................................................................................. 35
Biodiversity is Not on the Brink ............................................................................................. 36
Impact Defense.......................................................................................................................... 37
Individual Species Not Key..................................................................................................... 38
Species are Resilient .............................................................................................................. 41
Species Will Adapt ................................................................................................................. 43
Impact Inevitable ................................................................................................................... 45
Aquaculture Specific Answers ................................................................................................... 46
Ocean Clean Up Specific Answers ............................................................................................. 58
PP Specific Answers ................................................................................................................... 61
1
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
NOTES
1NCs should be assembled at the debater’s purview. Debaters will likely
want to choose between uniqueness and brink scenarios. Run together,
they can contradict each other. Each link to “environmental damage” can
be matched with one of the impact cards – the warrants should be read to
see whether or not they are about environmental destruction in general or
biodiversity loss, and then the appropriate impact card can be chosen from
below. Affirmative answers to uniqueness can be found in the affirmative
case files, typically under the advantage scenarios.
2
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Uniqueness
3
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Oceanic biodiversity is improving
Howard 6-24
[Brian. Oceans Analyst for National Geographic. “Global Ocean Commission Calls for Sweeping
International Reforms” 6/24/14 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140624-global-oceancommission-report-high-seas-fishing-environment/]
An international panel of former heads of state, government ministers, and prominent business
leaders is calling for world leaders to protect the ocean by adopting a sweeping "five-year rescue
package."¶ The report released Tuesday by the Global Ocean Commission recommends that the
United Nations and national governments restrict fishing in international waters, eliminate
fishing subsidies, step up the fight against illegal fishing, reduce pollution, and establish greater
international cooperation on marine issues.¶ Nations must "intervene to reduce degradation of
the ocean, and it must be forceful," commission co-chair Trevor Manuel tells National
Geographic.¶ The independent, 17-member commission—launched in February 2013 by the Pew
Charitable Trusts, the University of Oxford, Adessium Foundation, and Oceans 5—spent 18
months researching and drafting the report.¶ The commission's conclusions have been widely
anticipated by policymakers at the UN and in many nations, in part due to the political clout of
the commissioners. Members include Carol Browner, the former head of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; David Miliband, the former foreign secretary of the United Kingdom; and Paul
Martin, a former prime minister of Canada.¶ Without swift action to combat overfishing,
pollution, and other problems, the commission argues, the world's food supply and biodiversity
are at great risk. The ocean, the commission notes, provides half of the planet's oxygen, absorbs
half of man-made carbon emissions, and is the beginning of the food chain.¶ "It's clearly
important that nations raise the bar on international cooperation around the ocean," says
Manuel, a veteran politician from South Africa who served as the country's minister of finance for
13 years.¶ One of the commission's most dramatic recommendations is for subsidies for fishing in
international waters to be capped immediately and eliminated entirely within five years. The
move could essentially end fishing on the so-called high seas because the commission found that,
without the financial assistance provided by ten nations, the practice would not be financially
viable.¶ If such significant steps are not taken within five years, then the high seas should be
closed to all fishing to allow stocks to recover, the report says.
4
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Momentum toward conservation but it’s fragile-acknowledgement is key,
(Grantly Galland et al ’12, Grantly Galland is a PhD candidate at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, at the University of California at San Diego, Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb is a PhD student in the
department of resource management and geography at the Melbourne School of Land and Environment, and Dorothee Herr is
assistant to the deputy head of the Global Marine Program for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, “The Ocean and
Climate Change Policy,” Climate Policy, 2012,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1321407777/fulltextPDF?accountid=14667)
4. How can the ocean be considered more significantly? There are good reasons why the
ocean’s role in climate
regulation, value as a carbon sink, and importance as a source of food and income for hundreds of millions of
people around the world should receive more attention during the negotiation and implementation of
climate policy. Achieving this result is a two-step process: B Researching and designing policies that deal
with ocean–climate issues. B Injecting appropriate language into the laws and agreements at the highest
levels of national and international climate change negotiation. One could argue that the first step is well
under way, if not complete. Ocean researchers and advocates already have a good idea of what policies
could successfully manage oceanic carbon stores, preserve marine and coastal ecosystems, and support the
continued provision of ecosystem services. For example, in ‘Blue Carbon Policy Framework’ (Herr et al., 2011), several policy
opportunities to include oceanic carbon storage more significantly in international, regional, and national climate change mitigation
strategies are discussed. Potential threats to the marine environment (e.g. shifting ecosystem ranges and changes to ocean
chemistry) in the absence of mitigation policies are also well known (see above). As already mentioned, however, there
has
been little progress on the second, and practically more difficult, step of convincing those at the negotiation table to
consider language involving the ocean. COP decisions, as well as national legislation, are often necessarily
general in order to ensure that they are applicable to a wide range of stakeholders and to avoid limiting the
effectiveness of implementing agencies. Therefore, it can be difficult to obtain support for specific issues.
Even the general acknowledgement of an issue as important, however, can inspire a reaction, and
the assignment of an issue to a working group, subsidiary body, or committee leads to significant and
timely analysis and action (again, forest management is an example).
5
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Brinks
6
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Ocean ecosystems on the brink- 5 year timeframe
MintPress News 6/26/14 (MintPress is an independent online journal, citing a report from
The Global Ocean Commission initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, in partnership with
Somerville College at the University of Oxford, “Report: World’s Oceans On Brink Of
Collapse”, MintPress News 6/26/14, http://www.mintpressnews.com/report-worlds-oceansbrink-collapse/193075/)//BLOV
The world’s oceans face irreparable damage from climate change and overfishing, with a five-year window for
intervention, an environmental panel said Tuesday. Neglecting the health of the oceans could have devastating effects on the world’s
food supply, clean air, and climate stability, among other factors. The
Global Oceans Commission, an environmental
group formed by the Pew Charitable Trust, released a report (PDF) addressing the declining marine
ecosystems around the world and outlining an eight-step “rescue package” to restore growth
and prevent future damage to the seas. The 18-month study proposes increased governance of the oceans, including
limiting oil and gas exploration, capping subsidies for commercial fishing, and creating marine protected areas (MPAs) to guard
against pollution, particularly from plastics. “A healthy ocean is a key to our well-being,” said Jose Maria Figueres, co-chair and
former president of Costa Rica. “Unless
we turn the tide on ocean decline within five years, the
international community should consider turning the high seas into an off-limits
regeneration zone until its condition is restored.” Government subsidies for high seas fishing total at least $30
billion a year and are carried out by just ten countries, the report said. About 60 percent of such subsidies encourage
unsustainable practices like the fuel-hungry “bottom trawling” of ocean floors — funds that could
be rerouted to conservation efforts or employment in coastal areas. Meanwhile, environmental nonprofits and
governmental bodies are starting to recognize the insufficient protections offered by systems
like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which aims to regulate portions of the ocean but cannot actually
enforce any laws. The report includes a proposal to ratify the UNCLOS, increasing and extending its
oversight to 64 percent of the ocean which is currently outside of national jurisdiction. “Without proper governance, a minority will
continue to abuse the freedom of the high seas, plunder the riches that lie beneath the waves, take more than a fair share, and benefit at
the expense of the rest of us, especially the poorest,” said Trevor Manuel, co-chair of the commission and former minister of finance
of South Africa. Failure
to reverse the decline of the ocean’s ecosystems would be an
“ unforgivable betrayal of current and future generations, ” said David Miliband, co-chair and former
British foreign secretary.
7
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Decline needs to stop- anything else pushes it past the brink
IPSO 13 (The International Programme on the State of the Ocean in conjunction with IUCN:
The International Union for Conservation of Nature, “Press Release Greater , Faster, Closer
Latest Review Of Science Reveals Ocean In Critical State From Cumulative Impacts” 10/3/13
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-PR-2013-FINAL.pdf)//BLOV
Professor Alex Rogers of Somerville College, Oxford, and Scientific Director of IPSO said : “The
health of the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought . We are seeing
greater change, happening faster , and the effects are more imminent than previously
anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability
of the ocean to support life on Earth.” The findings , published in the peer review journal Marine
Pollution Bulletin, are part of an ongoing assessment process overseen by IPSO, which bring s
together scientists from a range of marine disciplines. The body’s previous 2011 report, which warned of the threat of ‘globally
significant’ extinctions of marine specie s, received global media attention an d has been cited in hearings at the United Nations , US
Senate and European Parliament as well as the UK Parliament ,
Among the latest assessments of factors
affecting ocean health , the panel identified the following areas as of greatest cause for
concern: De - oxygenation : the evidence is accumulating that the oxygen inventory of the ocean is
progressively declining. Predictions for ocean oxygen content suggest a decline of between 1% and 7% by
2100. This is occurring in two way s: the broad trend of decreasing oxygen levels in tropical oceans and areas of the
North Pacific over the last 50 years; and the dramatic increase in coastal hypoxia (low oxygen) associated with eutrophication. The
former is caused by global warming, the second by increased nutrient runoff from agriculture and
sewage. • Acidification : If current levels of CO 2 release continue we can expect extremely
serious consequences for ocean life , and in turn food and coastal protection ; at CO 2
concentrations of 450 - 500 ppm (projected in 2030 - 2050) erosion will exceed calcification in the
coral reef building process , resulting in the extinction of some species and decline in
biodiversity overall . • Warming : As made clear by the IPCC, the ocean is taking the brunt of
warming in the climate system, with direct and well - documented physical and biogeochemical
consequences. The impacts which continued warming is projected to have in the decades to 2050 include: reduced
seasonal ice zones, including th e disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice by ca. 2037; increasing stratification of
ocean layers, leading to oxygen depletion; increased venting of the GHG methane from the Arctic
seabed (a factor
not considered by the IPCC)
; and increased incidence of anox ic and hypoxic (low oxygen) even t s . •
The ‘ deadly trio’ of the above three stressors - acidification, warming and deoxygenation - is seriously effecting
how productive and efficient the ocean is, as temperatures, chemistry, surface stratification, nutrient and oxygen
supply are all implicated, meaning that many organisms will find themselves in unsuitable environments. These impa cts will
have cascading consequences for marine biology , including altered food web dynamics and
the expansion of pathogens . • Continued overfishing is serving to further undermine the
resilience of ocean systems, and contrary to some claims, despite some i mprovements largely in developed
regions, fisheries management is still failing to halt the decline of key species and damage to the
ecosystems on which marine life depends. In 2012 the UN FAO determined that 70% of world fish populations are unsustainably
exploited, of which 30% have biomass collapsed to less than 10% of unfished levels. A recent global assessment of compliance with
Article 7 (fishery management) of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, awarded 60% of countries a “fail” g
rade, and saw no country identified as being overall “good
8
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Links
9
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aquaculture
Expansion of marine aquaculture undermines ocean ecosystem and wild
fisheries several ways
Naylor, 6 --- Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University
(Spring 2006, Rosamond L., “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,”
http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/, JMP)
Opening far-offshore waters to aquaculture could lead to substantial commercial benefits, but
it also poses significant ecological risks to the ocean —a place many U.S. citizens consider to be
our last frontier.
Some of the species now farmed in open-ocean cages, such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, and
Atlantic halibut, are becoming increasingly depleted in the wild. Proponents of offshore
aquaculture often claim that the expansion of farming into federal waters far from shore will
help protect or even revive wild populations. However, there are serious ecological risks
associated with farming fish in marine waters that could make this claim untenable. The
ecological effects of marine aquaculture have been well documented, particularly for nearshore systems, and are summarized in the 2005 volumes of the Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, Frontiers in Ecology (February), and BioScience (May). They include the escape
of farmed fish from ocean cages, which can have detrimental effects on wild fish populations
through competition and interbreeding; the spread of parasites and diseases between wild
and farmed fish; nutrient and chemical effluent discharge from farms, which pollutes the
marine environment; and the use of wild pelagic fish for feeds, which can diminish or deplete
the low end of the marine food web in certain locations.
