OSEA NEG
Case
Pharmaceuticals Advantage
Other
Turn: Pharmaceuticals cause death for ocean species
Benson 12 [John, staff writer for Natural News, “Pharmaceutical waste runoff causing shrimp, other marine life to commit suicide”Natural News, February 9, 2012, http://www.naturalnews.com/034918_pharmaceutical_runoff_shrimp_suicide.html#, LS]
(NaturalNews) First humans, then dogs, now shrimp? Though crustaceans are not actually taking antidepressant drugs because of a
prescription, research out of the University of Portsmouth in the U.K. has found that
that of antidepressant drugs like Prozac,
pharmaceutical waste runoff, and particularly
is causing shrimp and other exposed crustaceans to change their
behavior in ways that are causing many more of them than usual to die off.
According to the study,
exposed to antidepressants from waste runoff are five times more likely to swim
shrimp
towards light, which means
they are far more likely to encounter fishermen's nets and birds that are hungry for a meal. While they would normally stay in more
protected areas, these drug-induced sea creatures are basically committing suicide by gravitating
towards situations that end up
resulting in their early demise. "Crustaceans are crucial to the food chain. And if shrimps' natural
behavior is being changed because of antidepressant levels in the sea, this could seriously upset the
natural balance of the ecosystem," said Alex Ford, lead researcher of the study, in a press release. "Much of what humans
consume you can detect in the water in some concentration. It's no surprise that what we get from the pharmacy will also be contaminating
the country's waterways." Back in 2008, it was discovered that the water supplies of 24 major metropolitan cities in the U.S. were
contaminated with drug residues, even after having been filtered using typical treatment methods. Included in the mix were anti-seizure and
anti-inflammatory medications, painkillers, caffeine, and antidepressants. Even earlier than that,
a 2004 study conducted in the U.K.
found that both sewage and drinking water supplies were riddled with pharmaceutical waste runoff. The
filtering technology used at most water treatment plants is not capable of capturing drug residues, which end up flushing untold levels of
drug residue mixtures into rivers, streams, and ultimately the world's oceans. Most wastewater treatment plants do not even test for
pharmaceuticals, in fact, because it is typically not a requirement under local and state laws. And while the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) at least now admits that drugs are persistent in water supplies, the agency insists there is no evidence they cause human
harm. Numerous scientific studies, including the shrimp study, however, indicate otherwise.
Current technology is not enough for ocean trench organisms
White 14 [Jon, Writer for NewScientist, “Antibiotic abyss: The extreme quest for new medicines”- Therapeutic Reviews (insight on
biopharmaceuticals business), January 27, 2014, http://therapeuticreviews.com/antibiotic-abyss-the-extreme-quest-for-new-medicines/,
LS]
But
would trench organisms also contain possible new medicines? Early hints came when Jaspars collaborated with
Bull on chemicals isolated from a different cluster of Mariana trench microbes. Dermacoccus abyssi, an actinobacterium hauled from the
seabed by a Japanese remotely operated submarine, produces dermacozines, a never-before-seen family of biochemicals that are showing
promise against the parasite that causes sleeping sickness (International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, vol 56, p
1233).The Peru-Chile trench, says Jaspars, should hold a similar population of novel bacteria – and no one has ever looked for them.
"Only two or three samples have ever been taken there," he says. But bacteria weren't on the shopping list of those collectors: that project
was after worms and other small organisms. "What they found was pretty unusual and different," Jaspars says. "So we have good
evidence that that will be the case for us." Jaspars had his work cut out for him. After all,
these trenches have remained
unexplored for good reason – it's been all but impossible to reach them. So with £9.5 million in funding from the
European Union to begin his bold project – dubbed PharmaSea – Jaspars got to work. He assembled his partners carefully: spanning 13
countries and comprising 25 institutions and commercial groups, they would be an all-star team. Chile was chosen for its access to the
trench; other partners for their expertise. British salvage firm Deep Tek have created a novel combination of rope and winch that, its
designers hope, will eliminate the need for specialist scientific ships and thereby cut sampling costs by a factor of 10. But there's one final
obstacle that won't be so easily negotiated.
For the creatures that call this hostile terrain home, our temperate
environment is every bit as deadly as their home is to us. Tracy Mincer, also at Woods Hole, points out that many are
likely to be piezophiles –
pressure-sensitive organisms that need a crushing environment to thrive. These
deep-water bacteria may not survive their journey to the surface. A handful of sophisticated high-pressure
chambers allow researchers to grow small quantities of these extremophiles, but such equipment is
rare and tricky to use.
1NC
Ocean exploration for medical use non-unique
Palmer 14 [Brian, writer for the Washington Post, “Deep sea creatures shed light on the future of medical imaging” –April 1, 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/01/neurobiology-atlantic-ocean-bioluminescent-medical-imaging, LS]
In July, a team of scientists organised by
the American Museum of Natural History will dive 300 metres below the Atlantic
Ocean's surface about 160km off the coast of New England. Among their goals: to
find bioluminescent creatures – such as
the dinoflagellates that make their own light, causing the ocean to glow – that they hope will offer clues for creating
the next generation of medical imaging. The right combination of molecules – a protein that can make light and
another compound to serve as the light's fuel –
may allow us to map brain activity to a new level of detail. This
advance may someday give quadriplegics new ways to interact with the world. Though it seems futuristic, the back
story for this line of research began 50 years ago. In the early 1960s, a Japanese marine biologist named Osamu Shimomura isolated a
protein from the crystal jellyfish. When blue light is shined on the creature, this protein absorbs it, changes its wavelength and emits a green
light. It is called green fluorescent protein, or GFP. "That single protein literally changed the course of biology," says Vincent Pieribone, a
neurobiologist at Yale. It also won Shimomura a share of the2008 Nobel Prize in biochemistry. Most of the structures inside a cell are clear,
which makes observation a challenge. Biologists eventually realized that they could attach GFP to virtually anything inside a cell, then shine
a blue light on it to observe its movements and activities. In the 1990s, geneticists spliced the jellyfish's GFP gene into mice and other lab
creatures, essentially turning their bodies into living museums.
They could express the protein in their muscle cells,
brain cells or other organs. By shining the right wavelength of light on to the animal, scientists could
watch cancer spread or the immune system fight viruses. For all its incredible applications, GFP has a major
shortcoming: it needs an external light source. Blue light doesn't penetrate far, so we have trouble seeing deep into a complex organ. The
inner workings of a mammalian brain, for example, are nearly impossible to observe using GFP, because it's too difficult to shine a light in
there. In addition, hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells, absorbs blue light differently depending on how much oxygen
is present. This complicates the delivery of the blue light and the detection of green light from the cells. We need a method that enables us
to work in darkness. If only there were creatures that emitted their own light. You've probably seen one such creature in your own backyard,
as night begins to fall in summer: the firefly. Lampyridae is, indeed, one of the few terrestrial creatures capable of producing its own light.
As with fluorescent animals, bioluminescent creatures rely on a protein to shine their lights, so it's appealing to think that we could just
extract the protein and attach it to proteins in mammalian cells. But there's an extra piece involved in bioluminescence that makes it a more
complex process. "The chemical reaction has two parts," Pieribone explains. "The protein is the engine. But it requires fuel – a small
molecule that is produced by the animal and burned." It's easy enough to insert the firefly's protein into other animal cells, or even to force
other animals to manufacture it, but researchers haven't been able to get the fuel source in place. None of the fuel molecules used in
known bioluminescent creatures can be produced in the cells of a mouse, dog or primate. What we need instead is a bioluminescent
creature that relies on a fuel that's already present in mammalian cells. Glucose and adenosine triphosphate, for example, are high-energy
molecules in ample supply in mammals. The medical applications of a bioluminescent compound are potentially enormous. With them we
may see, for example, how electrical impulses translate into muscular actions. Using a machine that can interface with those signals, a
quadriplegic could merely think about picking up a fork, and a robotic arm would execute the command. That's where July's deep-diving
expedition comes in. A team of scientists will each don diving gear called an exosuit, which looks something like a costume piece from a
superhero movie. Its pressure-resistant body and finely tuned joints permit a person to descend to 300 meters and still move smoothly. It is
equipped with thrusters on the feet and specialized hand attachments that can grasp interesting objects or collect specimens with a vacuum
device. Researchers on the surface can see what the diver sees through the four cameras mounted on the suit. Do they have any reason to
believe that they'll find a glucose-powered bioluminescent creature lurking off the Atlantic coast? Not exactly, says Pieribone, but that's
exploration. "It's a bit of a fishing expedition, but we have our hooks in a really rich pool," he notes. "Let's get into a genetically rich
environment and observe with our eyes."
Ocean Disease
Ocean floor contains deadly bacteria
National Academies Report, 07 (advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and the
medicine, Oceans and Human Health, Nation Academies Press, 2007,
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/Oceans-Human-Health.pdf, LF)
Unfortunately, quorum sensing in other types of bacteria are also responsible for many of the diseases that
plague humankind. They cause cholera and food poisoning, and infiltrate the lungs of children with
cystic fibrosis. When disease-causing bacteria reach a quorum they form slimy, adhesive biofilms and
produce toxins, repelling immune responses and making people sick.
Waterborne diseases will have a big toll on health of scientists.
National Academies Report, 07 (advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and the
medicine, Oceans and Human Health, Nation Academies Press, 2007,
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/Oceans-Human-Health.pdf, LF)
The
ocean is home to several types of disease-causing viruses and bacteria (pathogens). These
waterborne diseases can either originates in the ocean or originate on land but be transmitted through
seawater. Like the public health threats posed by harmful algal blooms, the threats of waterborne diseases can be
reduced.
Bacteria in water dangerous and unable to use in medicine
Murray 11 [Rheana, editor and reporter for the New York Daily Times, “Surging bacteria in increasingly warm ocean waters could
spread dangerous diseases” –NY Daily News, September 13, 2011, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/surging-bacteriaincreasingly-warm-ocean-waters-spread-dangerous-diseases-article-1.952736, LS]
Warm water at the beach is a swimmer's delight - but it could also lead to a tidal wave of illnesses and other calamities, a new study says.
The ever-warming temperatures
of ocean waters are giving rise to a proliferation of a type of harmful
bacteria that can produce a host of medical problems and illnesses - including cholera. The bacteria, which
are of the Vibrio genus, can also cause food poisoning, gastroenteritis and septicemia, according to a paper released in BrusselsTuesday
by Project CLAMER, a collaboration of marine institutes.
The bacteria is transmitted through contaminated water and
can be carried by several marine creatures, including crabs or prawns - making eating seafood a
concern. "Millions of euros in health costs may result from human consumption of contaminated seafood, ingestion of waterborne
pathogens, and, to a lesser degree, through direct occupational or recreational exposure to marine disease," the paper said. "Climatic
conditions are playing an increasingly important role in the transmission of these diseases." While the proliferation of the bacteria has been
studied by scientists since the 1960s, it's the recent increasing rate of climatic change that has some experts worried. But the possible
negative effects of warming ocean waters don't end with disease - the higher temperatures can also contribute to melting ice caps,
increased storm intensity, rising sea levels and coastal erosion. The sea itself could also endure acidification and deoxygenation. "The
biggest surprise to me is the fact that things are changing in the ocean much more rapidly than we thought was possible," Carlo Heip,
director of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research, told The Associated Press. A rise in gastroenteritis throughout the Baltic region
in 2006 piqued Heip's interest, but he notes the full extent of dangers posed by warmer waters and bacteria isn't fully known.
STEM Advantage
Aff won’t solve
Interest is not key to STEM education – People are already interested in science
studies prove
Atkinson 13 (Robert D., President of IT and Innovation Foundation in Washington DC, “Why the
Current Education Reform Strategy Won’t Work“, Issues.org, 10/27/13, CTC)
The third myth is that more students would become STEM graduates if they knew how important or
“cool” STEM is. In other words, solving the pipeline problem is a marketing challenge. The National
Science Board’s (NSB’s) National Action Plan 2007 reflected this view when it called for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to
“continue to develop and fund programs that increase public appreciation for and understanding of STEM.”
This view, however,
ignores the fact that U.S. culture is already enthusiastic about science. For example, one survey reported by
the NSB in Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 found that 80% of respondents stated that they were “very” or “moderately” interested
in new scientific discoveries.
military leaders)
Most people hold scientists in very high regard, ranking them second (behind
in terms of public confidence. Overall, the public’s enthusiasm for science rivals (if not exceeds) that of people
in China and South Korea, while far outstripping that of Europeans, Russians, and the Japanese. But that does not deter the “make science
cool” effort, even though it has not been shown to work. In 1994, a survey by the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering
(NACME) found that only 6% of disadvantaged minorities were graduating from high school with the math needed for an engineering or
related degree. The survey also found that
students did not recognize the importance of math as a foundation
for later achievement. To reverse these trends, NACME launched the public service campaign Math is Power, which included
targeted television advertisements emphasizing the importance of math to jobs with higher wages. Four years
later, NACME found in a follow-up survey that “Half
of all students surveyed are aware of the campaign, with a majority
of them familiar with at least one of its key messages and that overall students had more favorable attitudes towards math.”
However,
its impact on behavior was negligible. In fact, students were “less likely to think that the decision to
take math and science classes is an important one. They are also less likely to view math as important for their
careers than they were six years ago.” The results suggest that using mass media to reshape student attitudes may in fact work, but the
changed attitudes do not necessarily translate to changed behaviors.
STEM makes no sense; we are behind countries that don’t have STEM programs; we need to fix
the broader education system
Tucker, 12 (Marc, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, STEM: Why It
Makes No Sense, Education Week, June 19, 2012,
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/06/stem_why_it_makes_no_sense.html,
TS)
Of course you know what STEM stands for: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. It's
an acronym, signifying a program and a national priority. The argument for its centrality is
simple. Our economy is technology-driven. The strength of that economy depends on our ability to
turn out an endless bag full of technological triumphs. Our capacity to fulfill that promise in turn
depends on the skills of our people in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But we
are swiftly falling behind a growing number of other countries with respect to both the quality and
quantity of people with the needed STEM skills. So, inevitably, we place a high priority on the
production of more people with higher quality STEM skills. The logic is ironclad, isn't it? Or is it?
Here is an interesting fact. The countries that are producing more people with higher skills in
mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and science don't have STEM programs. When we
do benchmarking research in those countries, we don't hear their educators talking about STEM
priorities. We don't hear their industrial leaders doing that either. The term is not used. The
programs don't exist.
What is going on here? How come they are doing better at this when we have STEM programs and
they don't? The answer is that they have education systems that work and we don't. When we start
falling behind in an area, we invent a program. When they start falling behind, they ask, What's
wrong with our system? And they fix it. The truth is that "programs" won't work in an arena like
this. The causes of our poor performance in these disciplines run deep. Those causes implicate the
inner workings of our education system. It is not possible to ring fence the STEM subjects from the
system itself, nor is it possible to build a strong secondary school STEM program on a weak
elementary school curriculum. If you try to do that, you will fail. If you think that you can fix the
problems in the STEM subjects without fixing the larger system, you will find that any progress you
make will be limited and even that progress will disappear very quickly as the system reverts to form
as soon as your back is turned. This is not because educators are opposed to your objectives or fail
to share your hopes for their students. It is because they are as much trapped by the system as you
are. We are all in this together.\
alt causes galore!
Charette 13 | Dr. Robert N. Charette is an internationally acknowledged authority and pioneer in risk
management, information systems and technology. He serves as a senior advisor to a wide variety of
international Fortune 100 companies, high tech consortiums, as well as government departments on
the effectiveness, the impacts, and the rewards/risks of their high-technology programs. Robert
Charette is a frequent international lecturer and author. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill books,
The STEM Crisis Is a Myth, 8/30/13, Accessed 6/28/14, CCHS-AY
You must have seen the warning a thousand times: Too few young people study scientific or
technical subjects, businesses can’t find enough workers in those fields, and the country’s
competitive edge is threatened.¶ It pretty much doesn’t matter what country you’re talking about—
the United States is facing this crisis, as is Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Brazil, South
Africa, Singapore, India…the list goes on. In many of these countries, the predicted shortfall of
STEM (short for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workers is supposed to
number in the hundreds of thousands or even the millions. A 2012 report by President Obama’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, for instance, stated that over the next decade, 1
million additional STEM graduates will be needed. In the U.K., the Royal Academy of Engineering
reported last year that the nation will have to graduate 100 000 STEM majors every year until 2020
just to stay even with demand. Germany, meanwhile, is said to have a shortage of about 210 000
workers in what’s known there as the MINT disciplines—mathematics, computer science, natural
sciences, and technology.¶ The situation is so dismal that governments everywhere are now pouring
billions of dollars each year into myriad efforts designed to boost the ranks of STEM workers.
President Obama has called for government and industry to train 10 000 new U.S. engineers every
year as well as 100 000 additional STEM teachers by 2020. And until those new recruits enter the
workforce, tech companies like Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft are lobbying to boost the number of H1B visas—temporary immigration permits for skilled workers—from 65 000 per year to as many as
180 000. The European Union is similarly introducing the new Blue Card visa to bring in skilled
workers from outside the EU. The government of India has said it needs to add 800 new universities,
in part to avoid a shortfall of 1.6 million university-educated engineers by the end of the decade.¶ And
yet, alongside such dire projections, you’ll also find reports suggesting just the opposite—that there
are more STEM workers than suitable jobs. One study found, for example, that wages for U.S.
workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as the Great
Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly
minted grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find employment as many
companies, including Boeing, IBM, and Symantec, continue to lay off thousands of STEM
workers. A Matter of Supply vs. Demand: Every year U.S. schools grant more STEM degrees than
there are available jobs. When you factor in H-1B visa holders, existing STEM degree holders,
and the like, it’s hard to make a case that there’s a STEM labor shortage.¶ To parse the
simultaneous claims of both a shortage and a surplus of STEM workers, we’ll need to delve into the
data behind the debate, how it got going more than a half century ago, and the societal, economic,
and nationalistic biases that have perpetuated it. And what that dissection reveals is that there is
indeed a STEM crisis—just not the one everyone’s been talking about. The real STEM crisis is one
of literacy: the fact that today’s students are not receiving a solid grounding in science, math, and
engineering.¶ In preparing this article, I went through hundreds of reports, articles, and white
papers from the past six decades. There were plenty of data, but there was also an extraordinary
amount of inconsistency. Who exactly is a STEM worker: somebody with a bachelor’s degree or
higher in a STEM discipline? Somebody whose job requires use of a STEM subject? What about
someone who manages STEM workers? And which disciplines and industries fall under the STEM
umbrella?¶ Such definitions obviously affect the counts. For example, in the United States, both the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce track the number of STEM
jobs, but using different metrics. According to Commerce, 7.6 million individuals worked in STEM jobs
in 2010, or about 5.5 percent of the U.S. workforce. That number includes professional and technical
support occupations in the fields of computer science and mathematics, engineering, and life and
physical sciences as well as management. The NSF, by contrast, counts 12.4 million science and
engineering jobs in the United States, including a number of areas that the Commerce Department
excludes, such as health-care workers (4.3 million) and psychologists and social scientists (518
000). Such inconsistencies don’t just create confusion for numbers junkies like me; they also make
rational policy discussions difficult. Depending on your point of view, you can easily cherry-pick data
to bolster your argument.¶ Another surprise was the apparent mismatch between earning a STEM
degree and having a STEM job. Of the 7.6 million STEM workers counted by the Commerce
Department, only 3.3 million possess STEM degrees. Viewed another way, about 15 million U.S.
residents hold at least a bachelor’s degree in a STEM discipline, but three-fourths of them—11.4
million—work outside of STEM.¶ The departure of STEM graduates to other fields starts early. In
2008, the NSF surveyed STEM graduates who’d earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in 2006
and 2007. It found that 2 out of 10 were already working in non-STEM fields. And 10 years after
receiving a STEM degree, 58 percent of STEM graduates had left the field, according to a 2011
study from Georgetown University.¶ The takeaway? At least in the United States, you don’t need a
STEM degree to get a STEM job, and if you do get a degree, you won’t necessarily work in that
field after you graduate. If there is in fact a STEM worker shortage, wouldn’t you expect more people
with STEM degrees to be filling those jobs? And if many STEM jobs can be filled by people who
don’t have STEM degrees, then why the big push to get more students to pursue STEM?¶ Now
consider the projections that suggest a STEM worker shortfall. One of the most cited in recent U.S.
debates comes from the 2011 Georgetown University report mentioned above, by Anthony P.
Carnevale, Nicole Smith, and Michelle Melton of the Center on Education and the Workforce. It
estimated there will be slightly more than 2.4 million STEM job openings in the United States
between 2008 and 2018, with 1.1 million newly created jobs and the rest to replace workers who
retire or move to non-STEM fields; they conclude that there will be roughly 277 000 STEM
vacancies per year.¶ But the Georgetown study did not fully account for the Great Recession. It
projected a downturn in 2009 but then a steady increase in jobs beginning in 2010 and a return to
normal by the year 2018. In fact, though, more than 370 000 science and engineering jobs in the
United States were lost in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.¶ I don’t mean to single
out this study for criticism; it just illustrates the difficulty of accurately predicting STEM demand and
supply even a year or two out, let alone over a prolonged period. Highly competitive science- and
technology-driven industries are volatile, where radical restructurings and boom-and-bust cycles have
been the norm for decades. Many STEM jobs today are also targets for outsourcing or
replacement by automation.¶ The nature of STEM work has also changed dramatically in the past
several decades. In engineering, for instance, your job is no longer linked to a company but to a
funded project. Long-term employment with a single company has been replaced by a series of de
facto temporary positions that can quickly end when a project ends or the market shifts. To be sure,
engineers in the 1950s were sometimes laid off during recessions, but they expected to be hired back
when the economy picked up. That rarely happens today. And unlike in decades past, employers
seldom offer generous education and training benefits to engineers to keep them current, so outof-work engineers find they quickly become technologically obsolete.¶ Any of these factors can
affect both short-term and longer-term demand for STEM workers, as well as for the particular
skills those workers will need. The agencies that track science and engineering employment know
this to be true. Buried in Chapter 3 of a 2012 NSF workforce study, for instance, you’ll find this
caveat: “Projections of employment growth are plagued by uncertain assumptions and are notoriously
difficult to make.”¶ So is there a shortfall of STEM workers or isn’t there?¶ The Georgetown study
estimates that nearly two-thirds of the STEM job openings in the United States, or about 180 000
jobs per year, will require bachelor’s degrees. Now, if you apply the Commerce Department’s
definition of STEM to the NSF’s annual count of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, that
means about 252 000 STEM graduates emerged in 2009. So even if all the STEM openings were
entry-level positions and even if only new STEM bachelor’s holders could compete for them, that still
leaves 70 000 graduates unable to get a job in their chosen field.¶ Of course, the pool of U.S.
STEM workers is much bigger than that: It includes new STEM master’s and Ph.D. graduates (in
2009, around 80 000 and 25 000, respectively), STEM associate degree graduates (about 40
000), H-1B visa holders (more than 50 000), other immigrants and visa holders with STEM
degrees, technical certificate holders, and non-STEM degree recipients looking to find STEM-related
work. And then there’s the vast number of STEM degree holders who graduated in previous years
or decades.¶ Even in the computer and IT industry, the sector that employs the most STEM workers
and is expected to grow the most over the next 5 to 10 years, not everyone who wants a job can find
one. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington,
D.C., found that more than a third of recent computer science graduates aren’t working in their
chosen major; of that group, almost a third say the reason is that there are no jobs available.¶ Spot
shortages for certain STEM specialists do crop up. For instance, the recent explosion in data
analytics has sparked demand for data scientists in health care and retail. But the H-1B visa and
similar immigrant hiring programs are meant to address such shortages. The problem is that students
who are contemplating what field to specialize in can’t assume such shortages will still exist by the
time they emerge from the educational pipeline.¶ What’s perhaps most perplexing about the claim of
a STEM worker shortage is that many studies have directly contradicted it, including reports from
Duke University, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Rand
Corp. A 2004 Rand study, for example, stated that there was no evidence “that such shortages have
existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon.Ӧ That report argued that the best
indicator of a shortfall would be a widespread rise in salaries throughout the STEM community. But
the price of labor has not risen, as you would expect it to do if STEM workers were scarce. In
computing and IT, wages have generally been stagnant for the past decade, according to the EPI and
other analyses. And over the past 30 years, according to the Georgetown report, engineers’ and
engineering technicians’ wages have grown the least of all STEM wages and also more slowly than
those in non-STEM fields; while STEM workers as a group have seen wages rise 33 percent and
non-STEM workers’ wages rose by 23 percent, engineering salaries grew by just 18 percent. The
situation is even more grim for those who get a Ph.D. in science, math, or engineering. The
Georgetown study states it succinctly: “At the highest levels of educational attainment, STEM
wages are not competitive.Ӧ Given all of the above, it is difficult to make a case that there has
been, is, or will soon be a STEM labor shortage. “If there was really a STEM labor market crisis,
you’d be seeing very different behaviors from companies,” notes Ron Hira, an associate professor of
public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, in New York state. “You wouldn’t see
companies cutting their retirement contributions, or hiring new workers and giving them worse benefits
packages. Instead you would see signing bonuses, you’d see wage increases. You would see these
companies really training their incumbent workers.”¶ “None of those things are observable,” Hira says.
“In fact, they’re operating in the opposite way.”¶ So why the persistent anxiety that a STEM crisis
exists? Michael S. Teitelbaum, a Wertheim Fellow at Harvard Law School and a senior advisor to the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, has studied the phenomenon, and he says that in the United States the
anxiety dates back to World War II. Ever since then it has tended to run in cycles that he calls “alarm,
boom, and bust.” He says the cycle usually starts when “someone or some group sounds the alarm
that there is a critical crisis of insufficient numbers of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians”
and as a result the country “is in jeopardy of either a national security risk or of falling behind
economically.” In the 1950s, he notes, Americans worried that the Soviet Union was producing 95
000 scientists and engineers a year while the United States was producing only about 57 000. In
the 1980s, it was the perceived Japanese economic juggernaut that was the threat, and now it is
China and India.¶ You’ll hear similar arguments made elsewhere. In India, the director general of
the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Vijay Kumar Saraswat, recently noted that in
his country, “a meagre four persons out of every 1000 are choosing S&T or research, as compared
to 110 in Japan, 76 in Germany and Israel, 55 in USA, 46 in Korea and 8 in China.” Leaders in
South Africa and Brazil cite similar statistics to show how they are likewise falling behind in the STEM
race.¶ “The government responds either with money [for research] or, more recently, with visas to
increase the number of STEM workers,” Teitelbaum says. “This continues for a number of years until
the claims of a shortage turn out not to be true and a bust ensues.” Students who graduate during the
bust, he says, are shocked to discover that “they can’t find jobs, or they find jobs but not stable
ones.”¶ At the moment, we’re in the alarm-heading-toward-boom part of the cycle. According to a
recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government spends more than US
$3 billion each year on 209 STEM-related initiatives overseen by 13 federal agencies. That’s
about $100 for every U.S. student beyond primary school. In addition, major corporations are
collectively spending millions to support STEM educational programs. And every U.S. state, along
with a host of public and private universities, high schools, middle schools, and even primary schools,
has its own STEM initiatives. The result is that many people’s fortunes are now tied to the STEM
crisis, real or manufactured.¶ Clearly, powerful forces must be at work to perpetuate the cycle. One is
obvious: the bottom line. Companies would rather not pay STEM professionals high salaries with
lavish benefits, offer them training on the job, or guarantee them decades of stable employment.
