Environment Disadvantage-4WKJ-NDI
Contents
Environment Disadvantage-4WKJ-NDI ........................................................................................... 1
Negative .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1NC Shell ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2NC Overview ............................................................................................................................. 6
2NR Overview ............................................................................................................................. 7
General Biodiversity Impact.................................................................................................... 8
Global Warming Food Security ............................................................................................... 9
Health and Development ...................................................................................................... 10
Food Security ........................................................................................................................ 11
Economic Collapse ................................................................................................................ 12
Uniqueness................................................................................................................................ 13
Cuba Wall .............................................................................................................................. 14
Mexico Wall .......................................................................................................................... 17
Venezuela Wall ..................................................................................................................... 20
EE Destroys Environment.......................................................................................................... 24
Internal Links ............................................................................................................................. 37
Generic .................................................................................................................................. 38
Cuba ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Mexico ................................................................................................................................... 46
Venezuela .............................................................................................................................. 48
Impact Scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 53
General Extinction................................................................................................................. 54
Global Warming Food Security ............................................................................................. 62
Health .................................................................................................................................... 67
Food Security ........................................................................................................................ 71
Economy Turn ....................................................................................................................... 75
Global Conflict ....................................................................................................................... 80
AT: Regulations Check............................................................................................................... 81
Venezuela .............................................................................................................................. 82
Cuba ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Mexico ................................................................................................................................... 86
Affirmative .................................................................................................................................... 89
Loss of Biodiversity Inevitable .................................................................................................. 90
Regulations Check Economic Expansion/is safe ....................................................................... 95
Generic .................................................................................................................................. 96
Venezuela .............................................................................................................................. 99
Mexico ................................................................................................................................. 100
Cuba .................................................................................................................................... 101
Biodiversity loss =/= Extinction ............................................................................................... 106
Negative
1NC Shell
1. <Insert Respective Country Uniqueness: “Biodiversity High Now”>
2. Market expansion destroys biodiversity- empirics prove
Ostfeld and Keesing 13 (Richard S Ostfeld, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA, Felicia Keesing, Bard College,
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, “Biodiversity and Human Health” http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/B9780123847195003324/3-s2.0-B9780123847195003324-main.pdf?_tid=e3f0ac3e-f33b-11e2-8ded00000aab0f02&acdnat=1374545112_3c915724869f82f0aad33f3288a1e075)The organization of economic activity into more-or-less private
markets is, by and large, a phenomenon that began several hundred years ago in the West and has expanded worldwide in more recent
decades (while the world's major economies have increasingly been organized along market lines, virtually all remain “mixed” economies, in
which economic activity is apportioned in varying degrees between private and public sectors). (For an interesting perspective on changes in
social views concerning private self-interest over the centuries, see Heilbroner, 1999.) BC The scale of economic activity neither tracks exactly
the degradation of the environment in general nor the decline in biodiversity. Technological improvements may result in the production of both
more valuable and less environmentally damaging goods. The empirical fact is, however, that biodiversity has
declined with the
appearance and expansion of modern market economies. It is easy to link the causes of biodiversity
loss with the hallmarks of economic growth. Overharvesting results when growing demands for fish,
timber, and other biological resources interact with emerging technologies for their extraction and
exploitation. Modern market economies are not conducive to the types of social norms and local
institutions that have, in many cases, led to sustainable resource extraction from common-pool
resources in small-scale preindustrial communities (e.g., Ostrom, 1990). International trade and travel are
leading causes of the introduction of exotic diseases, pests, and predators that have eliminated native
populations, particularly in isolated habitats. (It is worth noting, however, that prehistoric human migrations also had
devastating effects on native biota. Paleontological evidence suggests that the extinction of American megafauna were at least suspiciously
contemporary with the migration of humans across the Bering land bridge, even if experts disagree as to the culpability of humans. The
extinction of Pacific island fauna, such as the giant Moa of New Zealand, has been more definitively linked to the arrival of Polynesian voyagers
and, in some instances more importantly, the rats and pigs they brought with them.) In the early nineteenth century, William Blake wrote that
the industrial revolution had brought “dark satanic mills,” to “England's green and pleasant land,” and by the end of the twentieth century the
industrial air and water pollution that had transformed landscapes in the worlds' wealthier nations was also to be found, often in greater
quantities and concentrations, in less-developed countries. Perhaps most importantly, the
sheer scale of human activity has
resulted in the destruction of natural habitats to provide more area for industry, residences, and
agriculture
3. <Insert Country Specific Internal Link>
4. Biodiversity poses an imminent threat to human survival
Raj 12 (Dr. P.J. Sanjeeva Raj, consultant ecologist and the Professor and Head of the Zoology Department of the Madras Christian College
(MCC), “Beware the loss of biodiversity”, September 23, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/beware-the-loss-ofbiodiversity/article3927062.ece) Professor
Edward O. Wilson, Harvard visionary of biodiversity, observes that
the current rate of biodiversity loss is perhaps the highest since the loss of dinosaurs about 65 million
years ago during the Mesozoic era, when humans had not appeared. He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all
biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic reasons, as has been seen now, it is
sure to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and helplessness on this
planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to lead us into an age that may be appropriately called the “Eremozoic
Era, the Age of Loneliness.” Loss of biodiversity is a much greater threat to human survival than even climate
change. Both could act, synergistically too, to escalate human extinction faster.