Because offshore aquaculture is still largely in the experimental phase, its ecological effects
have not been widely documented, yet the potential risks are clear . The most obvious
ecological risk of offshore aquaculture results from its use of wild fish in feeds, because most of
the species being raised in open-ocean systems are carnivorous. If offshore aquaculture
continues to focus on the production of species that require substantial quantities of wild fish
for feed—a likely scenario because many carnivorous fish command high market prices—the
food web effects on ecosystems that are vastly separated in space could be significant.
10
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Massive expansion of marine aquaculture has significant ecological risks
Naylor, 6 --- Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University
(Spring 2006, Rosamond L., “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,”
http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/, JMP)
An essential question in the debate thus remains: What is the vision of the Department of
Commerce in developing offshore aquaculture? If the vision is to expand offshore production
to a scale sufficient to eliminate the $8 billion seafood deficit, the ecological risks will be
extremely high.
11
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Scaling up aquaculture will magnify environmental harms
Strasser, 14 --- Senior Editor of ThinkProgress (4/21/2014, Annie-Rose, “The New, Innovative
And More Efficient Way Of Feeding People,”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3422486/big-ag-takes-to-the-ocean/, JMP)
There are complications and concerns with scaling up aquaculture , however. In some ways,
it’s just like agriculture: Big Ag may supply us with affordable food, but that can be done by
cutting corners or taking a serious toll on the environment . The same could be true for what’s
happening in fish farming now, and some of the same big players are even involved in the
industry. Christy Walton, the billionaire of WalMart fame, is deeply involved in the aquaculture
game, pouring money into a group called Cuna Del Mar, where her son works, that invests in
aquaculture projects around the globe. Peter Drucker, a famous management consultant
credited with helping to invent the modern corporation, once said, “Aquaculture, not the
Internet, represents the most promising investment opportunity of the 21st century.”
12
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aquaculture causes disease spread, overfishing and pollution that collapses
marine ecosystems
McCutcheon, 14 (3/27/2014, Jody, “Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment,”
http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/)
***Note --- FCR = Feed Conversion Ratio
And while farmed fish don’t contain high levels of ocean pollutants like many wild fish do—
especially those living in industrial areas like North America’s Great Lakes—they almost always
do contain various antibiotics, hormones and pesticides used in the farming process. Plus,
farmed fish are usually crowded into their pens or ponds, creating fertile breeding grounds
for diseases like infectious salmon anemia and parasites like sea lice—hence the use of
antibiotics and pesticides.
Food Industry Lies
Impassive and duplicitous, the industrial agricultural that’s raping the planet’s land has now
infiltrated our oceans. If aquaculture’s primary purpose is, as they claim, to relieve pressure on
the world’s wild fisheries, then why are wild stocks being depleted to feed farmed fish?
Farmed Atlantic salmon may have an ideal FCR of 1:1 (or thereabouts), but that just means it
takes one pound of wild fish to produce one pound of farmed salmon. Yes, high-protein
fishmeal is made of wild, low-on-the-food-chain, pelagic (open-ocean) fish. As much as 4.5
kilograms of pelagic fish go into a single kilogram of fishmeal. For fish with higher FCR’s, the
whole skewed dynamic of feeding farmed fish with wild represents a constant overdraft on
the ocean bank . This practice steals essential food sources from higher-on-the-food-chain
marine life , which further skews the ecosystem. Overall, about 37% of the global seafood
catch is used for feed, up from a mere 7.7% back in 1948. Under current trends, demand for
fishmeal will exceed supply by around 2050.
In addition, although aquaculturalists claim the contamination of their farms is contained within
their ponds, the truth is that industrial scale aquaculture destroys coastal habitats when
waste, disease, antibiotics and pests are flushed out of farming ponds into local waters, where
they infiltrate wild populations. In fact, waste from fish farms can oversaturate coastal waters
with nutrients, creating dead zones that suffocate marine life . A poorly run farm of 200,000
salmon can pollute the coastal environment with amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus similar to
that in the sewage of a town of 20,000. Even more alarming, the antibiotics being released are
creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens that wreak havoc on farmed and wild fishery stocks
alike .
Another concern is the potential escape into local waters of exotic, possibly genetically
modified species that may eventually replace indigenous species. Massachussetts-based
company AquaBounty, for example, is bioengineering fish to grow faster, an advantage that
would help them outcompete fellow fish. But according to Time magazine, it is very easy and
common for farmed fish to escape into the wild, thus just one GMO fish could do irreparable
damage to a species .
13
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aquaculture has a number of environmental problems that undercuts
sustainability
Sielen, 13 --- Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine
Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Nov/Dec 2013, Alan
B., Foreign Affairs, “The Devolution of the Seas: The Consequences of Oceanic Destruction,”
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas, JMP)
As the oceans decline and the demand for their products rises, marine and freshwater
aquaculture may look like a tempting solution. After all, since we raise livestock on land for
food, why not farm fish at sea? Fish farming is growing faster than any other form of food
production, and today, the majority of commercially sold fish in the world and half of U.S.
seafood imports come from aquaculture. Done right, fish farming can be environmentally
acceptable. But the impact of aquaculture varies widely depending on the species raised,
methods used, and location, and several factors make healthy and sustainable production
difficult . Many farmed fish rely heavily on processed wild fish for food, which eliminates the
fish-conservation benefits of aquaculture. Farmed fish can also escape into rivers and oceans
and endanger wild populations by transmitting diseases or parasites or by competing with
native species for feeding and spawning grounds. Open-net pens also pollute , sending fish
waste, pesticides, antibiotics, uneaten food, diseases, and parasites flowing directly into the
surrounding waters.
14
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Ocean Clean Up
Plastic clean up would be devastating for sea life caught up in the filtration
system and sucked from the ocean. .
Kazo, President at Wildlife Research Team, 2013
(Donna, President/Director/co-founder at Wildlife Research Team, Inc,
http://wildliferesearchteam.wordpress.com/tag/boyan-slat/)
In closing, I quite liked this comment from “Harry,” who watches over a particular beach in
Maine, and discusses his findings in his blog, on Slat’s plan: “This idea that if we’ve messed
something up, there’s science/tech out there that can fix it. That keeps us from having to
make the hard choices about our lifestyle. In this case, there isn’t. It is not possible to clean
the oceans up of their debris. Not without breaking the bank of every nation on earth and
scooping out and killing all the life in its first 100 feet of depth. That’s what we have done to
our planet in just a couple generations. That’s plastic’s legacy. We cannot actively go out and
clean it up in any meaningful way. What we can do is to change consumption behavior, change
materials, improve waste management; do the things that stop persistent plastic from getting in
the ocean in the first place.Ӧ
It starts with me, and with you.
15
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Even passive clean up systems will kill plankton caught in the system.
Wilson, Associate Director at The 5 Gyres Institute, 2013
(Stiv,”The Fallacy of Cleaning the Gyres of Plastic With a Floating "Ocean Cleanup Array"
, Inhabitat, July 17, http://inhabitat.com/the-fallacy-of-cleaning-the-gyres-of-plastic-with-afloating-ocean-cleanup-array/)
Another technicality is bycatch. Slat suggests that plankton wouldn’t be collected along with
the plastic, though he admits more research is needed on this. The definition of plankton is an
organism that can’t swim against a current; plankton have no control where they go and the
assumption that they’ll somehow avoid the current that is taking the plastic into the
processing thinga-ma-jiggy is a bad one. After conducting 50+ surface samples myself, at least
half of the material we get from the surface is biomass. Zooplankton is really fragile, and
trying to separate it from plastic in most cases is going to damage these critters beyond
survivability, especially on an industrial scale. Plan B in Slat’s concept is to centrifuge the
critters out—that would rip off their antennae and feeding apparatus. Scientists, when
collecting zooplankton, use live catch nets and are very, very careful so as not to damage them.
Plankton biologists, needless to say, are skeptical. Though zooplankton certainly isn’t the most
charismatic fauna out there (and probably wouldn’t draw the ire of PETA if Slat’s device killed
them), let’s remember that all life in the ocean depends on plankton at the base of the food
chain. And if one endangered sea turtle was caught up? The fines that Slat would face would
bankrupt his project in a second.
16
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle Often Causes More Death than it Prevents
Sunstein 2008, [Cass, Felix Frankfurter professor of law, Harvard Law School] Throwing
precaution to the wind: Why the 'safe' choice can be dangerous. Boston Globe July 13, 2008
Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course
true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks
on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other
words, themselves create risks - and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.
Consider the Iraq war. At times, the Bush administration justified the war on explicitly precautionary grounds - that
even the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq was so threatening that it demanded action. Indeed, the idea of
"preemptive war" articulated by President Bush is a kind of precautionary principle. The nation went to war on the
chance that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But this precaution is imposing a heavy price and
creating serious risks for the future.
War is unique, but the same point holds in other contexts, including the domain of climate change, in which costly
precautions inevitably create risks. This is not to say that we should not take action to avert the dangers posed by
climate change; we should. But if we take steps to reduce risks, we will always create fresh hazards. No choice is riskfree. For environmental and other problems, we need to decide which risks to combat - not comfort ourselves with
the pretense that there is such a thing as a "safe" choice.
The precautionary principle was initially developed in Germany and Sweden in the late 1960s. The first legal use of
the principle appears in the Swedish Environmental Protection Act of 1969. In the same period, German
environmental policy was founded on the basis of Vorsorgeprinzip, a precursor of the precautionary principle. In the
last 15 years, the principle has been used in many international agreements.
The most limited versions of the principle suggest, quite sensibly, that a lack of decisive evidence of harm should not
be grounds for refusing to respond. Controls might be justified even if we cannot establish a definite connection
between, for example, low-level exposures to humanly-introduced carcinogens and adverse effects on human health.
Thus the 1992 Rio Declaration, setting out principles for sustainable development, states, "Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing costeffective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
In some places, however, the precautionary principle is understood in a stronger way, asking for a significant margin
of safety for all decisions. For example, the Final Declaration of the First European "Seas At Risk" conference in 1994
says that if "the 'worst case scenario' for a certain activity is serious enough then even a small amount of doubt as to
the safety of that activity is sufficient to stop it taking place." Likewise, some people argue that because genetic
modification of food creates ecological risks, because the pesticide DDT threatens human health (and wildlife), and
because nuclear power has a really bad worst-case scenario, we should impose immediate bans.
The simplest problem with the precautionary principle is that regulation might well deprive
society of significant benefits, and even produce a large number of deaths that would otherwise
not occur. In some cases, government regulation eliminates the "opportunity benefits" of a
process or activity, and thus threatens to cause preventable deaths.
17
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The Precautionary Principal Contradicts itself at Best and Often Hurts the
Environment
Sunstein 2002, [Cass, Felix Frankfurter professor of law, Harvard Law School] Regulation,
Winter 2—2-2003, “The Paralyzing Principle” pp. 32-37
Sometimes regulation would violate the Precautionary Principle because it would give rise to
substitute risks in the form of hazards that materialize, or are increased, as a result of
regulation. Consider nuclear power. It is reasonable to think that in light of current options, a
ban on nuclear power will increase dependence on fossil fuels that contribute to global
warming. If so, such a ban would seem to run afoul of the Precautionary Principle. Or consider
the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to ban asbestos, a ban that might well seem
justified or even compelled by the principle. The difficulty, from the standpoint of that very
principle, is that substitutes for asbestos also carry risks. Or return to possible risks to marine
mammals from the U.S. Navy. Some people are concerned that efforts to eliminate those risks
will endanger military preparedness, if only because of the rise of new administrative barriers to
training exercises. In those circumstances, what is the appropriate approach, according to the
Precautionary Principle?