So having an oversupply of workers, whether domestically educated or imported, is to their
benefit. It gives employers a larger pool from which they can pick the “best and the brightest,” and it
helps keep wages in check. No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the
Federal Reserve, said as much when in 2007 he advocated boosting the number of skilled
immigrants entering the United States so as to “suppress” the wages of their U.S. counterparts, which
he considered too high. Governments also push the STEM myth because an abundance of scientists
and engineers is widely viewed as an important engine for innovation and also for national defense.
And the perception of a STEM crisis benefits higher education, says Ron Hira, because as
“taxpayers subsidize more STEM education, that works in the interest of the universities” by
allowing them to expand their enrollments.¶ An oversupply of STEM workers may also have a
beneficial effect on the economy, says Georgetown’s Nicole Smith, one of the coauthors of the 2011
STEM study. If STEM graduates can’t find traditional STEM jobs, she says, “they will end up in other
sectors of the economy and be productive.Ӧ The problem with proclaiming a STEM shortage when
one doesn’t exist is that such claims can actually create a shortage down the road, Teitelbaum says.
When previous STEM cycles hit their “bust” phase, up-and-coming students took note and steered
clear of those fields, as happened in computer science after the dot-com bubble burst in 2001.¶
Emphasizing STEM at the expense of other disciplines carries other risks. Without a good grounding
in the arts, literature, and history, STEM students narrow their worldview—and their career options. In
a 2011 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Norman Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed
Martin, argued that point. “In my position as CEO of a firm employing over 80 000 engineers, I can
testify that most were excellent engineers,” he wrote. “But the factor that most distinguished those
who advanced in the organization was the ability to think broadly and read and write clearly.Ӧ A
broader view, I and many others would argue, is that everyone needs a solid grounding in science,
engineering, and math. In that sense, there is indeed a shortage—a STEM knowledge shortage. To
fill that shortage, you don’t necessarily need a college or university degree in a STEM discipline, but
you do need to learn those subjects, and learn them well, from childhood until you head off to college
or get a job. Improving everyone’s STEM skills would clearly be good for the workforce and for
people’s employment prospects, for public policy debates, and for everyday tasks like balancing
checkbooks and calculating risks. And, of course, when science, math, and engineering are taught
well, they engage students’ intellectual curiosity about the world and how it works.¶ Many children
born today are likely to live to be 100 and to have not just one distinct career but two or three by the
time they retire at 80. Rather than spending our scarce resources on ending a mythical STEM
shortage, we should figure out how to make all children literate in the sciences, technology, and the
arts to give them the best foundation to pursue a career and then transition to new ones. And instead
of continuing our current global obsession with STEM shortages, industry and government should
focus on creating more STEM jobs that are enduring and satisfying as well.¶
De facto SURPLUS of workers
Lee 5/20 | Tony Lee is a journalist for Breitbart, STUDY FINDS NO SHORTAGE OF HIGH-TECH
WORKERS IN U.S., 5/20/2014, Accessed 6/28/14, CCHS-AY
Despite the clamor that there is a perpetual shortage of American high-tech workers, the number
of foreign workers with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) degrees that the
United States imports annually alone exceeds the number of available STEM jobs, making it
tougher for Americans to move up the economic ladder by getting good-paying jobs in those
professions.¶ A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report released on Tuesday ahead of a panel
on the subject at the National Press Club found that from 2007-2012, STEM employment
averaged "averaged only 105,000 jobs annually" while the U.S. admitted about 129,000
immigrants with STEM degrees. That means "the number of new immigrants with STEM degrees
admitted each year is by itself higher than the total growth in STEM employment." During that time
period, the number of U.S.-born STEM graduates grew by an average of 115,00 a year. ¶ Authors
Steven Camarota, CIS's director of research, and Karen Ziegler, a CIS demographer, wrote that these
numbers are "truly extraordinary" and "it should not be surprising that most STEM graduates
(immigrant or native) do not have STEM jobs."¶ The report, titled, Is There a STEM Worker
Shortage? A look at employment and wages in science, technology, engineering, and math, is
consistent with research from Georgetown University, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the Rand
Corporation, the Urban Institute, and the National Research Council that have also found no evidence
that America has a shortage of high-tech workers. And its findings concluded that America "has more
than twice as many workers with STEM degrees as there are STEM jobs." When combined with
slight wage growth in the STEM fields for more than a decade, the authors concluded that "both
employment and wage data indicate there is no shortage of STEM workers in the United
States."¶ "When formulating policy, elected representatives need to consider the actual conditions in
the U.S. labor market, rather than simply responding to pressure from employers in industries that
wish to hire large numbers of foreign STEM graduates," the authors suggest. "While employers may
find this situation desirable, it is difficult to argue this is the interest of American people as a whole."¶
Yet, as Breitbart News has reported, the "Senate's amnesty bill that passed last year would double
and possibly triple the number of high-tech visas" and "House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Bob
Goodlatte's (R-VA) 'SKILLS' Act that passed out of his committee would double the number of H-1B
visas" to import even more foreign workers.¶ Using data from the American Community Survey
(ACS) that the Census Bureau and the Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) collect, Camarota
and Zeigler found that there were 5.3 million immigrant and native-born STEM workers in 2012
compared to 12.1 million STEM degree holders among immigrants and native-born Americans. In
addition, only "a third of native-born Americans with a STEM degree actually has a job in a STEM
occupation" while "at least 5 million native-born Americans with STEM undergraduate degrees are
working in non-STEM occupations." ¶ The authors note that "wage trends are one of the best
measures of labor demand" and, "If STEM workers are in short supply, wages should be
increasing rapidly. Predictably, though, due to the surplus of STEM workers, "wage data from
multiple sources show little growth over the last 12 years," as "real hourly wages adjusted for
inflation grew on average just .7 percent a year from 2000 to 2012 for STEM workers."¶ In
addition, since a "majority of workers in all 48 STEM occupations in 2012 were native-born," there is
enough data to show that STEM jobs are not undesirable jobs that Americans will not do. In fact, the
report found that "STEM graduates earn about 10 percent ($8,754) more in STEM occupations
compared to those employed in non-STEM occupations."¶ The report also found that 1.6 million
people without STEM undergraduate degrees are working in a STEM field, and "the vast majority (85
percent) of those working in STEM occupations without STEM degrees are native-born." They note
that though the ACS does not note what graduate degrees people have, "the overwhelming majority
of non-STEM degree holders who work in STEM jobs do not have graduate degrees."¶ "This
indicates that allowing in large numbers of immigrants who seek STEM employment may create
competition for natives who themselves do not have STEM degrees, but who can do such work
nonetheless," the authors write.¶ On a conference call of scholars that Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-AL)
office organized last Friday, Ron Hira, an H-1B expert and public policy professor at Rutgers, said
that the IT sector, for instance, has traditionally been "an area of social mobility." And Americans
without STEM degrees often have become proficient in IT jobs.¶ "You've got people who come
from working-class backgrounds who go into these sectors," Hira said, as Breitbart News reported.
"It's a way of getting into the middle class and the professional class, and that's being cut off." ¶ The
authors also noted that when there is a shortage in a STEM field -- like petroleum engineering -wages predictably have gone up. For instance, real annual wages for petroleum engineers "with
only an undergraduate degree were $46,000 higher in 2012 than 2000 — 14 times the $3,300
increase for all engineers with only undergraduate degrees" and "nearly $51,00" higher between
2000 and 2012 for those with graduate degrees.¶ "This is a clear indication that increases in
demand can drive up earnings in a STEM occupation," the authors note.¶ Wages in the STEM fields,
though, have remained stagnant, and the authors quote former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan, who testified that America's "skilled wages are higher than anywhere in the world" and,
"if we open up a significant window for skilled guest workers, that would suppress the skilled-wage
level and end the concentration of income."¶ Egged on by the millions the Chamber of Commerce
and high-tech lobbies like Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us have spent, Congress
has ensured that STEM wages have been suppressed, according to Camarota and Ziegler. But the
high-tech industry still perpetuates the myth of a high-tech workers shortage and wants even more H-
1B visas. ¶ Michael Teitelbaum, a senior research associate at Harvard Law School whose new book,
Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent, recently observed that "such
claims are now well established as conventional wisdom" and "there is almost no debate in the
mainstream."¶ "They echo from corporate CEO to corporate CEO, from lobbyist to lobbyist, from
editorial writer to editorial writer," he wrote. "But what if what everyone knows is wrong? What if this
conventional wisdom is just the same claims ricocheting in an echo chamber?"¶ The evidence
shows that the conventional wisdom is terribly wrong. ¶ “No one has been able to find any
evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science
and engineering occupations that require bachelor’s degrees or higher," Teitelbaum concluded.¶
The Rand study cited by authors also found "no evidence that such shortages have existed at least
since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon.Ӧ Steve Goodman of Bright Media, whom the authors
also cite, is one of the few people in the tech-industry who conceded that the numbers disprove
Silicon Valley's conventional wisdom about the shortage of high-tech workers.¶ “We’re Silicon Valley
people, we just assumed the shortage was true," he said, "It turns out there is a little Silicon Valley
groupthink going on about this, though it’s not comfortable to say that."¶ Camarota and Ziegler, the
study's authors, present the uncomfortable numbers and emphasize that "the dramatic increases in
STEM immigration called for by employers and many in Congress would seem to be out of step with
the absorption capacity of the STEM labor market." They observe that "Congress is almost certainly
holding down wage growth and reducing the incentive for native-born Americans to undertake the
challenging course work that is often necessary for STEM careers."¶ "The data indicate that the
supply of STEM workers vastly exceeds the number of STEM jobs, and there has been only
modest wage growth in these professions," they conclude. "This reality should inform and shape
public policy moving forward."
There is no shortage of jobs in the STEM fields – all studies conclude neg
Teitelbaum 3/19 | Michael S. Teitelbaum is a senior research associate with the Labor and Worklife
Program at Harvard Law School. He is the author of Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global
Race for Scientific Talent, The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage, 6/19/14,
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-andengineering-shortage/284359/, Accessed 6/27/14, CCHS-AY
Everyone knows that the United States has long suffered from widespread shortages in its science
and engineering workforce, and that if continued these shortages will cause it to fall behind its major
economic competitors. Everyone knows that these workforce shortages are due mainly to the myriad
weaknesses of American K-12 education in science and mathematics, which international
comparisons of student performance rank as average at best.¶ Such claims are now well established
as conventional wisdom. There is almost no debate in the mainstream. They echo from corporate
CEO to corporate CEO, from lobbyist to lobbyist, from editorial writer to editorial writer. But what if
what everyone knows is wrong? What if this conventional wisdom is just the same claims ricocheting
in an echo chamber?¶ The truth is that there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread
shortages in the U.S. science and engineering workforce. How can the conventional wisdom be so
different from the empirical evidence? There are of course many complexities involved that cannot be
addressed here. The key points, though, are these:¶ Science and engineering occupations are at
the leading edge of economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world, and science
and engineering workforces of sufficient size and quality are essential for any 21st century economy
to prosper. These professional workforces also are crucial for addressing challenges such as
international security, global climate change, and domestic and global health. While they therefore are
of great importance, college graduates employed in science and engineering occupations (as
defined by the National Science Foundation) actually comprise only a small fraction of the
workforce.¶ Some of the largest and most heavily financed scientific fields are among those with the
least attractive career prospects.¶ A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading
academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of
Economic Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute. No one has been able to find
any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in
science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher, although some are
forecasting high growth in occupations that require post-high school training but not a bachelors
degree. All have concluded that U.S. higher education produces far more science and
engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is
whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more. Were there to be a genuine shortage at present,
there would be evidence of employers raising wage offers to attract the scientists and engineers they
want. But the evidence points in the other direction: Most studies report that real wages in many—
but not all—science and engineering occupations have been flat or slow-growing, and
unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations. ¶ Because labor
markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields, industries, and time periods, it is easy
to cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in specific years and
locations. But generalizing from these cases to the whole of U.S. science and engineering is perilous.
Employment in small but expanding areas of information technology such as social media may be
booming, while other larger occupations languish or are increasingly moved offshore. It is true that
high-skilled professional occupations almost always experience unemployment rates far lower than
those for the rest of the U.S. workforce, but unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher
than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses, and
surprisingly high unemployment rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious
“shortages” such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science (7.8 percent) and information
systems (11.7 percent). ¶ Over time, new technologies, price changes, or sharp shifts in the labor
market can create rapid rises in demand in a particular occupation. When that happens, the evidence
shows that the market seems to adjust reasonably well. Entire occupations that were previously
unattractive and declining, such as petroleum engineering in the 1980s and 1990s, have rather
suddenly become attractive and high-paid—due to increased energy prices and new technologies for
domestic extraction of oil and gas. Others, such as those linked to manufacturing and construction—
industries in which well over half of all engineers are employed—have declined over the same period.
Surprisingly, some of the largest and most heavily financed scientific fields, such as biomedical
research, are among those with the least attractive career prospects, as a recent blue-ribbon advisory
committee reported to the Director of the National Institutes of Health. Biomedical Ph.D.s are
unusually lengthy and often require additional years of postdoctoral training, yet after completion
those with such degrees experience labor market demand and remuneration that are relatively low.¶
Labor markets for scientists and engineers also differ geographically. Employer demand is far higher
in a few hothouse metropolitan areas than in the rest of the country, especially during boom periods.
Moreover recruitment of domestic professionals to these regions may be more difficult than in others
when would-be hires discover that the remuneration employers are offering does not come close to
compensating for far higher housing and other costs. According to the most recent data from the
National Association of Realtors, Silicon Valley (metro San Jose) has the highest median house
prices in the country, at $775,000—nearly four times higher than the national median.¶ Far from
offering expanding attractive career opportunities, it seems that many, but not all, science and
engineering careers are headed in the opposite direction: unstable careers, slow-growing wages, and
high risk of jobs moving offshore or being filled by temporary workers from abroad. Recent science
Ph.D.s often need to undertake three or more additional years in low-paid and temporary
“postdoctoral” positions, but even then only a minority have realistic prospects of landing a coveted
tenure-track academic position.¶ Among college-educated information technology workers under age
30, temporary workers from abroad constitute a large majority. Even in electrical and electronic
engineering—an occupation that is right at the heart of high-tech innovation but that also has been
heavily outsourced abroad—U.S. employment in 2013 declined to about 300,000, down 35,000 and
over 10 percent, from 2012, and down from about 385,000 in 2002. Unemployment rates for
electrical engineers rose to a surprisingly high 4.8 percent in 2013.¶ Claims of workforce shortages in
science and engineering are hardly new. Indeed there have been no fewer than five “rounds” of
“alarm/boom/bust” cycles since World War II. Each lasted about 10 to 15 years, and was initiated by
alarms of “shortages,” followed by policies to increase the supply of scientists and engineers.
Unfortunately most were followed by painful busts—mass layoffs, hiring freezes, and funding cuts that
inflicted severe damage to careers of both mature professionals and the booming numbers of
emerging graduates, while also discouraging new entrants to these fields. ¶ Round one from the
decade immediately following World War II, waning a decade later.¶ Round two following the Sputnik
launches in 1957 but waning sharply by the late 1960s, leading to a bust of serious magnitude in the
1970s.¶ Round three from the 1980s Reagan defense buildup, alarming Federal reports such as “A
Nation at Risk” (1983), and new Federal funding for the “war on cancer.” Most of these had waned
by the late 1980s, contributing to an ensuing bust in the early 1990s.¶ Round four from the mid1990s, driven by concurrent booms in several high-tech industries (e.g. information technology,
internet, telecommunications, biotech), followed by concurrent busts beginning around 2001.¶ Round
five from the rapid doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget between 1998 and 2003,
followed by a bust when subsequent funding flattened. ¶ Each of these rounds was accompanied by
excessive claims, and a notable lack of credible evidence. Rounds one through three were motivated
by existential Cold War concerns, with advocates focused on expanding the numbers of US students
pursuing higher education and careers in science and engineering. As I discovered while researching
my book, during rounds four and five, after Cold War security concerns had waned, shortage
claimants focused on visa policies that enabled U.S. employers and universities to recruit large
numbers of temporary workers and graduate students from countries (especially China and India) that
had rapid growth in science and engineering graduates but much lower income levels.¶ One thing we
might reasonably conclude is that over the past six decades there has been no shortage of shortage
claims. But what about the present and foreseeable future? ¶ Since 2005 a series of influential
reports have been produced by respected organizations and individuals, once again pointing to
alarming current (or more commonly “looming”) shortages due to failing K-12 education. Three such
reports were published in 2005 alone, by the Council on Competitiveness, by a special committee
appointed by the National Research Council, and by a group of 15 business and technology
organizations. Were these the opening salvos of the “alarm” stage of another 10-15 year cycle of
alarm/boom/bust, the sixth such cycle since World War II? A deep recession with high
unemployment has intervened, and in any case we would not be able to know for sure until another 5
or more years have passed.¶ These publications report correctly that the average performance of
American K-12 students is middling in international testing. These data also show that this average
performance results from large numbers of both high-performing and low-performing US students.
The average national scores reflect both ends of the scale, yet there continues to be a large pool of
top science and math students in the U.S. OECD data on “high-performing” students suggests that
the U.S. produces about 33 percent of the world total in this category in the sciences, though only
about 14 percent in mathematics.¶ Related Story¶ Why the S in STEM Is Overrated¶ No one should
conclude from this that American K-12 science and math education does not need major
improvement. Emphatically to the contrary: Every high school graduate should be competent in
science and mathematics—essential to success in almost any 21st century occupation and to
informed citizenship as well. But there is a big disconnect between this broad educational imperative
and the numerically limited scope of the science and engineering workforce. ¶ Editorial writers in
respected publications continue to assert that American student interest in these fields is low and
declining. Yet according to a recent report from ACT, the college admissions testing service, “student
interest in STEM [Science,Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] is high overall,” characteristic of
some 48 percent of high school graduates tested in 2013. American high-school students are
taking more math and science courses than ever before. Meanwhile UCLA’s respected annual
surveys of entering college freshmen show that over the past several years nearly 40 percent have
been reporting intentions to major in a STEM subject, not only a large fraction but also a substantial
increase from past decades—this percentage was about 32 to 33 percent from 1995 to 2007.¶
Some of these students do change their minds and complete their degrees in different fields, but
others shift into science and engineering majors. As noted earlier, the outcome is that the numbers of
science and engineering graduates is at least double those being hired into such occupations each
year. ¶ The evidence all points to high levels of student interest, high-performance levels among
the students most likely to pursue majors and careers in science and engineering, and large
numbers of graduates in these fields.¶ Ironically the vigorous claims of shortages concern
occupations in science and engineering, yet manage to ignore or reject most of the science-based
evidence on the subject. The repeated past cycles of “alarm/boom/bust” have misallocated public
and private resources by periodically expanding higher education in science and engineering beyond
levels for which there were attractive career opportunities. In so doing they produced large unintended
costs for those talented students who devoted many years of advanced education to prepare for
careers that turned out to be unattractive by the time they graduated, or who later experienced
massive layoffs in mid-career with few prospects to be rehired.¶ Recent forecasts of looming
shortages of scientists and engineers may prove to be self-fulfilling prophecies if they result in further
declines in the attractiveness of science and engineering careers for talented American students.
STEM jobs are skyrocketing at a 20% growth – their authors don’t reflect the self-employed
SC 12 | STEM Connector (With an innovative product-line, STEMconnector® works closely with
corporations and other organizations to provide them with a set of tools and resources that support
their corporate development, corporate structure and smart STEM investments), Where are the STEM
Students?, https://www.stemconnector.org/sites/default/files/store/STEM-Students-STEM-JobsExecutive-Summary.pdf, published in 2012, Accessed 6/27/14, CCHS-AY
The overall US. Science & Technology (S&T) Workforce exceeded 7.4 million workers in 2012
and it will continue to grow significantly through 2018, to an estimated 8,654,000‘ STEM workers.
'This number (8.65 does not reflect people¶ who are “self-employed" in STEM fields. ll “sellemployed" IS mcluded. the number 0/ people employed In STEM fields in 2012 IS 14.9 million.¶
and IS pro/ected to reach 15.68 by 2018.¶ Science & Engineering occupations are projected to
grow¶ at more than double the rate (20.6%) of the overall US. labor force (10.1%) through 2018.
These projections do not include occupations for which STEM degree holders use their STEM
skills but are not considered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be “strictly defined" STEM
occupations. The total also includes individuals with STEM degrees as well as more than 1 million
individuals with technical expertise and skillsspecific training who may not have formal STEM
degrees.¶ By 2018, the bulk of STEM jobs will be in Computing (71%) followed by Traditional
Engineering (16%), Physical Sciences (7%), Life Sciences (4%) and Mathematics (2%). The
breakdown of computing jobs is shown in the schematic below:
Nazi turn
Astore 13 | Dr. W.J. Astore, Ph.D. in the history of science and technology and former engineer in
the Air Force, has published several books, STEM Education Is Not Enough, 12/9/13,
http://contraryperspective.com/2013/12/09/stem-education-is-not-enough/, Accessed 6/27/14,
CCHS-AY
If you’re in education, you’ve heard the acronym STEM. It stands for science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. As a country, the USA is behind in STEM, so there are lots of calls
(and lots of federal money available) for improvements in STEM. Usually the stated agenda is
competitiveness. If the US wants to compete with China, Japan, Europe, India, and other
economies, our students must do better in science and math, else our economy will atrophy.¶ Here’s
a sample rationale that can stand in for hundreds of others: “International comparisons place the U.S.
in the middle of the [STEM] pack globally,” said Debbie Myers, general manager of Discovery
Communications. And for corporate managers like Myers, that’s not good enough when
competition in the global market is both endless and the means to the end, the end being profit.¶
I’m all for STEM. I got my BS in mechanical engineering and worked as an engineer in the Air Force.
I love science and got my master’s and Ph.D. in the history of science and technology. I love science
fiction and movies/documentaries that explore the natural world around us.¶ And that’s one thing that
bugs me about all this emphasis on STEM. It’s not about curiosity and fun; it’s not even about
creativity. STEM is almost always pushed in the US in terms of market competitiveness. STEM, in
other words, is just another commodity tied to profit in the marketplace.¶ My other bugaboo is our
educational establishment’s focus on STEM to the exclusion of the humanities. At the same time
as the humanities are undervalued, STEM is reduced to a set of skills as mediated and measured
by standardized tests. Can you solve that equation? Can you calculate that coefficient of friction?
Can you troubleshoot that server? Results, man. Give me results.¶ Sir Peter Medawar, a great
medical researcher and a fine writer on science, spoke of scientific discovery as an act of creation
akin to poetry and other so-called liberal arts. Nowadays, we simply don’t hear such views being
aired in US discourse. STEM as an act of creation? As a joyful pursuit? Bah, humbug. Give me
results. Give me market share. Make me Number One.¶ If we as a nation want to encourage STEM,
we should be focusing not on rubrics and metrics and scores. We should instead be focusing on the
joy of learning about nature and the natural world. How we model it, manipulate it, understand it, and
honor it by preserving it. STEM, in other words, must be infused with, not divorced from, the
humanities. Why? Because STEM is a human pursuit.¶ As we pursue STEM, we should also honor
our human past, a past in which we’ve learned a lot about ethics, morality, and humane values.
The problem is that STEM education in the US is often present- and future-focused, with little time for
the past.¶ In American society, those with respect for old ways and traditional values are often
dismissed as Luddites or tolerated as quaint misfits (like the Amish). After all, Luddites aren’t
competitive. And Amish quilts and buggies won’t return America to preeminence in science and
technology. The US as a nation has nothing to gain from them. Right?¶ Here’s the problem. We
connect STEM to material prosperity. We dismiss those who question all this feverish attention to
STEM as anti-science or hopelessly old-fashioned. But there’s a lot we can from the humanities
about ourselves and our world.¶ To cite just one example: Consider this passage from Jacob
Burckhardt, a great historian writing during the industrial revolution of the late 19th-century:¶ material
wealth and refinement of living conditions are no guarantee against barbarism. The social classes that
have benefited from this kind of progress are often, under a veneer of luxury, crude and vulgar in the
extreme, and those whom it has left untouched even more so. Besides, progress brings with it the
exploitation and exhaustion of the earth’s surface, as well as the increase and consequent
proletarianization of the urban population, in short, everything that leads inevitably to decline, to the
condition in which the world casts about for ‘refreshment’ from the yet untapped powers of Nature,
that is, for a new ‘primitiveness’ – or barbarism.”¶ What a party-pooper he was, right? Most of what
the US defines as STEM is about “material wealth” and “refinement of living conditions,” the very
definition of “progress,” at least for those out to make a buck off of it.¶ Burckhardt was warning us
that “progress” tied to STEM had its drawbacks, to include the exhaustion of the earth’s
resources as well as the exploitation of human labor. Divorced from ethics and morality, STEM
was likely to lead to “primitiveness,” a new barbarism.¶ Tragically, Burckhardt was right. Consider
the industrialized mass murder of two world wars. Consider the “scientific” mass murder committed
by the Nazis. (By the way, the Nazis were great at STEM , valuing it highly.)¶ In a democracy,
STEM divorced from the humanities is not “competitive,” unless your idea of competition is
barbaric. Disconnected from humane values, a narrow education in STEM will serve mainly to
widen the gap between the 1% and the rest of us while continuing to stretch the earth’s resources
to the breaking point.¶ Education in STEM, in short, is not enough. But you won’t learn that by
listening to corporate CEOs or presidents prattle on about competitiveness.¶ For that wisdom, you
need to study the humanities.
