Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Contents
Precautionary Principle Affirmative ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1AC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Biodiversity...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Overfishing ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12
2AC .................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Biodiversity ADV................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Answers to: Oceans are resilient .................................................................................................................................. 22
Oceans Key to Survival .................................................................................................................................................. 23
AT: No Impact to Diodiversity ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Overfishing ADV ................................................................................................................................................................ 27
AT: Fisheries are Recovering ......................................................................................................................................... 28
AT: Ocean Alt Causes / Decline Inevitable .................................................................................................................... 32
Solving Overfishing Boosts Economy ............................................................................................................................ 34
AT: Economic Decline Doesn’t Cause War .................................................................................................................... 38
Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................................ 40
AT: Governement Won’t Change .................................................................................................................................. 41
Answers to: All Talk, No Action ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Answers to: Policy Paralysis .......................................................................................................................................... 44
AT: Case Offense ............................................................................................................................................................... 46
Answers to: Harms Science ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Answers to: Innovation ................................................................................................................................................. 49
AT: GMO Trade-Off Turn ................................................................................................................................................... 51
Answers to: Precautionary Principle prevents development ....................................................................................... 52
Answers to: Impacts ...................................................................................................................................................... 53
Answers to Genetically Modified Crops prevent starvation ......................................................................................... 55
Answers to: Value current deaths over future ............................................................................................................. 56
1
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
1AC
The United States Federal Government should use the precautionary principle as the criteria for
formulating and implementing non-military development and/or exploration of the Earth’s oceans.
2
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Biodiversity
Our belief that the sea can be used without end leads to human choices polluting our oceans every
day. Unfortunately, this pollution kills sea life and destroys marine ecosystems, fisheries, and
coastal communities.
Wilder, Tenger, and Dayton, Researcher at the Marine Science Institute, Research marine biologist,
and Professor of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, 1999
(Robert, Mia and Paul, “Saving Marine Biodiversity”, Issues, 15:3, November 27, http://issues.org/15-3/wilder/)
A comprehensive national strategy is crucial for reversing the rapidly accelerating decline in marine life. ¶ For centuries,
humanity has seen the sea as an infinite source of food, a boundless sink for pollutants, and a tireless sustainer of
coastal habitats. It isn’t. Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly accelerating declines in once-abundant
populations of cod, haddock, flounder, and scores of other fish species, as well as mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are
alarmed at the rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries, and wetlands and the sinister expansion of vast
“dead zones” of water where life has been choked away. More and more, the harm to marine biodiversity can be
traced not to natural events but to inadequate policies.¶ The escalating loss of marine life is bad enough as an
ecological problem. But it constitutes an economic crisis as well. Marine biodiversity is crucial to sustaining
commercial fisheries, and in recent years several major U.S. fisheries have “collapsed” - experienced a population decline so sharp
that fishing is no longer commercially viable. One study indicates that 300,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual revenues have been
lost because of overly aggressive fishing practices alone. Agricultural and urban runoff, oil spills, dredging, trawling,
and coastal development have caused further losses.
3
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Overexploitation of systems causes biodiversity loss
Mora and Zapata 13 (Camilo Mora and Fernando A. Zapata ed. Klaus Rohde, “The Balance of Nature and Human Impact”, scholar, Cambridge University
Press 2013, mjb)
Overexploitation can be defined as a human-induced source of mortality beyond natural levels of replenishment. Since
the loss of individuals is larger than the gain, populations decline. The reasons for human exploitation of certain species are multiple and
include supplying an increasing demand for food (e.g., ~15% of the animal protein consumed by humans is directly or indirectly derived from
fisheries; FAO, 2011), cultural reasons (e.g., ornaments and jewels derived from animal parts such rhino horns, fur, etc; Loveridge et al., 2012), medicines and remedies (e.g., penises of
tigers, shark fins, etc.; Loveridge et al., 2012), recreational purposes (e.g., hunting and fishing; Loveridge et al., 2012), and limiting human fatalities and livestock losses (e.g., Michalski et al.,
2006; Loveridge et al., 2012; Marchini & Macdonald, 2012) to name a few .
As a single threat, overexploitation has been the second leading cause
of extinction among animals, accounting alone for 18% of extinct animal species; in contrast, no plant species has gone extinct due to the
unique effects of overexploitation; only 4% and 1% of animal and plant species, respectively, currently at risk of extinction are so by the unique effect of overexploitation (Figure 17.1). ¶
The mechanism through which overexploitation affects the distribution of species is directly through mortality (e.g., killing
of adults, collection of eggs). In principle, over- exploitation should be self-regulated because declining populations will increase the cost of harvesting beyond profitability, at which point
harvesting pressure should decrease. Unfortunately, there are multiple reasons why this is not the case and harvesting is continued despite the ongoing decline of exploited species. First, in
some instances the declining supply of overexploited species can also lead to an increase in their market price (Courchamp et al., 2006). This
process is known to trigger
exploitation vortices, in which smaller populations enhance further exploitation as rarer individuals become
increasingly more valuable (Courchamp et al., 2006). A similar mechanism results from access roads which open new markets for trade and add value to the exploitation of
certain species (e.g., Macdonald et al., 2012). A second reason promoting exploitation of declining species is economic subsidies. Here governments grant different types of aids to
compensate the monetary loss associated with declining stocks, thus preventing social turmoil but further intensifying exploitation (Sumaila et al., 2008; Mora et al., 2009; Mora & Sale,
2011).
4
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Healthy oceans filled with a diverse array of species are essential to supporting life on the planet,
the alternative is extinction.
Craig, Associate Dean for Environmental Programs @ Florida State University, 2003
(Robin Kundis, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in
Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example,
besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more
More generally,
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic
building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant
but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems
impairs the planet's ability to support life.¶ Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of
marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of
disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable."
n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] ¶ Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree
than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857
of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex
n860 ¶ Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of
marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for
marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system.
5
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Brink of extinction event now – must shift to conservation approach
Mora and Zapata 13 (Camilo Mora and Fernando A. Zapata ed. Klaus Rohde, “The Balance of Nature and Human Impact”, scholar, Cambridge University
Press 2013, mjb)
Humanity has taken a heavy toll on the Earth’s biodiversity. Clues for such a human footprint are found ever since prehistoric times but have
become considerably more evident and severe in recent times. We are now on the verge of a sixth mass extinction
event whose causes are well connected to stressors such as habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive species, and climate change. While the relative effect of such stressors will remain
challenging to quantify and will most likely be individualistic, there is considerable evidence to suggest that from a cautionary and ethical perspective,
threatened species should be managed as if all stressors at play were responsible for their decline. Arguably, a less contentious conservation
strategy could focus on what drives such stressors in the first place, which will probably reveal the role of our patterns of consumption and ongoing population growth. This new focus will require a shift in
conservation perspectives but should deliver more definitive solutions to a broad range of issues. Regardless of the solution, the rapid loss of
biodiversity, goods, and services suggests that we cannot afford much delay before choosing the right response to these stressors.
6
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Overfishing
Consumption driven policies have allowed overfishing which causes extreme damage to the
environment
Nevill 10 (Jonathan Nevill, “Overfishing under regulation: the application of the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach in
Australian fisheries management”, book, mjb)
fishing has rarely been
sustainable (Pauly et al. 2002). On the global scene, modern fishing activities constitute the most important threat to marine biodiversity (Hiddink et al. 2008, Helfman 2007:8; MEA Millennium Ecosystem
Overharvesting is probably as old as human civilization. There is evidence that ancient humans hunted many terrestrial animals to extinction (eg: Alroy 2001). Historically,
Assessment 2005a:67, 2005b:8, 2005c:12; Crowder & Norse 2005:183; Kappel 2005:275; Myers & Worm 2003; Pauly et al. 2002; Reynolds et al. 2002; Jackson et al. 2001; Leidy & Moyle 1998 - noting contrary views from
). Of all recently documented marine extinctions, the most common cause has been excessive harvesting
activities (Malakoff 1997, Carlton et al. 1999, VanBlaricom et al. 2000). ¶ Fisheries in the deep sea have "undoubtedly had the greatest ecological
impact to date" of all known threats (Thiel & Koslow 2001:9). Fishing was identified as the main threat to marine ecosystems in the
Gray 1997
northwest Atlantic over the period 1963-2000 (Link et al. 2002). The fisheries of the Bering Sea have long been recognised as among the world’s best managed (Aron et al. 1993); however Greenwald (2006) in a study of
the impacts of fishing
activities, even when regulated by governments, have in many cases caused major, often irretrievable damage to
marine ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2001, Ludwig et al. 1993). The benthic ecosystems of large areas of the ocean seabed have been destroyed or damaged (Watling & Norse 1998, Watling 2005). The
genetic effects of fishing may be substantial, yet are commonly ignored (Law & Stokes 2005). The failure of managers to learn from past mistakes appears to
the region’s vertebrates, identified commercial fishing as the most important threat, followed by climate change, habitat degradation, ecological effects and pollution. ¶ Historically,
be a notable feature of the history of fisheries management (Mullon et al. 2005) in what Agardy (2000) has called the "global, serial mismanagement of commercial fisheries".¶ "In many sea areas, the weight of fish
available to be harvested is calculated to be less than one tenth or even one one-hundredth of what it was before the introduction of industrial fishing." ( MEA 2005c:16) ¶ On the Australian scene, fishing activities appear
to be the primary threat to fishes (Pogonoski et al. 2002) and the second most important threat to marine invertebrates (Ponder et al. 2002) after habitat degradation. ¶ Overfishing is defined in this discussion as a level of
fishing which puts at risk values endorsed either by the fishery management agency, by the nation in whose waters fishing takes place, or within widely accepted international agreements. A point of critical importance in
this regard is that a level of fishing intensity which successfully meets traditional stock sustainability criteria (for example fishing a stock at maximum sustainable yield) may well be considerably higher than a level of fishing
intensity which meets criteria designed to protect marine biodiversity (Jennings 2007). The wide endorsement of the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 implies that the latter level is the critical level by which
overfishing should be measured.¶ Amongst fishery scientists (and to lesser extent fishery managers) it is widely believed that
“governance, and not science, remains the
weakest link in the [fisheries] management chain ” (Browman & Stergiou 2004:270). To a large extent fisheries managers, like bankers, do not learn the lessons of the past, they
simply repeat them.