Biodiversity is so indispensable for human survival that the United Nations General Assembly has
designated the decade 2011- 2020 as the ‘Biodiversity Decade’ with the chief objective of enabling
humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its biodiversity. We should be happy that during
October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from
193 party countries are expected to meet. They will review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the
Earth Summit or the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries.
Biodiversity provides all basic needs for our healthy survival — oxygen, food, medicines, fibre, fuel,
energy, fertilizers, fodder and waste-disposal, etc. Fast vanishing honeybees, dragonflies, bats, frogs,
house sparrows, filter (suspension)-feeder oysters and all keystone species are causing great
economic loss as well as posing an imminent threat to human peace and survival. The three-fold biodiversity
mission before us is to inventorise the existing biodiversity, conserve it, and, above all, equitably share the sustainable benefits out of it.
2NC Overview
1. <Extend 1NC Uniqueness Evidence>
2. Economic Expansion and human activity has created massive environmental
destruction. Our insatiable need for resources has led to destruction of natural
habitats, resource depletion, and unsustainability- That’s Ostfeld and Keesing 13
3. <Extend 1NC Internal Link evidence>
4. Loss of Biodiversity is an imminent threat to Human Survival, that’s Raj 12 <INSERT
IMPACT SCENARIO>
2NR Overview
General Biodiversity Impact
Biodiversity key to human survival, its loss is more threatening than global warming; and the
two together will catalyze the rate of human extinction. Biodiversity gives humans the
necessities of life from oxygen and water, to energy and waste disposal. This outweighs on
magnitude. Timeframe and probability do not matter. A biodiversity collapse in Latin
American nations would uniquely lead to human extinction. Without biodiversity we’d have
no food, water, oxygen or shelter; the four most important modes of survival - That’s Raj 12.
<Insert Specific Impact overview if wanted>
Global Warming Food Security
Deforestation has massive effects on climate change, it represents 75 percent of brazil’s
emissions, and Forests like the amazon are some of the world’s largest carbon store. That’s
Greenpeace no date.
Or
Offshore oil drilling leads to Greenhouse gas emissions, which compound to cause global
warming. That’s Eyre 12.
And, global warming leads to food scarcity, thereby leading to increased prices, that’s World
watch Institute 7/27. And, Climate change poses a threat to food security because it puts a
brake on yield improvements. That’s Oxfam 12. Now is key to gain consciousness of the
impacts of global warming, the Chilean model proves. That’s Speiser 9. And, Climate change
will cause wars due to resource scarcity. That’s Science Codex 9. And, Climate change leads
to quesitions of sovereignty and resource wars. That’s Mayoral 11. And, resource wars lead
to extinction, that’s Lendman 7.
Health and Development
Destroying biodiversity riding civilization of the promise that Undiscovered creatures and
plants could hold in terms of disease prevention and treatment- That’s doyle 5. And,
destroying natural compounds could mean the destruction of potentially life saving drugs.