Doesn’t solve Competitivenss
Impacts inevitable—STEM won’t solve competitiveness
Charette 12 | Dr. Robert N. Charette is an internationally acknowledged authority and pioneer in risk
management, information systems and technology. He serves as a senior advisor to a wide variety of
international Fortune 100 companies, high tech consortiums, as well as government departments on
the effectiveness, the impacts, and the rewards/risks of their high-technology programs. Robert
Charette is a frequent international lecturer and author. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill books,
STEM Education Funding in the U.S. - Is More or Less Needed?, 6/8/2012, Accessed 6/28/14,
CCHS-AY
Do we really know whether we have too few or too many STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics) students to meet the future innovation and competitive needs of the US? That was
one of the questions being addressed at a STEM conference on measures for innovation and
competitiveness that I attended this week in Washington, D.C. It was sponsored by several industry
associations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and IEEE
USA. ¶ Since the 2007 publication of the influential National Science Foundation report, "Rising
Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,"
which examined the “erosion” of the “U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and
technology” and which stated that a “coordinated federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S.
competitiveness and pre-eminence in these areas,” there has been a bi-partisan consensus that the
way to reverse said erosion is to increase both the number of STEM graduates as well as STEM
knowledge in the general student population, which has been on a relative decline over the past
decade.¶ In response to the increasing concern over the dwindling supply of STEM students, back in
2009 the Obama Administration announced a $260 million government/private industry initiative
called, “Educate to Innovate,” the aim of which was “to move American students to the top of the
pack in science and math achievement over the next decade.Ӧ More recently, the Administration
proposed a new $100 million government/private industry initiative to train 100,000 STEM teachers
and graduate 1 million additional STEM students over the next decade, an very ambitious goal given
that about 167,000 students total graduated with STEM degrees last year.¶ Even as these and
dozens more STEM initiatives have sprung up, there has been a lingering question about how
much STEM professionals contribute to national innovation and competitiveness as well as
whether there truly is a STEM education shortfall, and if so, by how much? Without good answers
to these questions based on concrete data, national policy is formed and scarce national resources
allocated based on anecdotal information which one can only hope provides the correct insights.¶ The
speakers at the STEM workshop dug into these issues and more. For instance, Professor Richard
Freeman from Harvard stated that while everyone generally agrees that “innovation” is critical to
U.S. economic and social progress, there aren’t good definitions of what the term means let alone
how to measure innovation at a national level. As a result, when R&D funding is reduced (as it has
been for quite some time at the federal level in relation to GDP), no one is really sure what the
effects are on future innovation and therefore economic or social progress. Freeman proposed an
approach to define and measure innovation (i.e., an "innovation index") so that when national policy
decisions involving R&D funding are made there is some understanding as to what the end result will
likely end up being.¶ In a similar vein, Professor Nicholas Vonortas from George Washington
University spoke about the disconnect that seems to exist in US manufacturing and the role of
STEM education. He noted that the US manufacturing sector continues to shrink from the size it
once was (although it is still the largest in the world) and what remains increasingly depends on
knowledge-intensive work. Furthermore, there exist high-skilled manufacturing jobs that are going
unfilled and likely will continue to be for some time, as this Washington Post story also noted a few
months back. This is important because in previous U.S. recessions, manufacturing has led the
way out of them. The assumption is that if these jobs go unfulfilled, what’s left of U. S. manufacturing
will not only eventually disappear but the effects of the last recession and the current job stagnation
will linger for a long time; therefore, the argument goes, if only there were more STEM graduates, the
U.S. could at least preserve the manufacturing jobs that exist.¶ However, Vonortas noted that, when
one digs into the data, most of the jobs going begging are apparently for production workers; not
ones that would necessarily require STEM degrees. In addition, manufacturing jobs may go
begging because manufacturing is seen by students and their parents as a poorly paying industry that
doesn’t have a healthy long-term future. Therefore, Vonortas says, there isn’t really any hard
evidence to claim that the lack of STEM students is the problem or that more are the solution to
maintaining U.S. manufacturing. U.S. policy makers may need to look at other avenues than
STEM education to solve U.S. manufacturing issues.¶ One area where STEM students are
needed is in aerospace and especially the defense industry. Edward Swallow from Northrup
Grumman discussed how aerospace and defense (A&D) is the leading employer of STEM
professionals, but it is having a hard time attracting new STEM grads. One reason, similar to
manufacturing, is that STEM graduates look at A&D as a declining industry, which given projected
defense budget cuts, is not an unreasonable perspective. Another is that usually U.S. citizenship
and often a security clearance is required, which reduces those eligible to be employed. A third is
that there are not a lot of exciting new aerospace or defense initiatives that spur the imagination of
young engineers like there once were.¶ Swallow’s company and others in the A&D industry are
pushing hard to increase the total number of STEM students (especially from minority groups and
women) in order to meet their needs. But as another speaker, Professor Ron Hira from Rochester
Institute of Technology pointed out in his talk on the globalization of engineering and its impact, the
US economy has created less than 50,000 new engineering jobs in the past decade. That
lackluster performance can be attributed to both increased global competition and the
outsourcing of engineering and other STEM-related jobs even as 900,000 engineering students
were graduating from colleges and universities. The use of H-1B visas has also negatively
impacted the availability of STEM jobs in the US, Hira argued.¶ All these factors may help explain
why only about half of those graduating with undergraduate STEM degrees actually work in the
STEM-related fields after college, and after 10 years, only some eight percent still do. I should note
that those with STEM degrees do seem to enjoy higher salaries than non-STEM degree co-workers
in any field they so choose, which may be the best reason to get one.¶ By the end of the conference
it was pretty clear that the assumption that a major increase in STEM educational funding is
absolutely required for the US to avert future economic decline is not well tested. Funding may
well be needed, but the current data provide mixed support. I’ll provide a link to the speaker
presentation videos when it appears, but in the meantime, you may want to read the Spectrum article
on jobless innovation that made many of the same points the speakers at the conference did.
Doesn’t solve Econ
Increased STEM won’t solve the economy we only need a small fraction
Atkinson 13 (Robert D., President of IT and Innovation Foundation in Washington DC, “Why the
Current Education Reform Strategy Won’t Work“, Issues.org, 10/27/13, CTC)
The first myth is that in a globalized, technology-driven world, all students needs to learn STEM. In
this view—so widely held that it is virtually never questioned—the economy will be so innovation-based that
everyone, even those who will never become Ph.D. scientists, will need to learn as much STEM
as possible. The reality is quite different. Only about 5% of jobs are STEM jobs, and that share is not
expected to grow significantly.
This is one of the findings that my colleague Merrilea Mayo and I reported in
Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education, issued in December 2010 by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Very few workers actually
need advanced STEM education, and surveys of employers reinforce that. One survey noted in our report found that although
70% of employers rated oral communication skills as very important for high-school graduates,
only 9% rated science skills as
very important. The rate was higher for four-year college graduates, but still only 33% of employers rated
science skills as very important, compared with 90% who rated writing skills as very important.
Saying that the nation should
pour resources into K-12 because everyone needs to know STEM is akin to saying that because
music is important to society, every K-12 student should have access to a Steinway piano and a
Juilliard-trained music teacher. In fact, because very few students become professional musicians, doing this would
be a waste of societal resources. It would be far better to find students interested in music and give them the focused
educational opportunities they need. STEM is no different.
The second myth is that focusing on K-12 will ensure
that enough students graduate from college with STEM degrees. The Some STEM for All view holds that the
best way to increase college STEM graduates is to boost STEM skills in the early years, as argued by many observers and reports,
including the National Academies’ 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future. In this view, it is too late to focus on college, or even high school, for promoting STEM.
This can be described
as the “leaky pipeline” model, in which kids enter the educational flow but drop out through leaks
along the way. Norman R. Augustine, who chaired the committee that produced Rising Above the Gathering Storm, described this
leakage in another 2007 Academies’ report, Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth? “As one might suspect,” he wrote, “there is a great deal
of leakage along that extended educational highway. To begin with, about one-third of U.S. eighth-graders do not receive a high school
diploma. And of those who do, about 40 percent do not go on to college. About half who do begin college do not receive a bachelor’s
degree. Of those who do receive such a degree, two-thirds will not be in science or engineering. And of those who are U.S. citizens and do
receive degrees in either science or engineering, only about 1 in 10 will become candidates for a doctoral degree in those fields. And over
half the doctoral candidates drop out before being awarded a Ph.D.” If the goal is to have every high-school graduate be able and ready to
major in a STEM field in college, then ensuring that the pipeline is completely full by the end of the eighth grade is critical. That is why the
Gathering Storm report so strongly declared that “the U.S. system of public education must lay the foundation for developing a workforce
that is literate in mathematics and science.” As the report continued, “The point is that it takes a lot of third-graders to produce one
contributing research scientist or engineer and a very long time to do it.” In other words, if everyone has an equal probability of taking the
next step to become STEM-educated, then the best way to get more at the end of the pipeline is to put a lot of students in at the beginning.
There are two problems with this logic, however. First, not everyone has an equal probability of getting a graduate STEM degree. At the risk
of violating political correctness, the fact is that being a scientist or engineer requires above-average intelligence. But the nation is not a
huge Lake Wobegon, the fictional community where all the children are above average. Moreover, it is not just intelligence that determines a
student’s likelihood to go into STEM; it is also personality. There is a long tradition of research exploring the link between personality
characteristics and choice of occupation, including STEM occupations. A new study, reported by Scott Andrew Shane in his 2010 book Born
Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders: How Your Genes Affect Your Work Life, has found that the choice of careers in physical science and
engineering was about 70% more influenced by a person’s genetic makeup than were choices in such areas as finance and sales.
Assuming that exposing every student to a lot of high-quality STEM education will make them want and be able to become a scientist or
engineer is simply wishful thinking, just as it would be to assume that every student exposed to high-quality music education and a
requirement to take four years of music in high school will want and be able to become a professional musician. The second problem, as
noted above, is that
the nation does not need everyone to gain a STEM degree. In fact, the current
pipeline produces enough high-school students able to get the needed number of STEM college
degrees. But society currently does a poor job in high school and college of helping those students get all the way to a STEM degree.
To use the pipeline analogy, replacing a malfunctioning valve is likely to be a more effective, and much cheaper, strategy than increasing
the size of a five-mile-long pipe.
STEM degrees don’t correlate with STEM jobs—non STEM can do STEM and STEM can do non
STEM
Charette, 13 (Robert N, Cutter’s Business Technology Strategies, President of ITHABI
Corporation, senior risk advisor to Global 100 CEOs, CFOs and program/project managers, The
STEM Crisis Is a Myth, Spectrum, August 30, 2013, http://spectrum.ieee.org/atwork/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth, TS)
And yet, alongside such dire projections, you’ll also find reports suggesting just the opposite—
that there are more STEM workers than suitable jobs. One study found, for example, that wages for
U.S. workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as the Great
Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly minted
grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find employment as many companies, including
Boeing, IBM, and Symantec, continue to lay off thousands of STEM workers. To parse the
simultaneous claims of both a shortage and a surplus of STEM workers, we’ll need to delve into the
data behind the debate, how it got going more than a half century ago, and the societal, economic,
and nationalistic biases that have perpetuated it. And what that dissection reveals is that there is
indeed a STEM crisis—just not the one everyone’s been talking about. The real STEM crisis is one of
literacy: the fact that today’s students are not receiving a solid grounding in science, math, and
engineering. To parse the simultaneous claims of both a shortage and a surplus of STEM workers,
we’ll need to delve into the data behind the debate, how it got going more than a half century ago,
and the societal, economic, and nationalistic biases that have perpetuated it. And what that dissection
reveals is that there is indeed a STEM crisis—just not the one everyone’s been talking about. The
real STEM crisis is one of literacy: the fact that today’s students are not receiving a solid grounding in
science, math, and engineering. In preparing this article, I went through hundreds of reports, articles,
and white papers from the past six decades. There were plenty of data, but there was also an
extraordinary amount of inconsistency. Who exactly is a STEM worker: somebody with a bachelor’s
degree or higher in a STEM discipline? Somebody whose job requires use of a STEM subject? What
about someone who manages STEM workers? And which disciplines and industries fall under the
STEM umbrella? Such definitions obviously affect the counts. For example, in the United States,
both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce track the number of
STEM jobs, but using different metrics. According to Commerce, 7.6 million individuals worked in
STEM jobs in 2010, or about 5.5 percent of the U.S. workforce. That number includes professional
and technical support occupations in the fields of computer science and mathematics, engineering,
and life and physical sciences as well as management. The NSF, by contrast, counts 12.4 million
science and engineering jobs in the United States, including a number of areas that the Commerce
Department excludes, such as health-care workers (4.3 million) and psychologists and social
scientists (518 000). Such inconsistencies don’t just create confusion for numbers junkies like me;
they also make rational policy discussions difficult. Depending on your point of view, you can easily
cherry-pick data to bolster your argument. Another surprise was the apparent mismatch between
earning a STEM degree and having a STEM job. Of the 7.6 million STEM workers counted by the
Commerce Department, only 3.3 million possess STEM degrees. Viewed another way, about
15 million U.S. residents hold at least a bachelor’s degree in a STEM discipline, but three-fourths of
them—11.4 million—work outside of STEM. The departure of STEM graduates to other fields starts
early. In 2008, the NSF surveyed STEM graduates who’d earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in
2006 and 2007. It found that 2 out of 10 were already working in non-STEM fields. And 10 years
after receiving a STEM degree, 58 percent of STEM graduates had left the field, according to a 2011
study from Georgetown University. The takeaway? At least in the United States, you don’t need a
STEM degree to get a STEM job, and if you do get a degree, you won’t necessarily work in that field
after you graduate. If there is in fact a STEM worker shortage, wouldn’t you expect more people with
STEM degrees to be filling those jobs? And if many STEM jobs can be filled by people who don’t
have STEM degrees, then why the big push to get more students to pursue STEM?
Patriarchy
STEM ignores women and minorities
Sheehy, 12 (Kelsey, qual, STEM Disconnect Leaves Women, Minorities Behind, US News, June
28, 2012, ttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/stem-education/2012/06/28/stem-disconnectleaves-women-minorities-behind, TS)
With 14 million people unemployed but 3 million STEM—science, technology, engineering, and
math—jobs sitting vacant, it's clear there is a disconnect between skill and need, one that can't be
filled solely with white men or engineers from India.. But half of the students currently graduating with
engineering degrees in the United States are white men, while only 18 percent are women and even
fewer are minorities, Betty Shanahan, CEO of the Society of Women Engineers, said Thursday at the
U.S. News Stem Summit 2012.¶ "To be competitive, we can't ignore two thirds of our future
workforce," Shanahan said.¶ "Women drop out of engineering programs with higher average grades
than the men who stay in engineering programs," she added. "In a white male-dominated
environment … they think there's something wrong with them, but there is something wrong with the
environment."¶ To encourage young women and minority students to power through not just high
school but challenging STEM degree fields in college, employers and educators need to let go of their
"best and brightest" mantra and let students know it is OK to struggle, she said. A scientist with a C
in physics is still a scientist, after all.¶ "We need to celebrate completion as much as achievement,"
said Peter Cunningham, assistant secretary for communication at the U.S. Department of Education.¶
To get young women and minority students started on the STEM path, stakeholders need to show
students STEM is cool, fun, and pays well, Cunningham added.¶ STEM also needs to speak their
language, both literally and figuratively. For some girls, that may mean focusing on humanitarian
solutions over robots, said Shanahan with the Society of Women Engineers. For other students it may
mean using materials in their native language.¶ While there are an abundance of STEM materials
designed to reach minority students, educators could benefit from some one-stop shopping for STEM
teaching resources, said teachers at the summit.
American science system, past and present, is sexist and driving women out
Guardian Professional, 14 (Guardian Profesional, PhD science professional, Academics
Anonymous: sexism is driving women out of science, the Guardian, March 15, 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/mar/15/women-scienceresearch-university-discrimination-academics-anonymous, TS)
"There really should be a rule against women having children in science."¶ "Well I'm not hiring her,
she was on maternity leave."¶ "Sorry about all the women in this laboratory, but at least they're good
to look at."¶ When I heard each of these statements from my professor, I was stunned. But the more
worrying thought is that actually, I don't think his attitude is uncommon.¶ I remember my very first day
at university. I walked into a lecture on molecular biology and saw fewer than 10 women in a class of
100.¶ I completed my PhD as the only female in the research group. I attend conferences where
female scientists are few and far between. Why are women still discouraged from following a career
in science?¶ Women have made significant contributions to the field. Marie Curie was a pioneering
physicist and chemist, a Nobel prize winner and the discoverer of elements. And yet, ask a school
child about her achievements and they will tell you how she walked around clumsily with radioactive
isotopes in her pocket.¶ Elizabeth Blackwell, a particular heroine of mine, was the first woman to
receive a medical degree. However, her acceptance into university was based on a ludicrous prank
by the male students in her class, who voted to admit her because they didn't believe it would really
happen.¶ Rosalind Franklin made critical observations leading to the discovery of the DNA double
helix, but controversy rages over why wasn't accorded credit for her work. Have things changed?¶
Women in science face persistent challenges and discrimination. My less experienced male
colleagues will attend conferences instead of me. I will be told by my supervisor not to worry about
enthusiasm and hard work because in the end, I will leave science for marriage and children.¶ I have
been asked to divulge my relationship status and future maternity plans in interviews. I have even
watched my professor refuse to interview astounding female candidates because they have a child. It
is completely unacceptable.¶ My laboratory is filled with intelligent, motivated and career-driven
women. But I sit and watch the motivation leak out of them following constant bullying. Many of them
will leave academia. I recently decided to have a break myself. To this day, I've only had the pleasure
of meeting one female professor. She is wonderfully successful but an unfortunate rarity.¶ It feels a
little like a ticking time bomb. I love science. I love performing and analyzing experiments in the hope
it may one day have serious impact on health. However, in the back of my mind, I know that it's going
to be short-lived.¶ I want children and to bring up a family. This will ultimately lead to sacrificing my
career anywhere beyond a senior post-doc level. It's a difficult decision women face in any career.
Having your cake and eating it? Not in science.¶ So where do we go from here? The support from
many societies such as the L'Oreal Women in Science organisation or the WISE campaign helps to
promote female involvement in science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) subjects.
Strenuous efforts are being made to get girls to consider science, engineering and mathematical
careers.¶ But further down the line, there are a large number of disillusioned women leaving science
and academia. What are we doing about that?
Women are valued way lower than men in science; discrimination across the board
Sive 12, Hazel, professor at MIT and SFARI Investigator, How to undo stereotypes that hinder
women in science, SFARI, December 11, 2012, http://sfari.org/news-andopinion/viewpoint/2012/how-to-undo-stereotypes-that-hinder-women-in-science, TS)
Late this summer, a paper from Yale University researchers led by Jo Handelsman delivered some
sobering news: There is still a clear bias against female scientists. This new study has widely
engaged people, perhaps because it was published in a prominent journal and its conclusions are
clear. The findings confirm the impression of many women in science, at all career levels, who feel
undervalued. The study used a clever design, in which an application, modified to be either from
‘Jennifer’ or ‘John’ was given to a male or female faculty member for evaluation. Evaluators in biology,
chemistry and physics departments at six highly ranked research universities were told the résumé
was real and that the evaluation would be used to develop mentoring materials for science students.¶
There were two key findings: First, ‘Jennifer’ received significantly lower ratings than ‘John,’ and
second, male and female evaluators were equally likely to give 'Jennifer' lower ratings. The ratings
pertained to competence, hire ability and whether the candidate was deserving of mentoring. The
evaluators made lower salary recommendations (by about 12 percent) for ‘Jennifer’ relative to
‘John.’¶.
STEM is fundamentally against women
Henderson, 12 (J. Maureen, journalist, entrepreneur and marketing firm founder who writes
about higher education and early career issues , Why We Should Care About Sexism in Science,
Forbes, September 26, 2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/09/26/why-we-should-care-aboutsexism-in-science/, TS)
New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that sexism
in science is alive and well. Corrine Moss-Racusin and her fellow researchers conducted an
experiment in which they gave student applications to science professors at a number of universities
to evaluate for a lab manager position. The resumes were identical save for the fact that one had a
male name at the top and one had a female name. Professors of both sexes judged the male
candidate to be more competent and a preferable hire. And when asked what starting salary they
would offer to each, the male student was judged to be worth almost $5000 more than his female
counterpart. While not necessarily surprising results, the reality of gender discrimination in STEM
fields is problematic for a number of reasons beyond simple unfairness and inequity:¶ Women are
already underrepresented in STEM fields¶ Numerous initiatives and agencies exist with the intent of
encouraging more women to pursue careers in STEM fields. Currently, only a quarter of STEM jobs
are held by women and this number hasn’t budged much over the last decade. Despite the fact that
women are now outpacing men in college enrollment, female participation in fields such as computer
science still . Lack of ability clearly isn’t an issue, as the National Center for Educational Statistics
reported that female students in primary and secondary schools matched or exceeded the
performance of male students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress science exam.¶
STEM jobs are desirable¶ The jobs that women are not being hired for or the careers they’re
discouraged from pursuing are lucrative ones. Engineering, math and computer science grads – both
recent and seasoned – outearn their counterparts in all other disciplines. STEM jobs are also
projected to grow between 29% and 58% over the next decade, depending on the specific field. And
for those women who do pursue STEM careers, female STEM professionals have median salaries at
least $6000 higher than women employed in non-STEM occupations.¶ Subtle on-the-job sexism is
harder to pinpoint and resist¶ It’s easy to pick out blatant examples of misogyny, sexism or
harassment in the workplace, but more subtle and, in many cases, unintentional examples of gender
bias or discrimination – as in the case of Moss-Racusin’s research – are harder to identify and
interrogate even as they make certain career fields inhospitable to women. As Ilana Yurkiewicz notes
over at Scientific American, if women are told they don’t measure up academically or professionally,
they are less likely to question the objectivity and validity of this assessment than a more obvious
putdown with a clear lack of factual basis.¶ Expanding...¶ “Practically, this fact makes it all the more
easy for women to internalize unfair criticisms as valid. If your work is rejected for an obviously bad
reason, such as ‘it’s because you’re a woman,’ you can simply dismiss the one who rejected you as
biased and therefore not worth taking seriously. But if someone tells you that you are less competent,
it’s easy to accept as true.”
China Will always beat us
China’s STEM related degrees statistics prove China is the leader for the long run
Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places
including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over
The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientificdominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)
While China and the U.S. currently award science and engineering degrees to an equivalent
proportion of their populations, China has sharply increased the number of graduates in these
fields — and the U.S. does not seem poised to catch up anytime soon. Chinese students also
receive more American doctoral degrees in science and engineering than any other foreign
students. Between 1987 and 2010, there was a threefold increase in the number of Chinese
students in these programs (from 15,000 to 43,000).
Chinese scientists paid more than Americans—more incentive and more
scientists=more success
Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places
including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over
The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientificdominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)
People who pursue science in China have much better earning potential than their counterparts
in the U.S. Chinese scientists are paid better than their highly educated peers, while in the U.S.,
the reverse is true. U.S. lawyers, for example, go to school for less time than Ph.D. scientists, but
make much more money. "When talented youth face alternative career options, everything else
being equal, more Chinese would be attracted to science than Americans," because of the pay the
researchers write. The PNAS researchers identify "four factors [that] favor China's continuing rise
in science: a large population and human capital base, a labor market favoring academic
meritocracy, a large diaspora of Chinese-origin scientists, and a centralized government willing
to invest in science. "Still, scientists in the United States have some serious advantages, since, as
the researchers note, "China's science faces potential difficulties due to political interference and
scientific fraud."
Solvency
NOAA sufficient
NOAA doing great work in past and present
Lubchenco, 2013 (Dr. Jane, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator, All Hands on Deck NOAA’s Accomplishments, March 4, 2013,
http://www.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_Accomplishments_2009-2012.pdf, TS)
Day in and day out, NOAA’s work impacts the lives of every American. From life-saving and
commerce-enabling weather forecasts to research on how our planet is changing to protecting
natural resources and sharing in- formation broadly, NOAA personnel are developing solutions
for some of our planet’s most pressing challenges. NOAA enriches lives through science, services
and stewardship. With roots dating back to 1807, our agency has evolved to meet the needs of a
changing nation and changing environment.
During my nearly four years at NOAA, through daily interactions and chal- lenging disasters, I’ve had
occasion to get to know many of our nearly 13,000 employees and hundreds of contractors upon
which we rely. One thing that has impressed me immensely is the passion they feel for our mission.
I’ve also been astounded at NOAA’s breadth—our mis- sion takes us from the surface of the sun to
the depths of the ocean floor. And I’ve seen NOAA adapt to changing circum- stances and embrace
new opportunities and challenges, while staying true to its core values. An example of this adaptation is NOAA’s embrace of innovative ways to be more efficient or effective, whether it’s cloud IT
solutions or social media. Beginning with Facebook and Twitter in 2009, NOAA has developed a
strong social media presence, tweeting and posting to hundreds of thousands of followers around the
nation and the world.
Because of the dedication and hard work of NOAA employees, and thanks to great partnerships,
we’ve been able to tackle some big issues. I’ve often said that the diversity of our mission is one of
NOAA’s greatest challenges, but it’s also a great strength: It enables timely integration across
research, weather, climate, oceans, coasts, satellites, ships, and planes to deliver useful services
and stewardship. Through an emphasis on transparency, integrity, innovation, team work and
communication, we have made significant progress on multiple fronts during the last four years.
So, what have we accomplished? During the past four years, NOAA employees have worked with
our partners to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish stocks; helped create the first Nation-al
Ocean Policy that highlights the importance of healthy oceans; issued life-saving weather, water,
and tsunami warnings and worked toward a Weath- er Ready Nation; invested in coastal
communities and strived to make them more resilient through integrated con- servation and
restoration; strengthened science through our first Scientific In- tegrity Policy; and created a new
genera- tion of climate services to enable smart planning, adaption, and mitigation. This is just a
small sample of NOAA’s efforts to fulfill its overall mission.
The following stories flesh out these and other successes. Far from an exhaustive list, this
compilation provides highlights from NOAA’s impressive portfolio.
I am tremendously proud to have been part of the NOAA family and am confi- dent that it will
continue to provide the services, science, and stewardship on which so much and so many depend.
En- joy reading these stories and feel proud.
NOAA is successful with overfishing
Lubchenco, 2013 (Dr. Jane, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator, All Hands on Deck NOAA’s Accomplishments, March 4, 2013,
http://www.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_Accomplishments_2009-2012.pdf, TS)
Since passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in
1976, U.S. fisheries have come a long way. Thanks to the combined efforts of diverse stakeholders,
fisheries in the United States are known as some of the most responsibly managed in the world.
On June 29, 2012, we achieved a significant milestone: NOAA approved the final Fishery
Management Plan amendment to put in place annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
measures for every single feder- ally managed fishery in the United States. Doing so was quite an
accom- plishment; we’ve already seen positive results associated with the imple- mentation of
ACLs.
Milestones In U.S. Fisheries Management
NOAA has also made concurrent improvements in scientific stock assessments, so we know we’re
making progress. In 2011, we reviewed the status of 214 fish stocks for our annual Status of Stocks
report. Overall the results showed a decrease in stocks whose popu- lations are too low (overfished)
and stocks where the fish are being removed too quickly from the population (overfishing). We can
report that between 2001 and 2012, 31 fish stocks have been declared rebuilt—most of them
within the last few years. It’s a good sign that our management approaches are working. For
example, in the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper—a historically over- fished fish stock—is now showing
signs that the popula- tion is rebuilding to higher levels of abundance.
Though the benefits of sustainably managed fisheries will accrue for generations to come, we also
recognize that some management approaches, including the tran- sition to ACLs, aren’t always easy.