7
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Undermines the overall ocean environment
Denoon, 6 (11/2/2006, Daniel, “Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-waterfish-extinction-seen-by-2048/)
The apocalypse has a new date: 2048.¶ That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international
team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss,
and climate change.¶ The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand
what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world.¶ The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to
these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise.¶ "I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything
we suspected," Worm says in a news release.¶ "This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont,
PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release.¶ "If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment
will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all ," Beaumont adds.¶ Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood
species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries .¶ But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean
species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the
red tide.¶ "A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as
flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say.¶ The researchers analyzed data
from 32 experiments on different marine environments.¶ They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the
U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. ¶ Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems. ¶ And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas. ¶ Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important.
The diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest.¶ But the loss of species isn't
gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say.¶ Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries
management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves.¶ This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human
health, and more.¶ "It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively
protected right now."¶ Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.
8
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
The impact is extinction
Schofield, 14 --- Director of Research at the Australian Centre for Ocean Resource and Security University of
Wollongong (3/10/2014, Clive, “Why our precious oceans are under threat,”
http://uowblogs.com/globalchallenges/2014/03/10/the-threats-facing-our-precious-oceans/, JMP)
Science fiction author Arthur C Clarke once observed, “How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.” Good point, well made.¶ The
oceans clearly dominate the world spatially, encompassing around 72 per cent of the surface of the planet.¶ The vast extent of the oceans only tells
part of the story, however.¶ The oceans are critical to the global environment and human survival in numerous ways – they
are vital to the global nutrient cycling, represent a key repository and supporter of biological diversity on a world
scale and play a fundamental role in driving the global atmospheric system.¶ Coastal and marine environments
support and sustain key habitats and living resources, notably fisheries and aquaculture. These resources continue to
provide a critical source of food for hundreds of millions of people .¶ The fishing industry supports the livelihoods of an estimated 540
million people worldwide and fisheries supply more than 15 per cent of the animal protein consumed by 4.2 billion people globally.¶ Moreover, the oceans
are an increasing source of energy resources and underpin the global economy through sea borne trade.¶ Overall, it has
been estimated that 61 per cent of global GNP is sourced from the oceans and coastal areas within 100km of the sea .¶
Coasts and marine zones also provide essential, but often not fully acknowledged, ecosystem services.¶ Coasts and marine zones are
therefore of critical importance across scales, from the global to the regional, national and sub-national coastal community levels. At the same time the oceans also
remain largely (95 per cent) unexplored.
9
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Overfishing undermines the economy --- it’s the biggest threat to the Ocean
Strauss, 14 --- research coordinator at the Environmental Defense Fund (4/2/2014, Kent, “Report: Overfishing bad for
fish, but worse for the economy,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/04/02/report-overfishing-bad-fish-worse-economy)
It’s undeniable that oceans are important to people and the environment. Covering nearly three-quarters of our planet, oceans produce the air we breathe, house the fish we eat and provide us with many of the products
oceans play a huge role in creating employment opportunities and sustaining coastal
economies.¶ According to a new report from the National Ocean Economics Program for the Center for the Blue
Economy, the oceans economy comprised more than 2.7 million jobs and contributed more than $258 billion to the
GDP of the United States in 2010. If you aren’t impressed with those numbers, let’s think in different terms. If the ocean economy were a part of the U nited S tates of America,
it would be the 25th largest state by employment and the 20th largest state by GDP —about the same size as Colorado.¶ The oceans
economy supports employment almost two and a half times larger than other natural resources industries like
farming, mining, and forest harvesting. Approximately 5.4 million jobs in 2010 were directly and indirectly supported by the ocean with their total contribution estimated at $633 billion
which is 4.4% of the United States’ GDP.¶ Increasingly, with disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and several tsunamis across Asia, the U nited S tates and countries across the
world are beginning to place more emphasis on just how significant oceans’ health is to the economy . And with more than a billion
jobs around the world supported by oceans economies, it’s no surprise that the momentum around maintaining a healthy ocean is building speed. Much of that focus has been on ways to
solve overfishing— the most urgent threat to the health of the oceans and the single biggest cause of depleted
fisheries worldwide.¶ Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with scientists, NGO representatives and government officials from around the world, to discuss solutions to overfishing, with particular
we use on a daily basis. And importantly, the
emphasis on empowering and supporting small-scale fishermen in developing countries. During these meetings, I shared the resources my team at EDF has developed to help fishermen design sustainable fishery
management programs and I talked about our Fish Forever initiative, EDF’s partnership with Rare and the Sustainable Fisheries Group at the University of California at Santa Barbara to restore small-scale coastal fisheries.¶
Perhaps the best part of the trip was just having the opportunity to sit down with like-minded individuals to “geek out” about the ways to effectively manage small-scale fisheries, keep our oceans resilient and protect
Healthy and abundant oceans create stronger coastal economies. As momentum grows to bring the oceans health in line with
those who rely on them.¶
sustainability principles, we must continue to be vigilant about the numerous demands and pressures placed upon the oceans' natural resources.
10
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
This decline causes global nuclear war
Freidberg & Schonfeld, 8 --- *Professor of Politics and IR at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, AND **senior
editor of Commentary and a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton (10/21/2008, Aaron and Gabriel,
“The Dangers of a Diminished America”, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
With the global financial system in serious trouble, is America's geostrategic dominance likely to diminish? If so, what
would that mean?¶ One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the primary instruments of U.S.
foreign policy will be crimped. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit
already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families and businesses hurting, there will be calls for various and expensive
domestic relief programs.¶ In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their
programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe Biden has suggested a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in
budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Still, Sen. Biden's comment hints at where we
may be headed: toward a major reduction in
America's world role , and perhaps even a new era of financially-induced isolationism.¶ Pressures to cut defense
spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the
success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion
-- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions.¶ Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs
disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and
some Republicans. In
a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow.¶ Then there are the dolorous
consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed
the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our
economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the
tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future?¶ Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges
are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while
Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's
new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also
give cause for concern.¶ If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power
vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as
defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. ¶ In such a scenario there are
shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate,
and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their
divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys ,
just at our moment of maximum vulnerability.¶ The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our
principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility
of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth
depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a
country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. ¶ None
of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of
these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.¶ As for our democratic friends, the
present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis.
Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power.¶ What does
this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects
of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership.
11
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Solvency
Precautionary Principle key to prevent damaging marine policies
Nevill 10 (Jonathan Nevill, “Overfishing under regulation: the application of the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach in
Australian fisheries management”, book, mjb)
The precautionary principle, and its ‘softer’ version the precautionary approach, appeared in international discussions some decades ago ,
and have been accepted, like EBM, into international and national law. Article 174 of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires, inter-alia, that Community policy on the
environment be based on the precautionary principle. The principle was one of the core environmental principles contained in the Rio Declaration 1992 (UN Conference on Environment and
Development) as well as the earlier World Charter for Nature 1982. A generic definition of the principle may be stated as follows: ¶ Where
the possibility exists of
serious or irreversible harm, lack of scientific certainty should not preclude cautious action by decision-makers to
prevent such harm. Decision-makers needs to anticipate the possibility of ecological damage, rather than react to it as
it occurs. ¶ Like EBM, use of the precautionary principle in practical control strategies has lagged behind its adoption in
policy, not only in the EU but around the world. This remains the case, in spite of the prominence given to the principle on the FAO Code of Conduct. ¶ Marine protected
areas were largely unknown in an era when it was generally considered that the oceans needed no protection. However, as the damage to the marine environment
became more widely understood, marine protected area programs have featured in international agreements as well
as national conservation programs. The FAO Code of Conduct stresses the need to protect critical habitat in aquatic environments, for example.