That’s Hong-Fang 9. Biodiversity helps reduce impacts of disease on crop production, and
lessens the transmission of deadly viruses. Less Biodiversity means more disease, less
resources, and less goods. That’s Ostfeld and Keesing 13. And, with lack of new ways to
thwart pandemics, they could destroy the entire population, that’s Morag 12. This is a
guaranteed extinction scenario, as disease spreads, so will deaths. That’s DJUS 9. Eventually
until the entire human race is exposed.
Food Security
The oceans account for 70 percent of the earth and 75 percent of our food source. When the
US engages with other countries, it causes environmental collapse. Marine Ecosystems are
uniquely key to prevent a global food security threat - That’s Worm 6. Without action the
crisis will just increase and eventually spillover - That’s Annan 11. That spillover causes a
global food crisis and a resource war. - That's brown 11. Lastly, when countries fight over
resources, smaller groups will acquire the weapons and expertise, causing nuclear prolif.
That’s Klare 6. Prolif causes an all out arms race in which. miscalc may occur leading to an
escalation up to a third World War pulling int every major power in the world. That’s
Hermann 1.
Economic Collapse
A UN report stated that Biodiversity loss is expensive, hitting the global economy harder than
climate change. The economic invisibility of nature’s flows into the economy is a significant
contributor to the degradation of ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity. Its plain and
simple, loss of resources leads to less profit. That’s open Knowledge 11. Humans are
dependent on the services of ecosystems, and they are of huge importance economically.
That’s Edwards and Abivardi 98. Also, people in developing countries and economies depend
on biodiversity for their economic and social survival, that’s Christie 12. And, Watts 10 states
that declines in biodiversity would cause severe losses to businesses. Foster 2K says that
environmental degradation is the root cause of all conflict, and Royal 10 explains that this
decline can cause war. This exploitation is unsustainable, and makes collapse imminent
leading to an escalation up to a third World War pulling int every major power in the world.
Uniqueness
Cuba Wall
Cuba is key to global ecosystems AND relations are critical to solving global
environmental collapse
Conell 9 (Christina Conell Council on Hemispheric Affairs Research Associate, "The U.S. and Cuba: an Environmental Duo?", Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, Scoop, June 15, 2009, PAS) www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0906/S00198.htm)The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an
Environmental Duo?Cuba’s
abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance
Lifting the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba
and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies¶ •With the support of the
U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a
global scale¶ Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States
should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by moving to normalize relations
and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. Cuba is
the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the
Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental conservation
as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration
is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy.¶
Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If President Obama is sincerely committed
to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s
own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to
environmental challenges.¶ Environmental Riches and Implications¶ Cuba’s
glittering white sand beaches, extensive coral
reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the Caribbean’s most biologically
diverse island. Based on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada, Cuba has 12 times more
mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27
times as many vascular plant species. Equally important, adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close
proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to
replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of Cuba is critical to the
economic health of North America’s Atlantic coastal communities.¶ The U.S. and Cuba also share an
ancient deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys
support important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea
turtles, dolphins and manatees in both countries. Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic,
signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradisiacal vision that Christopher Columbus observed
when landing on the island in 1492.¶ Oro Negro and Dinero¶ The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban
waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore
oil and gas
development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches. Together, Cuba and the
U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the exploitation of these
resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environment. Offshore drilling is
likely to increase with the discovery of
Cuba’s environment is very healthy – it’s been protected from pollution by the
embargo.
Lovgren 6 (Stefan winner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award, “Castro the Conservationist?
By Default or Design, Cuba Largely Pristine,” National Geographic, August 4, Online:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-castro-legacy.html) Isolated in part because
of the U.S. trade
embargo against the island, Cuba has been excluded from much of the economic globalization that
has taken its toll on the environment in many other parts of the world. "The healthy status of much of
the wetlands and forests of Cuba is due not to political influence as much as the lack of foreign exchange with
which to make the investments to convert lands and introduce petrochemical pesticides and
fertilizers," Pearl said. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Cuban factories and agricultural fields have sat
dormant. The island has had to become self-sufficient, turning to low-energy organic farming. It has
had to scrap most of its fishing fleet because it can't afford to maintain the ships. Population pressure
has also been a nonissue, with many Cubans fleeing the country for economic and political reasons.
Cuba is home to one of the most protected environments in the world
Lovgren 6 (Stefan , winner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award“Castro the Conservationist?