The progress we’ve made reflects the tremendous efforts and commitment of fishermen, fishing
communities, and the regional fish- ery management councils to make difficult decisions to
sustain long-term economic and biological viability of our nation’s fisheries. As we celebrate the
progress we’ve made ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and imple- menting ACLs, we know
we have more work to do—espe- cially in light of climate change and ocean acidification. We’ll
continue working closely with these important stakeholders to ensure that U.S. fisheries remain
some of the most responsibly managed in the world.
NOAA wants and needs more funding in 2015; don’t fund a whole new agency when this one works
Konkel, 14 (Frank, former staff writer for FCW , NOAA budget boost focused on data, FCW The
Business of Federal Technology, March 17, 2014, http://fcw.com/articles/2014/03/17/noaa-budgetbreakdown.aspx, TS)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2015 budget request emphasizes
environmental intelligence, and includes increases for its data-intensive next-generation satellite
programs and IT infrastructure upgrades to fully utilize the raw data the agency produces.
Overall, NOAA's budget request totals $5.5 billion, a 3.2 percent over its 2014 enacted budget.
The largest request for NOAA's five offices is the National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, which manages the procurement, launch and operation of all civilian
environmental satellite.
NESDIS would receive $2.2 billion under the budget request, an increase of about $165 million over
last year's totals, with the lion's share going to the development of its two next-generation satellites.
The Joint Polar Satellite System satellite is set for launch in early 2017, and the first Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite is on course to launch in early 2016. Combined, the next-gen
satellite systems will cost about $22 billion. The first GOES-R satellite alone will produce 40
megabytes of data per second.
"NOAA is one of the most valuable service agencies in the U.S. government," said Kathryn
Sullivan, undersecretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
The National Weather Service, NOAA's second-largest office, would receive $1.06 billion, a $3.9
million decrease from fiscal 2014. The decrease in funding will hinder some expected advancements
in the NWS' predictive capabilities, including an $8 million hit to its Hurricane Forecast Improvement
Project, "which will delay advancements in hurricane forecast track and intensity," according to
budget documents.
Yet NWS will receive $6 million in additional funding for its Ground Readiness Project, which is
designed to improve the NWS IT infrastructure. As it exists today, NOAA produces more data – and
that data volume will grow significantly in the coming years – than NWS systems can process.
NWS will also get an extra $5 million to re-architect its telecommunications gateway, which distributes
weather products to thousands of customers across the world. NOAA's transition to a new IT service
delivery model for forecast offices in fiscal 2014 realized the agency $10 million in efficiency savings,
according to the 2015 budget request.
Science Diplomacy Advantage
1NC F/L Cards
Science diplomacy fails, scientists and policy makers can’t work together
Marlow 12 (Jeffery, Writer for wired.com, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Democracy”, Wired.com,
12/11/12, http://www.wired.com/2012/12/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-science-diplomacy/, CTC)
On July 17th, 1975, Alexei Leonov and Tom Stafford did something extraordinary: they shared a meal of canned beef tongue and black
bread. It may not have been the most delicious culinary experience the men had ever had, but the setting of the meal was slightly more
noteworthy: outer space, where two spacecraft had docked and were orbiting the earth at nearly 18,000 miles per hour. The two men and
their crews conducted scientific observations, exchanged gifts, and spoke intermittently in English, Russian, and “Oklahomski,” the Soviet
commander’s description of Stafford’s drawl. Far below Leonov and Stafford, their political leaders – Leonid Brezhnev and Gerald Ford,
respectively – were embroiled in the maneuverings of the Cold War. Diplomatic tensions ran deep, but with the Space Race to the Moon in
the rearview mirror, joint missions seemed to operate above the fray of political discourse. The Apollo-Soyuz episode was a unique moment
in American space exploration history, a pivot from antagonism and competition to measured cooperation that previewed a similar move
toward engagement in the political arena over a decade later. Indeed, crosstalk between members of supposedly clashing countries is a
common feature of the scientific enterprise. These sorts of collaborations may not directly solve the issues at the heart of tense diplomatic
situations, but they do get parties on either side talking. The very neutrality of the subject matter – the pursuit of “truth” – may actually help
the process, allowing mistrust to thaw and preconceptions to crumble while engaging in a shared aim.
This notion of science as
a diplomatic tool – its use as an entry point to a recalcitrant society that simultaneously breaks down politically steeped
preconceptions and offers tangible benefits –
is a promising mode of development and a constructive brand of international
relations. The Obama Administration understands the value of science diplomacy; last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
announced the expansion of the Science Envoy program, appointing Barbara Schaal of Washington University in St. Louis, Bernard Amadei
of the University of Colorado, and Susan Hockfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the position. These prominent scientists
represent the third class of envoys – the program began in 2009 and has sponsored visits to nearly 20 countries.
The philosophy
behind the envoy program is noble, but its current directive is a bit vague. As noted in the State Department’s official release,
“the science envoys travel in their capacity as private citizens and advise the White House, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S.
scientific community about the insights they gain from their travels and interactions.”
Elias Zerhouni
A recent assessment of the program by envoy
noted the challenge of following through on initiatives predicated on the personal
credibility and contacts of the individual envoys. Leveraging the networks of world-renowned scientists within
the framework of a coherent policy of international relations is difficult, particularly when funding for longer-term
projects is uncertain.
The trust of international partners requires a predictable political and financial
environment. When President Obama launched the program during a speech in Cairo, he said that the envoys would “collaborate on
programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.” Whether these
programs are mandated by the executive branch or are the responsibility of the envoys is unclear. A more explicit structure could allow
science diplomats to be more effective, building on the strong record of science as an invaluable tool in the soft power arsenal.
Science diplomacy isn’t a substitution for regular diplomacy
Dickson 10 (David, Director of SciDev.net, “Science in diplomacy: ‘On tap but not on top’ ”,
SciDev.net, 28/6/2010, http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-place-of-science-indiplomacy-%E2%80%9Con-tap-but-not-on-top%E2%80%9D/, CTC)
There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in
the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations,
is a desirable objective.
There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to
embrace broader goals and objectives,
in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic
goals at the international level. Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for
effective diplomacy . Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad
conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal
Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science
diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been
promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core
element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific
exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular
aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how
diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by
forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the
increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of
science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development,
described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input
by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of
opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links
between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate
change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications.
No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate
scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there
any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such
diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the
development of modern science. Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the
first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as
CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively,
increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere,
have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the
burdens of such restrictions.
third category, namely
The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the
the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to
forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these,
some pointed to recent
climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way
that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others
referred to the failure of the
Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of
the limitations of this way of thinking.
It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief
that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action , without
taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received considerable attention was the
current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of
scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey).
The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for
example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In
that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region. But others cautioned that, however
successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be
exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional
colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific
projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another.
Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of
political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development
were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led
to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “ Science
therefore
for diplomacy”
ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the
ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but
cannot provide the solutions to either. “On
tap but not on top” seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones.
With all the caution that even this formulation still requires.
Turn – science diplomacy empirically causes conflict – poor cooperation mechanisms – anthrax
accident proves
Smith the 3rd 6/17 | Dr. Frank L Smith III is a lecturer in the Centre for International Security Studies
at the University of Sydney with a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago,
Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit published in Social
Studies of Science,
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/16/0306312714535864.full.pdf, 6/17/14,
Accessed 6/27/14, CCHS-AY
Just as the goals or ends of science diplomacy can vary, so too might its actual effect. The
conventional wisdom is that science diplomacy creates positive externalities or spill- over effects that
facilitate greater cooperation. The possibility that it might cause conflict is rarely considered, even by
potential critics. Tim Flink and Ulrich Schreiterer argue that science diplomacy is ‘no panacea’, and
they conclude that ‘exploiting science for politi- cal purposes ... makes little or no sense’ (Flink and
Schreiterer, 2010).1 Similarly, David Dickson claims that science and politics ‘occupy different
universes’, and so there is ‘only so much science can do’ (Dickson, 2009). Dickson acknowledges
that innovation can cause upheaval, while Flink and Schreiterer note that there are tensions or
tradeoffs between scientific cooperation and competitive advantage. However, they all stop short of
saying that science diplomacy itself may heighten conflict or reduce trust and transparency.¶
Therefore science diplomacy is assumed to be at worst ineffective but never harmful. Yet this
assumption is doubtful because the effects of science diplomacy are variable. Again, the anthrax
accident at Sverdlovsk is illustrative: one consequence of Soviet deception through science
diplomacy was to reduce trust and transparency, thereby threatening peace talks with the United
States (Hoffman, 2009: 350). More troubling is the long and complex history of scientific, technical,
and medical exchanges as instru- ments of imperialism and justifications for colonialism (e.g.
Headrick, 1988; MacLeod, 2000; Vaughan, 1991). What we now call science diplomacy is not new,
nor has its impact always been benign.¶ Unfortunately, even when the intent is benign, the outcome
may still be harmful or interpreted as such. For instance, Iran once detained an American scientific
delegate in order to suggest that ‘science exchanges are not a good thing’ (Badger, 2009). How
could this happen if everyone benefits from science diplomacy? Though not diplomacy per se,
similar questions arise when science and technology are applied to aid global health. In 1994, ‘effort
by humanitarian actors to restore health to at least one million Rwandan refugees’ in Zaire ‘had the
unfortunate effect of helping to restore the capacity of Hutu militias to fight’, according to Sara Davies,
‘precipitating the escalation of the war’ (Davies, 2010: 94). The positive or neutral effects of medical,
scientific, or technical assistance and exchange cannot be taken for granted.¶ Finally, the
mechanisms through which science diplomacy creates international cooperation are
underspecified, providing little confidence that it will not backfire. Science diplomacy is related to
public diplomacy, but merely citing public opinion polls about the popularity of science and technology
does not explain how this attraction is leveraged to build goodwill abroad. While their products might
be popular, are scientists and tech- nicians typically movers and shakers of mass public opinion?
Maybe, but this seems unlikely when they are compared with celebrities or other public figures,
especially if we consider variation in the public understanding of science and efficacy of science communication. In addition, like propaganda, public diplomacy that aims to improve mass public
opinion can have the opposite effect and inadvertently undermine trust (Goldsmith
No impact to science diplomacy – cooperation is limited to science
Dickson 9 | David Dickson was the founding director of SciDev.Net and spent many years at Nature,
as its Washington correspondent and later as news editor. He also worked on the staffs of Science
and New Scientist, specializing in reporting on science policy. He started a career in journalism as a
sub-editor, following a degree in mathematics, The limits of science diplomacy, 6/27/14,
http://www.scidev.net/global/capacity-building/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html,
Accessed 6/27/14, CCHS-AY
Using science for diplomatic purposes has obvious attractions and several benefits. But there are
limits to what it can achieve.¶ The scientific community has a deserved reputation for its international
perspective — scientists often ignore national boundaries and interests when it comes to
exchanging ideas or collaborating on global problems.¶ So it is not surprising that science attracts
the interest of politicians keen to open channels of communication with other states. Signing
agreements on scientific and technological cooperation is often the first step for countries wanting to
forge closer working relationships.¶ More significantly, scientists have formed key links behind-the-
scenes when more overt dialogue has been impossible. At the height of the Cold War, for example,
scientific organisations provided a conduit for discussing nuclear weapons control.¶ Only so much
science can do¶ Recently, the Obama administration has given this field a new push, in its desire to
pursue "soft diplomacy" in regions such as the Middle East. Scientific agreements have been at the
forefront of the administration's activities in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan.¶ But — as emerged
from a meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) —
using science for diplomatic purposes is not as straightforward as it seems.¶ Some scientific
collaboration clearly demonstrates what countries can achieve by working together. For example,
a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan is rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for
teamwork in the Middle East.¶ But whether scientific cooperation can become a precursor for
political collaboration is less evident. For example, despite hopes that the Middle East synchrotron
would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been reluctant to support it until the
Palestine problem is resolved.¶ Indeed, one speaker at the London meeting (organised by the UK's
Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) even suggested that
the changes scientific innovations bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context,
viewing science as a driver for peace may be wishful thinking.¶ Conflicting ethos¶ Perhaps the
most contentious area discussed at the meeting was how science diplomacy can frame developed
countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing world.¶ There is little to quarrel
with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for partnership. Indeed,
partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the new buzzword in the
"science for development" community.¶ But true partnership requires transparent relations
between partners who are prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit
role: to promote and defend their own countries' interests.¶ John Beddington, the British government's
chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told the meeting that a diplomat is
someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve.¶ Worlds apart yet
co-dependent¶ The truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other.
Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately —
military; scientists need political support to fund their research.¶ But they also occupy different
universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one means or another. Science is — or
should be — about pursuing robust knowledge that can be put to useful purposes.¶ A strategy for
promoting science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it
focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian goals,
such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty.¶ But a commitment to science
diplomacy that ignores the differences — acting for example as if science can substitute politics
(or perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous. ¶ The Obama administration's commitment
to "soft power" is already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear weapons
test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption. A taste of reality may be no bad thing.¶
David Dickson¶ Director, SciDev.Net
Solvency takeout
Smith the 3rd 6/17 | Dr. Frank L Smith III is a lecturer in the Centre for International Security Studies
at the University of Sydney with a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago,
Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit published in Social
Studies of Science,
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/16/0306312714535864.full.pdf, 6/17/14,
Accessed 6/27/14, CCHS-AY
For instance,
General Wiranto used NAMRU-2 to communicate with the United States, and strategic information
was exchanged through his proposal to end cooperation in 1998.
The message was that Indonesian and American
interests differed over East Timor and military aid. Did this increase international cooperation?
No. Was it science diplomacy? Yes, since scientific exchange – including threats to that exchange – was a bargaining chip
used to pursue political ends. The subsequent controversy and negotiations also relayed strategic information.
By allowing Supari
and others to register their displeasure, while also letting President Yudhoyono signal his interest in cooperation, the
debate over NAMRU-2 communicated deep divisions within Indonesia’s new democracy. It also helped
communicate America’s enduring interest in engaging Indonesia (despite variation in military aid), along with the potential for broader
cooperation (although not coopera- tion at any cost).
This is science diplomacy at work, even if the interests and outcomes
involved clash with the rosy image often portrayed by its proponents. and Horiuchi, 2009).
The positive effects of scientific diplomacy are contestable; the potential to
backlash is always present, results are unpredictable, and scientists have limited
ability to influence politics
Smith 14 (Frank, Professor at the Centre of International Security Studies at the University of
Sydney, “Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit”, Sage
Journals , June 17, 2014,
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/16/0306312714535864.full N.O.)
Finally, the mechanisms through which science diplomacy creates international cooperation are
underspecified, providing little confidence that it will not backfire . Science diplomacy is related to
public diplomacy, but merely citing public opinion polls about the popularity of science and technology
does not explain how this attraction is leveraged to build goodwill abroad. While their products
might be popular, are scientists and technicians typically movers and shakers of mass public
opinion? Maybe, but this seems unlikely when they are compared with celebrities or other public
figures, especially if we consider variation in the public understanding of science and efficacy of
science communication. In addition, like propaganda, public diplomacy that aims to improve mass
public opinion can have the opposite effect and inadvertently undermine trust (Goldsmith and
Horiuchi, 2009).
Alt-Cause: Science leadership is impossible as long as fracking is prevalent in the
U.S.
Magill 13 (Bobby Magill is an award-winning science, environment and energy journalist who is
currently the senior science writer covering energy and climate change for Climate Central in New
York City. My work has appeared in Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, Bloomberg News, the
Guardian, Huffington Post, Salon, USA Today, High Country News, New West.net, and daily
newspapers throughout Colorado, “Fracking hurts US climate change credibility, say scientists”, The
Guardian via Climate Central, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/11/fracking-usclimate-credibility-shale-gas, N.O.)
“As we produce more, we burn more, and we send more CO2 per person into the atmosphere
than almost any other country,” said Susan Brantley, geosciences professor and director of the
Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University. “We are blanketing our
world with greenhouse gas, warming the planet.”
Several years ago in Pennsylvania, scientists were talking about carbon sequestration in shale
formations deep underground, she said.
“However, since 2005, we have been fracking shales and have drilled 6,000 shale gas wells ,” she
said. “ This extraordinary rate of development is good for our country in terms of jobs and energy
prices , but bad in that we are not worrying as much about the greenhouse gas problem as we
are about exploiting gas with hydrofracking.
“It is hard for us to have credibility in global discussions of greenhouse gas unless we can use
this new source of gas a transitional fuel that bridges us from hydrocarbons to renewable, noncarbon fuels,” she said.
Even among advocates for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, there is disagreement about what
the U.S. role as chief oil and gas producer means for America’s credibility on climate change.
“Those who already see the U.S. as a major bad actor will continue to do so, and cite this
hydrocarbon boom as further evidence ,” said Armond Cohen, executive director of the Bostonbased Clean Air Task Force. “By contrast , if the U.S. took a more progressive global stance on
overall emissions control, increased domestic production would be probably irrelevant; the world
would be relieved to see U.S. leadership.”
Solvency deficit: Vaccine diplomacy, not oceanic science, is key to science
diplomacy in third-world countries since it gives benefits effects to the
impoverished: Russia empirically proves
Hotez 11 (Peter, M.D from Weil Cornell Medical College, Ph.D from Rockefeller University, and
professor at the Department of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology at the Baylor
College of Medicine, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Tropical Medicine in the Fight against
Plague, Death, Famine, and War, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, received
December 30, 2011, accepted December 31, 2011, http://www.ajtmh.org/content/87/1/3.short,
N.O.)
Manufacturing vaccines in partnership with developing country vaccine manufacturers may also
have a profound geopolitical dimension . To understand this concept, we must look to the legacy of
Dr. Albert Sabin, who during the late 1950s developed the oral polio vaccine jointly with Soviet
virologists. This period coincided with an apex in the Cold War in the years immediately after the
launch of Sputnik and the first successful test of a hydrogen bomb by the Soviet Union. Despite
heightened political tensions, the polio collaboration provided proof-of-concept for how two
nations can set aside ideologies for purposes of vaccine development, something that I have
termed “vaccine diplomacy .”43,44 Based on our successful collaborations with members of the
DCVMN, I have started to ask if there might be modern day examples of vaccine diplomacy,
particularly with nations that 1) often differ ideologically with the United States, 2) have capacity
for vaccine development and production, and 3) simultaneously have high rates of NTDs .
Among the more poignant examples would be NTD-endemic Islamic nations of strategic security
interests to the United States, such as Indonesia, Iran, and Pakistan .43,44 A number of countries
where vaccine diplomacy might one day be practiced is shown in Table 5. Such collaborations will
be fraught with political challenges but potentially they also offer huge rewards .
Science diplomacy can fail, since its efficacy is predicated off of how nations
interpret it, not the intent behind it; Iran proves
Smith 14 (Frank, Professor at the Centre of International Security Studies at the University of
Sydney, “Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit”, Sage
Journals , June 17, 2014,
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/16/0306312714535864.full N.O.)
Unfortunately, even when the intent is benign, the outcome may still be harmful or interpreted as
such. For instance , Iran once detained an American scientific delegate in order to suggest that
‘science exchanges are not a good thing’ (Badger, 2009). How could this happen if everyone
benefits from science diplomacy? Though not diplomacy per se, similar questions arise when
science and technology are applied to aid global health. In 1994, ‘effort by humanitarian actors to
restore health to at least one million Rwandan refugees’ in Zaire ‘had the unfortunate effect of helping
to restore the capacity of Hutu militias to fight’, according to Sara Davies, ‘precipitating the escalation
of the war’ (Davies, 2010: 94). The positive or neutral effects of medical, scientific, or technical
assistance and exchange cannot be taken for granted .
No solvency because any attempt to spread science and technology
internationally is splintered by the sheer number of non-ocean exploration
companies
Flink and Schreiterer 10 (Tim, research fellow at the Berlin Social Science Center, and Ulrich,
research fellow at the Berlin Social Science center, “Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T
policies and foreign affairs: toward a typology of national approaches, Science and Public Policy,
http://www.academia.edu/4031307/Science_diplomacy_at_the_intersection_of_S_and_T_policies
_and_foreign_affairs_toward_a_typology_of_national_approaches._In_Science_and_Public_Policy_3
7_9_pp._665-677?login=&email_was_taken=true, N.O.)
In the USA, a plethora of government departments, basic research and mission agencies and
(semi-) private organizations engage in S&T, each of them responsible for different aspects of a
policy agenda which they themselves help to shape and have stakes in. While overall policy
coordination for S&T activities is assigned to the White House Office for S&T Policy, there is no
equivalent to a science ministry . This approach works well for achieving specific agency goals ,
yet does not provide for the best set-up to effectively pursue foreign policy objectives with major
S&T components since each and every agency is bound to follow its own goals and priorities . In
such an institutional setting, international S&T policy cannot become anything but highlyfragmented , imponderable and inward-looking.
Impacts should have already happened, the USA is no longer the world science
leader Alternative tagline: US Science leadership fallen behind and already
structurally destined to fall regardless of oceans
Lowrey 14 (Anne, political and economic writer for the New York Times, “U.S. Dominance in
Science Faces Asian Challenge”, New York Times, February 13 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/us-dominance-in-science-faces-asianchallenge.html?_r=0, N.O.)
At the same time, the share of research done by Asian countries grew to 34 percent from 25 percent,
with China’s share alone growing to 15 percent from 2 percent in 2000.
As a result, the Asian economies now perform a larger share of global research and development
than the United States does. China carries out about as much high-tech manufacturing as the
United States does , the report found.
But the report also highlights some important market sectors where the United States appears to
be falling behind.
For instance, emerging economies invested about $100 billion in clean energy in 2012, with
China alone investing more than $60 billion. The United States spent only $29 billion .
More worryingly, the report finds that the United States might be lagging in the research and
development spending that scientists say is the most important fuel for future innovation .
Can’t do Leadership
The USA is incapable of projecting leadership beyond its own hemisphere
Mearsheimer 10 (John, Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, “The Gathering
Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia”, 2010,
http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/4/381.full, N.O)
When people talk about hegemony these days, they are usually referring to the United States,
which they describe as a global hegemon . I do not like this terminology, however, because it is
virtually impossible for any stat e—including the United States— to achieve global hegemony. The
main obstacle to world domination is the difficulty of projecting power over huge distances,
especially across enormous bodies of water like the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean s.
The best outcome that a great power can hope for is to achieve regional hegemony, and possibly
control another region that is close by and easily accessible over land. The United States, which
dominates the Western Hemisphere, is the only regional hegemon in modern history . Five other
great powers have tried to dominate their region—Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, Imperial
Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union—but none have succeeded.
China is seeking to become a new regional hegemon, which would challenge U.S
ability to exert influence and cooperation via leadership
Mearsheimer 10 (John, Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, “The Gathering
Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia”, 2010,
http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/4/381.full, N.O)
I expect China to act the way the United States has acted over its long history. Specifically, I
believe that China will try to dominate the Asia-Pacific region much as the United States
dominates the Western Hemisphere. For good strategic reasons, China will seek to maximize the
power gap between itself and potentially dangerous neighbors like India, Japan, and Russia. China
will want to make sure that it is so powerful that no state in Asia has the wherewithal to threaten it. It
is unlikely that China will pursue military superiority so that it can go on the warpath and conquer
other countries in the region, although that is always a possibility. Instead, it is more likely that
Beijing will want to dictate the boundaries of acceptable behavior to neighboring countries, much
the way the United States makes it clear to other states in the Americas that it is the boss.
Gaining regional hegemony, I might add, is probably the only way that China will get Taiwan back.
A much more powerful China can also be expected to try to push the United States out of the
Asia-Pacific region, much the way the United States pushed the European great powers out of
the Western Hemisphere in the 19th century. We should expect China to come up with its own
version of the Monroe Doctrine, as Imperial Japan did in the 1930s. In fact, we are already seeing
inklings of that policy. Consider that in March, Chinese officials told two high-ranking American
policymakers that the United States was no longer allowed to interfere in the South China Sea, which
China views as a ‘core interest’ like Taiwan and Tibet.22 And it seems that China feels the same way
about the Yellow Sea. In late July 2010, the United States and South Korean navies conducted joint
naval exercises in response to North Korea’s alleged sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. Those
naval maneuvers were originally planned to take place in the Yellow Sea, which is adjacent to the
Chinese coastline, but vigorous protests from China forced the Obama administration to move them
further east into the Sea of Japan.23
Disads
China Will always beat us
China’s STEM related degrees statistics prove China is the leader for the long run
Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places
including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over
The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientificdominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)
While China and the U.S. currently award science and engineering degrees to an equivalent
proportion of their populations, China has sharply increased the number of graduates in these
fields — and the U.S. does not seem poised to catch up anytime soon. Chinese students also
receive more American doctoral degrees in science and engineering than any other foreign
students. Between 1987 and 2010, there was a threefold increase in the number of Chinese
students in these programs (from 15,000 to 43,000).
Chinese scientists paid more than Americans—more incentive and more
scientists=more success
Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places
including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over
The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientificdominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)
People who pursue science in China have much better earning potential than their counterparts
in the U.S. Chinese scientists are paid better than their highly educated peers, while in the U.S.,
the reverse is true. U.S. lawyers, for example, go to school for less time than Ph.D. scientists, but
make much more money. "When talented youth face alternative career options, everything else
being equal, more Chinese would be attracted to science than Americans," because of the pay the
researchers write. The PNAS researchers identify "four factors [that] favor China's continuing rise
in science: a large population and human capital base, a labor market favoring academic
meritocracy, a large diaspora of Chinese-origin scientists, and a centralized government willing
to invest in science. "Still, scientists in the United States have some serious advantages, since, as
the researchers note, "China's science faces potential difficulties due to political interference and
scientific fraud."
Solvency
NOAA sufficient
NOAA doing great work in past and present
Lubchenco, 2013 (Dr. Jane, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator, All Hands on Deck NOAA’s Accomplishments, March 4, 2013,
http://www.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_Accomplishments_2009-2012.pdf, TS)
Day in and day out, NOAA’s work impacts the lives of every American. From life-saving and
commerce-enabling weather forecasts to research on how our planet is changing to protecting
natural resources and sharing in- formation broadly, NOAA personnel are developing solutions
for some of our planet’s most pressing challenges. NOAA enriches lives through science, services
and stewardship. With roots dating back to 1807, our agency has evolved to meet the needs of a
changing nation and changing environment.
During my nearly four years at NOAA, through daily interactions and chal- lenging disasters, I’ve had
occasion to get to know many of our nearly 13,000 employees and hundreds of contractors upon
which we rely. One thing that has impressed me immensely is the passion they feel for our mission.
I’ve also been astounded at NOAA’s breadth—our mis- sion takes us from the surface of the sun to
the depths of the ocean floor. And I’ve seen NOAA adapt to changing circum- stances and embrace
new opportunities and challenges, while staying true to its core values. An example of this adaptation is NOAA’s embrace of innovative ways to be more efficient or effective, whether it’s cloud IT
solutions or social media. Beginning with Facebook and Twitter in 2009, NOAA has developed a
strong social media presence, tweeting and posting to hundreds of thousands of followers around the
nation and the world.