12
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Modern technology has reversed human’s role with nature and created the power to destroy
nature and all of humanity. Adopting the precautionary Principle is necessary to provide an ethical
framework to control this new found power and protect the Earth for future generations.
Ewald 2k, Director of Reasarch and Strategy, Federation Francaise des Societes
d'Assurances.
[Francois, “Risk in contemporary society”, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6 Conn. Ins. L.J. 47, 1999/2000, Hein
Online]
The powers of modern man confer upon him an infinite responsibility. His nature is revealed in fear, a feeling that makes man aware of the power of his new capacities. On one
hand temporality, within which is situated his action, dilates to encompass the whole history of humanity, past and future, but it must be acknowledged that his powers are such that they
threaten the existence of life itself. Contemporary man is becoming aware of himself in the feeling of anguish before the possibilities of annihilation that he bears in himself: for the first time, he
is discovering in himself the power to commit suicide as a species. Faced with this possibility, and in order to [*71]
overcome his anguish, modern man is on a quest to find the rules of a morality that will limit his powers: the ethics of
responsibility. His enormous power needs holding.¶ The ethics of responsibility contain the risk and uncertainty to the
extent that modern man must take account in his actions, both their long term consequences and their possibility of
sweeping along with them, at least in certain cases, the worst, the catastrophe. Instead of the categorical Kantian imperative, there should be substituted an
imperative adapted to the new type of human action: "Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an
authentically humane life on earth." 35 For while we have the right to risk our own lives, we do not have the right to
risk that of humanity. This imperative is the basis of the precautionary principle: it invites us to measure each of our
actions against the principle of the worst scenario. Morality becomes a sort of negative morality: it is not so much
turned towards the positive quest for the best as towards the avoidance of the worst. The uncertainty of long term prognostics confers the nature of a wager
on human action, which leads to questions such as: do I have the right to endanger the interests of others in my wager?
13
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Using the Precautionary Principle to protect the oceans would place the burden of proof on those
planning a development or exploration of the ocean to prove they will do no harm. This is the
method recommended by the scientific community to help protect the oceans from further harm by
human actions.
Ocean Classrooms, online educational resource on oceans, 2013
(“Precautionary Principle“, Current Publishing Corporation, https://www.oceanclassrooms.com/ms101_u5_c2_sa_2)Considering the declining health of many of Earth's ecosystems and the extent to which humans are to blame, a
growing number of scientists advocate use of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to decisions regarding the
environment.¶ The Precautionary Principle:¶ When an activity is known to threaten human health or the environment, we
need to take precautions even if we don't understand all the cause-and-effect relationships scientifically. In this
context, those who wish to conduct the activity, not the public, should be the ones to prove that the activity in
question will not harm the environment. Applying this principle must be an open, informed, and impartial process
that includes all those who may experience effects of such action. The process must also consider all reasonable
choices, including the option of not allowing any activity to proceed.¶ In a nutshell, the Precautionary Principle says
that even without all the information on a particular matter, we should not hesitate to take action to avoid
potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment. Many scientists believe that it's time to take this stance
on environmental issues, especially those pertaining to the ocean.
14
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Novice Packet
WDCA 2014-15
Putting the precautionary principle into law is necessary. Legal protections of communities, who
are not present when decisions are made, are necessary to solve environmental exploitation.
Eckersley, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Melbourne, 2004
(Robyn, The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, The MIT Press, p. 134-5)
In cases of scientific uncertainty and conflict between environment and development interests, the democratic state
cannot be neutral. It can either support the status quo, which favors property holders and risk generators, or create new rights and new presumptions that turn the tables in favor of environmental victims. The
requirements of environmental justice that are embedded in the ambit claim for ecological democracy demand rights and decision rules that positively
favor the disadvantaged and communicatively incompetent over well-resourced and strategically oriented economic
actors in cases of uncertainty and political intractability.¶ One such mechanism for shifting the presumption in favor of
potential environmental victims is the precautionary principle. The Rio Declaration formulation of the precautionary principle provides that “Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (principle 15). Adding the words “to present and future
human and nonhuman communities” after the words “irreversible damage” would head off narrow, anthropocentric
interpretations of this decision rule, which provides a presumption against decisions carrying serious or irreversible
environmental risks (e.g., species extinction, climate change, nuclear fallout, and so-called genetic pollution from the release of genetically modified organisms into the
environment). The decision rule also serves as an evidentiary rule in placing the onus of proof on the proponent to prove the
absence of such risks for human and nonhuman communities, now and in the future.¶ Of course, the precautionary principle would need to be interpreted and
applied discursively in particular cases. However, participants in the dialogue should not be free to ignore it. One way of ensuring this is to constitutionally entrench the precautionary principle in the same way that basic democratic rights are constitutionally
entrenchment would not place the precautionary principle beyond the reach of democratic debate, since the
appropriateness of its application to particular circumstances would always need to be debated on a case by case
basis. In any event, the justification for entrenchment is itself a democratic one: to ensure that the interests of those
at risk who cannot be present are nonetheless systematically considered by those who are present. Mandating such
consideration is not the same as mandating particular outcome
entrenched. Such
15
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Enacting the precautionary principle injects democracy into environmental decision making.
Raffensperger, Executive Director of Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(CAROLYN, 9/1, No. 9, Vol. 25; Pg. 26, MULTINATIONAL MONITOR, "PRECAUTIONARY
PRECEPTS")
The second mode of implementation is to reverse the burden of proof, especially for chemicals, and other emerging and novel technologies. For so long, industry has received the benefit of the
doubt; if regulation is going to threaten business, then regulation should be sacrificed. But what that has meant is that we have sacrificed our children's brains,
our women's breasts, our men's prostates on that alter of economic development.¶ The Precautionary Principle says,
no, public health and the environment get the benefit of the doubt, not the almighty dollar. And there are a lot of ways to do that. The
Precautionary Principle asserts a responsibility on the part of industry or the proponents of a technology or activity, to test that technology or activity. So for instance, the REACH
program proposed in Europe for chemicals says, if you don't test your chemicals, you can't market in Europe. What a good idea! That's reversing the burden of proof. It says if you haven't even tested your chemical, don't try and sell it to us, and then, if we're injured,
make us go to court and test the chemical to show it is unsafe. The REACH program says to industry, you've got the obligation; this is your responsibility. This is a complete turn around compared to what is typical in the United States.¶ The third element of the
the safest alternative. If you've set a goal to achieve some end, which alternative gets you to the goal? This approach means you're going to find
much better ways to do things; it drives innovation. Pursuit of the safest alternative is creating whole new fields like green chemistry and green engineering. They are taking the
dirtiest chemicals, throwing them out and changing policy and industry in some really wonderful ways. Choosing the
safest alternative is in many ways the heart-beat of the Precautionary Principle.¶ The final element of the
Precautionary Principle is democracy. If we're faced with scientific uncertainty, we need to set goals, and choose the
safest alternative to achieve these goals. These processes involve values and ethics; it is not something that scientists
or government bureaucrats can decide alone. We need to bring affected parties to the table. This gives us a chance as
a public to set the goals that we want to drive toward; it helps get on the table a much wider array of options for
solving problems and looking for alternatives. So democracy is also an essential component of the Precautionary
Principle.
Precautionary Principle is looking for
16
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Advocating for the precautionary principle grows environmental movements and injects values into
policy making. Our demand can change the way that environmental policy is formed.