By Default or Design, Cuba Largely Pristine,” National Geographic, August 4, Online:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-castro-legacy.html) Though
Cuba is economically destitute, it
has the richest biodiversity in the Caribbean. Resorts blanket many of its neighbors, but Cuba remains largely
undeveloped, with large tracts of untouched rain forest and unspoiled reefs. The country has signed
numerous international conservation treaties and set aside vast areas of land for government
protection. But others say Cuba's economic underdevelopment has played just as large a role. Since the collapse of the Soviet
Union—its main financial benefactor—Cuba has had to rely mostly on its own limited resources. It has
embraced organic farming and low-energy agriculture because it can't afford to do anything else. And
once Castro is gone, the experts say, a boom in tourism and foreign investment could destroy Cuba's pristine
landscapes.
Cuban biodiversity as high as it will ever be – American embargo preserves Cuban
environment
PBS 10 (Public Broadcasting Service, “Cuba: The Accidental Eden A Brief Environmental History”,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/cuba-the-accidental-eden/a-brief-environmental-history/5830/, MS) Cuba
has been called
the “Accidental Eden” for its exceptional biodiversity and unique historical development. The island nation and its
archipelagos supports thousands of plant and animal species, many of which are endemic, making Cuba the most
naturally diverse Caribbean nation and a destination for biological scientists and ecotourists.¶ Cuba’s natural blessings are the
result of a manifold historical trajectory. The American trade and tourism embargo and the collapse of the Soviet
Union have both made “accidental” contributions to the survival of Cuban wildlife. Cuba’s low
population density (about 102 people per square kilometer) and relative land isolation as an island have afforded it
moderately low levels of environmental destruction and high levels of endemism. And Cuba remains biologically
diverse, but it has seen its share of loss.
Another Reason to keep the embargo: Environmental Protection
Claver-Carone 8 (Mauricio Claver-Carone, Writer for the New York Times, “How the Cuban Embargo Protects the Enviroment”, , July,
25, 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/opinion/25iht-edcarone.1.14793496.html?_r=0)
The energy debate in the United States introduces one more powerful argument in support of current
U.S. policy toward Cuba: environmental protection. For years the Castro brothers have been courting
foreign oil companies, and in recent years none have been courted more assiduously than China's Sinopec. Why
Sinopec?¶ The answer is simple: If the Chinese were to start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of
Cuba - so very close to the coast of Florida - it would send a "red scare" through the halls of the U.S.
Congress, creating a new and otherwise improbable coalition for unilaterally lifting the current
embargo. Longtime advocates of lifting trade sanctions against Cuba would join with conservative
Republicans, who, though they now support the trade embargo, are strong advocates for allowing
U.S. companies to drill offshore, and with liberal environmentalists who would rather have strictly
regulated U.S. companies drilling than unregulated Chinese companies. In Cuba that looks like a winning
trifecta for changing U.S. policy.¶ As early as 2006, the Reuters news bureau in Cuba was reporting: "Havana is eager to see
American oil companies join forces with the anti-embargo lobby led by U.S. farmers who have been selling food to Cuba for
four years."¶ In recent weeks this strategy has taken center stage in Washington with political and public opinion leaders
openly discussing the irony of "the Chinese drilling 60 miles from Florida's coast," while U.S. law prevents American companies
from doing the same along the outer continental shelf.¶ The premise of the argument, however, is just not true. Chinese
companies are not drilling in Cuba's offshore waters. Nor do the Chinese have any lease agreements with Cuba's state-owned
oil company, Cupet, to do so. As a matter of fact, the last drilling for oil off Cuba's coast took place in 2004 and was led by the
Spanish-Argentine consortium Repsol YPF. It found oil but not in any commercially viable quantity. Inactivity since suggests that
Repsol YPF is not eager to follow up with the required investment in Castro's Cupet.¶ For almost a decade now, the Castro
regime has been lauding offshore lease agreements. It has tried Norway's StatoilHydro, India's state-run Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation, Malaysia's Petronas and Canada's Sherritt International. Yet, there is no current drilling activity off Cuba's coasts.