Because of the dedication and hard work of NOAA employees, and thanks to great partnerships,
we’ve been able to tackle some big issues. I’ve often said that the diversity of our mission is one of
NOAA’s greatest challenges, but it’s also a great strength: It enables timely integration across
research, weather, climate, oceans, coasts, satellites, ships, and planes to deliver useful services
and stewardship. Through an emphasis on transparency, integrity, innovation, team work and
communication, we have made significant progress on multiple fronts during the last four years.
So, what have we accomplished? During the past four years, NOAA employees have worked with
our partners to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish stocks; helped create the first Nation-al
Ocean Policy that highlights the importance of healthy oceans; issued life-saving weather, water,
and tsunami warnings and worked toward a Weath- er Ready Nation; invested in coastal
communities and strived to make them more resilient through integrated con- servation and
restoration; strengthened science through our first Scientific In- tegrity Policy; and created a new
genera- tion of climate services to enable smart planning, adaption, and mitigation. This is just a
small sample of NOAA’s efforts to fulfill its overall mission.
The following stories flesh out these and other successes. Far from an exhaustive list, this
compilation provides highlights from NOAA’s impressive portfolio.
I am tremendously proud to have been part of the NOAA family and am confi- dent that it will
continue to provide the services, science, and stewardship on which so much and so many depend.
En- joy reading these stories and feel proud.
NOAA is successful with overfishing
Lubchenco, 2013 (Dr. Jane, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator, All Hands on Deck NOAA’s Accomplishments, March 4, 2013,
http://www.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_Accomplishments_2009-2012.pdf, TS)
Since passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in
1976, U.S. fisheries have come a long way. Thanks to the combined efforts of diverse stakeholders,
fisheries in the United States are known as some of the most responsibly managed in the world.
On June 29, 2012, we achieved a significant milestone: NOAA approved the final Fishery
Management Plan amendment to put in place annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
measures for every single feder- ally managed fishery in the United States. Doing so was quite an
accom- plishment; we’ve already seen positive results associated with the imple- mentation of
ACLs.
Milestones In U.S. Fisheries Management
NOAA has also made concurrent improvements in scientific stock assessments, so we know we’re
making progress. In 2011, we reviewed the status of 214 fish stocks for our annual Status of Stocks
report. Overall the results showed a decrease in stocks whose popu- lations are too low (overfished)
and stocks where the fish are being removed too quickly from the population (overfishing). We can
report that between 2001 and 2012, 31 fish stocks have been declared rebuilt—most of them
within the last few years. It’s a good sign that our management approaches are working. For
example, in the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper—a historically over- fished fish stock—is now showing
signs that the popula- tion is rebuilding to higher levels of abundance.
Though the benefits of sustainably managed fisheries will accrue for generations to come, we also
recognize that some management approaches, including the tran- sition to ACLs, aren’t always easy.
The progress we’ve made reflects the tremendous efforts and commitment of fishermen, fishing
communities, and the regional fish- ery management councils to make difficult decisions to
sustain long-term economic and biological viability of our nation’s fisheries. As we celebrate the
progress we’ve made ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and imple- menting ACLs, we know
we have more work to do—espe- cially in light of climate change and ocean acidification. We’ll
continue working closely with these important stakeholders to ensure that U.S. fisheries remain
some of the most responsibly managed in the world.
NOAA wants and needs more funding in 2015; don’t fund a whole new agency when this one works
Konkel, 14 (Frank, former staff writer for FCW , NOAA budget boost focused on data, FCW The
Business of Federal Technology, March 17, 2014, http://fcw.com/articles/2014/03/17/noaa-budgetbreakdown.aspx, TS)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2015 budget request emphasizes
environmental intelligence, and includes increases for its data-intensive next-generation satellite
programs and IT infrastructure upgrades to fully utilize the raw data the agency produces.
Overall, NOAA's budget request totals $5.5 billion, a 3.2 percent over its 2014 enacted budget.
The largest request for NOAA's five offices is the National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, which manages the procurement, launch and operation of all civilian
environmental satellite.
NESDIS would receive $2.2 billion under the budget request, an increase of about $165 million over
last year's totals, with the lion's share going to the development of its two next-generation satellites.
The Joint Polar Satellite System satellite is set for launch in early 2017, and the first Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite is on course to launch in early 2016. Combined, the next-gen
satellite systems will cost about $22 billion. The first GOES-R satellite alone will produce 40
megabytes of data per second.
"NOAA is one of the most valuable service agencies in the U.S. government," said Kathryn
Sullivan, undersecretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
The National Weather Service, NOAA's second-largest office, would receive $1.06 billion, a $3.9
million decrease from fiscal 2014. The decrease in funding will hinder some expected advancements
in the NWS' predictive capabilities, including an $8 million hit to its Hurricane Forecast Improvement
Project, "which will delay advancements in hurricane forecast track and intensity," according to
budget documents.
Yet NWS will receive $6 million in additional funding for its Ground Readiness Project, which is
designed to improve the NWS IT infrastructure. As it exists today, NOAA produces more data – and
that data volume will grow significantly in the coming years – than NWS systems can process.
NWS will also get an extra $5 million to re-architect its telecommunications gateway, which distributes
weather products to thousands of customers across the world. NOAA's transition to a new IT service
delivery model for forecast offices in fiscal 2014 realized the agency $10 million in efficiency savings,
according to the 2015 budget request.
The plan infuriates Congress. It is seen as a way to enforce more resource
regulations.
Eilperin, 13 (Juliet, Juliet Eilperin joined The Washington Post as the House of Representatives
reporter, where she covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, lobbying, legislation, and four national
congressional campaigns. Since April of 2004 she has covered the environment for the national
desk, reporting on science, policy and politics in areas including climate change, oceans, and air
quality ., White House finalizes national ocean policy, April 13th,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/16/white-house-finalizesnational-ocean-policy/) D2
The White House on Tuesday issued its final plan for managing the nation's oceans, outlining a
strategy that aims to coordinate the work of more than two dozen agencies and reconcile competing
interests including fishing, offshore energy exploration and recreational activities. While
environmentalists as well as some fishing industry officials and state authorities have embraced the
National Ocean Policy , it has infuriated conservatives , who describe it as an example of how the
Obama administration is overreaching and seeking to limit the rights of recreational anglers and
others.Nancy Sutley, who chairs the Council on Environmental Quality and co-chairs the group
overseeing the policy, said in a statement the plan “embodies the type of efficient, collaborative
government that taxpayers, communities, and businesses expect from their federal government.” John
P. Holdren, who directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chairs the
National Ocean Council along with Sutley, said the plan “will help advance relevant science and its
application to decision-making” regarding the ocean. Those measures include sharing data on severe
storms and sea level rise, as well as melting ice in the Arctic. Several House Republicans have
predicted the policy will expand the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and other
agencies to regulate land-based activities since water from there eventually flows to the ocean:
"The National Ocean Policy is just another example of this administration’s determination to
spread deeper regulatory authority over land, sea, and air , said Rep. Steve Southerland II (RFla.) in a statement. "Protecting our resources and empowering the communities that enjoy
access to them is not a zero sum game . We can achieve both, but not by enforcing more topdown mandates from Washington.”
The plan has sparked partisan debates and has led to ocean policy paralysis. The
House and Senate have already refused to implement and budget the plan.
Eilperin, 12 (Juliet, Juliet Eilperin joined The Washington Post as the House of Representatives
reporter, where she covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, lobbying, legislation, and four national
congressional campaigns. Since April of 2004 she has covered the environment for the national
desk, reporting on science, policy and politics in areas including climate change, oceans, and air
quality., National ocean policy sparks partisan fight, October 28th,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisanfight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html) D2
Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over
environmental issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve
of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House
staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights. Conservative Republicans warn that
the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of
valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the
policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to
overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to managing offshore waters.
Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have
some role in governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean
Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different
agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying
to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the
Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of
commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking
the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little
success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels
traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the
petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panel’s
top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that “opposing ocean planning is like opposing
air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.” Rep. Steve
Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was “like air
traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms.” An environmental group called
Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric
puzzles academics such as Boston University biologistLes Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study
that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent
more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind
producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations.
Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican
governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. “The whole
concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. What’s not to
love?” Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production,
fisheries and shipping without proper coordination. Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions
called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from
the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved
to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be “a Wild
West shootout, where projects were permitted on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.” In Washington,
however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010
calls for five regions of the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast
and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental
Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new
authority or change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines implementation of the more
than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans.” House Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in
theory. But he said he is concerned that the administration’s broad definition of what affects the
ocean — including runoff from land — could open the door to regulating all inland activities,
because “all water going downhill goes into the ocean. . . .That potential could be there.” The House
voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy,
though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two influential groups — anglers and energy
firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the administration’s approach. In March, ESPN
Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some
of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.” The article, which
convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have
been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. “Fishermen saw this as just another area
where fishing was going to be racheted down,” said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource
policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nation’s major boat
manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited
some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final
implementation plan is released, after the election. The National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group
based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests —
has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the
law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which
lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that
the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries
about “the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.” Sarah
Cooksey, who is Delaware’s coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the MidAtlantic’s regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the
books. “No government wants another layer of bureaucracy,” she said. In Southerland’s reelection
race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman “Ocean Enemy #1” and sponsored TV ads
against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted
billboards against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined
to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean
policy fights are regional, this is “the first issue I’ve seen that’s become partisan. I do not think it
will be the last.”
The National Ocean Policy has stirred partisan debate and Congress will do
whatever it can to defeat the ocean policy.
Stauffer, 14 (Pete, Pete Stauffer is the Ocean Program Manager of the Surfrider Foundation. The
foundation’s mission is to promote the protection and beauty of the seas through sophisticated
rhetoric., Texas Lawmaker Leads Attack on our National Ocean Policy, June 1st,
http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congress-takes-aim-at-our-national-ocean-policy) D2
Who is Congressmen Bill Flores and what does he have against the ocean? Last week, the
Republican lawmaker from Bryan, Texas led yet another effort in Congress to undermine the
National Ocean Policy (NOP). By a mostly party line vote, the U.S. House passed his amendment
to an appropriations bill (HR 4660) to defund the National Ocean Policy. The measure will next be
considered by the Senate. Incredibly, this is Rep. Flores sixth attempt in the past two years to
obstruct implementation of the National Ocean Policy through a legislative amendment. This
raises an important question: why is a lawmaker from a land-locked district taking such a keen
interest in ocean policy? The answer, not surprisingly, is politics. When the National Ocean Policy
was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many
shortcomings of our nation’s piecemeal approach to ocean management. Taking its cue from the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - a bipartisan body established by
President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration across all levels of
government to address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable energy A
cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional ocean parterships (ROPs) that empower
states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the
ocean. In just three years, important progress has been made, despite a glaring lack of support from
Congress. An Implementation Plan has been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies
are taking to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Collaborative projects are moving
forward to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And finally, the
Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have begun ocean planning to enusure that future
development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users. Of course, such success
stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where controversy rules the day and political parties
instinctively oppose each other’s proposals. As an initiative of the Obama Presidency, the policy has
suffered from partisan attacks, despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such
political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an important truth - the principles of the
National Ocean Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country, even without the
meaningful support of Congress. That is why Congress needs to hear from people who care about
(and depend upon) the ocean. Our ocean ecoystems are too important to the nation's well-being to
be subject to the usual politics. It's time for Congress to provide a level of support and funding that's
commensurate with efforts being made on the ground. Let's elevate support for our National Ocean
Policy across the political spectrum!
National ocean policies have erupted partisan debates. Polarization among
representatives has made ocean policies the Republican’s number one enemy.
Conathan, 12 (Michael, Michael Conathan is Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for American
Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike spent five years staffing the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard—initially serving a one-year appointment as a Dean John Knauss Marine Policy Fellow
before joining the committee full-time as a professional staff member in 2007., Fish on Fridays:
Sensible Ocean Policy Falling Victim to Political Games, April 13th,
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fish-on-fridays-sensibleocean-policy-falling-victim-to-political-games/) D2
Even in the bitterest partisan times, ocean issues tend to exist outside the traditional political boxing
ring. They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party affiliation. Members
who represent coastal states and districts usually recognize the value of sustaining and investing in
our valuable ocean resources, and they prioritize them more than their inland counterparts. But in
recent months the escalation of rancor and polarization encompassed even the normally
temperate issue of ocean policy. Nowhere is this tone more prevalent that in the House
Committee on Natural Resources, where Republicans have made President Barack Obama’s
National Ocean Policy public enemy number one. Ever since its roll-out, the policy—implemented
by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles for the
“stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes”—has been taking fire from opponents
who cite it as an overreach that would spawn “job-killing regulations,” according to Rep. Doc
Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the “death of all land-use planning” in this country, in the
words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction espoused by Rep.
McClintock—that the National Ocean Policy’s nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the
great evil of ocean-use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planning—
boiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than bald political rhetoric. In practice,
the policy will improve scientific management and will help safeguard the commercial and recreational
fishing industries—some of the most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who
chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both hail from coastal states, yet
neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that
run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are proving regularly what
we already knew—what enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly affects all facets of
marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the National
Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists,
industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime
example of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on America’s economic
growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastings’s Committee on October 29,
2011.) On April 2 Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations
Committee—the holders of the congressional purse strings—asking them to “prohibit the use of funds
for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.” On the whole, many fishing industry groups,
including the regional fishery management councils tasked with developing fishery management
plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its inception because they feared their
voices would not be heard during the development of specific policy recommendations. Since the
initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to alleviate those concerns,
including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts. Despite these improvements,
Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and inland
industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing organizations. In their letter the groups
call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy “designed to stimulate job creation and economic
growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of our oceans and coastal regions.”
Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a “pause in implementation” of
President Obama’s ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter Rep. Hastings also
says the policy is “especially alarming” because it “stretches far inland following rivers and their
tributaries upstream for hundreds of miles.”
The nation’s fisheries formed the Seafood Coalition to stop regulative ocean
policies.
Winn, 11 (Pete, Pete Winn joined CNSNews.com in October of 2007 as a staff writer/investigative
reporter. For nearly 20 years, he has reported on key legal, cultural, political, scientific and religious
topics at the national level for online, magazine, radio/TV and print publications. He holds a B.A.
degree in Politics & Government and Philosophy from Ripon College, Ripon, Wis., Fishermen to
Congress: Please Scuttle Obama’s National Oceans Policy, November 17th,
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fishermen-congress-please-scuttle-obama-s-national-oceanspolicy) D2
(CNSNews.com) – The nation’s commercial fishermen say the Obama administration is trying to
impose top-down bureaucratic regulation on the use of the oceans and the nation’s fisheries,
which they say will put fishing jobs at stake. A group calling itself the Seafood Coalition is calling
on Congress to do what it can to scuttle President Obama’s National Ocean Policy, which the
president unilaterally imposed by executive order in 2010. In a letter to the House Natural Resources
Committee, the Seafood Coalition said that the president’s plan adds a needless level of top-down
bureaucracy and regulation on fisheries. “The National Ocean Policy creates a federal ocean
zoning regime that will likely result in substantial new regulations and restrictions on ocean
users,” Nils Stolpe, spokesman for the Seafood Coalition, told CNSNews.com on Monday. The
coalition says it is also concerned that the administration is going to take money away from
programs that are currently working well to pay for the new layer of bureaucracy. “What we’ve
asked for in our letter to the chairman was for Congress to use whatever funding capacity they have
to stop this,” Stolpe said. The Seafood Coalition describes itself as a “broad national coalition of
commercial fishing interests, seafood processors, and coastal communities” that includes
members from every region of the U.S. and “accounts for about 85 percent of the fish and
shellfish products landed annually in the U.S.” In July of 2010, President Obama signed the order
establishing a National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes.
The order directs all federal agencies to implement the Final Recommendations of the Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force, which was created by White House Council on Environmental Quality. The
National Ocean Policy identifies nine objectives and outlines a “flexible framework” for how
bureaucrats will “effectively address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable
use of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.” One of the key objectives is called “coastal and
marine spatial planning (CMSP)” -- which the executive order defines as “a comprehensive, adaptive,
integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for
analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas.” It added: “In
practical terms, coastal and marine spatial planning provides a public policy process for society to
better determine how the ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used and protected -now and for future generations.” But Stolpe and the Seafood Coalition said CMSP essentially means
the imposition of top-down federal planning boards to govern ocean use. “It establishes a number of
regional boards that in essence are in charge of what goes on in the oceans of those particular
regions -- from a fishing perspective, from an energy development perspective, from a transportation
perspective, from a recreational use perspective,” Stolpe said. The executive order also creates a
National Oceans Council, headed by White House Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren and Council for
Environmental Quality director Nancy Sutley, to oversee overall ocean planning. No one from the
seafood industry will be part of the council, the coalition said. “These are people far-far removed from
the nitty-gritty of fisheries management,” Stolpe told CNSNews.com. “I would assume that they are
far-far removed from the nitty-gritty of just about anything.” Stolpe said the regional boards will throw
up in the air the bottom-up scheme that has been in effect since 1976, when Congress passed the
Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to address overfishing. “The
management program we have in place now is working – it’s working really well – and we don’t
need another layer of bureaucracy stuck on top of that,” he said. Stolpe said the commercial
seafood industry currently works hand-in-hand with federal and state fisheries managers and
scientists to create “an effective management process” which already promotes “sustainable” fishing.
“Eighty percent of our domestic fisheries – fisheries exclusively in the U.S. economic zone – are no
longer being overfished,” Stolpe said. The White House, meanwhile, specifically denies the accusation
made by the fishing industry. “The National Ocean Policy in no way restricts any ocean, coastal, or
Great Lakes activity, nor does it impose ocean zoning through CMSP or any other component, the
White House Web site says. “Only the Federal agencies are required to follow the regionally
developed CMSPs. Tribal, state and local governments will benefit by having a regional CMSP
blueprint to follow, and their participation in CMSP is voluntary,” the White House added. Rep. Don
Young (R-Alaska), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, says he, too, has serious
concerns about the administration’s National Oceans Policy and feels that Congress should intervene.
Young’s office told CNSNews.com that the congressman is pleased that both the House and Senate
Commerce appropriations bills defund Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, but said “it is a real
concern” that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) will simply divert funds
from other accounts to make up for these losses. “Most concerning is that these diversions would
more than likely come from existing fisheries management accounts, which is a core emphasis for
NOAA and are already underfunded,” Young’s spokesman, Luke Miller, told CNSNews.com. “As a
result, in the FY 12 appropriations process, Congressman Young requested that funds be restricted
from being used to implement the CMSP program and the Executive Order that created the NOP.”
The House Natural Resources Committee has held two hearings on the topic, one of which included
CEQ Chairwoman Sutley and NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Recent ocean policies pushing for scientific research are stirring battles in Congress.
Helvarg, 14 (David, David Helvarg is President of the Blue Frontier Campaign
(www.bluefront.org) and author of The War Against the Greens, Blue Frontier, 50 Ways to Save
the Ocean, Rescue Warriors – The U.S. Coast Guard. Helvarg worked as a war correspondent in
Northern Ireland and Central America and has reported from every continent including
Antarctica. An award-winning journalist, he produced more than 40 documentaries for PBS, The
Discovery Channel, and others., The oceans demand our attention, February 14,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-ourattention) D2
The latest battle over the future of America’s ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly
unrelated bill in Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his
National Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and
flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent fund – based on offshore energy
revenue – for scientific research and coastal restoration. On the House side Tea Party Republican
Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any funding that might allow the Army Corps to
participate in the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower
the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated by the
ocean) land on their rooftops. One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a paranoid
partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at coordinating federal agencies in ways that could
reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, “putting urban planning in the water column,” in
the words of former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated
federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of
working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal
sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas. Unfortunately
progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean
continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail).
Spending Links
Links
The USFG is already funding the NOAA to do the plan.
NOAA, 13 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Ocean Exploration 2020: A National
Forum,” 19-21 July 2013, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/agenda.html, LF)
The U.S. National Ocean Exploration Program brings together federal agencies, academia, and the
private sector in an open, inclusive partnership program. It has become the international model for
ocean exploration. The President mentions it in her State of the Union address and Congress has
elevated the level of support for the program to $75 million per year. The appropriation has grown
each year for the past four years.
The USFG is already planning on putting a lot of effort into the National Ocean
Exploration Program Act.
McCain, 04 (John, Arizona senator “NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT,” U.S.
Government Printing Office, October 11, 2004, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT108srpt400/html/CRPT-108srpt400.htm, LF)
Section 7 would authorize $45,000,000 for each of fiscal ¶years 2005 through 2010, and
$55,000,000 for each of fiscal ¶ years 2011 through 2016 in appropriations to the Secretary of
¶
Commerce for this program. These funding levels are not ¶ expected to have an inflationary impact on
the Nation's economy.
China DA
Uniqueness
China has renewed and immense interests in the ocean
Marlow 13 | Jeffrey Marlow is a graduate student in Geological and Planetary Sciences at the
California Institute of Technology, China’s Deep Sea Ambitions, 12/30/13,
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/chinas-deep-sea-ambitions/, Accessed 6/25/14, CCHS-AY
Recently, China’s Jiaolong manned submersible became the world’s deepest-diving statesponsored research vessel, with four trips to 7,000 meters depth. Around the same time, news
broke of plans for a National Deep Sea Center, a $78 million facility that will operate the sea-going
fleet and serve as a central base for oceanographic research and technology development. Months
later, the center’s director, Liu Baohua, announced a nationwide search for oceanauts, men and
women who will pilot Jiaolong and its planned sister sub around the ocean’s depths.¶ It’s all part of
China’s rhetorical, financial, and strategic return to the sea, a realm that it dominated several
centuries ago. Chinese maritime strength reached its apex in the early 15th century, as admiral
Zheng He crisscrossed the Indian Ocean with enormous fleets, returning with gifts (most famously a
giraffe) for the Emperor. But a few years later, as political winds shifted, the Ming Dynasty ended the
epic voyages, choosing instead to focus on other, more local, priorities. This abrupt 180 is frequently
cited as a cautionary tale highlighting the dangers of isolationism, a poor strategic move that doomed
the discoverers to become the discovered.¶ So why the resurgence in sea-based activity? Dean
Cheng is a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and an expert on China’s technological
ambitions. He points to the innocuously named “863 Program” as an underappreciated game
changer that reconfigured the country’s relationship with technology across a number of disciplines.¶
In March of 1986 (hence the “863” title), four prominent engineers wrote to then-Chairman Deng
Xiaoping, warning of impending doom for civil society’s scientific institutions. A long-standing focus on
military might had neglected other aims of technological development, and if China didn’t redistribute
its resources soon, it would be fated to watch the “new technological revolution” from the outside.¶
Xiaoping took the argument to heart, initiating research and exploration programs focused on seven
key fields: biotechnology, space, information technology, lasers, automation, energy, and materials
science.¶ Marine Technology was added to the roster in 1996, well coordinated with the country’s
broadening regional influence and growing appetite for sea-based resources. “China has become
much more dependent on the oceans and ocean-based trade for food and commerce,” notes
Cheng. “They’d also like to know what’s off the coast; there are vast unexplored swaths of their
seabed as well as deeper ocean reaches that could prove useful.Ӧ And while Plan 863 indicates a
formal commitment to oceanographic exploration, China’s movement has been measured and
deliberate, similar to its spacefaring progress. With all the fanfare surrounding the country’s entry into
manned spaceflight, it’s important to maintain historical perspective. In the decade since it became
the third country to put a man in space, China has completed four flights; the bulk of the Space Race,
from Gagarin to Armstrong, happened in less time.¶ It seems likely, then, that the oceanaut program
will be a slow burning initiative, the leading edge of a larger oceanic strategy. Going forward, China
will continue to consolidate its strategic interests and look to secure access to resources, whether
in the form of deep ocean minerals or coastal fish. As Cheng explains, “there are relatively few
sudden interests in Chinese politics. The broader set of research areas tend to be methodical in the
development process – it’s been true for outer space and it’s true for inner space too.”
China has made moves to develop
Shanghai Daily 5/26/14 (Shanghai Daily, “China Focus: Qingdao New Area to boost
marine prospects”, 5/26/14,
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=226599, CTC)
QINGDAO, Shandong Province, June 26 (Xinhua) --
A new zone designated in east China's Shandong Province to
steer the country's marine development has rosy prospects, insiders have said. The Qingdao West Coast New Area
(QWCNA) aims
to pilot innovation in marine technology and serve as a strategic base for deep
sea and off-shore exploration. Its establishment in Huangdao District of the coastal Qingdao was approved by China's State
Council, the cabinet, earlier this month. Zhao Yingmin,
head of the bureau of science and technology in Huangdao, said
that the advanced technology owned by the area will be a trump card. "We
will work with science institutions to create
unmanned submersibles to meet pressing demand for deep-sea and off-shore exploration," Zhao
told Xinhua. He said that the QWCNA is home to a variety of key scientific projects that will give the area technological firepower in its
mission. For instance,
the new area has attracted the research base of China's most sophisticated
research vessel, Kexue, or "Science." The ship can dock in the base and be repaired, and experiments
can be conducted there. Meanwhile, state-owned enterprise the China Ship Building Industry Corporation has
delivered the first home-grown electronic propulsion system for ships along Qingdao's coast, and is
building a facility to research, produce and experiment with advanced high-power engines, said the
corporation's Feng Cheng. These advantages aside, China is hampered by a number of disadvantages that make the QWCNA all the more
necessary. It lacks ocean liners and ultralow-temperature stores, and has poor fishing equipment. But the QWCNA has signaled its
determination to make progress in this regard by pumping 10.17 billion yuan (1.63 billion U.S. dollars) into building a seafood trading center
as well as an ultralow-temperature storage facility with a capacity of 400,000 tonnes. In support of the area's future development, two
major ports in the QWCNA will be transformed to offer international trade and financial settlement, according to Xue Qingping, director with
the local development and reform commission. "I believe that with avant-garde technology and the infrastructure building scheming that is
taking place, the QWCNA will efficiently boost our country's marine development," Xue said. Lying in the west coast of Jiaozhou Bay, the
QWCNA covers 2,096 square km of land and about 5,000 square km of water.