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June
2002, 210-219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
Activists’ and advocates’ responses to the principle and their explanations of why it has become important and useful to them vary. Almost universally, however, they see it as an
exercise in something beyond caution, or even precaution. It is not just a matter of buying up gas masks, so to speak, or reinforcing cockpit doors. They nearly always
describe it instead in positive terms. Activists who have become discouraged by the Sisyphean task of trying to protect the Earth and
the health of communities in the face of out-of-control technologies and damage often say that the precautionary
principle gives them hope. They say it is something positive to work for and that it embodies common sense. Organizers and policy advocates alike express
gratitude for a unifying idea that makes sense of everything they are trying to work for and that removes some
important barriers to that work, at least in their own minds. Inevitably, values creep into these discussions.¶ A typical range of responses came from a group of ecosystem scientists and
advocates assembled by SEHN in May 2001 in Leavenworth, Washington, to discuss how the principle might apply to decisions related to ecosystems. After more than a day of discussion that went straight to the principle’s
By using precaution you articulate
uncertainties that are already there. It is better to think out consequences. It is important science, but it is also an
important public education tool. It helps people understand what to do with uncertainty. It is an organizing principle
in theory—it takes our ideas and make sense of them—and in practice: it can galvanize a movement.
practical implications, the group was asked, Is the precautionary principle indeed of use to you? Some of their answers had an equally practical tone:¶
17
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Green Democracy produces better decision making by allowing all options to be considered.
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June
2002, 210-219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
Democracy and transparency in the decisionmaking process also represent an ethical component: the right to know,
the right to be included in decisions that affect one, the duty to include all who are affected. ¶ Including such ethical considerations is a statement of
values. But this kind of process also has a practical aspect. The more information gathered from varied sources, the more
satisfactory a decision is likely to be. So too is the assessment of alternatives (O’Brien, 2000). It makes practical sense to
look at alternatives, to seek better ways of doing things, to be able to choose among different possible methods and
outcomes rather than being locked into the dictates of things as they are or some inevitable march of progress and technology.
However, deciding what is “better” depends on the values that guide the process.¶ The precautionary principle and the process of applying it
by no means eliminate the value of economics from the equation. Any “democratic and transparent” process must
include economic considerations. However, deliberately and consistently putting economics first leads to a different
kind of precaution, a kind that is routinely exercised at the expense of the life and health of humans and ecosystems.
This is a value judgment. It makes a difference which values guide a decision.
18
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
A green democracy is the only way to ensure government works to protect the environment.
ECKERSLEY, Senior Lecturer - Political Science at the University of Melbourne, 2004
[ROBYN, THE GREEN STATE: RETHINKING DEMOCRACY AND SOVEREIGNTY, APRIL, 117-9]
In the terms of the double challenge of ecological democracy, then, deliberative democracy, prima facie, appears promising. Not only is it likely to generate a
risk-averse orientation, it is also likely to guard against unfair displacement of risks onto innocent third parties. Such an orientation provides a welcome
move away from the utilitarian framework of trading-off (which permits the sacrifice of the interests of minorities, those lacking preferences,
and the discounted future in favor of¶ present majorities) toward a more inclusive orientation that at least strives to find ways of
mutually accommodating (rather than trading off) the needs of the present and the future, the human and the nonhuman. ¶ In
short, a case can be made that deliberative democracy is especially suited to making collective decisions about longrange, generalizable interests, such as environmental protection and sustainable development. It thus provides a fair process
that is likely to move societies toward more reflexive ecological modernization of the kind discussed in chapter 3. Moreover, because it does not confine its moral
horizons to the citizens and territory of a particular polity, it may be understood as a transnational form of democracy that is able to cope with fluid boundaries.10 It
also has the capacity to accommodate the complexities and uncertainties associated with ecological problems,
include and evaluate both expert scientific and vernacular understandings of ecological problems, and identify and
evaluate risks in socially and ecologically inclusive ways.
19
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
2AC
20
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Biodiversity ADV
21
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Oceans are resilient
Oceans are uniquely vulnerable and human actions can result in horrible outcomes.
Coyne and Hoekstra, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at University of Chicago,
and Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard, 2007
(Jerry and Hopi, “The Greatest Dying”, The New Republic, September 24,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment-energy/the-greatest-dying)
In 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 recreat ional value: They provide tremendous
amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion.
22
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Oceans Key to Survival
Destruction of ocean environment will cause extinction
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/thedevolution-of-the-seas, JMP)
Of all the threats looming over the planet today , one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable descent of the
world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so altered the basic
chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to the barren primeval waters of
hundreds of millions of years ago.
A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually,
around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae
and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time, these simple
organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and
other sea life one associates with the oceans today.
Yet that sea life is now in peril. Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously
close to reversing the almost miraculous biological abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of
habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain their
dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of slime”: the transformation of once complex oceanic
ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish,
and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and
rats.
The prospect of vanishing whales, polar bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on
its own. But the disruption of entire ecosystems threatens our very survival , since it is the healthy functioning of
these diverse systems that sustains life on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food,
jobs, health, and quality of life. It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better
future.
23
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: No Impact to Diodiversity
Protecting ocean ecosystems is key to save all life on earth
Sielen, 8 --- career senior executive at the EPA (Winter 2008, Alan B., The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, “An Oceans
Manifesto: The Present Global Crisis,” http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/People/Faculty_and_Researchers/sielen/Sielen.pdf, JMP)
A generation ago, French explorer and oceanographer Jacques Cousteau warned that the oceans were sick and getting
worse every year. Embraced by the public for bringing people on every continent closer to the wonders of nature and
for his unvarnished assessment of the state of the oceans, Cousteau was ridiculed by many government officials and
scientists as an environmental alarmist. Fortunately, the oceans are not dead; in fact, some areas are teeming with life.
Cousteau’s concerns, however, were prophetic: serious degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems worldwide
continues, driven by global climate change, pollution, overfishing, and the destruction of coastal habitats. Once thought
to possess an endless abundance of resources and an unlimited capacity to safely assimilate wastes, the oceans are
now forcing us to reconsider many of our previous assumptions.
The oceans are indispensable in sustaining life on earth. They possess a rich diversity of marine life and support
systems that affect the entire planet , such as climate, weather, fisheries, and biological productivity. The importance
of the oceans cannot be separated from the larger global environment that encompasses the air, land, and freshwater.
Nor will solutions to the problems facing them be distinct from broader questions concerning human development and
the quality of life on earth.
Around the world, the daily existence of growing numbers of people is directly affected by the use and management
of the oceans and their resources. The fishing industry is a source of protein for a large part of the world’s population
and a livelihood, directly and indirectly, for hundreds of millions of people. Travel, tourism, and recreation in coastal
areas have an even greater effect on national and global economies. Offshore areas account for as much as one third of
the world’s energy supplies. Maritime transportation and port operations are of paramount importance for world trade.
The many ways that the oceans can refresh and enrich the human spirit are as legendary as their awesome terrors, such
as the devastating Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004.
24
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Destruction of ocean environment will cause extinction
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)
Of all the threats looming over the planet today , one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable descent of the
world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so altered the basic chemistry of the seas
that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago. A visitor to the
oceans at the dawn of time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic
organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish,
and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity
of fish, corals, whales, and other sea life one associates with the oceans today. Yet that sea life is now in peril. Over the last 50 years --
a mere blink in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological
abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the
oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of
slime”: the transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems dominated
by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats. The
prospect of vanishing whales, polar bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption
of entire ecosystems threatens our very survival , since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that
sustains life on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and quality of life.
It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better future.
25
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Protecting ocean ecosystems is key to save all life on earth
Sielen, 8 --- career senior executive at the EPA (Winter 2008, Alan B., The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, “An Oceans Manifesto: The Present
Global Crisis,” http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/People/Faculty_and_Researchers/sielen/Sielen.pdf)
A generation ago, French explorer and oceanographer Jacques Cousteau warned that the oceans were sick and getting worse every year. Embraced
by the public for bringing people on every continent closer to the wonders of nature and for his unvarnished assessment of the state of the oceans,
Cousteau was ridiculed by many government officials and scientists as an environmental alarmist. Fortunately, the oceans are not dead;
in fact, some areas are teeming with life. Cousteau’s concerns, however, were prophetic: serious degradation of coastal
and marine ecosystems worldwide continues, driven by global climate change, pollution, overfishing, and the
destruction of coastal habitats. Once thought to possess an endless abundance of resources and an unlimited capacity
to safely assimilate wastes, the oceans are now forcing us to reconsider many of our previous assumptions. The
oceans are indispensable in sustaining life on earth. They possess a rich diversity of marine life and support systems
that affect the entire planet , such as climate, weather, fisheries, and biological productivity. The importance of the oceans
cannot be separated from the larger global environment that encompasses the air, land, and freshwater. Nor will solutions to the problems facing
them be distinct from broader questions concerning human development and the quality of life on earth. Around the world, the daily
existence of growing numbers of people is directly affected by the use and management of the oceans and their
resources. The fishing industry is a source of protein for a large part of the world’s population and a livelihood,
directly and indirectly, for hundreds of millions of people. Travel, tourism, and recreation in coastal areas have an even greater effect
on national and global economies. Offshore areas account for as much as one third of the world’s energy supplies. Maritime transportation and
port operations are of paramount importance for world trade. The many ways that the oceans can refresh and enrich the human spirit are as
legendary as their awesome terrors, such as the devastating Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004.