18
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
AT: Plan Solves Link
Large-scale operations will dominate offshore --- they have not been evaluated
for environmental benefits
Klinger & Naylor, 12 --- *Ph.D. student in Stanford's Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in
Environmental and Resources, AND **professor of environmental Earth system science at
Stanford (Dane & Rosamond, “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable
Course,”
http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aqu
aculture.pdf, JMP)
Offshore systems fail to fully resolve many of the environmental concerns associated with
conventional coastal systems , including the risk of escaped fish interbreeding or competing
for resources with wild fish, aggregation of other animals around offshore structures, and
disease and parasite transmission to wild fish (reviewed in References 122 and 128). These
problems, and the effects of releasing even diluted quantities of uneaten feed, wastes, and
therapeutants, are likely to be reduced when farms move away from the coast and into
oligotrophic environments, but to an uncertain degree (128). Although offshore seaweed and
shellfish operations do not require feed (7, 123), resource efficiency remains an issue with
offshore finfish operations because the high cost of building and operating offshore currently
favors production of high-value carnivorous fish (11, 128). The high cost of production is also
likely to rely on economies of scale for profitability, and thus favor large-scale operations or
suites of operations that have not been evaluated for their impacts on marine ecosystems .
Moving offshore increases the distances that support vessels must travel to reach aquaculture
farms and therefore increases the fuel use and carbon intensity of production . Finally, the
cost of labor may increase as managing offshore vessels and equipment requires skilled
employees.
19
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Environmentalists have opposed all bills to increase aquaculture because of
risks
***Note --- the plan essentially passes the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act
(explained in 1ac Johns, 13 ev)
Madin, 11 (9/21/2011, Kate, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest of the world,
the U.S. has not embraced aquaculture,” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-willwe-get-our-seafood, JMP)
The U.S. could provide most of the seafood its population needs via aquaculture, he said, but a
host of economic, environmental, health, and policy issues has muddied the waters. The
fishing industry has economic concerns about retaining jobs in traditional commercial fishing;
and there are uncertainties about regulations governing aquaculture, especially in federal
waters . And while conservationists fight to protect overfished fisheries and endangered
species, they also have ecological concerns about fish farms and about antibiotics, chemicals,
and feeds used to raise fish.
“For a number of years, bills have been introduced in Congress to set up a streamlined
permitting mechanism to facilitate aquaculture in federal waters, but those bills have never
gone anywhere, mainly because of opposition from fishing communities and environmental
groups ,” Kite-Powell said. “Seafood consumption is rising more quickly abroad than it is here in
the United States. Should we take active steps to prepare for a future when international
supplies may not be as readily available as they currently are?”
20
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Environmental lobby opposes the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture
Act
Richardson, 11 (12/1/2011, White, “Fishing for a future, part 2 | Facing mounting costs and
restricted access, Maine fishermen find new opportunities in a growing aquaculture industry,”
http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/20100208/CURRENTEDITION/302089998/fishing-for-a-futurepart-2-|-facing-mounting-costs-and-restricted-access-maine-fishermen-find-new-opportunitiesin-a-growing-aquaculture-industry, JMP)
Stalled regulations hamper domestic growth
Market conditions are ripe for an enhanced American aquaculture industry. The U.S. imports
81% of its seafood, creating a $9.4 billion trade deficit, the third largest behind oil and
automobiles. In 2007, the U.S. aquaculture industry produced roughly 530,000 metric tons,
placing it 14th in the world.
Despite a 1980 National Aquaculture Act to encourage the growth of domestic aquaculture, a
federal regulatory framework to achieve that goal remains elusive. In late December, California
Rep. Lois Capps introduced the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009 to set
up a regulatory framework for permitting offshore fish farms in federal waters, which extend
from three miles to 200 miles off the coast. States like Maine have a process to permit fish farms
in state waters, but as space becomes limited in near-shore areas, the industry is looking to the
open ocean for expansion.
The bill, H.R. 4363, follows several failed attempts at a national law . The Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2007, for example, never made it out of committee. Michael Rubino,
manager of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's aquaculture program, says it's
not vehement opposition to the idea of offshore aquaculture that keeps tying up the legislation,
just a simple lack of time. "The main thing is Congress has a lot on its plate," Rubino says. "It's
tough to get any legislation passed."
There's not much hope this current bill will fare any better than its predecessors. Both sides the environmental lobby and the aquaculture industry - have problems with it , according to
advocates for each.
21
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
AT: Federal Law Solves the Link
Current federal laws are not sufficient to protect the environment
Naylor, 6 --- Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University
(Spring 2006, Rosamond L., “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,”
http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/, JMP)
Are current federal laws sufficient to protect the environment in the EEZ? The answer is no. As
a framework, they leave major gaps in environmental protection . The Rivers and Harbors Act
gives the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to issue permits for any obstruction in federal
waters (including fish cages) but does not provide clear environmental mandates . The Corps
has the broad discretion to ensure environmental quality but is not required to do so . The
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extends this authority farther offshore beyond the territorial
waters of the EEZ and applies to any offshore facilities that are anchored on or up to 1 mile from
offshore oil rigs; in this case, further permit approval is required from the Department of
Interior. The Clean Water Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to
regulate waste discharges from aquaculture facilities, but the agency’s recent effluent guidelines
for aquaculture net pens, which presumably would be applied to offshore cages, focus simply on
the use of best management practices. Aquaculture discharge is not currently regulated through
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the permitting system used for
municipal and industrial point-source discharge to U.S. waters. The Endangered Species Act and
the Marine Mammal Protection Act both are applicable in the EEZ and can be used to limit
offshore aquaculture operations if they are proven to threaten any listed threatened or
endangered species, or if they unlawfully kill marine mammals. In addition, the Lacey Act gives
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the authority to regulate the introduction of exotic species in
federal waters if they have been listed specifically as “injurious” to other species. The Lacey Act
applies to any species that are transported or traded across borders, but not to species that
already exist within borders. Finally, all international treaties and protocols would apply to
offshore aquaculture in the EEZ.
The only federal law that the proposed bill would explicitly supersede is the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (MSA) of 1976, which stipulates a balance between fishing and conservation. S. 1195 does
not include any specific balancing requirements between ecosystems and industry. Regional
fishery management councils established under the MSA as well as the public would be
consulted in the process of environmental rulemaking but would not have a determining effect
on the outcome.
Although S. 1195 supersedes only one federal law, existing legislation does not adequately
address the major risks of farmed fish escapes and genetic dilution of wild stocks, pathogen
transmission from farms to wild organisms, and cumulative effluent discharge. Most existing
laws and regulations for marine aquaculture are found at the state level, where current nearshore systems operate. Few states have comprehensive regulatory plans for marine
aquaculture, and there are no regional plans that address the risks of biological, chemical, or
nutrient pollution that spreads from one coastal state to the next.
22
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Impact Modules
23
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biodiversity
Biodiversity key to crop yields
David Suzuki Foundation, 7/10/12 (Canadian based environmental think-thank, Protecting biodiversity,
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/wildlife-habitat/science/endangered-species-legislation/protecting-biodiversity/, S.O.)
Our planet is undergoing a biodiversity crisis. Globally, at least 16,000 species are threatened
with extinction, including 12 per cent of birds, 23 per cent of mammals and 32 per cent of
amphibians. Biologists know what is causing this environmental crisis — human impacts from
development, deforestation, pollution and climate change are destroying the homes and
habitat of wildlife around the world. More importantly, biologists understand that the trend can be reversed. There
was a time when populations of the great whales, Bald Eagles and Whooping Cranes were in rapid decline. But because of strong
legislation, habitat protection and international agreements, these populations are bouncing back. Despite an extraordinary legacy
of animals and plants, more than 500 species are either extinct, extirpated (extinct in a particular region) or at risk of extinction in
Canada. Weaknesses in the national Species at Risk Act abandon much of Canada's iconic wildlife — such as the polar bear, Atlantic
salmon and Peary caribou — leaving them left off the list that's designed to protect them. For the majority of species that make the
list, the government has chronically failed to identify and protect the habitat [link to Habitat Protection and Recovery Strategies]
these wildlife need to survive and recover. Each province has its own obligations to protect wildlife. But British Columbia does not
have standalone endangered species legislation, nor does Alberta. The province of Ontario recently updated and strengthened its
Endangered Species Act, which is the first step towards responsible environmental stewardship. The David Suzuki Foundation is part
of the Save Our Species coalition that helped to bring the Ontario Act into force and is working to ensure that the Act is
implemented to best protect Ontario's species at risk. Protecting the environment and biodiversity is more than a moral
responsibility; it has important consequences for human health and welfare. According
to the United Nation's 2005
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, two-thirds of the direct benefits people obtain from
biodiversity are currently being degraded or used unsustainably. These "ecosystem services"
include: providing materials such as food, fuels and fibres; regulating climate, disease
outbreaks, wastes and pollination; supporting processes such as nutrient cycling and water
purification; and, providing opportunities for aesthetic, recreational and spiritual use.
Biodiversity loss affects many services that are essential to the functioning of our society and
economy. For example, declines in the populations of bees, butterflies and other pollinators
because of habitat destruction, pesticide use and invasive species cost farmers millions of
dollars each year in reduced crop yields
24
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biodiversity decline causes extinction
Tobin 90 (Richard, The Expendable Future, p. 22)
Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is
anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.” Harvard biologist Edward O.
Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused
extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not
economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war. As
frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired
within a few generations. The one process ongoing…that will take millions of
years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of
natural habitats.
25
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Loss of biodiversity will lead to extinction – global ecosystems are
reliant on each other
Bruce E. Tonn, Urban Planning Prof @ Tennessee, November 2007, Futures v. 39, no. 9, “Futures Sustainability”, ln
earth-life is needed to support earth-life. Ecosystems are
composed of countless species that are mutually dependent upon each other for
nutrients directly as food or as by-products of earth-life (e.g., as carbon dioxide and oxygen). If the
biodiversity of an ecosystem is substantially compromised, then the entire system could
collapse due to destructive negative nutrient cycle feedback effects. If enough ecosystems collapse worldwide, then the
cascading impact on global nutrient cycles could lead to catastrophic species
extinction. Thus, to ensure the survival of earth-life into the distant future the earth's biodiversity must be
protected.
The first principle is the most important because
26
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biodiversity loss causes extinction
Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND ** Associate Professor
in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24,
http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)
Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a
sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species,
Homo sapiens.We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the
Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity
alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with
previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover, since the
cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global
mass extinctions that came before.
warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature
is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three
million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction,
either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in
which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some
things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many
primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction
exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very
plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of
Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of
destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures,
melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a
scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have
gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the
Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden
services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and
oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced
destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us.
exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North
America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous)
of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields.
with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems
will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In
Meanwhile,
many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the
intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of
the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species
extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human
populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't
bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined.
Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems
collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares
And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber.
if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American
leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not
just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and
ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us
quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy
shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer
drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties.
Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our
arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is
strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there
are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests.