China is building a commercial empire
Kaplan, 14 (Robert, Senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, China’s Budding Ocean
Empire, The National Interest, June 5, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-budding-oceanempire-10603, TS)
China is starting to build a commercial empire-of-sorts throughout two oceans—the Western
Pacific and the Indian. In regards to the Indian Ocean, trade, rather than military expansion, will be
at the heart of it. Empire building is often not the stuff of conscious grand strategy. It occurs
gradually, over decades, by experimentation. And the end result is never clear at the beginning or
even in the middle. To wit, the Venetian empire in the Eastern Mediterranean began as a limited
expedition against pirates in the northern Adriatic. The beginnings of the Dutch and British East India
companies were similarly circumscribed. China’s attempts at port building and/or financing from
Myanmar to Tanzania are very much in this spirit.¶ Beijing is attempting to do in the East and South
China Seas in the early twenty-first century what the United States successfully accomplished in
the Greater Caribbean in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. It has attempted to take
effective strategic control of the blue water extension of its own continental land mass. This is
China’s path to a significant presence in the Indian Ocean. For just as the Greater Caribbean
unlocked dominance of the Western Hemisphere for the United States, the South and East China
Seas can unlock a vast naval footprint for China in the navigable, southern Rimland of Eurasia—
from the Horn of Africa to the Sea of Japan. This is a drama that could take decades to play out.¶
China taking the lead on deep sea exploration
Broad, 10 (William, Science Journalist and Senior Journalist at NY Times, China Explores a Frontier
Two Miles Deep, The New York Times, September 11, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/science/12deepsea.html?_r=0 TS)
China is already taking the lead on deep sea exploration ¶ When three Chinese scientists plunged
to the bottom of the South China Sea in a tiny submarine early this summer, they did more than
simply plant their nation’s flag on the dark seabed.¶ The men, who descended more than two miles
in a craft the size of a small truck, also signaled Beijing’s intention to take the lead in exploring
remote and inaccessible parts of the ocean floor, which are rich in oil, minerals and other
resources that the Chinese would like to mine. And many of those resources happen to lie in
areas where China has clashed repeatedly with its neighbors over territorial claims.¶ After the flag
planting, which was done in secret but recorded in a video, Beijing quickly turned the feat of
technology into a show of bravado.¶ “It is a great achievement,” Liu Feng, director of the dives, was
quoted as saying by China Daily, an English-language newspaper, which telegraphs government
positions to the outside world.
China wants better relations and a bolstered image
Wang, 14 (Brian, Next Big Future writer, Pentagon’s View of China’s Military, South China Sea
Situation and Possibilities, Next Big Future, June 25, 2014, http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/pentagonview-of-chinas-military-south.html, TS)
China’s Military engagement with other countries seeks to enhance China’s international
presence and influence by improving relationships with foreign militaries, bolstering China’s
international and regional image, and assuaging other countries’ concerns about China’s rise.
The PLA’s engagement activities assist its modernization through the acquisition of advanced weapon
systems and technologies, increased operational experience, and access to foreign military practices,
doctrine, and training methods.
China poised to become global leader on STEM
Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places
including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over
The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientificdominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)
Anyone who watched the moon landing or uses the internet can attest to the strong tradition of
scientific innovation in the United States. But China is now poised to blow past the U.S. to become
dominant in science and engineering, as it has already done in global trade.¶ A team of
researchers from the University of Michigan and Peking University in Beijing published a study
highlighting China's growing scientific dominance in a recent issue of the journal Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences.¶ Specifically, they focused on China's potential to knock the
U.S. out of its spot as the world's undisputed leader in the science, tech, engineering, and math
fields — collectively called STEM.¶ The researchers write: "Two recent reports by the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine have
raised concerns that the United States may soon lose its scientific leadership role and suffer negative
economic consequences."
Climate Leadership Link
The US and China will clash over climate change leadership
Erimtan 6/14 (Can, Phd in Modern History; Writer for RT, “Climate calamity averted: New renewable
rivalry between the US and China”, 6/14/14, http://rt.com/op-edge/166248-us-china-climatecalamity/, CTC)
Aside from the geopolitical and other strategic issues forcing
Obama to flex the US military muscle, now that he is well and truly into his
second (and final) term as the Leader of the Free World, he probably
feels the need to establish his own legacy, his own
stamp that will mark the world in years, if not centuries, to come. Now that his presidency is approaching its twilight years, Obama has the
opportunity to get back to his earlier-uttered campaign promises and he has found a way to revive an old statute, thereby forgoing the need
to pass a new law (that would have been stalled and stopped dead in its tracks by the Republican House), that would tackle the issue of
carbon emissions and thus finally provide a partial answer the challenge posed by the Chinese as long ago as 2005. In this way,
Obama wants to prove that the US is "the one indispensable nation" that will halt the ill-effects of
climate change. The news agency Reuters pronounced that the "US power sector must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30
percent by 2030 from 2005 levels, according to federal regulations unveiled on [2 June 2014] that form the centerpiece of the Obama
administration’s climate change strategy. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal is one of the most significant environmental rules
proposed by the United States, and could transform the power sector, which [now still] relies on coal for nearly 38 percent of electricity"
(natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar have eaten up 12% of coal's contribution to American electricity).
The EPA
regulation is called the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and constitutes the center-piece of President
Obama's renewable energy policy that is meant to be a guiding light to the rest of the world. But this
CPP is but an elaboration on the 1970 Clean Air Act. The president of the Natural Resources Defense Council Frances Beinecke stated
that the "purpose of this rule is to really close the loophole on carbon pollution, reduce emissions as we've done with lead, arsenic and
mercury and improve the health of the American people and unleash a new economic opportunity", stressing the domestic benefits of the
CPP and trying to placate the coal lobby. The coal lobby, arguably in conjunction with the Republican opposition, has already launched its
counter-attack, leading Beinecke to write that the "nation’s worst polluters and their allies have launched a propaganda campaign to
convince [the American public] that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon pollution standards are nothing more than a
backdoor energy tax that will kill jobs and cost you money", adding that "[t]hat campaign is a lie. And what’s at stake is too important to let
the lie stand, or even start". In other words, the Obama administration already has its work cut out trying to convince US citizens that the
issues of climate change and renewable energy are worthwhile and that the CPP will not harm anybody's pockets (apart from those
belonging to the coal lobby, that is, even though coal would still provide 31% of the US electricity demand after implementation of the CPP).
The real competitors Looking at the bigger picture and taking a longer view
the Obama administration is now trying to
convince global public opinion that the US, and not China, has the "ability to lead the world into
the age of renewable energy". While at the moment the US seems to be concentrating on the Ukrainian proxy-battle with
Russia in the ongoing New Cold War, President Obama's new focus on the Pacific-Asia region, meaning China, is well-known as well America's so-called military and strategic “pivot” to Asia. Already in 2011,
the US President concluded a new deal with
Australia as a result of which US Marines are now stationed in the northern city of Darwin (at present, the number
of US Marines rotating through Darwin stands at a 1,000). Ostensibly, this addition to
the US military footprint was set up
to "preserve peace and security" in the region, but the reality is that United States regards the rise of
China with suspicion and some trepidation. And, as a US dependency of sorts, Australia is keen to host American boots
on the ground. As such, at the beginning of this month, the Australian Senate Estimates Committee conducted a hearing on the "likelihood
of Australia being on the front line of a war between the US and China or between Japan and China". While it seems to me that talk of an
actual armed conflict between the US and China at present seems far-fetched,
President Obama has now nevertheless
clearly staked the claim that his legacy will be a global drive towards renewable energy under American and not Chinese, guidance. Even
though currently the US is involved in a rivalry with Russia via the Ukrainian conflict, the real competitors of the later 21st century will
undoubtedly be the US and China. In terms of renewable energy, the US is now trying to steal the Chinese momentum as the fore-runner
that will guide the rest of the world. And this American guidance will supposedly unite the globe in an effort to ward off certain climate
calamity. But the sad fact is that certain scientists have already indicated that these efforts will be too (little too) late. The renowned
ecologist and paleoclimatolgist Curt Stager has, for instance, been arguing for some time now that "our fossil fuel emissions will interfere
with climates for much longer than most of us, scientists included, yet realize. Even in the best-case scenario, the world won’t fully recover
for tens of thousands of years and possibly much longer". The Chinese are famous for their ability to plan long-term and the Obama legacy
project (CPP) arguably also aims at a future beyond immediate election cycles, but whether either nation will be able to alter the world's
emissions of greenhouse gases and undo their negative effect on the earth's climate seems dubious. Whether Chinese or American, the
future of humanity seems to be in dire peril . . .
Arctic Link
Turn US exploration/development clashes with Chinese development
Rosenthal 12 (Elisabeth, Writer for NYT, “Race Is On as Ice Melt Reveals Arctic Treasures”, New
York Times, 9/18/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/science/earth/arctic-resourcesexposed-by-warming-set-off-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, CTC)
NUUK, Greenland —
With Arctic ice melting at record pace, the world’s superpowers are increasingly jockeying
for political influence and economic position in outposts like this one, previously regarded as barren
wastelands.
At stake are the Arctic’s abundant supplies of oil, gas and minerals that are, thanks to
climate change, becoming newly accessible along with increasingly navigable polar shipping shortcuts. This year,
China has become a far more aggressive player in this frigid field, experts say, provoking alarm among
Western powers. While the United States, Russia and several nations of the European Union have
Arctic territory, China has none, and as a result, has been deploying its wealth and diplomatic clout to secure toeholds in the
region. “The
Arctic has risen rapidly on China’s foreign policy agenda in the past two years,” said Linda
Jakobson, East Asia program director at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Australia. So, she said, the Chinese are
exploring “how they could get involved.” In August, China sent its first ship across the Arctic to Europe and it is lobbying intensely for
permanent observer status on the Arctic Council, the loose international body of eight Arctic nations that develops policy for the region,
arguing that it is a “near Arctic state” and proclaiming that the Arctic is “the inherited wealth of all humankind,” in the words of China’s State
Oceanic Administration. To promote the council bid and improve relations with Arctic nations, its ministers visited Denmark, Sweden and
Iceland this summer, offering lucrative trade deals. High-level diplomats have also visited Greenland, where Chinese companies are
investing in a developing mining industry, with proposals to import Chinese work crews for construction. Western nations have been
particularly anxious about Chinese overtures to this poor and sparsely populated island, a self-governing state within the Kingdom of
Denmark, because the retreat of its ice cap has unveiled coveted mineral deposits, including rare earth metals that are crucial for new
technologies like cellphones and military guidance systems.
here
A European Union vice president, Antonio Tajani, rushed
to Greenland’s capital in June, offering hundreds of millions in development aid in exchange for
guarantees that Greenland would not give China exclusive access to its rare earth metals, calling his
trip “raw mineral diplomacy.”
Greenland is close to North America, and home to the United States Air
Force’s northernmost base in Thule. At a conference last month, Thomas R. Nides, deputy secretary of state for management
and resources, said the Arctic was becoming “a new frontier in our foreign policy.” In the past 18 months, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton and President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea have made debut visits here, and Greenland’s prime minister, Kuupik Kleist, was
welcomed by President José Manuel Barroso of the European Commission in Brussels. “We are treated so differently than just a few years
ago,” said Jens B. Frederiksen, Greenland’s vice premier, in his simple office here. “We are aware that is because we now have something
to offer, not because they’ve suddenly discovered that Inuit are nice people.” Chinese activity in the Arctic to some extent mirrors that of
other non-Arctic countries, as the region warms. The European Union, Japan and South Korea have also applied in the last three years for
permanent observer status at the Arctic Council, which would allow them to present their perspective, but not vote. This once-obscure body,
previously focused on issues like monitoring Arctic animal populations, now has more substantive tasks, like defining future port fees and
negotiating agreements on oil spill remediation. “We’ve changed from a forum to a decision-making body,” said Gustaf Lind, Arctic
ambassador from Sweden and the council’s current chairman. But China sees its inclusion “as imperative so that it won’t be shut out from
decisions on minerals and shipping,” said Dr. Jakobson, who is also an Arctic researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute.
China’s economy is heavily dependent on exports, and the polar route saves time, distance
and money to and from elsewhere in Asia and Europe, compared with traversing the Suez Canal .
So far there has been little actual exploitation of Arctic resources. Greenland has only one working mine, though more than 100 new sites
are being mapped out. Here, as well as in Alaska, Canada and Norway, oil and gas companies are still largely exploring, although experts
estimate that more than 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas reserves are in the Arctic. Warmer weather has already extended the work
season by a month in many locations, making access easier. At one point this summer, 97 percent of the surface of Greenland’s massive
ice sheet was melting. At current rates, Arctic waters could be ice-free in summer by the end of the decade, scientists say. “Things are
happening much faster than what any scientific model predicted,” said Dr. Morten Rasch, who runs the Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring
program at Aarhus University in Denmark. Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea,
which gives Arctic nations an exclusive economic zone that extends 200 nautical miles from land, and to undersea resources farther away
so long as they are on a continental shelf. The far northern Arctic Ocean belongs to no country, and conditions there are severe. In a place
where exact boundaries were never much of a concern, haggling over borders has begun among the primary nations — between Canada
and Denmark, and the United States and Canada, for example. The United States has been hampered in the current jockeying because the
Senate has refused to ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea, even though both the Bush and Obama administrations have strongly
supported doing so. This means the United States has not been able to formally stake out its underwater boundaries. “We are being left
behind,” Deputy Secretary Nides said. But experts say boundary disputes are likely to be rapidly resolved through negotiation, so that
everyone can get on with the business of making money. There is “very little room for a race to grab territory, since most of the resources
are in an area that is clearly carved up already,” said Kristofer Bergh, a researcher at the Stockholm Institute. Even so, Arctic nations and
NATO are building up military capabilities in the region, as a precaution. That has left China with little choice but to garner influence through
a strategy that has worked well in Africa and Latin America: investing and joining with local companies and financing good works to earn
good will. Its scientists have become pillars of multinational Arctic research, and their icebreaker has been used in joint expeditions. And
Chinese companies, some with close government ties, are investing heavily across the Arctic. In Canada,
Chinese firms have
acquired interests in two oil companies that could afford them access to Arctic drilling. During a June
visit to Iceland, Premier Wen Jiabao of China signed a number of economic agreements, covering areas like geothermal energy and free
trade. In Greenland, large Chinese companies are financing the development of mines that are being developed around discoveries of gems
or minerals by small prospecting companies, said Soren Meisling, head of the China desk at the Bech Bruun law firm in Copenhagen, which
represents many of them. A huge iron ore mine under development near Nuuk, for example, is owned by a British company but financed in
part by a Chinese steel maker. Chinese mining companies have proved adept at working in challenging locales and have even proposed
building runways for jumbo jets on the ice in Greenland’s far north to fly out minerals until the ice melts enough for shipping. “There is
already a sense of competition in the Arctic, and they think they can have first advantage,” said Jingjing Su, a lawyer in Bech Bruun’s China
practice. The efforts have clear political backing. Greenland’s minister for industry and mineral resources was greeted by Vice Premier Li
Keqiang in China last November. A few months later, China’s minister of land and resources, Xu Shaoshi, traveled to Greenland to sign
cooperation agreements.
Western analysts have worried that China could leverage its wealth, particularly
in some of the cash-poor corners of the Arctic like Greenland and Iceland. But Chinese officials have cast their motives in more
generous terms. “China’s activities are for the purposes of regular environmental investigation and investment and have nothing to do with
resource plundering and strategic control,” the state-controlled Xinhua news agency wrote this year. Michael Byers, a professor of politics
and law at the University of British Columbia, said the Chinese were unlikely to overstep their rights in a region populated by NATO
members. “Despite the concerns I have about Chinese foreign policy in other parts of the world, in the Arctic it is behaving responsibly,” he
said. “They just want to make money.” Next February, the Arctic Council is scheduled to choose the countries that will be granted
permanent observer status, which requires unanimity vote.
Though Iceland, Denmark and Sweden now openly
support China’s bid, the United States State Department, contacted for comment, declined to say how it would vote.
Budget DA
1NC
NASA budget increased in latest budget
King 5/30/14 (Ledyard, Reporter for Gannet, “House spending bill includes modest increase for
NASA“, Florida Today Gannet Sub company, 5/30/14,
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2014/05/30/house-spending-bill-includes-modestincrease-for-nasa/9782867/, CTC)
WASHINGTON --
The House passed a spending bill Friday that would modestly increase NASA's
budget next year but would not fully fund a program to replace the space shuttle with a new vehicle to carry astronauts to the
International Space Station.
The measure, adopted 321-87, would provide $17.9 billion for the civilian space program in fiscal
2015, about $250 million more than NASA received this fiscal year and roughly $400 million more than President Barack Obama has
requested.
But the House bill would give NASA less than it wants for the shuttle replacement
program, called Commercial Crew. Agency officials have warned Congress that any amount smaller than the $848 million NASA is
seeking will delay a launch from U.S. soil, now forecast for 2017, to at least 2018.
The bill includes $785 million for the
Commercial Crew Program, which is more than the House has ever approved for the venture. The
Senate Appropriations Committee, which has traditionally approved more for the program than the House, is expected to reveal its spending
proposal for NASA next week.
Commercial Crew has received renewed interest in the wake of simmering
tensions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine. Since the retirement of the space shuttle
program,
NASA has paid Russia about $70 million each time a U.S. astronaut hitches a ride to the
space station on a Soyuz rocket. But lawmakers and administration officials are wary about
relying on a country that has vaguely threatened to stop providing rides unless the White House
removes sanctions against key Russian officials. That's why lawmakers, led by GOP Rep. Frank Wolf of
Virginia,
rebuffed attempts by Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan to take millions from NASA's space exploration budget for
other purposes, including an anti-violence program and an administration effort
to go after unfair trade barriers put up by
foreign countries. Wolf, who heads the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing NASA, recalled that Russian Deputy Prime
Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Twitter last month, in response to U.S. sanctions, "I propose that the United States delivers its astronauts
to the ISS with the help of a trampoline." "Funds for this program are critical... to end our reliance on the Russians so we can get up
there," Wolf said. The House plan also would continue financing NASA's top priorities, notably a deep-space mission to take astronauts to
Mars within 20 years and the powerful James Webb Space Telescope, set for launch in 2018.It also approves $5.2 billion for NASA
science programs -- more than the agency requested -- to keep robotic missions to Mars and Jupiter's moon Europa on target.The House
bill also would provide slightly more money than Obama requested for aeronautics and security. Lax security at NASA centers has
undermined the agency's sensitive technology network, according to a recent report from an independent group led by former U.S. Attorney
General Richard Thornburgh.
The US budget is zero sum, plan shifts spending away from NASA
English 13 (Chad, Director of Science Policy Outreach at COMPASS, “Budget Trade-offs: A ZeroSum Game”, COMPASS Blogs, 3/25/13, http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/03/25/what-todo-when-the-budget-becomes-a-zero-sum-game/, CTC)
David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council made this comment in front of a full room at the AAAS annual meeting last
month (you can find paraphrases of this comment in the Twitter stream, Storified here). This is a very real choice, and it’s being set up right
now through the federal budget process. There are thousands of people on Capitol Hill this week trying to make the case for their programs
including probably hundreds of scientists and science supporters. The seemingly endless budget and spending and sequestration noise
coming out of D.C. can seem overwhelming and tedious.
egg roll,
With sequestration threatening even the annual White House Easter
the budget rhetoric in D.C. remains heated and the gridlock seems complete. The President still hasn’t released a
budget proposal for 2014 and now isn’t expected to until next month (despite my earlier prognostication). But
for Congress, the
budget process is marching on, and the tradeoff David described is getting set up right now. Remember,
the federal budget is intractably large (approximately 50 million times larger than the typical household budget) so it gets
divided into smaller pieces. Budget allocations make up the first round of dividing up the federal
budget. The Appropriations Committees (there’s one in the House and one in the Senate) are divided into subcommittees. Each
subcommittee gets a slice of the budget, which they then allocate into final spending numbers for each department, office,
and program within the federal government. Each Appropriations subcommittee works with their slice of the budget, called (opaquely) their
302(b) sub-allocation. But here’s the important part:
Once those sub-allocations are set, it’s a zero-sum game within
that subcommittee; a dollar to one program must mean a dollar less for other programs. For scientists,
the Commerce, Science, Justice and Related Agencies subcommittee is one of the big ones to watch. It
determines the budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
But it also sets the budget for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Commission on Civil Rights, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the U.S. Marshal Service, and others.
Once that’s set, any additional dollar that goes to NSF must
come out of one of these other agency’s budgets. (The Washington Post reported today that the continuing resolution
process to keep the government running the rest of this year is facing the same situation.) This is how we get to the scenario David alluded
to.
Asking a member of Congress to support funding for science is implicitly asking them to trade
away something else for that money, and those are neither simple nor easy decisions . Each thing
that you might trade away has a constituency that cares deeply or even depends upon it… and that
member of Congress? It’s their job to represent that constituency, too. While the budget is the focus of discussion now, these concepts
apply to any issue that a policymaker faces. When you talk to a member of Congress, make your case, give them the context they need to
make their decision, and respect – even
acknowledge – the tradeoffs they face. You’ll be more credible, you’ll be giving
them more of what they need, and you’ll be on your way to becoming a trusted source of input.
NASA Space Exploration is key to US leadership
Johnson-Freese 06 (Joan, Chair of National Security Decision Making Department at the Naval
War College, “American Strategic Leadership and Manned Spaceflight“, The Case for Space
Exploration; Space Foundation, 1/3/06,
http://astro.cornell.edu/~randerson/TheCaseForSpace.pdf pg. 32-33, CTC)
Editor’s Note:
To be a leader in the world, a nation must be a leader in space. Other nations have
learned this and even now we are engaged in what an increasing number of people see as a second space race.
While they have a long way to go, these nations are making progress. While we are working with a number of partners on the International
Space Station,
America can ensure its role as a leader in space and in the world by maintaining a
robust space program as outlined in the Vision for Space Exploration. In the following, space policy expert Joan JohnsonFreese describes how the
vision will help America uphold its leadership in the world despite the pressures of being the
world’s only remaining superpower. When American astronauts walked on the Moon, a new “us-them” was inherently created, “us” being the
people of Earth…and if you believe that space is too big a place to have only one populated planet, a “them” is potentially still to be found.
No other person will ever have the same role in history as Neil Armstrong. He was the first person from Earth to step onto another celestial
body. He, an American, led the way for all humanity. He demonstrated to people everywhere that no dream was too big and, thereby, dared
them to dream as well. Global leadership has characterized America’s role in space and, technologically, the United States is far ahead of
any other country in space capabilities. Consequent to two Chinese manned launches since 2003, however, the perception has emerged
that China is catapulting ahead of the United States. While patently untrue, a space race has been created that is destined to be won
largely by image.
With China willing to play the tortoise to the U.S. hare, there is the very real chance that the
United States could be perceived as bested based on consistency rather than capabilities. Since
Apollo, the United States manned space program has been plagued by lack of political will, with the manned program carried forward by
(weak) inertia rather than real motive. Unfortunately, much of the American public views space largely as an interesting museum exhibit,
and space is largely ignored by Congress unless their constituents’ jobs are at stake. In reality,
space has become an integral
part of everyday life not just for Americans but for individuals all over the world. The Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS)
system is a global utility. It is important to the extent that people will not be denied — or, as the advent of the European
Galileo program illustrates, even take the risk of being denied — the services these navigation satellites provide.
GPS is an
American program — another example of America leading the way into space, just as it did with
Apollo. While the impact of Apollo on everyday lives was less explicit, it was, nevertheless, just as powerful. Global leadership is
a role that has been thrust onto the United States and, thankfully, one to which it is eminently qualified to respond. The
United States not only has the military might to lead, it has been viewed, as former President Ronald Reagan put it, as the “shining city on
the hill” that others want to emulate. The United States went to the Moon because it could. It dares to do the hard things that other nations
do not, part of what makes America a leader.
Now, however, lack of political will and a perceived lack of a
strategic purpose could result in the United States tacitly ceding manned spaceflight leadership. Make no mistake, doing so will
cost the United States its global leadership role. Global leadership is part and parcel of America as
the “shining city on the hill.”
Foregoing that leadership dims the lights in the city at a time when America’s
place in the world must be more pronounced and more positive than ever before. Fighting the global war
on terror and shaping the world into a more stable place where human security needs are
provided for all requires both American leadership and global cooperation. Can America’s global leadership
image stand a little polishing? While it is sometimes more important to be feared than loved by certain countries, it appears that the United
States might be precariously close to overdoing it. A Pew Research Center Poll taken in April and May 2005, for example, showed China, a
communist dictatorship, was viewed more favorably than the United States in 11 of the 16 countries surveyed, including Britain, France,
Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, and Indonesia. India and Poland saw the United States in a
more favorable light than China, and Canada was about evenly split.
The United States is having trouble conveying its
message. While to a degree it may be normal for other countries to view the only remaining superpower with angst, if not outright
hostility, these poll numbers indicate negative feelings toward the United States beyond what is normal, and certainly not desirable. Tanks,
planes and lasers will not stop the spread of feelings or ideology. And, whether we like it or not, a poor image clouds positive, progressive
messages that America seeks to convey. For America to lead in the longterm, it must have willing followers. In the 1960s, leadership was
the motivation that took America to the Moon, wanting to show itself leading in a technological competition against the Soviets: a technonationalist show of prowess. Today,
post 9/11 and equally, or more importantly, with the on-going war in Iraq, the United States
needs to recognize again and embrace the leadership opportunity offered by manned space
exploration. But this time it should be based on cooperation, not competition. Leading an international, inclusive expedition off planet
Earth offers the United States a strategic alternative to counter both the militaristic image of the United States that has prevailed since the
Iraq War and from concerns regarding the potential weaponization of space by the United States. It offers an alternative that would go a
long way toward rebuilding America’s soft power, the power to shape the others’ preferences in line with those of the United States by
inducement and attraction, rather than force. Participating in a space program does more than help countries construct technology and
create industries; it builds dreams and generates pride. America has demonstrated its military ability to make others bend to its will. Now we
must work at not needing to use that ability. Soft power is essential for building a stable, peaceful world where the human security needs of
all are met. Cooperative manned
spaceflight creates leadership opportunities that build soft power.
Private Sector CP
1NC
The private sector can do the plan and more. They have innovative technology
and experience in oceanographic data collection.
Woll, 12 (Steve, Steve Woll, an active AMS Member, and a meteorologist, is Director of Business
Development for WeatherFlow Inc in Poquoson, Virginia. He served as a Meteorology and
Oceanography Officer for the United States Navy for over twenty years. He has an MBA degree from
the College of William and Mary, an MS degree from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a BS
degree from Duke University., The role of the private sector in ocean sensing, October 14-19,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6405082) D2
Recent years have seen the development of innovative and often lower-cost ocean observing
technologies[are], putting more capability than into the hands of private sector ever companies,
in some cases for the first time. At the same time, activity by private sector companies in the
coastal oceans has increased in support of oil and gas exploration , offshore wind energy,
homeland security, maritime shipping, fisheries, and other drivers. Oceanographic data from
private sector sources has the potential to fill in existing data gaps in a cost-effective manner. In
order to optimize our ability to make use of such data, a discussion of the policy surrounding the
use of private sector data (and of the underlying data infrastructure needed to support it) is
needed. This paper discusses some of the background, history, and considerations that have a
bearing on the use of such private sector data.
The private sector is the MOST efficient when it comes to the collection of ocean
data through exploration. Implementing the plan through the private sector would
increase the oceanographic data collected and increase economic activity, all
while eliminating government spending.