26
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Overfishing ADV
27
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: Fisheries are Recovering
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.
28
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Still overfishing in rest of world and U.S. imports fish from those areas
Plumer, 14 (5/8/2014, Brad, “How the US stopped its fisheries from collapsing,”
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/8/5669120/how-the-us-stopped-its-fisheries-from-collapsing, JMP)
That said, the rest of the world isn't doing as well
Now the big caveat: Yes, US fisheries seem to be recovering. But that's not true for much of the rest of the world. And,
given that the U nited S tates imports around 91 percent of its seafood, this is a pretty crucial caveat.
All told, the best-managed fisheries around the world — the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway,
Iceland — only make up about 16 percent of the global catch , according to a recent paper in Marine Pollution Bulletin
by Tony Pitcher and William Cheung of the University of British Columbia.
29
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Overfishing driving extinction of marine life
McCutcheon, 14 (3/27/2014, Jody, “Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment,”
http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/, JMP)
Seafood surprise, anyone?
Fish is perceived as a low-fat, heart-healthy protein source, and as such, demand for it has skyrocketed. In just five
decades, average yearly per-person seafood consumption has risen worldwide by 70%, from 22 pounds to over 37
pounds, largely thanks to high-protein diet trends like Atkins; the global spread in popularity of sushi, and increased
wealth allowing more people to spend money on meat and fish.
However, over that same time, Atlantic salmon have been fished to the brink of extinction, while according to the
United Nations, upwards of 90% of large fish like tuna and marlin have been fished out of sustainability, and 32% of all
wild fishery stocks have been overexploited. Several scientific reports now suggest the threat of extinction for
marine life is at an “unprecedented” level, in part due to overfishing .
30
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Natural fisheries are in steep decline --- boosting aquaculture is necessary to ensure stable seafood
supply
Corbin, 10 --- President of Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC (May/ June 2010, John S., Marine Technology Society
Journal, “Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion, a Necessity,”
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study Guides/Aquaculture MTS 44.3.pdfingentaconnect database,
JMP)
In recent years, the scientific literature has contained numerous dire and controversial descriptions of the increasing
decline of the oceans’ well-documented, finite yield of seafood and its essential contribution to human nutritional
well-being. Important marine ecosystems and fish populations may in fact be exhaustible, or at the least damaged
beyond recovery by human activity (Myers and Worm, 2003; Pauly and Palomares, 2005; Pauly, 2009). Evidence
indicates that many of the world’s major fisheries are being pushed beyond sustainable yields by excessive fishing
pressure and overstressed by loss of critical habitat through pollution, natural and man-made disasters, and the
emerging specter of the impacts of global climate change (Mora et al., 2009; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO],
2009a; FAO, 2009b). Expansion of capture fishery supplies for a fish-hungry world is deemed unlikely by most scientists,
and aquaculture1 is widely viewed as one solution (albeit a partial solution) to increase global seafood availability to
meet the inevitable growth in demand from an expanding population (FAO, 2009b).
Despite these awakening realizations and the potentially highly disruptive impacts on the American seafood industry,
U.S. domestic aquaculture development in recent years has slowed and currently contributes very little to American
seafood consumption. U.S. scientists, government policy makers, and a diverse array of stakeholders (proponents and
opponents) continue to debate the desirability of investing in expanding domestic sources of seafood through marine
aquaculture and aquaculture-enhanced fisheries in the face of the complex economic and social challenges facing
America today (U.S. Department of Commerce [USDOC], 2007).
In this unsettling climate, it is timely to consider the recent history and current status of American seafood
consumption and supply and review projected product needs and the issues in meeting those needs in the next 10 to
20 years. The growing importance of the culture of macroalgae (seaweed) and microalgae to future world seafood and
energy supplies must be noted; however, these sources are not primary topics in this discussion (Forster, 2008; Roesijadi
et al., 2008). Fortunately, the United States has a diverse and experienced domestic fishing industry and a fledgling
marine aquaculture sector on which to craft solutions. Ongoing discussions by the federal government and Congress are
also reviewed in the context of America’s expansive ocean resources in its enormous Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The
major issues constraining the greater ocean use for expanded and sustainable2 domestic seafood production are
discussed, and recommendations for immediate action are considered.
31
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: Ocean Alt Causes / Decline Inevitable
Overfishing is the root cause of ocean decline --- undermines resilience
Rader, 14 --- Environmental Defense Fund's chief ocean scientist (2/26/2014, Douglas, “Trending: Concern for ocean
health and the resources to help,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/02/26/trending-concern-ocean-health-and-resourceshelp, JMP)
Last week, a CBS news story highlighting a 2006 study on the decline of oceans' health, was rediscovered and began
trending on Facebook. With the study back in the spotlight, I was delighted to join lead author Dr. Boris Worm on HuffPo
Live to discuss the study’s findings and solutions for improving the state of our oceans.
While great strides have been made in the eight years since the study was written, overall oceans' health continues to
decline . Globally, nearly two-thirds of fisheries are in trouble with pollution, overfishing, and habitat loss all
continuing to pose a very real threat to oceans and their resilience in the face of new threats, including climate
change and ocean acidification.
Overfishing: The root cause of oceans decline
During our talk, Dr. Worm and I discussed these issues and took a deeper dive into the root cause of oceans decline—
overfishing . The world’s population is rising steadily and is estimated to reach about 8 billion people by 2024 and 9
billion by 2040. As the population increases, so too does the world’s appetite for seafood. As a result, fish are taken out
of the ocean faster than they can reproduce. This can cause obvious problems up to and including extinction of
especially vulnerable species (thus the catchy but grim headline on the HuffPo story, “Scientists Predict Salt-Water Fish
Extinction”).
Frankly, extinction is not the biggest problem. Overfishing reduces the abundance of vulnerable species, but it also
alters ecosystem structure and function , as other species react to the reduced abundance through what ecologists
call “ecological cascades.” Valuable large fish that help maintain stable ocean ecosystems can be replaced by more
opportunistic, “weedy” species. Under severe fishing pressure, the ability of marine food webs to sustain themselves
can be compromised – a real problem with the challenges that lie ahead from climate change.
When our oceans suffer, we do too. Overfishing affects the three billion people around the world who rely on seafood as
a source of protein and millions more that depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods. Furthermore, poor
management costs the world’s fisheries $50 billion annually.
32
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Overfishing is the greatest threat to global marine ecosystems
Levitt, 13 (3/27/2013, Tom, “Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the brink of catastrophic collapse,”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change/index.html, JMP)
(CNN) -- As the human footprint has spread, the remaining wildernesses on our planet have retreated. However, dive
just a few meters below the ocean surface and you will enter a world where humans very rarely venture.
In many ways, it is the forgotten world on Earth. A ridiculous thought when you consider that oceans make up 90% of
the living volume of the planet and are home to more than one million species, ranging from the largest animal on the
planet -- the blue whale -- to one of the weirdest -- the blobfish.
Remoteness, however, has not left the oceans and their inhabitants unaffected by humans, with overfishing, climate
change and pollution destabilizing marine environments across the world .
Many marine scientists consider overfishing to be the greatest of these threats. The Census of Marine Life, a decadelong international survey of ocean life completed in 2010, estimated that 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the
world's oceans, victims primarily of overfishing.
Tens of thousands of bluefin tuna were caught every year in the North Sea in the 1930s and 1940s. Today, they have
disappeared across the seas of Northern Europe. Halibut has suffered a similar fate, largely vanishing from the North
Atlantic in the 19th century.
Opinion: Probing the ocean's undiscovered depths
In some cases, the collapse has spread to entire fisheries. The remaining fishing trawlers in the Irish Sea, for example,
bring back nothing more than prawns and scallops, says marine biologist Callum Roberts, from the UK's York University.
"Is a smear of protein the sort of marine environment we want or need? No, we need one with a variety of species, that
is going to be more resistant to the conditions we can expect from climate change," Roberts said.
33
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Solving Overfishing Boosts Economy
Sustainable marine environment is key to global economy
Sielen, 8 --- career senior executive at the EPA (Winter 2008, Alan B., The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, “An Oceans
Manifesto: The Present Global Crisis,” http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/People/Faculty_and_Researchers/sielen/Sielen.pdf, JMP)
As nations and citizens consider their interests in the oceans, it is important to cultivate a better understanding of the
large-scale economic effects of coastal and marine ecosystems on regional, national, and local economies. The
economic stakes in the oceans are especially high in much of the developing world, where fish and other marine
resources play a large part in meeting basic human needs, including food and income. On a global scale, the world’s
terrestrial and marine ecosystems provide at least $33 trillion annually in services. The benefits from ecosystems
include food, water, timber, livelihoods, recreation, and cultural values, among many others—almost two thirds of
which is contributed by marine systems. 7 The idea that a healthy and sustainable marine environment is an essential
ingredient in the large economic engine of the world must be better understood and conveyed.