What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our
evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the
genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not
one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases
flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and
we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to
extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a
grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary
problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to
nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.
impure water. In the end,
27
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biodiversity collapse causes extinction
Loreau 7 - Full Professor and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in theoretical ecology at McGill
University, Ph.D. from the Free University of Brussels (Michel, “Why should we care about
biodiversity? The meeting of ecology and ethics”, Making Peace with the Earth)
We know the factors responsible for the loss of biodiversity in qualitative terms, and
sometimes in quantitative terms: changes of habitat (particularly habitat destruction),
climate change (which is starting to become a serious problem), so-called invasive species
(i.e. exotic species introduced into new regions), the over-exploitation of resources, and
finally pollution. Obviously, none of these factors is of natural origin. There is still some
discussion, where climate is concerned, of whether the current variability of climate is really due
to human beings, or whether it is a natural variability. Where the erosion of biodiversity is
concerned, however, there is no debate since everyone agrees that it is of human origin.
The main problem is that a large-scale loss of biodiversity is essentially irreversible—
even more so than climate change, which is reversible over very long time spans. First,
each species is the product of a unique history that is not reproducible—Jurassic Park is not yet
a reality. Next, looking beyond the fate of a particular species, in the case of a mass
extinction episode, the palaeontological data show that some ten million years were
necessary to return to levels of diversity equivalent to those pre-dating the
catastrophes; and this new biodiversity is necessarily quite different from the earlier one. This
means that in our timescales any reversal of the situation is impossible once a major
part of biodiversity is lost. But why should this be a matter of concern? This is the most
important question, and there are several kinds of approaches and different answers to it: (1)
the ethical approach that holds that the other species have a right to exist, are of
intrinsic value and should be respected as such. (2) The cultural or aesthetic approach
that sees biodiversity as a natural heritage equivalent to the artistic heritage of
humanity. A great deal of money is spent on preserving artistic heritage. Why, then, should
we not equally preserve our natural heritage? (3) The more utilitarian—not to say
economic—viewpoint that stresses that biodiversity provides us with a whole range of
products with a direct utility value (e.g. pharmaceutical products, food and textiles.) A
host of examples show us that we depend on a large number of species—many more indeed
than is usually thought. Biodiversity is also an important source of innovation, notably in
the pharmaceutical field. The discovery of new pharmaceutical substances, particularly
in the tropical zones, represents an important economic asset. (4) The more ecological
approach—which is the one I shall develop here—that sees biodiversity as underpinning
the ecological processes upon which human societies indirectly depend.
28
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Environment Generic
Eco collapse causes extinction
Jayawardena 9 (Asitha, London South Bank University, “We Are a Threat to All Life
on Earth”, Indicator, 7-17, http://www.indicator.org.uk/?p=55)
Roling (2009) warns that human activity is capable of making the collapse of
web of life on which both humans and non-human life forms depend for their
existence. For Laszlo (1989: 34), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), modern
human is ‘a serious threat to the future of humankind’. As Raven (2002)
observes, many life-support systems are deteriorating rapidly and visibly.
Elaborating on human-induced large scale infringements, Sloep and Van DamMieras (1995) warn that they can significantly alter the current patterns of
energy transfer and materials recycling, posing grave problems to the entire
biosphere. And climate change is just one of them! Turning to a key source of this
crisis, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995: 37) emphasise that, although we humans
can mentally afford to step outside the biosphere, we are ‘animals among animals,
organisms among organisms.’ Their perception on the place of humans in nature is
resonated by several other scholars. For example, Maiteny (1999) stresses that we
humans are part and parcel of the ecosphere. Hartmann (2001) observes that the
modern stories (myths, beliefs and paradigms) that humans are not an integral part
of nature but are separate from it are speeding our own demise. Funtowicz and
Ravetz (2002), in Weaver and Jansen (2004: 7), criticise modern science’s model of
human-nature relationship based on conquest and control of nature, and highlight a
more desirable alternative of ‘respecting ecological limits, …. expecting surprises
and adapting to these.’
29
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Destruction of the Environment Causes Extinction
Kline 98 (Gary, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia Southwestern State
University, Journal of Third World Studies, 15(1), Spring)
Additionally, natural ecosystems provide certain less obvious services that are
crucial to life as we know it.6 The atmosphere of our planet is the product
largely of ecosystem operations. About twenty-one percent of our atmosphere is
made up of oxygen, the result of plant photosynthesis which releases the gas.
Approximately seventy-eight percent of the remaining air we breathe is nitrogen,
which is regulated by the nitrogen cycle of plant production. Ecosystems then
influence weather and climate patterns by affecting the circulation of air in this
atmosphere. Plants, and especially forests, are instrumental in retaining and
conserving our soil and water. Destruction of forest areas results in soil erosion
(deleterious to agriculture and plant life in general), floods, and droughts. The rapid
decertification of large tracts of land in places like north Africa are a direct
consequence of loss of such ecosystems. Each year an area equivalent in size to
Belgium falls victim to decertification. Plant and animal life, much of it not visible to
the naked eye, helps create and maintain soil by breaking down rocks into finer and
finer pieces and by adding organic material to it, enriching it for agriculture. Except
for some of the most troublesome products of Humankind, like DDT and plastics,
these same plants and animals work to dispose of wastes. Decomposed wastes are
then recycled as nutrients into the food chain for the sustenance of new life. Natural
ecosystems also produce mechanisms in plants for the resistance of pests and
diseases and for the pollination of flowering plants, essential to their reproduction,
including many of our food crops. It should be apparent that biodiversity and life are
synonymous. The organisms in an ecosystem are part of a "trophic pyramid," as
labelled by scientists. That is, a large mass of plants supports a smaller number of
herbivores; these support a smaller number of primary carnivores and an even
smaller number of second order carnivores. Due to their more rapid rates of
reproduction, the lower order life forms are generally better able to adapt to
changes in their environment than the higher forms. The latter are also
disadvantaged by bioconcentration of harmful substances which make their way
into the food chain. Every organism has some niche and work to perform in the
pyramid. Homo sapiens occupy a position at the top and are therefore vulnerable to
instability at the base. Human activity which threatens the pyramid is akin to
playing Russian roulette . Of this, Humankind is now more aware. As Garrison
Wilkes of the University of Massachusetts put it, "We have been building our roof
with stones from the foundation."7 This problem is now manifesting itself especially
in an area of human endeavor which is essential to our existence: agriculture.
30
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Environmental destruction leads to global wars
Homer-Dixon 98 (Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of
the Peace and Conflict Studies Programme – University of Toronto, World Security
Challenges for a New Century, p. 342-343)
Another possibility is that global environmental damage might increase the gap
between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting the
rich for a fairer share of the world’s wealth. Severe conflict may also arise from
frustration with countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global
environment, or that “free-ride” by letting other countries absorb the costs of
environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over
more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land
stress may produce waves of environmental refugees, spilling across borders and
disrupting relations among ethnic groups. Countries might fight among
themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream
pollution.6 A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to
conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. Environmental change
could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might
open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic
institutions, and spawn revolutions and insurgencies. In general, many experts
have the sense that environmental problems will “ratchet up” the level of stress
within states and the international community, increasing the likelihood of many
different kinds of conflict—from war and rebellion to trade disputes—and
undermining possibilities for cooperation.
31
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Environmental destruction causes extinction
Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p 177
Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants
One can never be sure which species holds up
fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because
removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction
and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other."
of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so
Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian
roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.
far reaching that no one on earth will escape them."
32
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biod AND Ecosystem Loss
Loss of ecosystems and species risks planetary extinction – each one
could be the last
DINER 94 Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army
[David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, LN]
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over
the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the
In past mass extinction episodes, as many as
ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and
new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now?
The prime reason is
the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some
point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails,
and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human
life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy.
wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67
In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in
maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional
ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the
use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible.
Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may
someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could
save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role,
because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent
on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological
Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's
biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a
large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These
ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex
the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to
individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79
widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As
biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in
Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild
examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal
or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the
risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's
wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
By causing
33
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aff Answers to Environment DA
34
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
A2 – Brink
35
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biodiversity is Not on the Brink
Ocean biodiversity is getting better
Panetta, 13 (Leon, former US secretary of state, “Panetta: Don't take oceans for granted,”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html)
Our oceans are a tremendous economic engine, providing jobs for millions of Americans,
directly and indirectly, and a source of food and recreation for countless more. Yet, for much of
U.S. history, the health of America's oceans has been taken for granted, assuming its bounty was
limitless and capacity to absorb waste without end. This is far from the truth. The situation the
commission found in 2001 was grim. Many of our nation's commercial fisheries were being
depleted and fishing families and communities were hurting. More than 60% of our coastal
rivers and bays were degraded by nutrient runoff from farmland, cities and suburbs.
Government policies and practices, a patchwork of inadequate laws and regulations at various
levels, in many cases made matters worse. Our nation needed a wake-up call. The situation, on
many fronts, is dramatically different today because of a combination of leadership
initiatives from the White House and old-fashioned bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill.
Perhaps the most dramatic example can be seen in the effort to end overfishing in U.S.
waters. In 2005, President George W. Bush worked with congressional leaders to strengthen
America's primary fisheries management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. This included establishment of science-based catch limits to guide
decisions in rebuilding depleted species. These reforms enacted by Congress are paying off. In
fact, an important milestone was reached last June when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration announced it had established annual, science-based catch limits for all U.S. ocean
fish populations. We now have some of the best managed fisheries in the world. Progress also
is evident in improved overall ocean governance and better safeguards for ecologically
sensitive marine areas. In 2010, President Barack Obama issued a historic executive order
establishing a national ocean policy directing federal agencies to coordinate efforts to
protect and restore the health of marine ecosystems. President George W. Bush set aside new
U.S. marine sanctuary areas from 2006 through 2009. Today, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument, one of several marine monuments created by the Bush administration,
provides protection for some of the most biologically diverse waters in the Pacific.