The Cuban government has announced plans to drill, then followed with postponements in 2006, 2007 and this year.¶ Clearly,
foreign oil companies anticipate political changes in Cuba and are trying to position themselves accordingly. It is equally clear
they are encountering legal and logistical obstacles preventing oil and gas exploration and development. Among the
impediments are well-founded reservations as to how any new discovery can be turned into product. Cuba has very
limited refining capacity, and the U.S. embargo prevents sending Cuban crude oil to American
refineries. Neither is it financially or logistically viable for partners of the current Cuban regime to
undertake deep-water exploration without access to U.S. technology, which the embargo prohibits
transferring to Cuba. The prohibitions exist for good reason. Fidel Castro expropriated U.S. oil company assets
after taking control of Cuba and has never provided compensation.¶ Equally important, foreign companies trying to
do business with Cuba still face a lot of expenses and political risks. If, or when, the Cuban regime decides
again to expropriate the assets of these companies, there is no legal recourse in Cuba.¶ Frankly, it is bewildering why some
seem to believe that U.S. companies partnering with one more anti-American dictatorship to explore and develop oil fields will
somehow reduce fuel costs for American consumers and contribute to U.S. energy independence. One needs only to look at the
reaction of the international oil markets when Hugo Chávez of Venezuela nationalized assets of U.S.-based ConocoPhillips and
Chevron.¶ What message would the United States be sending to oil-rich, tyrannical regimes around the
world about the consequences of expropriation if we were now to lift the embargo that was imposed
after Fidel Castro expropriated the assets of Esso, Shell and Texaco?¶ For many years the U.S.
embargo has served to protect America's national security interests; today it is also serving to prevent
Cuba's regime from drilling near U.S. shores. And that's good for the environment.
Cuba is working towards economic and environmental compatibility and US economic
engagement causes subordination of environmental concern
Whittle 6 (Daniel Whittle, “Protecting Cuba’s Environment: Efforts to Design and Implement Effective Environmental Laws and Policies in
Cuba,” J.D., University of Colorado. BA, economics and German, Vanderbilt University. Adjunct Law Professor of Environmental Law, Wake
Forest University Law School (2002); Senior Policy Advisor, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (19951997); Associate Attorney, Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis, P.C. (1991-1993).
Cuba’s environment, and its prospects
for developing its economy in a manner compatible with environmental quality and natural resources
conservation, is at the center of a growing international debate among academics, scientists,
government officials, conservation organizations, and others. Few dispute the richness of Cuba’s
natural environment or the challenges associated with reversing a long history of environmental
neglect. 6 The present debate instead focuses on whether Cuba will be able to achieve meaningful
levels of environmental protection while it is still hurting economically and isolated politically. The
http://www.upress.pitt.edu/htmlSourceFiles/pdfs/9780822942917exr.pdf) The future of
Cuban government has developed a modern and sophisticated plan for environmental protection and sustainable development and has started
using it. The
question now is whether government leaders can and will do what it takes to put the plan on the ground. Or, in spite of
the country’s new, far-reaching environmental laws, will Cuba instead subordinate environmental protection goals to
economic development priorities like so many other developing countries have done?
Mexico Wall
Mexico’s biodiversity is high
Rhoda-Burton 10 (Richard Rhoda and Tony Burton, “Geo-Mexico; the geography and dynamics of modern Mexico,” 2010, http://geomexico.com/?p=2765, Dr. Richard Rhoda has a PhD in Geography from the University of Iowa and Tony Burton has an MA in Geography from
Cambridge University and a teaching qualification from the University of London) People from elsewhere generally think of Mexico as an arid
country with lots of cacti.
The general impression is that Mexico has relatively little biodiversity in comparison
with equator-hugging tropical countries such as Brazil and Indonesia. These impressions could not
be farther from the truth. While northern Mexico is indeed arid, many areas in southern Mexico
receive over 2,000 mm (80 inches) of annual precipitation, almost entirely in the form of rainfall. The
rainiest place in Mexico— Tenango, Oaxaca—receives 5,000 mm (16.4 feet) of rain annually. Straddling
the Tropic of Cancer, Mexico is a world leader in terms of climate and ecosystem diversity. It is one of the
only countries on earth with arid deserts, dry scrublands, temperate forests, high altitude alpine
areas, subtropical forests, tropical rainforests and extensive coral reefs. The multitude of ecosystems
in Mexico supports a very wide range of biodiversity. Mexico’s Environmental Ministry (SEMARNAT)
indicates that there are over 200,000 different species in Mexico. This is about 10% – 12% of all the
species on the planet. About half of all Mexico’s species are endemic; they exist only in Mexico. An unknown number of endemic
species were forced to extinction by the intended and unintended importation of Old World species by the Spaniards. The U.N.