34
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Oceans key to economy --- more important than the farm sector
Adams, 14 --- Oceans Advocate at National Resource Defense Council
(3/25/2014, Alexandra, “A Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking care of our oceans,”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html, JMP)
This past year was a tough year - from deep sequester cuts to a government shutdown. Our oceans definitely felt the
budget crunch. After much excruciating negotiation, Congress finally passed a budget and now we are on the road to
what we hope will be a saner way to govern and plan.
The President has just released his budget for Fiscal Year 2015. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) budget can mean the difference between thriving oceans and coastal communities, or the decline in this
invaluable public resource. This year’s budget signals that we will invest in protecting that resource, but by no means
provides all that will be needed for the big job ahead. With half of Americans living in coastal areas, NOAA’s work means
protecting our citizens and our natural resources. Moreover, with a national ocean economy that is larger than the
entire U.S. farm sector in terms of jobs and economic output, keeping this economic powerhouse functioning matters
to us all.
35
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Overfishing undermines the economy --- it’s the biggest threat to the Ocean
Strauss, 14 --- research coordinator at the Environmental Defense Fund (4/2/2014, Kent, “Report: Overfishing bad for
fish, but worse for the economy,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/04/02/report-overfishing-bad-fish-worse-economy)
It’s undeniable that oceans are important to people and the environment. Covering nearly three-quarters of our planet,
oceans produce the air we breathe, house the fish we eat and provide us with many of the products we use on a daily
basis. And importantly, the oceans play a huge role in creating employment opportunities and sustaining coastal
economies.
According to a new report from the National Ocean Economics Program for the Center for the Blue Economy, the
oceans economy comprised more than 2.7 million jobs and contributed more than $258 billion to the GDP of the
United States in 2010. If you aren’t impressed with those numbers, let’s think in different terms. If the ocean economy
were a part of the U nited S tates of America, it would be the 25th largest state by employment and the 20th largest
state by GDP—about the same size as Colorado.
The oceans economy supports employment almost two and a half times larger than other natural resources industries
like farming, mining, and forest harvesting. Approximately 5.4 million jobs in 2010 were directly and indirectly
supported by the ocean with their total contribution estimated at $633 billion which is 4.4% of the United States’ GDP.
Increasingly, with disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and several tsunamis across Asia, the U nited S tates and
countries across the world are beginning to place more emphasis on just how significant oceans’ health is to the
economy. And with more than a billion jobs around the world supported by oceans economies, it’s no surprise that the
momentum around maintaining a healthy ocean is building speed. Much of that focus has been on ways to solve
overfishing— the most urgent threat to the health of the oceans and the single biggest cause of depleted fisheries
worldwide.
Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with scientists, NGO representatives and government officials from around
the world, to discuss solutions to overfishing, with particular emphasis on empowering and supporting small-scale
fishermen in developing countries. During these meetings, I shared the resources my team at EDF has developed to help
fishermen design sustainable fishery management programs and I talked about our Fish Forever initiative, EDF’s
partnership with Rare and the Sustainable Fisheries Group at the University of California at Santa Barbara to restore
small-scale coastal fisheries.
Perhaps the best part of the trip was just having the opportunity to sit down with like-minded individuals to “geek out”
about the ways to effectively manage small-scale fisheries, keep our oceans resilient and protect those who rely on
them.
Healthy and abundant oceans create stronger coastal economies. As momentum grows to bring the oceans health in
line with sustainability principles, we must continue to be vigilant about the numerous demands and pressures placed
upon the oceans' natural resources.
36
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Rebuilding fisheries will boost the U.S. economy
Conathan & Kroh, 12 --- Director of Ocean Policy and Associate Director for Ocean Communications at the Center for
American Progress (6/27/2012, Michael Conathan and Kiley Kroh, “The Foundations of a Blue Economy; CAP Launches
New Project Promoting Sustainable Ocean Industries,”
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/06/27/11794/the-foundations-of-a-blue-economy/, JMP)
Sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries
Fishing is perhaps the first vocation that comes to mind when considering ocean and coastal economic activity. Fish brought the earliest European
settlers to the Americas—before gold or trade routes or colonization became the targets of future exploration.
Today, most Americans still connect to the ocean through fish, whether they are among the nation’s 12 million recreational anglers or simply enjoy
an occasional Filet-O-Fish sandwich.
We also have better data for the fishing industry than many other ocean industries. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or NOAA, which manages our nation’s commercial and recreational fisheries in the oceans and Great Lakes, “fish
processing, restaurants, grocery stores, sales of tackle and gas, icehouses, and a multitude of other businesses are
involved with the seafood and fishing supply chain, generating $183 billion per year to the U.S. economy and more
than 1.5 million full- and part-time jobs.”
While much of today’s fishing news is doom and gloom—preponderance of overfishing, reports that oceans will be nothing but jellyfish by
midcentury, and scary predictions of species collapse for everything from the majestic bluefin tuna to the lowly menhaden—there is actually ample
reason for optimism. Sustainability is taking hold with consumers, regulators, and industry members alike.
We have ended deliberate overfishing in the United States, and the NOAA’s most recent “Status of Stocks” report to Congress showed a record
number of domestic fish populations rebuilt to sustainable levels. In addition, consumer-driven initiatives have led many major retailers to change
their buying habits and exclude unsustainably-caught seafood from their shelves.
Establishing long-term, sustainable fisheries will be tremendously beneficial to both our environment and our
economy. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2011, NOAA
Administrator Jane Lubchenco estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish populations to sustainable levels could generate
“an additional $31 billion in sales impacts, support an additional 500,000 jobs and increase the revenue fishermen
receive at the dock by $2.2 billion … more than a 50 percent increase from the current annual dockside revenues”
(emphasis in original).
Meanwhile, U.S. seafood consumption has dipped slightly, down from 16 pounds per person in 2008 to 15.8 pounds in
2009, while global seafood consumption has doubled in the last 40 years. At the same time, the percentage of fish we
import has skyrocketed. Today, roughly 85 percent of the fish we eat is caught, grown, or processed in other countries.
The U.S. trade deficit in seafood products is a staggering $9 billion, ranking second among natural resources only to
crude oil.
This is bad news not just for our economy but for the environment as well. The United States is home to some of the
most sustainably managed fisheries on the planet. Each fish we buy from a country with less stringent standards not
only takes a bite out of American fishermen’s bottom lines, but also contributes to the decline of global fisheries .
Aquaculture, or fish farming, is increasingly playing a greater role in putting fish on our plates. Fully half the fish imported in 2010 was a farmed
product. Given the escalating dietary needs of a booming world population, aquaculture will have to be a part of the future of fish. Yet aquaculture,
which can be carried out either in the ocean or at land-based fresh or salt water facilities, comes with its own set of environmental concerns,
including high concentrations of waste, the need to catch wild fish to feed farmed fish, and potential for corruption of wild populations’ gene pools.
But in this sector, too, the United States has far more stringent environmental and human health regulations than virtually any of our trade
partners.
Given the clear differences between domestic and imported seafood in terms of sustainability, product quality, and local sourcing, consumer
education and market forces can provide a springboard for increasing the value of U.S.-caught fish. This will return more dollars to our fishermen
and allow them to make a living without increasing their harvest and compromising the future availability of a finite yet renewable natural
resource.
Rebuilt fisheries will pay dividends for recreational fishermen and local economies as well. Anglers spent $18 billion
on equipment and for-hire vessels in 2006 alone, according to the NOAA’s most recent figures. These contributions
rippled through coastal economies , ultimately contributing $49 billion and creating nearly 400,000 jobs.
37
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: Economic Decline Doesn’t Cause War
Economic decline triggers worldwide conflict
Royal, 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, (Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic
Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods
of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflic t. Political science literature has contributed a
moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic,
dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding
that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody
transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of
miscalculation
(Fearon. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to
challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict
among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a
dyadic level, Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future
expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain
pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the
expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood
for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its
own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level.
Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between
internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each
other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. & Weerapana. 2004). which has the capacity
to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. 'Diversionary theory' suggests that,
when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate
external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1990, DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find
supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from
office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has
provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in
the U nited S tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force . In summary, recent
economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and
armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic
interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence
instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered
ancillary to those views.