36
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Impact Defense
37
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Individual Species Not Key
No impact – scientifically and empirically proven
Ridder ‘8 – PhD, School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania (Ben, Biodiversity And Conservation,
17.4, “Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation”) *ES = environmental services
The low resilience assumption
Advocates of the conservation of biodiversity tend not to acknowledge the distinction between resilient and sensitive ES. This
‘low resilience assumption’ gives rise to, and is reinforced by the almost ubiquitous claim within the conservation literature that
ES depend on biodiversity. An extreme example of this claim is made by the
Ehrlichs in Extinction. They state that “all
[ecosystem services] will be threatened if the rate of extinctions continues to increase” then observe that
attempts to artificially replicate natural processes “are no more than partially successful in most cases. Nature nearly always
does it better. When society sacrifices natural services for some other gain… it must pay the costs of substitution” (Ehrlich and
Ehrlich 1982, pp. 95–96). This assertion—that the only alternative to protecting every species is a world in which all ES have
been substituted by artificial alternatives—is an extreme example of the ‘low resilience assumption’. Paul Ehrlich revisits this
flawed logic in 1997 i nhis response (with four co-authors) to doubts expressed by Mark Sagoff regarding economic arguments
for species conservation (Ehrlich et al. 1997, p. 101). The claim that ES depend on biodiversity is also notably present in the
controversial Issues in Ecology paper on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Naeem et al. 1999) that sparked the debate
mentioned in the introduction. This appears to reflect a general tendency among authors in this field (e.g., Hector et al. 2001;
Lawler et al. 2002; Lyons et al. 2005). Although such authors may not actually articulate the low resilience assumption,
presenting such claims in the absence of any clarification indicates its influence. That
the low resilience assumption is
largely false is apparent in the number of examples of species extinctions that have not brought
about
catastrophic
ecosystem
influence of species
collapse
and decline in ES,
and in the generally limited
ecosystem
on the cusp of extinction. These issues have been raised by numerous authors, although given the
absence of systematic attempts to verify propositions of this sort, the evidence assembled is usually anecdotal and we are
forced to trust that an unbiased account of the situation has been presented. Fortunately a number of highly respected people
have discussed this topic, not least being the prominent conservation biologist David Ehrenfeld. In 1978 he described the
‘conservation dilemma’, which “arises on the increasingly frequent occasions when we encounter a threatened part of Nature
but can find no rational reason for keeping it” (Ehrenfeld 1981, p. 177). He continued with the following observation: Have there
been permanent and significant ‘resource’ effects of the extinction, in the wild, of John Bartram’s great discovery, the beautiful
tree Franklinia alatamaha, which had almost vanished from the earth when Bartram first set eyes upon it? Or a thousand
species of tiny beetles that we never knew existed before or after their probable extermination? Can we even be certain than
the eastern forests of the United States suffer the loss of their passenger pigeons and chestnuts in some tangible way that
affects their vitality or permanence, their value to us? (p. 192) Later, at the first conference on biodiversity, Ehrenfeld (1988)
reflected that
most species “do not
seem to
have any
conventional
value
species are “the ones least likely to be missed… by no stretch
them
out to be
vital cogs
at all” and that the
of the imagination
rarest
can we make
in the ecological mach ine” (p. 215). The appearance of comments within the environmental
literature that are consistent with Ehrenfeld’s—and from authors whose academic standing is also worthy of respect—is
uncommon but not unheard of (e.g., Tudge 1989; Ghilarov 1996; Sagoff 1997; Slobodkin 2001; Western 2001). The low
resilience assumption is also undermined by the overwhelming tendency for the protection of specific endangered species to be
justified by moral or aesthetic arguments, or a basic appeal to the necessity of conserving biodiversity, rather than by
emphasising the actual ES these species provide or might be able to provide humanity. Often the only services that can be
promoted in this regard relate to the ‘scientific’ or ‘cultural’ value of conserving a particular species, and the tourism revenue
preservation of such services is of an entirely different
compared with the collapse of human civilization predicted by the more pessimistic
environmental authors. The popularity of the low resilience assumption is in part explained by the
increased rhetorical force of arguments that highlight connections between the conservation of biodiversity, human
that might be associated with its continued existence. The
order
survival and economic profit. However, it needs to be acknowledged by those who employ this approach that a number of
negative implications are associated with any use of economic arguments to justify the conservation of biodiversity.
38
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
This impact is flawed science and is empirically denied
Campbell ‘11 (Hank, Science Writer for Science 2.0, “I Wouldn't Worry About The Latest Mass Extinction Scare,” March 8th,
http://www.science20.com/science_20/i_wouldnt_worry_about_latest_mass_extinction_scare-76989,
You've seen it everywhere by now - Earth's sixth mass extinction: Is it almost here? and other articles discussing an article
in Nature (471, 51–57 doi:10.1038/nature09678) claiming the end of the world is nigh. Hey, I like to live in important times. So
do most people. And something so important it has only happened 5 times in 540 million years, well that is really special. But
is it real?
Anthony Barnosky, integrative biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and first author of the paper,
claims that if currently threatened species, those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable, actually
went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive in 3-22 centuries. Wait, what??
If you know anything about
species and extinction, you have already read one paragraph of my overview and seen the
flaws in their model. Taking a few extinct mammal species that we know about and then
extrapolating that out to be extinction hysteria right now if we don't do something about
global warming is not good science. Worse, an integrative biologist is saying evolution does not happen. Polar
That's a lot of helping verbs confusing what should be a fairly clear issue, if it were clear.
bears did not exist forever, they came into existence 150,000 years ago - because of the Ice Age. Greenpeace co-founder and
ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore told a global warming skepticism site, “I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when
they published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this
theme” and "The fact that the study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer review process has become
corrupted.” Well, how did it make it through peer review? Read this bizarre justification of their methodology; "If you look
only at the critically endangered mammals--those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent within three of their
generations--and assume that their time will run out and they will be extinct in 1,000 years, that puts us clearly outside any
range of normal and tells us that we are moving into the mass extinction realm." Well, greater
extinctions occurred
when Europeans visited the Americas and in a much shorter time.
And since we don't know how
many species there are now, or have ever been, if someone makes a model and claims tens of thousands of species are going
extinct today, that sets off cultural alarms. It's not science, though. If only 1% of species have gone extinct in the groups we
really know much about, that is hardly a time for panic, especially if some 99
percent of all species that have
ever existed we don't know anything about because they...went extinct. And we did not. It
won't keep some researchers, and the mass media, from pushing the panic button. Coauthor Charles Marshall, also an integrative biologist at UC-Berkeley wants to keep the panic
button fully engaged by emphasizing that the small number of recorded extinctions to date
does not mean we are not in a crisis. "Just because the magnitude is low compared to the
biggest mass extinctions we've seen in half a billion years doesn't mean they aren't
significant." It's a double negative, bad logic and questionable science, though.
39
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
No impact to the environment- 99.9% can die
Sagoff 97
Mark, Senior Research Scholar – Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs – U. Maryland,
William and Mary Law Review, “Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law Symposium Defining Takings: Private Property And The Future Of
Government Regulation: Muddle Or Muddle Through? Takings Jurisprudence Meets The Endangered Species Act”, 38 Wm and Mary
L. Rev. 825, March, L/N
Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on
the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that
human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged
biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that
"cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared
that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge
observed that "the elimination of
all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material
well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than
unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The
human species could
survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct , provided only that we retained the
appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified
two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important,
such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347
The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if
any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental
policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function
to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to
the community or ecosystem." n349 Other biologists believe, however, that species
are so fabulously redundant
in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the
planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer
than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened organism
becomes extinct . n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a
"sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and
beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands
of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by
a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along."
n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species
of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests
an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the blackcapped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem
service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed,
dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example,
between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota,
one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly
every environment changes constantly-local
extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still
grow . Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the
heath hen.
40
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Species are Resilient
Biodiversity resilient – ecosystems will recover from damage
McDermott 2009 (Mat, Editor for Business and Energy sections; Master Degree from NYU’s Center for Global Affairs in
environment and energy policy. May, 27, 2009: “Good News: Most Ecosystems Can Recover in One Lifetime from Human-Induced or
Natural Disturbance”; http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/good-news-most-ecosystems-can-recover-in-one-lifetimefrom-human-induced-or-natural-disturbance.html DA: 7/10/2012)
There's a reason the phrase "let nature take its course" exists: New research done at the Yale
University School of Forestry & Environmental Science reinforces the idea that ecosystems are
quiet resilient and can rebound from pollution and environmental degradation. Published in the
journal PLoS ONE, the study shows that most damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover
within a single lifetime, if the source of pollution is removed and restoration work done. The
analysis found that on average forest ecosystems can recover in 42 years, while in takes only
about 10 years for the ocean bottom to recover. If an area has seen multiple, interactive
disturbances, it can take on average 56 years for recovery. In general, most ecosystems take
longer to recover from human-induced disturbances than from natural events, such as
hurricanes.
To reach these recovery averages, the researchers looked at data from peer-reviewed studies
over the past 100 years on the rate of ecosystem recovery once the source of pollution was
removed.
Interestingly, the researchers found that it appears that the rate at which an ecosystem recovers
may be independent of its degraded condition: Aquatic systems may recover more quickly than,
say, a forest, because the species and organisms that live in that ecosystem turn over more
rapidly than in the forest.
As to what this all means, Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology at Yale and report co-author,
says that this analysis shows that an increased effort to restore damaged ecosystems is justified,
and that:
Restoration could become a more important tool in the management portfolio of conservation
organizations that are entrusted to protect habitats on landscapes.
We recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its
own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many
ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.
41
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The environment is resilient and indestructible
Easterbrook ‘95 (Distinguished Fellow, Fullbright Foundation (Gregg, A Moment on Earth pg 25)
IN THE AFTERMATH OF EVENTS SUCH AS LOVE CANAL OR THE Exxon Valdez oil spill, every
reference to the environment is prefaced with the adjective "fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a
welded phrase of the modern lexicon, like "aging hippie" or "fugitive financier." But the notion of a fragile environment is profoundly
wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressingly fragile. The
environment that contains them is close to
indestructible. The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages; bombardments of cosmic
radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than the worst-case
projection for ozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global
air pollution far worse than that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles;
the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seas
into plains; fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels;
shortening and lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of
asteroids and comets bearing far more force than man's nuclear arsenals; and the years
without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts beat on, and petals unfold still. Were
the environment fragile it would have expired many eons before the advent of the industrial affronts
of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on the environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks
compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.
42
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Species Will Adapt
Adaptation solves
Thompson et al. ‘9 (Ian Thompson et al., Canadian Forest Service,
Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The
Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service,
Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity,
and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity
Concerns have been expressed that predicted cli- mate changes (IPCC 2007) may occur too quickly for
species to adapt (Huntley 1991, Davis and Shaw 2001, Jump and Penuelas 2005), but genetically diverse species
are capable of rapid evolution (Geber and Dawson 1993). Many species have adapted to rapid
changes and have done so repeatedly over geo- logical time through dispersal and genetic
changes based on the extant genetic diversity within local or regional gene pools, suggesting
long-term genetic- based resilience to change. There is considerable evidence for adaptation in
the geological and fossil record (Bernabo and Webb 1977, Webb 1981, Davis 1983, Huntley and Birks 1983, and review
by Geber and Dawson 1993). Such adaptation has been demonstrated by forest plants during or following past
glacial and interglacial episodes, which were characterized by relatively rapid climate change
(Huntley and Webb 1988).
43
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Adaptation and gene diversity create resilience
Thompson ‘9., Ian et al Canadian Forest Service,
Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of
Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service, Alex Mosseler,
Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate
Change” Convention on Biological Diversity
One of the best approaches, when dealing with an uncertain future, is diversification because no single approach will fit all
situations, and this applies also to the development of forest management strategies (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992, Millar et al. 2007).
In the biological realm, maintaining species and ge- netic diversity addresses the need to be prepared for whatever environmental
changes might happen, and this is fundamental to the concept of resilience. Species
have two main means by which
they adapt to change: they can either disperse by seed or vegetative propagules in the direction
of a more favourable environment, or they can change their gene frequencies to favour
genotypes (genetic constitutions) that are better adapted to the changed environment (Bur- don and Thrall 2001, Reusch et al.
2005). Species may also adapt through phenotypic plasticity, if their genotype entails a range of permissible
responses (with respect to the species morphological, physi- ological, behavioural or life history strategies and traits) that are suited
to the new conditions (Nussey et al. 2005). Seed and pollen
dispersal, and gene frequency changes can occur
simultaneously and interact in the process of adaptation. For instance, dispersal often promotes gene
flow among highly fragmented tree populations; thereby maintaining within-popu- lation levels of genetic diversity
and preventing the genetic drift and loss of genetic diversity that can occur through inbreeding within small, isolated or fragmented
tree populations (Hall et al. 1996, Young et al. 1996, Nason and Hamrick 1997, Cascante et al. 2002, Rajora et al. 2002, Fuchs et al.