Environment Programme has identified 17 “megadiverse” countries. The list includes Mexico, the USA, Australia,
five South American countries, three African countries, and six Asian counties. Actually, Mexico is among the upper third of
this group along with Brazil, Colombia, China, Indonesia and DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo). The other countries on the list are:
the USA, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, Malagasy Republic, India, Malaysia, The Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Australia.
Enormous Mexican biodiversity- ranked as the 11th most biologically diverse country
in the world
Wall 8 (Allan Wall resided in Mexico for a decade and a half, where he worked as an English teacher in various schools and at various levels.
Allan was able to meet and associate with Mexicans of various sectors and socioeconomic levels and to travel to different parts of the country.
MexiData.info columnist, Mexican Biodiversity and Six Species in Peril, March 24, 2008, http://mexidata.info/id1765.html¶ Mexico has a great
¶ UNEP (the United
Mexico and 16 other nations as “megadiverse,” these countries being home to
the majority of living species on the planet. ¶ Besides Mexico, the other megadiverse nations are Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,
variety of plant and animal life, the country’s collection of flora and fauna being among the most diverse in the world.
Nations Environment Program) has designated
Peru, Venezuela, Kinshasa-Congo (formerly Zaire), Kenya, South Africa, Madagascar, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua
New Guinea and Australia .¶ It’s estimated that Mexico is
home to over 200,000 species which would account for 1012% of the entire planet’s biodiversity, making Mexico the world’s 11th most biologically diverse
country.¶ Mexico has the world’s most diverse collection of reptiles, with 717 known reptile species.
Of those 717 species, 574 of them are only found in Mexico.¶ Mexico is the #2 country in the world in
diversity of mammals, with 502 species, and #4 in amphibians, with 290 known species.
¶
Mexico is
home to 290 bird species, with 1,150 avian varieties.¶ As far as plants go, Mexico is #4 worldwide in
flora, with 26,000 known species. ¶ This is all very impressive, but, as everywhere, there are conservation problems in Mexico
that put various species in peril of extinction.¶ Legally speaking, there are 2,500 species specifically protected by Mexican law. “Protected
Natural Areas” cover 170,000 square kilometers. These territories include 34 biosphere reserves, 64 national parks, 4 natural monuments, 26
areas of protected flora and fauna, 4 natural resource protection areas, and 17 species-rich diversity sanctuaries.¶ But just establishing
protected areas is not enough; they must be enforced, which requires game rangers to protect the protected areas.¶ In order to publicize the
danger to some of Mexico’s diverse species, the Mexican conservation organization Pronatura has chosen six at-risk species to publicize. Not
that these six are the only species in peril of extinction, but they’ve been selected to highlight, in a concrete fashion, the plight of endangered
species in Mexico.¶ Let’s take a brief look at each species.¶ The golden eagle is one of the world’s biggest birds of prey, with a wingspan
sometimes extending past two meters. This majestic bird is Mexico’s national symbol, but although it’s more common in other parts of the
world, nowadays it is rarely seen in Mexico.¶
Mexican BioD high now
Biodiversidad Mexicana 9 (National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, The Mexican Biodiversity portal
information is the product of many years of collaboration of a large number of research institutions of civil society organizations and
government agencies. It is also the result of the work of all employees of the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity,
“Mexican Biodiversity”, http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/v_ingles/country/pdf/naturalWealth.pdf The
location, complex
topography, climate and¶ evolutionary history of our country have resulted in a¶ great richness of
environment, fauna and flora, and this¶ has put us among the top five places in the world. This¶ great
natural diversity has been presented to us and offers¶ many development opportunities while giving
us a great¶ responsibility as custodians of nature.¶ Hotspots. Mexico contains¶ portions of three of the
34¶ “hotspots” on the planet.¶ These hotspots are regions¶ with at least 1500 endemic¶ species of
vascular¶ flowering plants (more¶ than 0.5 percent of the¶ total species in the world)¶ which have lost at least¶ 70% of the original
extent¶ of their habitat. “Hotspots” have some features of isolation¶ that differentiates them from their neighbouring regions.¶ n Mexico the
“hotspots” are: the Pine-Oak Forests of¶ the Sierra Madre (including the Sierra Madre del Sur and¶ the Neovolcanic axis); Mesoamerica
(including Southeast¶ Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Balsas¶ river basin); and the southern portion of the California¶ Floristic
Province.¶ Wilderness areas.