38
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Economic decline undercuts interdependence and triggers nuclear conflict
Kemp ’10 [Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to
the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East
Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East,
p. 233-4]
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The
world economic
situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates,
further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to
a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs
and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic
extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the
democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of
nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly . Iran, always worried about an
extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes
its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle
East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for
nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oilproducing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like
impact on stability . In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the
planet’s population.
39
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Solvency
40
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: Governement Won’t Change
Our appeal for a more democratic decision making process for environmental issues can make it a
reality. Our appeal generates environmental accountability.
Eckersley, Senior Lecturer - Political Science at the University of Melbourne, 2004
[ROBYN, THE GREEN STATE: RETHINKING DEMOCRACY AND SOVEREIGNTY, APRIL, p14-5]
The overall argument that I offer is that it is too hasty to assume that the social structures of international anarchy, global capitalism, and the liberal democratic state
are necessarily anti-ecological and mutually reinforcing, or that they foreclose the possibility of any progressive¶ transformation of states as governance structures.
The key to such transformation lies in deepening the democratic accountability and responsiveness of states to their
citizens’ environmental concerns while also extending democratic accountability to the environmental concerns of
transnational civil society, intergovernmental organizations and the society of states in general. By these means, the anti-ecological
behavioral dynamics that are generated by the social structures of international anarchy, global capitalism and administrative hierarchy can be
reversed.¶ One does not have to search very far to find historical examples of how environmentally destructive
dynamics can be qualified, restrained, or otherwise moderated by state and nonstate agents “acting back” upon social
structures. Here I single out three mutually informing developments that have served to moderate and, in some cases, transform the respective “logics” of
international anarchy, capitalism, and administrative hierarchy:
41
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: All Talk, No Action
The Precautionary Principle provides representation for the environment in the legal system,
providing a voice for those that cannot be present.
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]¶ It is easy and commonplace for commentators to criticize the
precautionary principle as an aspiration without content, or as a feel-good “‘sound bite’ rather than a principle rooted
in law.”123 But these criticisms fail to recognize the important shift in perspective that the precautionary principle
exemplifies. It was not long ago that environmentalists were on the outside looking in, trying to warn governments
and international organizations of the dangers facing our fragile ecosystems. But now these warnings—and the
caution required to protect our depleted natural resources—are incorporated in international and national¶
decisionmaking at the outset. How exactly these cautions translate into action varies with each problem, and we are still experimenting with the assessments
and evaluations needed to¶ ensure that changes are introduced with the required prudence. But it is still highly significant that in less than two decades, the
perspective of our global community has changed from allowing developments to proceed automatically to requiring careful evaluation before the green light is
given. At its core, the precautionary principle means that decisionmakers “must take precautionary measures (or avoid certain conduct and projects) when there is an
expectation¶ that a relevant activity may create adverse environmental interference, even in¶ the absence of conclusive evidence displaying a relationship between
cause and alleged effects.”124 It requires “an anticipatory response . . . in situations of uncertainty¶ where a violation has not yet occurred and no harm has been
done, but where a strong risk of such a violation exists.”125 With time and experience, the details of the precautionary principle will come into clearer focus. But
already it has transformed the process of decisionmaking, by recognizing the validity of environmental concerns and
by requiring some level of clarity and certainty before risky activities are begun.
42
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
The precautionary principle allows values to be injected into the decision making process. Without
making our values explicit the oceans will continue to be less important than short term economic
gains.
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June
2002, 210-219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
In the preface to Pandora’s Poison: Chlorine, Health, and a New Environmental Strategy, Joe Thornton (2000) made this declaration: No analyst of policy can
be truly objective, because the process of weighing options for social action always filters the findings of science
through a set of political and ethical assumptions and values. With that in mind, I have tried to do two things: to make explicit the ethical and
political views that undergird my own evaluation of the science and to be as fair as possible in my presentation of the scientific evidence.¶ I cover what I believe to be
the most important information relevant to the case I am making and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, but I do not claim balance or objectivity, because these
are neither appropriate nor possible in this kind of effort. (p. ix) Hugo Alroe and Erik Kristensen (in press) described the need for scientists to recognize the value
system within which they work and to observe and describe it as objectively as, and alongside, the research itself:¶ An overall distinction between the system and its
environment needs to be made— the system has to be identified as an object of observation. This first movement also involves the determination, or at least
presumption, of certain goals and values upon which the choices and delimitations that need to be made in planning and initiating research, can be made. The
ensuing observations are thus based on these value-laden choices. The precautionary principle has many practical uses and applications. But both its instinctive
appeal and the sharp criticism it evokes have less to do with practicalities and more to do with the fact that it brings values to the forefront of discussion. Invoking
the precautionary principle is an acknowledgement that policy choices are value laden, and it is an explicit
endorsement of certain values. The precautionary principle embodies certain values; it exposes the contradictory
values that currently govern decision-making processes; it can be effective only if certain values are allowed to enter
into the decision-making process. Moreover, the principle may be most effective if specific values, in the form of
goals, are allowed
43
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Policy Paralysis
The Precautionary Principle allows decisions to be made in the context of uncertainty and the
inability to know. This creates a new way of looking at the world that allows for the acceptance of
doubt and fear, but does not paralyze us with inaction.
Ewald, Director of Research and Strategy, Federation Francaise des Societes
d'Assurances., 2000
(Francois, “Risk in contemporary society”, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6 Conn. Ins. L.J. 47, 1999/2000, Hein
Online)
Precaution starts when the decision (necessary) must be made by reason of and in the context of a scientific
uncertainty. Decisions are therefore made not in a context of certainty, nor even of available knowledge, but of
doubt, suspicion, premonition, foreboding, defiance, mistrust, fear, and anxiety. There is to some extent a risk beyond
risk, of which we do not have, nor cannot have, the knowledge or the measure. The hypothesis of the risk of
development is found within the limit of this new figure of prudence. We have seen, in fact, that, once we are aware
of the existence of the risk of development, we can no longer plead for the industry to put in circulation a product
offering total quality, since, by hypothesis, the notion affirms that this is not possible. Precaution finds its condition of
possibility in a sort of hiatus and time-shift between the requirements of action and the certainty of knowledge. It
enters into a new modality of the relationship between knowledge and power. The age of precaution is an age which
reformulates the Cartesian demand for the necessity of a methodical doubt. Precaution results from an ethic of the
necessary decision in a context of uncertainty. The appearance of the precautionary principle is one of the signs of the
profound philosophical and sociological transformations which characterize this end of century.
44
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Implementing the precautionary principle just changes the risk calculation for making a decision.
The principle allows for choices that minimize risk, eliminating risk is not neccesary.
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
"Precaution calls for zero risk, which is impossible to achieve." ¶ Response: Any debate over the possibility of "zero risk" is pointless. Our real goal
must be to impose far less risk and harm on the environment and on human health than we have in the past. We must harness
human ingenuity to reduce the harmful effects of our activities.¶ The real question is who or what gets the benefit of the doubt. The
Precautionary Principle is based on the assumption that people have the right to know as much as possible about
risks they are taking on, in exchange for what benefits, and to make choices accordingly. With food and other products, such
choices are often played out in the marketplace. Increasingly, manufacturers are choosing to reduce risk themselves by substituting safer alternatives in response to
consumer uneasiness, the threat of liability and market pressures.¶ A
key to making those choices is transparency -- about what products contain,
is support, by government and industry, for the exploration of -and rigorous research on -- alternatives.¶ Market and voluntary action is not enough, especially on issues that go
beyond individual and corporate choice. It is the responsibility of communities, governments, and international
bodies to make far-reaching decisions that greatly reduce the risks we now impose on the earth and all its
inhabitants.
and about the testing and monitoring of those ingredients. Another
45
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: Case Offense
46
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Harms Science
The Precautionary Principle is pro-science for three reasons:
a) it encourages more research to minimize uncertainty
b) waiting for scientific certainty is a dangerous standard that uses the environment
laboratory
c) Risk assessment is a failed standard and must be replaced
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
as a
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
1) Those who advocate precaution urge action on the basis of vague fears, regardless of whether there is scientific evidence to support
their fears.¶ Most statements of the Precautionary Principle say it applies when there is reason to believe serious or irreversible harm
may occur. Those reasons are based on scientific evidence of various kinds: studies, observations, precedents, experience, professional judgment. They are based on what
we know about how processes work and might be affected by a technology.¶ However, precautionary decisions also take into account what we know we
do not know. The more we know, scientifically, the greater will be our ability to prevent disasters based on ignorance.