2003, Mos- seler et al. 2004, Degen et al. 2006, Clouthier et al. 2007, O’Connell et al. 2007, Farwig et al. 2008). Seed dispersal can
occur through wind and water, or via animals such as birds, mammals, etc. Operational forestry experience and observations have
shown that seeds
can be dispersed over surprisingly long distances over relatively short time
frames. Seeds of light-seeded species, such as conifers, can travel long distances from the nearest population cen- tres (Cwynar
and MacDonald 1987). Conifers with semi-serotinous cones, such as black spruce (Picea mariana), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and
pitch pine (Pinus rigida), for example, seem particularly well adapted for such long-distance dispersal over hard- packed snow and
ice. Ritchie and MacDonald (1986) have suggested that wind dispersal over snow may also explain the rapid post-glacial migration
rates of conifers that have non-serotinous cones, such as white spruce (Picea glauca). However, long-distance seed dispersal of
typically wind-dispersed conifers could also be explained through dispersal by birds (Wilkinson 1997). Large or heavy-seeded species,
such as those found in mangroves (Geng et al. 2008), and especially those in highly fragmented environ- ments, may have greater
difficulty travelling across landscapes (e.g., walnuts [Juglans spp.], hickories [Carya spp.]). Nevertheless, oaks (Quercus spp.) (Skellam
1951, Davis 1981) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia) (Bennett 1985) are capable of rapid and widespread dispersal given the
presence of certain animal species. Generally, by
dispersing their seeds and pollen, for- est species can
maintain their genetic diversity, and hence their long-term resilience to change over space and
time, by re-establishing themselves else- where in favourable climates. However, anthropo- genic changes
to landscapes and gene pools may have reduced this capacity, and population fragmen- tation has the potential to adversely affect
the genetic and reproductive status of populations.
44
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Impact Inevitable
Overshoot makes the impact inevitable
Mora and Sale 11 (Camilo, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, and Peter, Institute for
Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University, “Ongoing global biodiversity loss
and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical
shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea,” 6/28, http://www.intres.com/articles/theme/m434p251.pdf)
The causes of biodiversity loss are varied and some are unlikely to be regulated as part of the
management of a PA (see Fig. 3). Developing actions to address those other threats requires increased research and attention, but
that is not addressed here (see Mora et al. 2009, Butchart et al. 2010). It is clear from the on going loss of biodiversity (Fig. 1) that
current conservation
efforts, whether through PAs alone or in combination with other approaches, are not coping
with the challenge. The data also indicate that the likelihood of success is small unless the conservation
community radically rethinks the strategies needed. One could safely argue that biodiversity threats are
ultimately determined by the size of the world’s human population and its consumption of
natural resources (Fig. 3). The explosive growth in the world’s human population in the last century has led to an
increasing demand on the Earth’s ecological resources and a rapid decline in biodiversity (Fig. 3).
According to recent estimates, about 1.2 Earths would be required to support the different demands of
the 5.9 billion people living on the planet in 1999 (our Fig. 4, Kitzes et al. 2008). This ‘excess’ use of the Earth’s
resources or ‘overshoot’ is possible because resources can be harvested faster than they can be replaced and because waste can
accumulate (e.g. atmospheric CO2). The
cumulative overshoot from the mid-1980s to 2002 resulted in an
‘ecological debt’ that would require 2.5 planet Earths to pay (Kitzes et al. 2008). In a business-as-usual
scenario, our demands on planet Earth could mount to the productivity of 27 planets Earth by 2050
(Fig. 4). Exceeding ecological demand beyond regenerative levels leads to the degradation of ecological capital (Kitzes et al. 2008),
which is evident in the ongoing declining trend in biodiversity (Fig. 3).
45
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aquaculture Specific Answers
Best evidence proves a majority of fisheries are still in decline
Plumer, 13 (10/29/2013, Brad, “Just how badly are we overfishing the oceans?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/just-how-badly-are-weoverfishing-the-ocean/0/, JMP)
Humans now have the technology to find and catch every last fish on the planet. Trawl nets,
drift nets, longlines, GPS, sonar... As a result, fishing operations have expanded to virtually all
corners of the ocean over the past century.
That, in turn, has put a strain on fish populations. The world's marine fisheries peaked in the
1990s, when the global catch was higher than it is today.* And the populations of key
commercial species like bluefin tuna and cod have dwindled, in some cases falling more than 90
percent.
So just how badly are we overfishing the oceans? Are fish populations going to keep shrinking
each year — or could they recover? Those are surprisingly contentious questions, and there
seem to be a couple of schools of thought here.
The pessimistic view, famously expressed by fisheries expert Daniel Pauly, is that we may be
facing "The End of Fish." One especially dire 2006 study in Science warned that many
commercial ocean fish stocks were on pace to “collapse” by mid-century — at which point they
would produce less than 10 percent of their peak catch. Then it's time to eat jellyfish.
Other experts have countered that this view is far too alarmist.** A number of countries have
worked hard to improve their fisheries management over the years, including Iceland, Australia,
New Zealand, and the United States. "The U.S. is actually a big success story in rebuilding fish
stocks," Ray Hilborn, a marine biologist at the University of Washington, told me last year.
Overfishing isn't inevitable. We can fix it.
Both sides make valid points — but the gloomy view is hard to dismiss. That's the argument of
a new paper in Marine Pollution Bulletin by Tony Pitcher and William Cheung of the University
of British Columbia that weighs in on this broader debate. They conclude that some fisheries
around the world are indeed improving, though these appear to be a minority for now.
"Several deeper analyses of the status of the majority of world fisheries confirm the previous
dismal picture," they conclude. " Serious depletions are the norm world-wide , management
quality is poor, catch per effort is still declining."
The decline of fisheries
One reason the debate about overfishing is so contentious is that it's hard to get a precise read
on the state of the world's marine fisheries. (The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization tries its
best in this annual report.) Ideally, we'd have in-depth stock assessments for the entire world,
but those are difficult, expensive, and fairly rare.
So, in their paper, Pitcher and Cheung review a number of recent studies that use indirect
measurements instead. For example, they note that recent analyses of fish catches suggest that
about 58 percent of the world's fish stocks have now collapsed or are overexploited:
It's important to note that this is only one estimate — and a disputed one at that. A 2011 study
in Conservation Biology by Trevor Branch et. al., by contrast, estimated that only 7 to 13 percent
of stocks were collapsed and 28 to 33 percent "overexploited."*** Focusing on catches can be a
46
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
tricky metric for judging the state of fisheries (it can be hard, for instance, to track changes in
fishing practices over time that might bias the results).
So the authors consider a variety of other metrics, too. One example: The amount of effort that
fishermen have put into catching fish has increased significantly in the past three decades, as
measured by engine power and days that fishermen spend at sea. But the amount of fish
actually caught has nevertheless stagnated since the 1990s:
"Given the increase in global fishing effort, the lack of increase in global fisheries catch in the
last decade and the fact that most productive areas have now been exploited by fisheries,"
Pitcher and Cheung note, it's quite possible that "global exploited fish stocks are likely to be in a
decreasing trend."
Could fisheries recover?
That all said, there are also some reasons for optimism. In 2009, ecologist Boris Worm and his
colleagues took a look at more than 350 detailed fish stock assessments and found that many
fisheries in North America and Europe were actually recovering. In the United States, annual
catch limits and market-based permit programs have helped some fish populations rebound.
The real question is whether these success stories are the exception rather than the rule.
Pitcher and Cheung argue that the fish stocks analyzed in that 2009 paper make up just 16
percent of the global catch — and are mostly confined to well-managed fisheries in richer
countries.
By contrast, more than 80 percent of the world's fish are caught in the rest of the world, in
places like Asia and Africa. While data here is patchier, many of the nations in these regions are
far less likely to follow the U.N.'s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and evidence
suggests that "serious depletions are the norm" here:
"It all depends where you look," Pitcher said in an interview. "There are a few places where
fisheries are doing better: The U.S., Australia, Canada, Norway. But those are relatively rare .
In most places, the evidence suggests that things are getting worse." Given that the U nited
S tates imports 91 percent of its seafood, that's an important caveat.
47
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The decline of fisheries destroys marine ecosystems and risks starvation of
hundreds of millions
Pauly, 9 --- professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (9/28/2009,
Daniel, “Aquacalypse Now,” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environmentenergy/aquacalypse-now, JMP)
The jig, however, is nearly up. In 1950, the newly constituted Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations estimated that, globally, we were catching about 20 million metric
tons of fish (cod, mackerel, tuna, etc.) and invertebrates (lobster, squid, clams, etc.). That catch
peaked at 90 million tons per year in the late 1980s, and it has been declining ever since.
Much like Madoff’s infamous operation, which required a constant influx of new investments to
generate “revenue” for past investors, the global fishing-industrial complex has required a
constant influx of new stocks to continue operation. Instead of restricting its catches so that fish
can reproduce and maintain their populations, the industry has simply fished until a stock is
depleted and then moved on to new or deeper waters, and to smaller and stranger fish. And,
just as a Ponzi scheme will collapse once the pool of potential investors has been drained, so
too will the fishing industry collapse as the oceans are drained of life .
Unfortunately, it is not just the future of the fishing industry that is at stake, but also the
continued health of the world’s largest ecosystem . While the climate crisis gathers front-page
attention on a regular basis, people--even those who profess great environmental
consciousness--continue to eat fish as if it were a sustainable practice. But eating a tuna roll at a
sushi restaurant should be considered no more environmentally benign than driving a Hummer
or harpooning a manatee. In the past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large
commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod, and other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent. One
study, published in the prestigious journal Science, forecast that, by 2048, all commercial fish
stocks will have “collapsed,” meaning that they will be generating 10 percent or less of their
peak catches. Whether or not that particular year, or even decade, is correct, one thing is
clear: Fish are in dire peril, and, if they are, then so are we.
The extent of the fisheries’ Ponzi scheme eluded government scientists for many years. They had long studied the
health of fish populations, of course, but typically, laboratories would focus only on the species in their nation’s
waters. And those studying a particular species in one country would communicate only with those studying that
same species in another. Thus, they failed to notice an important pattern: Popular species were sequentially replacing
each other in the catches that fisheries were reporting, and, when a species faded, scientific attention shifted to the
replacement species. At any given moment, scientists might acknowledge that one-half or two-thirds of fisheries were
being overfished, but, when the stock of a particular fish was used up, it was simply removed from the denominator
of the fraction. For example, the Hudson River sturgeon wasn’t counted as an overfished stock once it disappeared
from New York waters; it simply became an anecdote in the historical record. The baselines just kept shifting, allowing
us to continue blithely damaging marine ecosystems.
It was not until the 1990s that a series of high-profile scientific papers demonstrated that we needed to study, and
mitigate, fish depletions at the global level. They showed that phenomena previously observed at local levels--for
example, the disappearance of large species from fisheries’ catches and their replacement by smaller species--were
also occurring globally. It was a realization akin to understanding that the financial meltdown was due not to the
failure of a single bank, but, rather, to the failure of the entire banking system--and it drew a lot of controversy.
The notion that fish are globally imperiled has been challenged in many ways--perhaps most notably by fisheries
biologists, who have questioned the facts, the tone, and even the integrity of those making such allegations. Fisheries
biologists are different than marine ecologists like myself. Marine ecologists are concerned mainly with threats to the
diversity of the ecosystems that they study, and so, they frequently work in concert with environmental NGOs and are
often funded by philanthropic foundations. By contrast, fisheries biologists traditionally work for government
agencies, like the National Marine Fisheries Service at the Commerce Department, or as consultants to the fishing
48
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
industry, and their chief goal is to protect fisheries and the fishermen they employ. I myself was trained as a fisheries
biologist in Germany, and, while they would dispute this, the agencies for which many of my former classmates work
clearly have been captured by the industry they are supposed to regulate. Thus, there are fisheries scientists who, for
example, write that cod have “recovered” or even “doubled” their numbers when, in fact, they have increased merely
from 1 percent to 2 percent of their original abundance in the 1950s.