Mexico has three of the 37 “Wilderness¶ Areas” of the planet. These areas retain
70% or more of¶ their original habitat in good condition, and cover at least¶ 10,000 km2 with a density
of less than 5 inhabitants per¶ square kilometre.¶ The wilderness areas of Mexico are: The Chihuahuan¶ Desert, which
covers part of the states of Chihuahua,¶ Coahuila and Nuevo Leon; the Sonora Desert, which¶ occupies Sonora State and the Baja Californian
Desert,¶ located in both states of the peninsula.¶ Centres of Plant Diversity. Along with Brazil,
Mexico is¶ the American country
with the largest number of Centres¶ of Plant Diversity . These centres were selected due to their¶ great
diversity of plant species, high number of endemic¶ species, high diversity of habitats, high proportion
of species¶ adapted to special conditions of soil, and also because of¶ the degree of threat of
deterioration.
Mexican Environment on a downhill slope
Agence France Presse 9 (Agence France-Presse (AFP) is a French news agency, the oldest one in the world,[1][2] and one of the
three largest with Associated Press and Reuters. It is also the largest French news agency, “Mexico plants trees, loses forests: Greenpeace” June
3, 2009, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) Mexico
is failing to stop
deforestation, despite planting millions of trees, Greenpeace said here Wednesday, two days before the country hosts the
UN World Environment Day .Mexico is fifth in the world for species diversity, but also fifth in the world for
deforestation, the lobby group said."We call on the government of (President) Felipe Calderon to be coherent. It's not possible to extol
Mexico as an example in defending the environment ... whilst systematically destroying ecosystems with environment policies which do not
stop deforestation," a statement said.Mexico loses around 600,000 hectares (almost 1.5 million acres) of trees and jungle each year, which is
Environmental policy
under Calderon -- who will host World Environment Day on Mexico's Caribbean coast -- has not changed, Greenpeace said." Mexico
even has one of the highest rates of environmental degradation in the world," it added. Greenpeace said that bad
equivalent to four times the size of the country's sprawling capital of some 20 million people, the group said.
practice in tourism -- one of Mexico's main sources of foreign income -- had accelerated the destruction of the environment. Mexico has so far
planted 537 million trees and is a "leading partner" in a plan to plant seven billion trees worldwide by the end of 2009, according to the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).The UN-sponsored World Environment Day began 37 years ago and takes place annually on June
5.This year's event will focus on combating climate change, one of the top priorities of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Mexican Biodiversity is among the highest in the world
Natura, No Date (Viva Natura, an online source of information on Biodiversity of Mexico founded in 2001. Recently a small
publishing house dealing with the topics relevant to natural heritage of Mexico and its conservation, “Mexican Biodiversity”,
http://www.vivanatura.org/Biodiversity.html, MS) There are more than 170 countries in the World. Out of these 12 alone harbor in between 60
and 70% of the total biodiversity of the planet and thus earn the privilege to be called megadiverse. Mexico is one of them.¶ You
can find
Mexico, together with Brazil, Colombia and Indonesia, on the very top of the list taking up the first place in reptile
diversity, second in mammals, fourth in amphibians and vascular plants and tenth in birds. In general
terms, it is estimated that more than 10% of all world's species live in this country . Up to date around
65.000 species have been described, although more than 200.000 are believed to exist here.
Mexico has incredible biodiversity
Evans 13 (Dan Evans, 13, Peace Corps Mexico Director, Peace Corps México, “About Mexico”,
http://mexico.peacecorps.gov/about/mexico.php) Mexico
is one of the 18 megadiverse countries of the world.