Woll, 12 (Steve, Steve Woll, an active AMS Member, and a meteorologist, is Director of Business
Development for WeatherFlow Inc in Poquoson, Virginia. He served as a Meteorology and
Oceanography Officer for the United States Navy for over twenty years. He has an MBA degree from
the College of William and Mary, an MS degree from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a BS
degree from Duke University., The role of the private sector in ocean sensing, October 14-19,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6405082) D2
The last twenty years have seen an increase in the number and breadth of various public-private
partnerships in both oceanography and meteorology, and the policies of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) specifically encourage those efforts. On the oceanographic
side, the National Ocean Service (NOS) operates the Integrated Oceanographic Observing
System (IOOS), which has been very successful at coordinating the efforts of federal government
agencies, universities, and private sector companies, establishing a robust Data Management and
Communications (DMAC) capability and providing funding to performers through a set of Regional
Associations (RAs) that coordinate activities within their regions. At the same time, the technological
boom of the last half century has begun to see the broader deployment of some specific types of
oceanographic and marine meteorological sensors by private companies for private purposes
(e.g. oil exploration, operation of port facilities, wind energy prospecting, etc.). Because specific
companies or customers fund the collection of this data for specific business purposes, the
resulting data sets have generally been kept proprietary and not shared with the government or
the public. As IOOS, NOAA, and most of the federal government face severe budgetary
constraints for the foreseeable future , it is prudent for the Oceanography Enterprise to review all
of the options available to help IOOS, NOAA, and the broader Oceanography Enterprise meet
their collective mission requirements. The NMP has been very successful at getting the NWS
access to large numbers of high quality, professional grade meteorological observations via restricted
licensing and the MADIS data architecture. Given this demonstrated success, implementing a similar
data policy and supporting data architecture at NDBC and other oceanographic repositories
should be given serious consideration. At the same time, a data policy of unrestricted licensing
and an unrestricted data architecture should also be considered, since such an arrangement is
the most flexible, gets the most data into the most hands, and can reasonably be expected to
directly support more users and generate more economic activity . Review of these options should
be conducted by IOOS and the Oceanographic Enterprise leadership and a working group
representing government, university, and private sector interests. Debating the merits, costs, and
benefits of these and other options would be an extremely healthy and useful exercise for IOOS
and the broader oceanographic community. The resulting decisions and subsequent policy
guidance would serve to provide a much-needed clarity, thereby allowing all participants and the
Oceanography Enterprise as a whole to optimize their planning for the next decade and beyond.
Solvency—STEM
The USFG acknowledges the private sector as a better alternative for STEM
education than federal agencies.
C.S.S.T, 14 (The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,The Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over all energy research, development, and demonstration,
and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories;
astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities;
civil aviation research and development; environmental research and development; marine research;
commercial application of energy technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology,
standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; National Science Foundation; National Weather Service; outer space, including
exploration and control thereof; science scholarships; scientific research, development, and
demonstration, and projects therefor., Private Sector STEM Initiatives Make Big Impact, January 9th,
http://science.house.gov/press-release/private-sector-stem-initiatives-make-big-impact) D2
Washington, D.C. – The Research and Technology Subcommittee today held a hearing to review
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education initiatives developed and
conducted by private organizations. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “A well-educated and
trained STEM workforce will promote our future economic prosperity. But we must persuade our
nation’s youth to study science and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers. We
need to learn what is taking place outside of the federal government so we can be sure we are
not spending taxpayer dollars on duplicative programs. And we need to more effectively use
taxpayers’ dollars to gain the most benefit for our students and our country. You can’t have innovation
without advances in technology. The STEM students of today will lead us to the cutting-edge
technologies of tomorrow.” The administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget request proposed over $3
billion across more than thirteen different agencies of the federal government for STEM education.
Despite this level of federal spending, according to a recent poll, American students rank 26th in
math and 21st in science. Witnesses today discussed what is being done by industry to support
STEM education. Understanding the work of the private sector in the STEM fields will inform the
federal government’s role, help to reduce duplication of effort, and leverage existing programs.
Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.): “One of the most
essential aspects to keeping America at the forefront of STEM innovation, advancement and
development is engaging students at a young age and keeping them interested in pursuing STEM
degrees and careers. As a cardiothoracic surgeon and father of four children between the ages of 9
and 20, I understand that such programs and activities are necessary to enhance America’s
economic growth and competitiveness.” The first panel of witnesses today discussed how industry
and philanthropic organizations offer financial or technical support for students, professional
development opportunities for teachers, and technology for classrooms as a way to encourage
interest in and support for STEM education. On the second panel, high school students who
benefitted from private sector STEM initiatives discussed their positive experiences and what they
learned. Many industry sectors, non-profit organizations, entrepreneurs and educational
institutions are working in a variety of ways in order to bolster the STEM related workforce
pipeline. Partnerships with education providers, STEM focused competitions, and other
opportunities have become important pieces of private sector efforts to strengthen the STEM
workforce.
Solvency—Science Diplomacy
The USFG is reliant on the private sector for Science Diplomacy. Government
funding for the private sector would boost U.S science diplomacy.
Maughan, 13 (Heather, Heather Maughan; in 2009-2012, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the
University of Toronto. In 2006-2009 she was a Postdoctoral Fellow at University of British Columbia.
In 2006, she earned her PhD at University of Arizona (Ecology & Evolutionary Biology; Minor:
Genetics). In 1999, she attened B.S. Utah State University (Biology), US science diplomacy: The
rocky road ahead, January 21st, http://www.scidev.net/global/funding/feature/us-sciencediplomacy-the-rocky-road-ahead.html) D2
The Obama administration is expected to continue including science and technology (S&T) in its
diplomacy agenda, according to interviews with a number of people recognised for their
contributions to international science cooperation. But in the face of government spending cuts
that could occur in 2013, US diplomatic efforts in S&T may be more reliant on collaboration with
the private sector. In his first four years, Obama revamped S&T diplomacy. His 2009 speech in
Cairo pledged to make Muslim-majority countries a priority and led to his creation of a programme of
science envoys, prominent US scientists who travel as diplomats to "identify opportunities for new
partnerships in science and technology". [1] Obama's appointments within the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) have also strengthened the focus on S&T after "in recent
decades, budget cuts and shifting mandates pulled the agency's focus away from emphasising
science and technology", according to an article in Science. [2] But since Obama's 2009 speech,
the Arab Spring has occurred and the USAID budget could be cut by more than US$100 million if no
compromise is found to avert mandatory cuts due to come into force in late March. So will Obama be
able to continue to use S&T as a force for good in the world? Business as usual? Cathleen
Campbell, chief executive officer and president of CRDF Global, a non-profit organisation created by
the US Congress to promote international scientific and technical collaboration, thinks Obama will
continue to be supportive of S&T development. "I expect him to be investing in R&D, investing in
new technology, and I also expect he is going to continue his emphasis on partnerships with
countries around the world in the pursuit of research collaboration and entrepreneurship, new
business development, and development of technology," she says. She adds that working with
Muslim-majority countries will continue to be a priority, and that Obama indicated on a recent trip to
Asia the emerging importance of the region. Others also think that diplomatic efforts focusing on
Muslim-majority countries will improve in the wake of the Arab Spring. For example, Charles M. Vest,
president of the US National Academy of Engineering and an awardee of CRDF Global's 2012
George Brown Award for International Science Cooperation, says: "Anything that opens up
communications, as has occurred to some extent in the Arab Spring, increases opportunities for
people-to-people science discussion". Laurie H. Glimcher, provost of medical affairs at Cornell
University and the recipient of Argentina's 2012 Dr. Luis Federico Leloir Prize (for the promotion of
the international scientific cooperation), points to another emerging priority: biomedical solutions to
global health issues. "We have an emerging crisis on our hands that is going to affect all of us and
that transcends geographic areas or borders: our aging population," she says. "For example, there
are currently 25 million people in the world living with Alzheimer's disease. That's a staggering
number and a heavy burden on our global healthcare system ... we have a challenge that could crush
our existing global healthcare system if we don't find a solution." She stresses that "international
collaboration, beyond borders and nationalities, is crucial to finding the medical and scientific solutions
we need". Finding the funds Identifying key issues is easy. Finding the resources could be more
challenging. "One of the big challenges that we will be facing, like any other country, is the resource
question. What kind of financial resources are going to be available to be able to pursue all the work
that needs to be done?" asks Campbell. The White House has proposed to reduce public spending
by at least US$1 trillion over the next ten years. This would include the Department of State, through
which many diplomatic efforts are funded. But budgetary constraint need not mean science
diplomacy efforts must suffer. As Campbell says, collaboration between organisations and
governments, and between the public and private sectors, could make up for some of the
shortfall. But devoting resources to S&T diplomacy may become more difficult as Congress
continues to disagree on how to best balance the budget before spending cuts occur in 2013.
Changes in membership of Congress committees following the November 2012 election create further
uncertainties. Two bills proposing improved science cooperation and diplomacy have already
been presented in Congress but had little chance of being passed and were eventually referred
back to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. They propose improving
cooperation between the US agencies that fund science, and allocating funds to diplomatic efforts in
Middle Eastern, Sub-Saharan African and Muslim-majority countries. Disagreements between
Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the November 2012 election, delayed the bills'
progress. Although 2013 will bring a new chair to the House Committee on Science, Space and
Technology, Campbell thinks it's too early to predict whether this will increase the chances of passing
the bills or other legislation related to S&T diplomacy. Legislation is not the only way forward, and
some think the US government should be looking to the private sector for progress. William H.
Draper III, co-chairman of the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, and a 2012 George Brown
awardee, says that it is the government's job to prepare the ground for international cooperation that
allows "freedom of travel, freedom to exchange ideas [and] to encourage cross border investment".
He says this openness enables the kind of collaboration that can democratise technology, citing
the example of his early investment in Skype, where money from the US private sector was
invested in technology developed in Estonia and Sweden. Draper also feels passionate about
improvements to international science cooperation that could be made through changes to US
policies. For example, he criticises immigration policies that "give people an education and then
shove them out of the country".
Solvency—Economy
Investment in the private sector is key to economic growth
Merchant, 12 (Krishna, Krishna Merchant is a Staff Writer (Editorial) at Mint and a Senior
Correspondent at Business Standard. She got her education at Indian Institute of Journalism & New
Media., Private sector growth holds the key for economic recovery, July 17th,
http://www.livemint.com/Money/Vlc35aYgn21CVe6aEbY8nL/Private-sector-growth-holds-the-keyfor-economic-recovery.html) D2
What will take a limping economy to turn around and start sprinting again? According to Crisil
Research, a bounce back in private sector investment will bring the economy back on track. An
economic turnaround hinges on a recovery in private sector investment since the government
has depleted its resources. As economic growth slowed to 6.5% last fiscal, even private sector
growth fell to 6.5% from 9% recorded in 2010-11. Economists expect the government to overshoot
the fiscal deficit target of 5.1% in the current financial year after it touching an all-time high of 5.7% in
the previous year. Roopa Kudva, managing director and CEO, Crisil Ltd said, “The weak fiscal
position of the government constrains it from raising public sector GDP through increased
spending. This is evident from the decline in public sector GDP growth to 6.5% in 2010-11 from
14.5% in the previous year. Consequently, the sustainable upside to growth will be largely shaped
by the revival of private sector sentiment and investments.” Government stimulus and the sixth pay
commission (increase in public sector wages) had supported overall 7.6% GDP growth from 2009-11
after the Lehman crisis. As a result public sector growth expanded 12.3% per year during 2008-09 to
2009-10 compared to only 6.2% for the private sector during theuly same period. In absence of
government stimulus, private sector investment is necessary to boost growth to the 8-10% levels
seen during the boom years. Private sector investment has played a very crucial role in reviving
economic growth during 2004-05 and 2007-08. There was a sharp uptick in private investments
from the corporate sector which grew to17.3% of GDP in 2007-08 from 10.3% of GDP in 2004-05.
Solvency—New Tech
The private sector’s technology is significantly better than the U.S government and
military tech.
Clark, 12 (A.J., A.J Clark is the President of Thermopylae Sciences and Technology (TST). His
focus is on team development, product awareness, delivering quality, and strategic growth for TST.
He works directly on programs for customers to provide enterprise architecture support for Geospatial
Systems, Mobile Frameworks, Cyber Security Programs, Disaster Relief Management, and Cloud
Computing Solutions. Mr. Clark has over 15 years of experience in program management and
systems integration for multiple organizations to include the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and
Department of State (DoS)., Why Government Should Take Advantage of Private Sector’s
Technology Investments, July,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/July/Pages/WhyGovernmentShouldTakeA
dvantageofPrivateSector%E2%80%99sTechnologyInvestments.aspx) D2
The U.S. military’s information systems represent a significant amount of innovation, effort and wellintentioned planning. But leaders are constantly met with new technology in the commercial space
that is faster, more efficient and easier to use. The government clearly needs a better way to tap
into commercial innovation. There are available technologies that could be rapidly inserted in
defense systems but it takes anywhere from three to five years to see them gain traction.
Mapping and intelligence systems are areas where military technology could benefit from
improved and lower cost commercial tools. Many of the current systems used by the Defense
Department render two-dimensional maps and imagery at a general wait time of five to 10
seconds for each area an engineer is looking at. In contrast, commercial imagery and mapping
software provides 3D data in one to two seconds. Terrain is visible in three-dimensional and the
fourth dimension of time is available to show imagery literally changing. An illustration of this
challenge is what U.S. Southern Command officials experienced during their response to the Haitian
earthquake. Individual departments were handicapped by tools that were single scope, not web
based, and not interacting with one another. This led to duplication of effort throughout the command
and a lack of real intelligence being aggregated and brought to the commander. A system’s ability to
support an entire organization’s data is oftentimes related to how current it is. Even five-year-old
systems did not have the mandate or the technical ability to connect seamlessly and share data.
Current technology is converging different tasks at a rapid rate. Gmail smartphone users can click on
a restaurant address, for instance, and the phone provides directions in Google Maps. Those
seamless little connections take a fair amount of technology in the background but once implemented
they make a user’s experience much more efficient and enjoyable. Military mission planning and
mapping tools are most certainly not connected to email and other communication systems, so
the concept of getting a military command through email to move to a location and then just clicking
on it to see how to get there on a map is not a common feature in existing defense systems.
Solvency—Warming
Engaging the private sector in climate change prevention is essential for multiple
reasons. It not only combats climate change, but it also develops our adaptive
technologies.
Miller, 14 (Alan, Alan S. Miller is a climate change and global environmental expert with more than
30 years experience. Until his retirement in December 2013, he was the Principal Climate Change
Specialist at the International Finance Corporation, the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank
Group, where his general responsibility was climate change policy and analysis. He is a widely
published author on climate change, energy, and development, including a leading environmental law
textbook. His degrees are from Cornell University (A.B., Government 1971) and University of
Michigan (J.D. and M.P.P. 1974)., Why We Must Engage the Private Sector in Climate Change
Adaptation Efforts, January 9th, http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/why-we-must-engageprivate-sector-climate-change-adaptation-efforts) D2
Scientists have reached near-consensus about climate change and its impacts. We’ve also seen the
creation of several significant donor-supported climate funds, as well as a steady increase in policy
and financial support for climate-friendly technologies. In one critical respect, however, we need
more progress: making the private sector a partner in helping nations build resilience and adapt
to climate change. The business community needs to be our partner as we build resilience
against and adapt to climate change. Yet to date, adaptation discussions inside and outside
official climate negotiations have had surprisingly little business engagement . The focus thus far
has been almost entirely on what governments need to do, and who should pay. In some quarters,
business interest has even been viewed as inappropriate competition for scarce resources. This
is changing in a few countries, but not yet in developing nations where the biggest needs exist.
Adaptation planning and investments must include the private sector – and the sooner this
happens, the better. Engaging the private sector is essential for multiple reasons. It can mobilize
financial resources and technical capabilities, leverage the efforts of governments, engage civil
society and community efforts, and develop innovative climate services and adaptation
technologies. Private entities dominate many investments that are critical to adaptation, such as
the location and design of buildings and other infrastructure investments. Private-sector
corporations also develop – and often dominate – the design and delivery of many adaptation
services such as weather observation technology and early warning systems. Drought-resistant
seeds and other agricultural products, along with water management infrastructure and
technologies, also tend to fall within their purview. Although insurance tends to be much less
available and relevant to investment in developing nations, there are already significant examples of
“Cat” bonds and other products that spread the risk and speed the recovery of countries after natural
disasters. As the largest victims of natural disasters, corporations are also in a position to spread
climate awareness and rally political support for climate action. Finally, and in some ways most
important, the private sector must take on a bigger, if not the dominant, financing role for climate
adaptation in all but the poorest countries if we are to prepare sufficiently for the challenges that lie
ahead. So what do we mean by partnering with the private sector in adaptation projects? In a recent
article I co-authored with Bonizella Biagini, the Global Environment Facility’s adaptation manager, we
review the concept and provide some highlights: In partnership with the International Finance
Corporation, a private port facility in Colombia identified its vulnerability to long-term sea level rise.
The company modified and increased its planned investments to anticipate and incorporate
greater structural integrity. It subsequently announced it will make similar enhancements to all eight
ports that it owns and manages. Munich Re, a major insurance company, has made analysis and
management of the impacts of natural disasters a central basis for selecting and working with
clients – not simply spreading risks, but making their clients more resilient to reduce losses. This
improves the company’s profitability and helps clients avoid business interruption. In very poor
countries with weak business development, adaptation programs can help channel development into
less vulnerable areas. In Sierra Leone, for example, small and medium-sized enterprises offered
affordable water harvesting, storage and distribution systems that helped communities withstand
projected changes in rainfall patterns and intensity – all activities that were also supported by existing
adaptation funds. Highly innovative adaptation products and services developed and marketed by
private companies are already improving climate resilience. Low-cost weather observation systems
placed on cell phone towers, for example, are a fraction of what radar systems cost and often work as
well or better in many locations. Companies that offer farmers highly targeted weather and soil
information, meanwhile, can help improve yields and reduce vulnerability to climate change. Of
course, governments play a key role to make businesses more aware of climate risks and boost
private sector engagement through partnerships. The IFC and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development have been working with the government of Turkey and its business
associations to do just that. A recent ambitious effort along these lines is also taking place in New
York City, where city officials are inviting insurance companies to discuss coastal protection
investments. City officials recognize that since insurers will be among the major beneficiaries, they
may be asked to share the costs of the major improvements required. Efforts to engage the private
sector in adaptation to climate change are beginning and must be accelerated. Public policy
should provide appropriate incentives for adaptation measures and, where necessary, regulation
to avoid shifting risks to the public. The financial community can help by recognizing the
relevance of climate risk as a factor when it evaluates the expected future performance of
companies, for example by offering climate leaders a financial premium. These are all commonsense steps we must take with our private-sector partners as we prepare the world for the future.
The private sector is a more viable option at combating climate change. Their preexisting technology
and innovating potential can fix the government’s failure to reduce CO2, but investment is needed.
Ide, 12 (Kentaro, Kentaro Ide is Senior Associate, Customs and Global Trade at Deloitte. He was
a research Assistant, Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation at Japan
Institute of International Affairs. He attended the School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of
London and the University of British Columbia., Analysis: The private sector and climate change,
February 13th, http://www.rtcc.org/2011/11/10/analysis-the-private-sector-and-climate-change/)
D2
With the future of the Kyoto Protocol uncertain, and pressure mounting on the world’s governments to
slash their greenhouse gas emissions, the role of the private sector in combating climate change is
becoming ever more relevant. Technology, innovations and green entrepreneurs are increasingly
part of the solution – but they cannot survive in a vacuum. In the first of a three-part series,
sustainability analyst Kentaro Ide reflects on the Marketization of Climate Change. “In this time of
government failure and media inattentiveness to climate issues, leadership is coming from the
private sector,” says one speaker, addressing her full audience of businesspeople. It is the second
and final day of Energy Solutions 2011, a buzzing expo of 300-plus exhibitors and numerous
seminars, and the speaker is hardly alone in her enthusiasm for the potential of the private sector in
addressing climate change. Faith in the market as a channel for developing and disseminating
technologies (a broad definition of which includes business processes and tacit knowledge) to
combat climate change is nothing new. The UNFCCC has devised its own market-based
mechanisms, such as emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), to spur
private investment and R&D in “green” technologies. Likewise, the RTCC policy manifesto highlights
the importance of private enterprise and technological innovation in creating a low-carbon
economy. Within London alone, expos like Energy Solutions or the Carbon Show (along with the
countless organizations that recognize and reward private innovations) illustrate the growing market
for technologies ranging from hardware for voltage and/or current optimization to consultancy
services for greener business operations. Furthermore, new movements such as social
entrepreneurship and impact investing are seeking to create alternative models for financing and
promoting innovation by applying business strategies to meet social and environmental
objectives. From traditional businesses pursuing green profit opportunities to new enterprises
prioritizing their social mission over profit maximization, many of these actors share a sense that the
private sector is “picking up the slack” in tackling climate change. This is particularly true among
proponents of social entrepreneurship, who cite government failure as a key reason for seeking
private-led solutions to social issues. Even among traditional businesses, some UK firms marketing
solutions for voltage optimization, for example, claim that their business models can remain profitable
even without further regulations on energy efficiency.
PTX Link
The House is strongly against the formation of government agencies that can be
forwarded to the private sector.
Schouten, 14 (Fredreka, covers campaign finance issues in the Washington bureau of the US
Today, New House leader opposes U.S. Export-Import Bank, USA Today, June 22, 2014,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/22/kevin-mccarthy-opposes-exportimport-bank/11235809/, TS & D2)
WASHINGTON —- The House's next majority leader said Sunday that he does not support
renewing the charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States when it expires in September
— a move that puts the key Republican at odds with some of the country's largest business interests.
Asked whether he could allow the bank's charter to expire, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said:
"Yes, because it's something that the private sector can be able to do ." McCarthy spoke on Fox
News Sunday. "One of the problems with government is they take hard-earned money so others
do things that the private sector can do ," he said. His position is a dramatic departure from that of
the man he will replace, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who negotiated in 2012 to save the bank as
conservatives clamored to kill it. (House Republicans on Thursday elected McCarthy to succeed
Cantor as majority leader. Cantor, who lost his primary election June 10, will resign his No. 2
leadership post at the end of July.) The bank helps U.S. companies — ranging from big companies
such as Boeing and General Electric to small firms — by subsidizing loans to foreign customers to
help them buy U.S. products. The agency says it supported 200,000 Americans jobs by financing or
guaranteeing $37.4 billion of U.S. exports last year. Its reauthorization is backed by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and both groups planned a
joint news conference Monday afternoon as part of a public-relations drive to urge Congress to save
the program. Proponents say dismantling the bank, created in 1934, would put U.S. companies at a
competitive disadvantage with foreign firms that are aided by similar programs in their own countries.
But Tea Party-aligned groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the Koch-backed Americans
for Prosperity, have denounced the bank as an example of "crony capitalism" and have vowed to
lobby hard to end it. Bolstering their cause: Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican chairman of
the committee with jurisdiction over the bank, has emerged as a vocal advocate in Congress for
killing it. The White House backs the bank. However, its charter will expire without congressional
action and prevent the bank from financing new loans.
The next major battle in Washington is already about a government agency—the
Export-Import Bank; no room for another agency debate especially with Midterms.
Caldwell, 14 (Leigh Ann, multimedia journalist in Washington, D.C. who covers politics and policy
for CNN, The next battle in Washington, CNN, June 26, 2014,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/politics/politics-of-export-import-bank/, TS)
We've seen this dynamic before: A mundane and wonky issue that many have never heard of
suddenly elevates to national prominence. Remember the debt ceiling and that it was mostly an
unknown quantity five years ago? This time it's renewing the authority of this thing called the ExportImport Bank to do business. The obscure independent agency provides loan guarantees to foreign
companies struggling to secure financing to purchase goods from American manufacturers. But much
of its financing goes to aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing and costs taxpayers about $200 million
per year, which critics contend wastes money and skews private markets. The agency's authority to
make loans expires September 30 and Congress is now tasked with deciding once again whether to
renew it. Is this government agency worth saving? But it also is the latest battle emerging within
the Republican Party, once again pitting the establishment against the tea party. Michael Needham,
CEO of Heritage Action, the political arm of a similarly named conservative think tank and leading
opponent, said the Ex-Im Bank is, "the purist form of corporate cronyism that exists in Washington,
D.C." On the other side of the debate is Christopher Wenk, senior director for international policy at
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests in the capital. Wenk said the
bank's demise would cost 200,000 jobs and that the chamber's members nationwide are "scratching
their heads about why this is such a big deal in Washington." The agency has been in place for
nearly 80 years. Congress reauthorized it in 2012, passing overwhelmingly despite some noisy
Republican opposition. There was no Republican pushback to its previous reauthorization. Why the
controversy now? With the rise of the tea party in 2010 and the resulting influx of lawmakers
fiercely opposed to more government spending, the issue had the means to gain some traction.
Needham said his organization devoted time and resources to lobby against and were "excited" to
see 93 House members and 20 senators oppose it the last time around. Heritage and other
conservative groups, including Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, have
now had two years to gin up a coalition and pressure Congress. In addition, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of
Texas, a fierce opponent of the bank, was elected to lead the committee that oversees it, helping to
raise the profile of opponents. The bank has long had critics, but nothing has risen to the level where
Congress might try to shut it down. The bank has been involved in numerous lawsuits, including by
Delta Air Lines and related groups who contend its lending practices boost foreign competitors
through aircraft sales. Delta flies worldwide. Environmental groups have also launched court
challenges, opposing the bank's heavy backing of fossil fuels. In a campaign address about cutting
government waste, candidate Barack Obama called the Ex-Im Bank "corporate welfare." In the
1980s, William H. Becker and William M. McClenahan wrote in their book "The Market, the State and
the Export-Import Bank" that President Ronald Reagan was "initially unsympathetic" as opposition
from the left and the right rose. But neither Reagan nor Obama tried to dissolve it. Obama now
supports it and asked Congress to raise its borrowing cap and extend its authority for five years. The
politics It's also an election year and the issue was elevated last week because the newly elected
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, flipped his position and came out in opposition,
emboldening the more conservative wing of the party. No. 2 Republican hates Export-Import bank
His shift comes after his predecessor, Ex-Im Bank supporter and outgoing majority leader, Eric
Cantor, lost his primary to Dave Brat, who campaigned against corporate welfare. While the
Chamber of Commerce and tea party-linked groups have been battling it out in Republican primaries,
this issue is adding to the feud. "Some see it as a prime opportunity to make a political statement,"
Wenk said. "That's' one of my biggest beefs right now." Neither Heritage nor the Chamber of
Commerce would discuss their political strategy, but both said that using this issue in campaigns is
very likely.