Yet, despite their different interests and priorities--and despite their disagreements on the “end of fish”--marine
ecologists and fisheries scientists both want there to be more fish in the oceans. Partly, this is because both are
scientists, who are expected to concede when confronted with strong evidence. And, in the case of fisheries, as with
global warming, the evidence is overwhelming: Stocks are declining in most parts of the world. And, ultimately, the
important rift is not between these two groups of scientists, but between the public, which owns the sea’s resources,
and the fishing-industrial complex, which needs fresh capital for its Ponzi scheme. The difficulty lies in forcing the
fishing-industrial complex to catch fewer fish so that populations can rebuild.
It is essential that we do so as quickly as possible because the consequences of an end to fish
are frightful. To some Western nations, an end to fish might simply seem like a culinary
catastrophe, but for 400 million people in developing nations , particularly in poor African and
South Asian countries, fish are the main source of animal protein. What’s more, fisheries are a
major source of livelihood for hundreds of million of people. A recent World Bank report found
that the income of the world’s 30 million small-scale fisheries is shrinking. The decrease in catch
has also dealt a blow to a prime source of foreign-exchange earnings, on which impoverished
countries, ranging from Senegal in West Africa to the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific, rely
to support their imports of staples such as rice.
And, of course, the end of fish would disrupt marine ecosystems to an extent that we are only
now beginning to appreciate. Thus, the removal of small fish in the Mediterranean to fatten
bluefin tuna in pens is causing the “common” dolphin to become exceedingly rare in some
areas, with local extinction probable. Other marine mammals and seabirds are similarly affected
in various parts of the world. Moreover, the removal of top predators from marine ecosystems
has effects that cascade down, leading to the increase of jellyfish and other gelatinous
zooplankton and to the gradual erosion of the food web within which fish populations are
embedded. This is what happened off the coast of southwestern Africa, where an upwelling
ecosystem similar to that off California, previously dominated by fish such as hake and sardines,
has become overrun by millions of tons of jellyfish.
Jellyfish population outbursts are also becoming more frequent in the northern Gulf of Mexico,
where the fertilizer-laden runoff from the Mississippi River fuels uncontrolled algae blooms. The
dead algae then fall to a sea bottom from which shrimp trawling has raked all animals capable of
feeding on them, and so they rot, causing Massachusetts-sized “dead zones.” Similar
phenomena--which only jellyfish seem to enjoy--are occurring throughout the world, from the
Baltic Sea to the Chesapeake Bay, and from the Black Sea in southeastern Europe to the Bohai
Sea in northeastern China. Our oceans, having nourished us since the beginning of the human
species some 150,000 years ago, are now turning against us, becoming angry opponents.
That dynamic will only grow more antagonistic as the oceans become warmer and more acidic
because of climate change. Fish are expected to suffer mightily from global warming, making it
essential that we preserve as great a number of fish and of fish species as possible, so that
those which are able to adapt are around to evolve and propagate the next incarnations of
marine life. In fact, new evidence tentatively suggests that large quantities of fish biomass
could actually help attenuate ocean acidification . In other words, fish could help save us from
the worst consequences of our own folly--yet we are killing them off. The jellyfish-ridden
waters we’re seeing now may be only the first scene in a watery horror show.
49
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The plan sets a global model that saves marine ecosystems
Naylor, 6 --- Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University
(Spring 2006, Rosamond L., “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,”
http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/, JMP)
The need for national environmental standards
Whether environmentalists like it or not, marine aquaculture is here to stay and will
inevitably expand into new environments as global population and incomes grow . Although
the U nited S tates is in a position to make itself a global model for sustainable fish
production in the open ocean, the proposed bill unfortunately falls far short of this vision.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Pew Commission, an aggressive marine aquaculture
policy is needed at the national level to protect ocean resources and ecosystems. Within this
policy framework, several specific features are needed:
The establishment of national environmental standards for siting and operation that minimize
adverse effects on marine resources and ecosystems and that set clear limits on allowable
ecological damage.
The establishment of national effluent guidelines through the EPA for biological, nutrient, and
chemical pollution from coastal and offshore fish farms, using NPDES permits to minimize
cumulative effluent impacts.
The establishment of substantive liability criteria for firms violating environmental standards,
including liability for escaped fish and poorly controlled pathogen outbreaks.
The establishment of rules for identifying escaped farm fish by their source and prohibiting
the use of genetically modified fish in ocean cages.
The establishment of a transparent process that provides meaningful public participation in
decisions on leasing and permitting of offshore aquaculture facilities and by which marine
aquaculture operations can be monitored and potentially closed if violations occur.
The establishment of royalty payments process for offshore aquaculture leases that would
compensate society for the use of public federal waters.
At the same time, firms exceeding the minimum standards should be rewarded, for example,
through tax breaks or reductions in royalty fees, in order to encourage environmental
entrepreneurship and international leadership. By articulating a comprehensive set of
environmental standards and incentives within the draft of the law, the bill would gain
acceptance by a broad constituency interested in the sustainable use of ocean resources.
Proponents of offshore aquaculture might argue that these recommendations hold the industry
to exceedingly high standards. Yes, the standards are high, but also essential. There is now a
widespread realization that the ability of the oceans to supply fish, assimilate pollution, and
maintain ecosystem integrity is constrained by the proliferation of human activities on land
and at sea. Offshore aquaculture could help to alleviate these constraints, but only if it
develops under clear and enforceable environmental mandates.
50
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aquaculture growing exponentially globally but if done without protections it
will destroy ocean ecosystems
Howell, et. al, 14 --- PhD, Project Director of Report and Research Director for Future of Fish
(1/15/2014, Colleen, Future of Fish, “Breakthrough Aquaculture: Uncovering solutions that drive
ecologically sound and commercially viable models for farm-raised seafood,”
http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.
pdf, JMP)
The ocean is the largest source of wild food on the planet, and demand for fish is ever on the
rise. Seafood provides critically important animal protein to an estimated three billion
people . Unfortunately, the seas are unable to sustain current consumption needs—much less
future ones—as fish populations are already fished to their limits. Thirty percent of wild
fisheries are actively overharvested or significantly depleted, and 90% of the biggest fish are
gone. Myriad issues related to bycatch, illegal fishing, mislabeling, forced labor, and habitatdamaging gear further complicate the future of fish.
In order to keep pace with the escalating need for more seafood, the world must rely
increasingly on aquaculture. Aquaculture has for many years been the fastest-growing food
production system on the planet, and it has expanded by a factor of 12 since 1980. Taking
place in approximately 190 countries and involving cultivation of roughly 600 species—from
salmon to oysters to sea urchins—aquaculture supplies more than half of all seafood produced
for human consumption.
Despite its prevalence and importance as an alternative to wild fish, aquaculture is not
without problems. Some forms of conventional fish farming are associated with serious
ecological damage related to fish feed, water pollution, habitat loss, antibiotic use, genetic
contamination, land conversion, and ecosystem disruption, as well as high rates of freshwater
and energy consumption. In addition, some farming methods expose workers to unsafe levels
of disinfectants and other chemicals used to treat disease, clean ponds, and process products.
51
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Current seafood extraction methods are unsustainable AND wreck marine
ecosystems.
Howell, et. al, 14 --- PhD, Project Director of Report and Research Director for Future of Fish
(1/15/2014, Colleen, Future of Fish, “Breakthrough Aquaculture: Uncovering solutions that drive
ecologically sound and commercially viable models for farm-raised seafood,”
http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.
pdf, JMP)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
More than three billion people on the planet depend on seafood for a critical portion of their
diet’s protein. In the US, we import nearly 90% of our seafood, reaching across the globe to
the waters of developing nations to buy their tastiest and most exotic fish. Worldwide, the
voracious appetite for fish has shamefully depleted our oceans , overexploiting stocks and
destroying marine habitats . To keep pace with the growing demand for seafood—predicted to
rise 8% during the next decade—the world must increasingly rely on aquaculture, the farming of
fish.
52
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Without action we will consume farmed fish from countries with less stringent
regulations
Madin, 11 (9/21/2011, Kate, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest of the world,
the U.S. has not embraced aquaculture,” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-willwe-get-our-seafood, JMP)
By 2030 or 2040, most seafood bought by Americans will be raised on a farm, not caught by
fishermen. And, unless policies governing aquaculture in the U nited S tates change, the vast
majority of seafood eaten by Americans will be farm-raised in another country, possibly one
with less stringent health and environmental regulations .
With wild fisheries in decline, the world has turned to aquaculture to provide protein to feed
Earth’s rapidly growing human population. But not the United States. While aquaculture
already produces half of the world’s seafood, U.S. aquaculture production has been declining
since 2003 and today, the U.S. produces only 10 percent of its seafood by aquaculture, said
Hauke Kite-Powell, an aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI). One consequence of this is that the U.S. imports 80 percent of the seafood it consumes,
creating a seafood trade deficit.
53
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The plan properly addresses environmental risks
***Note --- the plan essentially passes the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act
(explained in 1ac Johns, 13 ev)
Wheeler, 13 --- J.D. Candidate 2013, Golden Gate University School of Law (Spring 2013,
Garrett Wheeler, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, “COMMENT: A FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVE: THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF AQUACULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
PROMISE OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS,” 6 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 295,
JMP)
The lack of a comprehensive regulatory aquaculture policy has given way to efforts like the
National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2011, the latest Congressional effort
concerning aquaculture regulation, proposed by Representative Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara.
n91 The bill, which failed to pass Congressional approval and was referred to the House
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs in July of 2011, would have set
an unprecedented regulatory framework for offshore fish farm operations by addressing
environmental, social, and economic concerns. n92 Central to the bill was a new permitting
process mandating would-be ocean fish farmers to obtain authorization from the Secretary of
Commerce after meeting a series of requirements aimed at minimizing potentially adverse
impacts on marine ecosystems. n93 The requirements included identifying appropriate
locations for farms, complying with site inspections, limiting where certain fish species may be
farmed, and preventing escapement, disease, and harmful waste discharge . n94 In addition,
the bill attempted to initiate a [*307] research program designed to solve significant data
quandaries and address concerns with the ecological sustainability of further aquaculture
development and expansion . n95 Although the bill did not become law, its potential impact on
the United States aquaculture industry as a whole was substantial, and it may represent a trend
toward more comprehensive regulation. At the moment, however, uncertainty abounds and
aquaculture operators are left to sift through a seemingly endless array of federal and state
regulatory laws.
54
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Establishing requirements will motivate the industry to adopt innovative
technology and strategies to protect the environment --- market forces alone
will fail
Klinger & Naylor, 12 --- *Ph.D. student in Stanford's Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in
Environmental and Resources, AND **professor of environmental Earth system science at
Stanford (Dane & Rosamond, “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable
Course,”
http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aqu
aculture.pdf, JMP)
POLICY AND INFORMATION APPROACHES
The aquaculture sector has a wide range of innovative technologies and management
strategies at its disposal to improve its overall environmental performance as it continues to
expand. The question is: Will the industry take advantage of these innovations, particularly if
the costs of adopting new approaches are initially high? Price signals often provide
inducement for technological change and the adoption of improved management, yet
capitalism fails to set a sustainable path when the social costs of aquaculture production—
namely ecosystem damages—are not priced in the market. Substantial volatility in global
commodity prices since ∼2005 has further obscured market signals to producers. Policy
interventions , international standards, labeling, and information strategies can help provide
incentives to producers to adopt improved technologies and management practices , but they
can also be counterproductive or confusing to producers and consumers (5).
To create the right incentives for widespread adoption of the innovations outlined in this
review, governments promoting aquaculture need to establish enforceable standards that set
clear limits on ecosystem damage, pollution, and resource use . Standards are required for
aquaculture operations and siting, as well as for the flow and cumulative impact of nutrient and
chemical effluents, pathogen transmission, fish escapes, and invasive species related to
aquaculture activities (122). In addition, the establishment of a monitoring system, liability
criteria for violations of standards, and a transparency process for public participation are
needed to ensure the desired social outcome (122).