But we must be much more cautious than we have been in the past about moving forward in ignorance.¶ 2) Taking action in advance of scientific certainty undermines science.¶ Scientific standards of
certainty are high in experimental science or for accepting or refuting a hypothesis, and well they should be. Waiting to take action before a
substance or technology is proven harmful, or even until plausible cause-and-effect relationships can be established,
may mean allowing irreversible harm to occur -- deaths, extinctions, poisoning, and the like. Humans and the
environment become the unwitting testing grounds for these technologies. This is no longer acceptable. Moreover, science should
serve society, not vice versa. Any decision to take action -- before or after scientific proof -- is a decision of society, not science.¶ 3) Quantitative risk assessment is more scientific than other kinds of evaluation.¶ Risk
assessment is only one evaluation method and provides only partial answers. It does not take into account many
unknowns and seldom accounts for complex interactions -- nor does it raise our sights to better alternatives.
47
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Science must be understood within a system of values that society holds otherwise we cannot know
what actions to take with the information that science reveals to us. Form
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June
2002, 210-219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
What is the significance of this impulse to talk about values, and what does the precautionary principle have to do with it? Talking openly about values is a relatively recent development in
the established environmental
movement, which has long been accustomed to “leaving values at the door,” often under
explicit instruction from agency officials and industry representatives, and confining discussions to “the facts” or “science” or “sound
science.Ӧ One of the scientists at the Leavenworth gathering said that although the precautionary principle is seen by some as antiscience, in his view, it is not
about science at all. “The judgments we make are value laden. It gives us a framework in which to interpret science.”
This response is similar to a refrain that has appeared in some recent writing on science and advocacy: State your values up front, because decisions and
developments in science and technology are based first of all on values and only secondarily on scientific and
technological fact and process per se.¶ With regard to decisions about public issues, expertise in terms of skill, knowledge, or
experience is often less important than basic questions of values. Is abortion wrong? Is it moral to deny medical care to a child whose parents have no
health insurance? Should murderers be put to death? Is it acceptable to perform medical experiments on human beings without their consent? There are no scientific answers to these
In addressing these questions, finding
knowledgeable experts is actually less important than finding experts who share our values. (Rampton & Stauber, 2001, p. 297-8)
questions, or thousands more like them. They can only be answered by asking ourselves what we believe and what we value.
48
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Innovation
The precautionary principle will trigger innovations for cleaner technology.
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
"If precaution applies to everything, it would stop all technology in its tracks."
Response: Precautionary action usually means adopting safer alternatives. A broad precautionary approach will
encourage the development of better technologies. Using this approach, society will say "yes" to some technologies
while it says "no" to others. Making uncertainty explicit, considering alternatives, and increasing transparency and the
responsibility of proponents and manufacturers to demonstrate safety should lead to cleaner products and
production methods. It can also mean imposing a moratorium while further research is conducted, calling for monitoring
of technologies and products already in use, and so forth.
49
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Research funded by efforts to comply with the precautionary principle will lead to many new
innovations.
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
"Precaution itself is risky: it will prevent us from adopting technologies that are actually safer." ¶ Response: This is not true. Precaution
suggests two
approaches to new technology:¶ Greater vigilance about possible harmful side effects of all innovations. Alternatives to
harmful technologies (such as genetic modification to reduce pesticide use) must be scrutinized as carefully as the technologies they replace. It does not make
sense to replace one set of harms with another. Brand-new technologies must receive much greater scrutiny than they have in the past.¶
Redirection of research and ingenuity toward inherently safer, more harmonious, more sustainable technologies,
products, and processes.
50
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
AT: GMO Trade-Off Turn
51
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Precautionary Principle prevents development
Employing the precautionary principle does not sacrifice developing countries- it’s a false choice
driven by faulty cost-benefit analysis.
White, assistant professor of Sociology at James Madison University, 2004
(Damian, "Environmental Sociology and Its Futures", Sociology, April 1, No. 2, Vol. 38)
It is the underlying assumptions, then, of positivism, neoclassical economics and technological determinism/optimism
which ultimately provide the interpretive framework for this study. This is most
striking when cost-benefit analysis is used in concluding chapters as an 'objective' and 'non-political' means of
demonstrating that our environmental concerns are misdirected. Thus we are warned of the danger of
environmentalists convincing us to spend more public money on environmental policy rather than on 'hospitals, child
care etc.' and later Third World development. Once again, we are drawn back to the question of 'facts' and how facts
are framed. Are our options really so fixed as to merely amount to a choicebetween clean air or kindergartens? Is the
low priority presently given to development aid by OECD nations plausibly explained by their excessive and rampant
spending on the environment? In this neatly constructed (and of course nonpolitical) series of choices that Lomborg
offers, no mention is made of OECD or US military spending, corporate subsidies, tax breaks for the wealthy and so
on. Rather odd omissions for a self-declared 'old left wing Greenpeace member' (p. xix).
52
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Impacts
Starvation is caused by poor distribution of food, not lack of production.
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM , HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 2006
(10 Reasons to Rethink 'Overpopulation', popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf)
Global food production has consistently kept pace with population growth, and today world agriculture produces 17%
more calories per person than it did 30 years ago . There is enough food for every man, woman and child to have
more than the recommended daily calorie intake. People go hungry because they do not have the land on which to
grow food or the money with which to buy it. In Brazil, one percent of the land owners control almost half of the
country's arable land, and more land is owned by multinational corporations than all the peasants combined. Globally,
more than 1.2 billion people earn less than $1 per day, making it difficult to afford enough food to feed a family. Many
governments have failed to make food security a priority. In 2002, when at least 320 million people in India were
suffering from hunger, the government tripled its rice and wheat exports. The U.S. is the largest food producer in the
world, yet more than one in ten American households are either experiencing hunger or are at the risk of it.
53
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Poverty is created by corrupt economic and political systems not the number of people who need
to be fed.
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM , HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 2006
(10 Reasons to Rethink 'Overpopulation', popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf)
A narrow focus on human numbers obscures the way different economic and political systems operate to perpetuate
poverty and inequality . It places the blame on the people with the least amount of resources and power rather than
on corrupt governments and economic and political elites. It ignores the legacy of colonialism and the continuing
unequal relationship between rich and poor countries , including unfavorable terms of trade and the debt burden. It
says nothing about the concentration of much wealth in a few hands. In the late 1990s, the 225 people who comprise
the 'ultra-rich' had a combined wealth of over US $1 trillion, equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the
world's people.
54
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to Genetically Modified Crops prevent starvation
Genetically modified plants are worse for crop productivity and provides diminishing returns --yields have been unproven in practice
Lean, Environment Editor, The Independent, 2008
(Geoffrey, “Exposed: the great GM crops myth”, The Independent, 4-20http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth812179.html?service=Print)
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated
claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis. The study –
carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per
cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields. Professor Barney Gordon, of
the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who
had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal
conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'" He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost
identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one. The
GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification
hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather
than surpassing it. The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less
than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available. The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it
takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US
But the fact that GM crops did worse than
their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of
modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.
55
Precautionary Principle Affirmative
Answers to: Disadvantages
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Value current deaths over future
The negative relies on a utilitarian decision making style that will trap the Earth in a system which
makes planetary destruction inevitable.
Plumwood, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, 2002
[Valerie, Environmental Culture: The ecological crisis of reason, PG. 150-51]
Singer's Minimalism is also a political position urging minimal departure from prevailing liberal,
Humanistic and Enlightenment assumptions and from the present system of economic rationality. 14 But surely an
ecological society will require more than minimal departures from these systems, none of which have been innocent
bystanders in the development of the rational machinery which is bringing the stripping of the planet for the benefit
of a small elite of humans to a high point of rational refinement. Singer's Utilitarianism reproduces many elements of
rationalism including the adoption of universal, abstract mathematically-expressible formulae for decision, in the best
universalist/ impersonalist tradition. Also in the rationalist tradition is the content of the Utilitarian formula, with its
maximisations (always damaging), illusory precision, its intellectualist reduction of ethics to a matter of rational
calculation and quantification, and its corresponding reduction of the important dimensions of decision to aspects of
life supposedly susceptible to these rational manipulations. And as we have seen, awareness, the chief ground of ethical
consideration, is one, but only one, possible variation on reason or mind, although one that modernism can tie to
preferences and hence to agency and property ownership. The most serious objection to my mind however is that any
ecological or animal ethics based on Singer's Utilitarianism is committed to a massive program of ranking,
quantification and comparison between beings and species — a program which, as I argue in the next chapter, is
unworkable, ethically repugnant, and built on a problematic reading of equality. Theoretically, ranking comparisons and
tradeoffs between beings are insisted upon by Utilitarianism at virtually every level his emphasis on ranking does not
encourage the kind of thinking that aims for mutual, negotiated outcomes, but rather ones that sanction a sacrificial
order determined on the basis of greater approximations to the human.
56