NASA CP
Solves Science Diplomacy
Past science diplomacy attempts involving NASA have been successfulInternational Space Station proves
Payette ’12 (Julie, currently serving as Québec’s Scientific Delegate to the United States. She is a
Canadian engineer and astronaut who flew two space missions aboard the Space Shuttle for the
construction of the International Space Station. While a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in 2011, she investigated the political and social impact behind
international collaboration in large-scale scientific projects, “Research and Diplomacy 350 Kilometers
above the Earth”, Science & Diplomacy, 12/10/12,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/research-and-diplomacy-350-kilometers-aboveearth, H.W.)
In 1998, the ISS partners (Canadian Space Agency [CSA],
the European Space Agency
[ASI], the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency [JAXA], NASA, and Roscosmos)
[ESA], the Italian Space Agency
were ready to formalize their plans. They
dropped the “Alpha” from ISSA and signed a series of Intergovernmental Agreements and
Memoranda of Understanding
amongst themselves that established the ownership of modules, the station usage by participant
nations, the contractual obligations, and the rights and responsibilities of each.
Spearheaded by the determination of the
U nited S tates government to get everyone on board and tap into the potential of scientific
cooperation as a unifying tool , this unprecedented body of international framework agreements
laid out the basis for the station that orbits Earth today.
Agency Creation NB
The next major battle in Washington is already about a government agency—the Export-Import
Bank; no room for another agency debate especially with Midterms
Caldwell, 14 (Leigh Ann, multimedia journalist in Washington, D.C. who covers politics and policy
for CNN, The next battle in Washington, CNN, June 26, 2014,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/politics/politics-of-export-import-bank/, TS)
We've seen this dynamic before: A mundane and wonky issue that many have never heard of suddenly elevates to national prominence.
Remember the debt ceiling and that it was mostly an unknown quantity five years ago? This time it's renewing the authority of this thing
called the
Export-Import Bank to do business. The obscure independent agency provides loan guarantees to
foreign companies struggling to secure financing to purchase goods from American manufacturers.
But much of its financing goes to aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing and costs taxpayers about $200
million per year, which critics contend wastes money and skews private markets. The agency's
authority to make loans expires September 30 and Congress is now tasked with deciding once again
whether to renew it.
Is this government agency worth saving?
But it also is the latest battle emerging within the
Republican Party, once again pitting the establishment against the tea party.
Michael Needham, CEO of
Heritage Action, the political arm of a similarly named conservative think tank and leading opponent, said the Ex-Im Bank is, "the purist
form of corporate cronyism that exists in Washington, D.C." On the other side of the debate is Christopher Wenk, senior director for
international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests in the capital.
Wenk said the bank's
demise would cost 200,000 jobs and that the chamber's members nationwide are "scratching their
heads about why this is such a big deal in Washington."
The agency has been in place for nearly 80 years. Congress
reauthorized it in 2012, passing overwhelmingly despite some noisy Republican opposition. There was no Republican pushback to its
previous reauthorization. Why the controversy now?
With the rise of the tea party in 2010 and the resulting influx of
lawmakers fiercely opposed to more government spending, the issue had the means to gain some
traction.
Needham said his organization devoted time and resources to lobby against and were "excited" to see 93 House members and
20 senators oppose it the last time around. Heritage and other conservative groups, including Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and
Americans for Prosperity, have now had two years to gin up a coalition and pressure Congress. In addition, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas,
a fierce opponent of the bank, was elected to lead the committee that oversees it, helping to raise the profile of opponents. The bank has
long had critics, but nothing has risen to the level where Congress might try to shut it down.
The bank has been involved in
numerous lawsuits, including by Delta Air Lines and related groups who contend its lending practices
boost foreign competitors through aircraft sales. Delta flies worldwide. Environmental groups have also
launched court challenges, opposing the bank's heavy backing of fossil fuels. In a campaign address about
cutting government waste, candidate Barack Obama called the Ex-Im Bank "corporate welfare." In the 1980s, William H. Becker and
William M. McClenahan wrote in their book "The Market, the State and the Export-Import Bank" that President Ronald Reagan was
"initially unsympathetic" as opposition from the left and the right rose. But neither Reagan nor Obama tried to dissolve it. Obama now
supports it and asked Congress to raise its borrowing cap and extend its authority for five years. The politics
It's also an election
year and the issue was elevated last week because the newly elected House Majority Leader Kevin
McCarthy, flipped his position and came out in opposition, emboldening the more conservative wing
of the party.
No. 2 Republican hates Export-Import bank His shift comes after his predecessor, Ex-Im Bank supporter and outgoing
majority leader, Eric Cantor, lost his primary to Dave Brat, who campaigned against corporate welfare. While the Chamber of Commerce
and tea party-linked groups have been battling it out in Republican primaries, this issue is adding to the feud. "Some
see it as a
prime opportunity to make a political statement," Wenk said. "That's' one of my biggest beefs right
now."
Neither Heritage nor the Chamber of Commerce would discuss their political strategy, but both said that using this issue in
campaigns is very likely.
The House is strongly against the formation of government agencies that can be
forwarded to the private sector
Schouten, 14 (Fredreka, covers campaign finance issues in the Washington bureau of the US
Today, New House leader opposes U.S. Export-Import Bank, USA Today, June 22, 2014,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/22/kevin-mccarthy-opposes-exportimport-bank/11235809/, TS)
WASHINGTON —-
The House's next majority leader said Sunday that he does not support renewing
the charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States when it expires in September — a move
that puts the key Republican at odds with some of the country's largest business interests. Asked whether he could
allow the bank's
charter to expire, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said: "Yes, because it's something that the private sector
can be able to do." McCarthy spoke on Fox News Sunday. "One of the problems with government is they take
hard-earned money so others do things that the private sector can do," he said. His position is a dramatic
departure from that of the man he will replace, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who negotiated in 2012 to save the bank as conservatives
clamored to kill it. (House Republicans on Thursday elected McCarthy to succeed Cantor as majority leader. Cantor, who lost his primary
election June 10, will resign his No. 2 leadership post at the end of July.) The bank helps U.S. companies — ranging from big companies
such as Boeing and General Electric to small firms — by subsidizing loans to foreign customers to help them buy U.S. products. The
agency says it supported 200,000 Americans jobs by financing or guaranteeing $37.4 billion of U.S. exports last year. Its reauthorization is
backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and both groups planned a joint news
conference Monday afternoon as part of a public-relations drive to urge Congress to save the program. Proponents say dismantling the
bank, created in 1934, would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage with foreign firms that are aided by similar programs in
their own countries. But Tea Party-aligned groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, have
denounced the bank as an example of "crony capitalism" and have vowed to lobby hard to end it. Bolstering their cause: Texas Rep. Jeb
Hensarling, the Republican chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the bank, has emerged as a vocal advocate in Congress for
killing it. The White House backs the bank. However, its charter will expire without congressional action and prevent the bank from financing
new loans.
New Tech NB
We need new ocean technology now-current tech is inefficient
NERC ‘12 (Natural Environment Research Council, “Why We Need Sustained Observations”,
National Oceanography Centre, 8/29/12, http://noc.ac.uk/ocean-watch/why-we-need-sustainedobservations, H.W.)
No single measurement technique can provide all the information needed. For example, whilst
satellites give good spatial
coverage of the oceans, the time resolution is usually low (many days between satellite passes) and spaceborne instruments measure only the surface skin of the sea.
sea-floor
Likewise,
instruments moored to the
and so located at fixed points in space can give very detailed information about changes in time at these locations – but such
instrument moorings
are very expensive and so are found in very few locations in the oceans. Drifting
buoys and opportunistic use of commercial ships help fill data gaps, but have their own
limitations.
NASA ocean searches are key to new tech, empirics prove
NASA ‘10 (NASA, “Ocean Exploration”, NASA Science: Earth, 5/12/10,
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-exploration/, H.W.)
Previous NASA explorations of the ocean have lead to knowledge and technology that is now
used widely in research and application (ocean surface togography topography as measured by
precision altimeters, ocean vector winds as measured by scatterometers, and ocean color as
measured by radiometers are three excellent examples where NASA initiated the field through is
exploration initiative).
-- Acidification scenario
New tech required to stop ocean acidification
Gillies ’14 (Jeff, editor of the Environmental Monitor, “New technology needed to track ocean
acidification’s full effects”, The Environmental Monitor, 5/16/14,
http://www.fondriest.com/news/new-technology-needed-track-ocean-acidifications-full-effects.htm,
H.W.)
Ocean acidification is driving rapid
fundamental
shifts in seawater chemistry that could cripple
marine ecosystems over the next century. But the concentrations of carbon and other elements
are changing more quickly than current technology can measure them. That creates an urgent
need for a new generation of sensors to measure parameters like dissolved inorganic carbon
particular forms of essential elements like copper. Some developments in the past few years show promise, but
of work to be done. “It’s a very substantial challenge,” said Robert Byrne,
in the University South Florida’s College of Marine Science.
and
there is still plenty
a distinguished research professor
Byrne recently published a call for “innovation and
invention” in the field in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. Expensive, timeintensive laboratory and shipboard methods are commonly used to track these issues. But those
those
produce measurements that are too few and far between document these swift chemical
changes.
Ocean acidification caused the biggest mass extinction in history
Powell ’12 (Devin, writer for ScienceNews, has a biochemistry degree from
Harvard, can demonstrate some sweet moves on the dance floor, owns a guitar and piano, has been
known to pit his chess skills against street hustlers and likes few things as much as a long motorcycle ride
across a beautiful landscape, “Calcium offers clues in mass extinction-ocean acidification during Permian
period may have caused the Great Dying”, ScienceNews, 6/14/12,
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/calcium-offers-clues-mass-extinction, H.W.)
New clues in a mass murder that took place 252 million years ago points to a suspect: Ocean
acidification may have driven the largest extinction of animals the world has ever seen. Carbon
dioxide belched out by volcanic eruptions during the Permian period could have caused the oceans’ chemistry to change. That’s
levels are rising today — thanks to the burning of fossil fuels — and pushing
down seawater pH, researchers report online June 8 in Geology. “The worst biodiversity catastrophe we've
had in the history of animal life appears to have been associated with ocean acidification and other
kinds of environmental changes we anticipate in the coming centuries,” says Jonathan Payne, a paleobiologist at
Stanford University. “It’s a useful comparison point to have in mind as we think about the future of the modern oceans.”
worrisome because CO2
-- Warming scenario
New tech needed for carbon sequestration-tech failing in the squo
Biello ’12 (David, has been covering energy and the environment for nearly a decade, the last
four years as an associate editor at Scientific American. He also hosts 60-Second Earth, a Scientific
American podcast covering environmental news, and is working on a documentary with Detroit Public
Television on the future of electricity, “Critical Carbon-Capture Technology Stalled”, Scientific
American, 10/16/12, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-capture-and-storage-nothappening-fast-enough-to-combat-climate-change/, H.W.)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) " is the quickest way to get substantial greenhouse gas
reductions," argues Len Heckel, Shell Canada's commercial lead for the Quest project. Heckel suggests that Shell and its partners undertook the project to reduce the company's carbon footprint, advance the
technology and take advantage of government funding.
But the Quest project is a rare example of a technology that seems stuck, much like the CO2 after it is pumped underground.
The 2012 survey by industry group the Global CCS Institute found that
although nine new projects were announced this year, eight
previously announced ones failed, bringing the total number of CCS projects worldwide to 75.
Of
those 75, eight are in actual operation, storing some 23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year—or slightly more than the annual emissions of Bahrain—most of it from the processing of natural gas to remove CO2 so
the fuel is ready to burn.
Carbon sequestration is key to solve global warming
Krauss ’13 (Lawrence, a theoretical physicist and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University. His most recent book is “A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than
Nothing”, “The next thing we need to do about carbon”, the New Yorker, 10/2/13,
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/the-next-thing-we-need-to-doabout-carbon.html, H.W.)
Efforts to achieve this goal have focused mostly, thus far, on capturing CO2 and sequestering it at the source of its production.
of the world’s leading geoscientists, physicists, and climate scientists
this year, and a similar group assembled independently at Oxford University this week,
A group
which convened at my institution earlier
both came to the same conclusion :
a more effective global strategy would be to remove carbon dioxide directly from the
atmosphere. Remarkably, this sensible and direct approach has received almost no R. & D.
support to date,
compared to the tens of billions of dollars devoted to increasing fossil-fuel production. (For more, see Michael
Specter’s piece in the magazine, from 2012, on geoengineering and climate change.)
Statistical support proves warming causes extinction and short timeframe
Guterl 12 – Executive Editor of Scientific American, expert in Climate and Environment, Science Policy, citing James Hanson, a
NASA scientist (Fred, “Climate Armageddon: How the World’s Weather Could Quickly Run Amok”, 5/25/12;
< http://www.scientifi...-amok>)//Beddow
The world has warmed since those heady days of Gaia, and scientists have grown gloomier in their assessment of
the state of the world's climate. NASA climate scientist James Hanson has warned of a "Venus effect," in which runaway
warming turns Earth into an uninhabitable desert, with a surface temperature high enough to melt lead,
sometime in the next few centuries. Even Hanson, though, is beginning to look downright optimistic compared to a new
crop of climate scientists, who fret that things could head south as quickly as a handful of years, or even months, if
we're particularly unlucky. Ironically, some of them are intellectual offspring of Lovelock, the original optimist gone sour. The
true gloomsters are scientists who look at climate through the lens of "dynamical systems," a mathematics that
describes things that tend to change suddenly and are difficult to predict. It is the mathematics of the tipping point—
the moment at which a "system" that has been changing slowly and predictably will suddenly "flip." The colloquial
example is the straw that breaks that camel's back. Or you can also think of it as a ship that is stable until it tips too far in one
direction and then capsizes. In this view, Earth's climate is, or could soon be, ready to capsize, causing sudden,
perhaps catastrophic, changes. And once it capsizes, it could be next to impossible to right it again. The idea that
climate behaves like a dynamical system addresses some of the key shortcomings of the conventional view of climate
change—the view that looks at the planet as a whole, in terms of averages. A dynamical systems approach, by
contrast, consider climate as a sum of many different parts, each with its own properties, all of them interdependent
in ways that are hard to predict. One of the most productive scientists in applying dynamical systems theory to climate is Tim
Lenton at the University of East Anglia in England. Lenton is a Lovelockian two generations removed— his mentors were mentored
by Lovelock. "We are looking quite hard at past data and observational data that can tell us something," says Lenton. "Classical
case studies in which you've seen abrupt changes in climate data. For example, in the Greenland ice-core records, you're seeing
climate jump. And the end of the Younger Dryas," about fifteen thousand years ago, "you get a striking climate change." So far, he
says, nobody has found a big reason for such an abrupt change in these past events—no meteorite or volcano or other event that is
an obvious cause—which suggests that perhaps something about the way these climate shifts occur simply makes them
sudden. Lenton is mainly interested in the future. He has tried to look for things that could possibly change suddenly and
drastically even though nothing obvious may trigger them. He's come up with a short list of nine tipping points—nine
weather systems, regional in scope, that could make a rapid transition from one state to another.
AT: Links to Politics
NASA policies have had bipartisan support in the past
Committee ‘14 (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, “House Passes Bipartisan NASA
Authorization act”, science.house.gov, 6/9/14, http://science.house.gov/press-release/housepasses-bipartisan-nasa-authorization-act, H.W.)
“NASA has accomplished some of the most awe-inspiring and technologically advanced space initiatives in the history of humankind.
The
NASA Authorization Act of 2014 helps ensure that the United States will continue its proud tradition of being a world leader in
space exploration. This bill
expresses bipartisan support for investment in the future of America’s space
endeavors and provides the resources and guidance to NASA to push humanity further
cosmos.
into the
This bill is an example of how well Congress can work together to accomplish an objective
that will benefit the entire nation.” The
NASA Authorization
Act
of 2014
continues the consistent
guidance Congress has given to NASA for nearly a decade by reaffirming a stepping stone
approach to exploration . It supports the development on the Space Launch System and the Orion Crew Vehicle to push the
boundaries of human exploration, and focuses NASA’s efforts to develop a capability to access the International Space Station so that
America can once again launch American astronauts on American rockets from American soil.
South Africa CP
1NC
Plan: The Republic of South Africa should create a new oceanic organization
South Africa is becoming a global leader in global climate science with specific
regards to oceans
Treasure et al. 13 (Anne, Department of Oceanography and Marine Research Institute at
University of Cape Town, “South African research in the Southern Ocean: New opportunities but
serious challenges”, South African Journal of Science, 2013,
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S003823532013000200002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en, N.O)
Such research opportunities align directly with the Grand Challenges identified by the Department of
Science and Technology (DST) for steering South Africa's resource-based economy towards a
knowledge-based economy.11 In particular, one of these five Grand Challenges is global-change
science with a focus on climate change, aiming to improve scientific understanding as well as to
develop innovations and technologies to respond to such change. The vision for South Africa in
2018 is world leadership in climate science and the responses to climate change.11 Recognition
is given to the strategic position of South Africa as a gateway to the south and a major focus is
placed on science related to the Southern Ocean, Antarctica and Marion Island.11 These
ambitions are reflected in significant recent investments by the government in these regions,
including the acquisition of the new ship for over ZAR1.3 billion and the completion of a new
multimillion rand research base on Marion Island in 2011 . The planning of a long-term
observational platform across the Southern Ocean will contribute to the success of the five DST
Grand Challenge outcomes listed under their Climate Change thrust, namely1
South Africa HAS provided information on global climate change with specific
regards to the ocean, empirically proving they are capable of the research
DLODLO 12 (Nomusa,Dr. Nomusa Dlodlo holds a PhD in Computer Science from the Liverpool
John Moores University in the United Kingdom, “Adopting the internet of things technologies in
environmental management in South Africa”, CSIR-Meraka Institute, 2012,
http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/5981/1/Dlodlo2_2012.pdf, N.O.)
In South Africa, Marine GIS has been used to offer information about the earth‟s oceans,
seas and watersheds. Near shore and deep water phenomena, such as current, salinity,
temperature, biological and ecological mass and density all play an integrated role in
offshore and coastal management. Some other areas of marine GIS development include
oceanography, coastal zone management, navigation and charts, ocean industries and
conservation . Management and remediation decisions about marine fisheries are more
easily made using spatial analysis. Geographical representations of fish populations make
planning and resource management more accurate (GIS for Africa, 2011).
However, a new organization is required: South African efforts currently fall short
of their potential thanks to the same issues plaguing the aff, including lack of
funds and political bureaucracy
Treasure et al. 13 (Anne, Department of Oceanography and Marine Research Institute at
University of Cape Town, “South African research in the Southern Ocean: New opportunities but
serious challenges”, South African Journal of Science, 2013,
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S003823532013000200002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en, N.O)
South Africa has a long track record in Southern Ocean and Antarctic research and has recently
invested considerable funds in acquiring new infrastructure for ongoing support of this research. This
infrastructure includes a new base at Marion Island and a purpose-built ice capable research vessel,
which greatly expand research opportunities. Despite this investment, South Africa's standing as a
participant in this critical field is threatened by confusion, lack of funding, lack of consultation
and lack of transparency. The research endeavour is presently bedevilled by political
manoeuvring among groups with divergent interests that too often have little to do with science ,
while past and present contributors of research are excluded from discussions that aim to formulate
research strategy . This state of affairs is detrimental to the country's aims of developing a
leadership role in climate change and Antarctic research and squanders both financial and
human capital.
South Africa is key to research in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica
Treasure et al. 13 (Anne, Department of Oceanography and Marine Research Institute at
University of Cape Town, “South African research in the Southern Ocean: New opportunities but
serious challenges”, South African Journal of Science, 2013,
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S003823532013000200002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en, N.O)
These scientific capabilities create opportunities for South Africa to take the lead in Southern
Ocean research. The region is recognised as key to understanding and perhaps mitigating global
climate change, and holds key resources, which will come under increasing international
pressure.
As the African nation closest to the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, the relative ease of access
means that South Africa has an important role to play in providing a springboard for African
Antarctic science. Climate change science was one of the main reasons used to justify the
acquisition of the SA (Agulhas II)
As stated by Dr Monde Mayekiso, Deputy-Director General: Oceans and Coasts in the Department of
Environmental Affairs (DEA), on arrival of the vessel: All of South Africa should join us [in] being
very proud of this new ship, a wise and worthy investment of our government, that will create
opportunities for our young scientists, but more importantly carry out research that will improve our
country’s ability to predict climate change impacts.
Knowledge of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica is key to predicting global
warming impacts
Smith 12 (Tierney, journalist at the RTCC, interviewing and quoting Nathan Bindoff, Professor of
Physical Oceanography at the University of Tasmania, “Expert Q&A: How the Southern Ocean helps
us plan for climate change”, Responding to Climate Change, February 13, 2012,
http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/24/how-the-southern-ocean-helps-us-plan-for-climate-change/
N.O.)
The southern ocean is in some ways unique from other oceans so what is really important here is
that we understand the differences of the Southern Ocean from the North Atlantic or the North Pacific
or the Equatorial Ocean and the real difference of the Southern Ocean is that it has got these
deep penetrating currents which go from the surface all the way to the bottom . So that is a key
difference. What that really means is that these ocean currents which store the carbon are
different from those in the northern hemisphere and the mid latitudes . Understanding how the
southern ocean really works and how it absorbs these gases , how it absorbs the excess heat,
how it holds the surface temperature of the Southern Ocean and the southern hemisphere to a lower
temperatures change than the northern hemisphere are really key things to understanding how
future climate will evolve.
Solvency—Pharmaceuticals
South African pharmaceuticals solve - has US approval
Zachariasen 8 [Angela, writer for South African Info and Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, “SA’s Pharmaceutical Success Story”
–South African Info, July 29, 2008, http://www.southafrica.info/business/success/aspen-290708.htm#.U7HaFvldXUU, LS]
When Steven Saad established Aspen Pharmacare in a suburban home in 1997 at the age of 33, little did he think his small sales company
would one day become South Africa's leading pharmaceuticals producer and play a pivotal role – with support from two United States
presidents – in tackling a global pandemic. Aspen, which has its primary plant in Nelson Mandela Bay and a second facility in East London,
is one of the top 20 manufacturers of generic medicines globally. December 2007 statistics confirm its local generic market share at 34%,
compared to its nearest rival at 14%. Go to Eastern Cape Madiba Action This achievement is thanks to Saad's foresight in securing
voluntary licences from multinational pharmaceutical companies for the manufacture of more affordable generic antiretrovirals.
Antiretrovirals (ARVs) substantially extend the lives of people living with HIV/Aids and help prevent
mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Apart from developing Africa's first generic ARV (Stavudine), launched
in 2003, Aspen also manufactures an extensive basket of ARVs all registered with the SA Medicines Control Council. Backing from two US
presidents Aspen is the only southern hemisphere manufacturer selected by the US-based Clinton Foundation to produce cheaper
HIV/Aids ARV medicines. The 2006 agreement between former US President Bill Clinton and
Aspen focuses on reducing
costs and scaling up production of ARVs. It has resulted in the cost of generic ARVs in developing countries being reduced
by one-third to one-half of the original price. "Treatment, once started, is a lifelong commitment, and over time patients move from lowprice first-line drugs to second-line combinations that are at least 10 times more expensive," Clinton is on record as saying. "Keeping the
global cost of Aids treatment sustainable will only be possible if we lower the prices of these medicines."
Aspen was also chosen
as the world's first supplier of generic ARVs under US President George Bush's $15-billion
Emergency Plan for Aids Relief. Part of the approval process involved a rigorous assessment of Aspen's R200-million oral solid
dosage facility in Port Elizabeth, which manufactures generic ARVs and capsules. The facility is considered to be the most modern of its
kind in Africa. Believing in the Eastern Cape Saad was recognised for his leadership and entrepreneurial spirit when he won the coveted
Ernst & Young 2004 World Entrepreneur of the year award for South Africa. He narrowly lost the World Entrepreneur title in a vote-out.
Speaking of his love for the Eastern Cape, Saad said he decided to establish Aspen's primary plant in Port Elizabeth because he believed
in the capability and intellectual property of the local manufacturing facility. "Aspen
is committed to the development and
upliftment of the South African pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. At a time when most pharmaceutical
manufacturers are divesting locally, Aspen has continued to show commitment with a capital injection of more than R1-billion in the Eastern
Cape." Port Elizabeth, East London plants The Port Elizabeth plant is South Africa's leading producer of tablets and capsules, and also
manufactures liquid dosage forms such as syrups, suspensions and solutions, as well as creams, ointments and suppositories. Continual
enhancements to the plant include additional bottle packing capabilities to service a growing need in the ARV market for delivery of product
in this format. In March 2006, Aspen began construction of a R400-million sterile facility in Port Elizabeth, with production capabilities in
injectables (including hormonals), freeze-dried vials for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and other products. Commercial production was
scheduled to commence by the end of 2008. Aspen's East London-based facility has extensive manufacturing capability and capacity in
various categories, including penicillin, oral contraceptives, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs), complementary medicines, cosmetics,
capsules, powders, creams, ointments, lotions, liquids and tinctures. The site continues to grow, with increased volume being driven by
buoyant toothpaste and penicillin sales. Production capabilities have been enhanced through ongoing investment, and further increase in
output is planned with the re-alignment of products from other facilities that suit East London's flexible short-run production profile.
South Africa Key
South Africa has exclusive access to the Southern Ocean Observing System
Secretariat
Treasure et al. 13 (Anne, Department of Oceanography and Marine Research Institute at
University of Cape Town, “South African research in the Southern Ocean: New opportunities but
serious challenges”, South African Journal of Science, 2013,
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S003823532013000200002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en, N.O)
With the meeting of these outcomes, South Africa can start to address the concerns raised by the
Southern Ocean Observing System Secretariat, which has highlighted that a critical gap in
understanding the causes and consequences of change in the Southern Ocean, and developing
informed management and mitigation strategies, is the absence of long-term sustained
observations.8 For this, integrated, multidisciplinary, circumpolar observations are essential to
detect, interpret and respond to change.8
Antarctica IS absolutely key to global climate research
National Research Council 11 (The National Research Council of the National Academies is
the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering,
“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean”, National Research Council of
the National Academies, 2011,
http://www.andrill.org/static/Resources/Publications/NAS%20Future%20Science%20Opportunitie
s%20in%20Antarctica%20and%20the%20Southern%20Ocean.pdf, N.O.)
Rising global temperatures now threaten to push the equilibrium out of balance. As more of the
Antarctic ice sheets melt, the volume of the world’s oceans will increase – and so too will global
sea level. The Antarctic ice sheets hold about 90 percent of the world’s ice; if all this ice were to
melt, it would raise global sea level by more than 60 meters. Therefore, it is critical that
scientists understand how rapidly the world will warm, if ice loss will accelerate, and how quickly
sea level will rise. Key to improving this understanding in the next 20 years is increased
observations and model development to learn more about the interactions of ice sheets at the iceocean and ice-bedrock boundaries.
China CP
Possible CP Texts
CP Text: The People’s Republic of China should increase its exploration of Earth’s
oceans through creation of a State Oceanic Exploration Administration (SOEA).
Solvency