A wide range of scientific guidelines and information approaches has emerged to help policy
makers and businesses set environmental standards and identify best practices and
technologies for aquaculture development. Examples include the use of life-cycle assessments,
the global aquaculture performance index, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
codes of conduct, and business social performance standards (as reviewed by Reference 5).
Numerous certification schemes are also available to producers to capture higher returns;
although they provide a valuable service to society, they can be extremely costly to producers
because there is little coordination among the various schemes. As a result, firms trying to
establish a socially responsible global business must meet the demands and inspections of
multiple groups.2 Organic certifications are also used in aquaculture when feed sources can be
tracked (e.g., Reference 196) but are of limited value as they focus only on inputs to production
and do not necessarily curb harmful outputs such as effluents, escapes, and pathogens.
55
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Aquaculture is inevitable and it can be made environmentally safe
Kite-Powell, 11 --- aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(9/21/2011, Hauke, interview by Kate Madin, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest
of the world, the U.S. has not embraced aquaculture,”
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood, JMP)
What do you hope people take away from this colloquium?
Kite-Powell: The main thing is that we can do things to increase seafood production in the U.S.
that are ecologically and economically sound, and that seafood and fishing industries and the
environmental community can find common ground on this issue. It's not a black-or-white
situation where all seafood farming is environmentally harmful. If it's done right, it's a good
thing. And whether we like it or not, aquaculture will become more and more important in
the future. There's just no getting away from that.
56
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Net better for the environment --- we can make it sustainable
Kite-Powell, 11 --- aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(9/21/2011, Hauke, interview by Kate Madin, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest
of the world, the U.S. has not embraced aquaculture,”
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood, JMP)
You suggest it would be better for the environment if the world meets growing protein needs by
increasing aquaculture, even if it takes some coastal or land areas.
Kite-Powell: I think that's right. Based on the numbers that were presented at our meeting, it is
ecologically more efficient to produce fish in a farm than it is in the wild. It's also less energyintensive and less carbon-intensive to get protein from fish than beef and other four-legged
animals. Fish are equivalent to poultry in those terms.
But it has to be done in a way that doesn't create excessive side effects. And just like in
agriculture, we know how to do it right , and we know how to do it wrong, and we can make
those decisions.
57
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Ocean Clean Up Specific Answers
Bycatch will be minimal. Plankton can float under our system and larger
animals will be deterred by sound systems.
Slat et al, founder and lead designer The Ocean Cleanup Project, 2014
(Boyan, “A Feasibility Study”, http://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/mediaarchive/theoceancleanup/press/downloads/TOC_Feasibility_study_lowres.pdf, p. 29)
Because they are effectively neutrally buoyant, both phytoplankton and zooplankton are
likely to pass underneath the barriers along with the current. But even assuming the worst The Ocean Cleanup Array would harvest all the plankton it encounters - this would constitute
a maximum loss of 10 million kg of planktonic biomass annually. Given the immense primary
production of the world oceans, it would take less than 7 seconds to reproduce this amount of
biomass.¶ With regard to vertebrates, harm caused by the barriers seems unlikely because
non-permeable barriers are used, although some bycatch may occur in the near vicinity of the
platform’s extraction equipment. To prevent the possible impact on vertebrates, active
deterrent techniques could be implemented near the extraction equipment.
58
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The Ocean Cleanup Array floats and does not use nets so sea life can swim
around it while plastics and debris stay in it.
Ian Somerhalder Foundation, 2012
(“The Ocean Cleanup Array: An Amazing Environmental Invention”,
http://www.isfoundation.com/news/ocean-cleanup-array-amazing-environmental-invention)
The Ocean Cleanup Array would be located at the sites of the five largest trash islands—also
known as gyres—which include the Indian Ocean, the North and South Atlantic, and the North
and South Pacific. Slat believes that the ocean current is the biggest advantage to help solving the garbage problem. As such,
"an anchored network of floating booms and processing platforms will span the radius" of
each gyre with the "booms acting as giant funnels" to push the debris in the processing
platforms. When the plastic and other debris enters the processing platform, it would then be
filtered from the water and stored in containers until it is picked up to be recycled on land.¶¶
Another very positive aspect of the Ocean Cleanup Array is that absolutely no nets will be used, so there is no
chance of marine life getting harmed. In addition, the booms will only move along with the ocean
current and not any faster, so marine life can also escape the plastic being pushed towards the
processing platforms. To substantiate these claims, Slat is currently testing his methods as part of the project’s feasibility
studies.¶
59
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Floating plastic islands can introduce invasive species that wreck the local
ecosystem and destroy biodiversity.
California Coastal Commission, 2014
(“Plastic in the Ocean is bad. The Problem With Marine Debris”
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/marinedebris.htm)
Floating marine debris can provide a new and increased method of transport for species
across vast ocean distances, which may cause trouble for biodiversity if the introduced species
prove to be invasive. A 2002 study of 30 remote islands throughout the world showed that
marine debris more than doubled the "rafting" opportunities for species. In 2005 and 2006,
surveys of marine debris in the Seychelles Islands showed that on some beaches more than
60% of debris items carried non-native species.¶
60
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
PP Specific Answers
Even if more deaths occur elsewhere short term, the oceans must be our #1
priority and the Precautionary Principal must be employed for this to be true.
Craig and Hughes, Associate Dean for Environmental Programs, Florida State
University College of Law and Professor at Australian Research Council Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, 2012
(Robin K. and Terry, Marine Protected Areas, Marine Spatial Planning, and the Resilience of
Marine Ecosystems (August 16, 2012). RESILIENCE AND THE LAW, Forthcoming; FSU College of
Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 550. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1917696)
The oceans, therefore, maintain world-spanning, interconnected physical, chemical and¶
biological processes that seem far too large and complex for mere humans to damage. Indeed, in terms
of both effective governance and scientific research, “marine systems have been relatively
neglected because they are ‘out of sight, out of mind’ to most people, including most scientists” (Ray & Grassle 1991: 453). Until recently, a
“paradigm of inexhaustibility” prevailed, a mindset that human managers did not need to worry
about ocean health because marine ecosystems would always be resilient enough to absorb
and recover from the multiple and interactive stresses—overfishing, pollution and now
climate change—that humans impose on them (Craig 2005; Ogden 2001; Connor 1999).¶ Unfortunately, we now know that
marine ecosystems often cannot in fact absorb the multitude of anthropogenic stressors
imposed upon them, even before the accelerating impacts of climate change become more severe and add to existing drivers of change such as overfishing (Agardy 2010; Laffoley et al.
2008). Many marine ecosystems have lost their resilience to recurrent natural and man-made
disturbances, and have undergone long-term shifts to new, degraded regimes (Hughes et al. 2005). In coastal regions in particular, fishing has
substantially altered marine ecosystems for centuries (Jackson et al. 2001). For example, many coral reefs have undergone regime-shift to macroalgae following the over-exploitation of herbivores and the addition of land-based nutrients. A study published in Science in 2008 concluded that no area of the world’s oceans is completed unaffected by human
In the face of additional climate changeinduced stresses, marine governance systems and marine managers need to find mechanisms
for increasing the resilience of ocean ecosystems. This chapter explores one set of those mechanisms—place-based marine management, especially
impacts, and 41 percent of the oceans are strongly affected by multiple human impacts (Halpern et al. 2008).
marine protected areas (MPAs)—and the various legal regimes that encourage use of these tools in pursuit of increased marine ecosystem resilience.
61
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Policymakers must employ the precautionary principle when dealing with
marine ecosystem scenarios – long-term, irreversible effects make action now
key
Wang, 11 – International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs, Mittelweg (Runyu,
“The precautionary principle in maritime affairs”, WMU J Marit Affairs, No. 10, pp. 143-165,
2011)//SJF
Damage to the marine environment, marine biodiversity and living marine resources are often
long-term, and the disastrous effects always persist beyond the human activity that caused them.
Therefore, what we have damaged in the sea area will deplete the rights of future generations to
utilise the oceans. The precautionary principle calls for early prevention, to avoid and relieve
uncertain serious and irreversible damage to marine ecosystems, and has come to the fore in decisionmaking processes since the principle was first adopted in national laws in the 1970s. More than 10 years later, the precautionary
principle was adopted in the Rio Declaration and widely accepted by the international community. Since then, the principle has been
involved in more and more international instruments.
Although there is no uniform definition of the precautionary principle so far, four elements of the principle can be identified, namely
the level of damage, scientific criterion, remedy, and burden of proof. The principle deals with the problem of how to make a
decision when there is a lack of complete scientific information regarding serious damage. The first three elements vary from one
environment to another. Decision makers have to consider some limitations, such as the proportionality principle and the principle
of sustainable development, when they employ the precautionary principle. Moreover, the principle dictates that it is the burden for
those parties who wish to implement relevant activities to prove that certain activities or substances are indeed harmless.
The global natural environment, and particularly marine living resources, is facing growing
pressure as the world's population and demand are gradually increasing. Therefore, in order to
preserve the marine environment, its ecosystems and biodiversity, the precautionary principle
has been implemented in a number of fishery treaties, among which the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement is a
good example. The Agreement could be considered for the development of the UNCLOS in the area of fishing and fishery resource
conservation.
62
Environment Disadvantage
WDCA Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The principle is the best framework for decision-making- balancing interests of
growth and the environment ensures the best outcome.
Van Dyke, Professor of Law at University of Hawaii, 2004
[Jon M., "The Evolution and International Acceptance of the Precautionary Principle", in Bringing
New Law to Ocean Waters, http://www.mmc.govisound/internationalwrkshp/pdf/vandyke.pdf]
V. Is the Precautionary Principle a Rejection of the Scientific Method and a Formula for Doing Nothing?¶ No .
The precautionary principle does not reject science, but it does rest on the recognition that
the physical sciences do not always provide all the answers, that social sciences and even the
humanities are also valid sources of information and decisionmaking, and that concerns based on common
fears are also relevant. Proportionality is always relevant, but grave harm—“the worst-case
scenario”—must be considered, even if the likelihood of its occurrence seems relatively
remote. Adherence to the precautionary principle does, in a sense, bias decisionmaking
against innovation by slowing down the process of introducing new technologies, but this goslow approach is justified by the realization that new development does not always deliver
all that it promises and that change is frequently irreversible. If new technologies and new
activities will, in fact, offer benefits, they can be introduced after meeting the burdens of
proof required
by the precautionary principle.¶ Utilization of the precautionary principle will alter the “factual trigger” that requires
precautions to be taken.121 Without this principle, those challenging a food additive, for instance, would have to prove that it is toxic, those
challenging a new fishing activity would have to prove that it would have a negative impact on a species or ecosystem, and those challenging a
shipment of a hazardous cargo or the construction of a nuclear power plant would have to prove that it is likely to cause actual pollution to the
environment. But when
the precautionary principle is utilized, the fears that affected human
populations have about such activities become sufficient to induce caution and to require
those wishing to undertake these initiatives to establish that the activities are safe, or, in
appropriate cases, that the benefits outweigh the risks. Science is not ignored, but its role has
changed, and the burden of persuasion is shifted. In fact, the precautionary principle
promotes more science, because it requires continuous monitoring as well as research into
less-polluting alternatives. Some have said that the precautionary principle masks irrational
fears of technology. But if the fears are irrational, then good science disseminated by those
who are developing the technology can calm those fears and persuade the public that the
project is sound.¶
63