Mexico is home of 10–12% of the world's biodiversity. Mexico ranks first in biodiversity in
reptiles with 707 known species, second in mammals with 438 species, fourth in amphibians with 290 species, and
fourth in flora, with 26,000 different species. Mexico is also considered the second most diverse country in the
world in ecosystems and fourth in overall species. Approximately 2,500 species are protected by Mexican legislation. In
With over
200,000 different species,
Mexico, 170,000 square kilometres are considered "Protected Natural Areas." These include 34 reserve biospheres, 64 national parks, 4 natural
monuments, 26 areas of protected flora and fauna, 4 areas for natural resource protection and 17 sanctuaries.¶ The discovery of the Americas
brought to the rest of the world many widely used food crops and edible plants. Some of Mexico's native culinary ingredients include:
chocolate, tomato, maize, vanilla, avocado, guava, chayote, epazote, camote, jícama, nopal, tejocote, huitlacoche, sapote, mamey sapote,
many varieties of beans, and an even greater variety of chiles, such as the Habanero. Most of these names are in indigenous languages like
Nahuatl.
Venezuela Wall
Venezuela Biodiversity highest in the world
Miloslavich et. al. 3 (Patricia Miloslavich, Eduardo Klein, Edgard Yerena and Alberto Martin, Jounrnalists at the Department of
Environmental Studies, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela and The Institute of Marine Science and Technology (INTECMAR),
“MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN VENEZUELA: STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES”,http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/gayana/v67n2/Miloslavich%202.pdf, MS )
Venezuela is among the ten countries with the highest biodiversity in the world, both in the terrestrial and the¶
marine environment. Due to its bio geographical position, Venezuelan marine flora and fauna are composed of¶ species
from very different marine bioregions such as the Caribbean and the Orinoco Delta. The ecosystems in¶ the
Caribbean have received considerable attention but now, due to the tremendous impact of human
activities¶ such as tourism, over-exploitation of marine resources, physical alteration, the oil industry,
and pollution,¶ these environments are under great risk and their biodiversity highly threatened. The
most representative ecosystems¶ of this region include sandy beaches, rocky shores, seagrass beds, coral reefs, soft bottom communities,¶ and
mangrove forests. The
Orinoco Delta is a complex group of freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems;¶
the habitats are very diverse but poorly known. This paper summarizes the known, which is all of the¶ information available
in Venezuela about research into biodiversity, the different ecosystems and the knowledge¶ that has become available in different types of
publications, biological collections, the importance and¶ extents of the Protected Areas as biodiversity reserves, and the legal institutional
framework aimed at their¶ protection and sustainable use. As the unknown, research priorities are
proposed: a complete survey of the area,¶ the completion of a species list, and an assessment of the health status of the main ecosystems on a
broad¶ national scale. This new information must be integrated and summarized in nationwide Geographic Information¶ Systems (GIS)
databases, accessible to the scientific community as well as to the management agencies. In¶ the long term, a genetic inventory must be
included in order to provide more detailed knowledge of the biological¶ resources. Future
projects at the local (Venezuela),
regional (Southern Caribbean: Colombia, Venezuela, and the Netherlands Antilles), and global (South
America) scales are recommended.
Venezuelan resource development is responsible now
Political Affairs 8 (Political Affairs is an online magazine of the theories, ideas, politics and culture of the socialist and democratic
traditions and visions of the United States – from a working-class point of view. We are partisan to the rise of working people's wealth and
culture as the foundation for the rise of the whole people toward a more just, prosperous, and peaceful nation, “Venezuela and the
Environment: Can an Oil Country Go Green?”, April 5 2008, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/venezuela-and-the-environment-can-an-oilcountry-go-green/) BC Venezuela is best known for being a major oil producer – the world's fifth-largest, and with reserves of crude larger
than those of any other nation outside the Middle East. Few are aware, though, that it also boasts
a level of biodiversity that is
unmatched in most other parts of the world. Venezuela, a country of 26 million people that is about twice the size of
California, ranks 10th on the global stage for its level of biodiversity. This fact would suggest that the environment ought to form
a vital part of the national agenda. However, until Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez was elected in 1999, no Venezuelan head of state had
ever addressed the issue. Shortly after President Chávez entered the executive office, Venezuela developed a new constitution which includes
the country’s very first environmental protection policies.
In an entire chapter of the 1999 Constitution dedicated to
the environment, sustainable development is established as a national mandate. This goal of creating
a model of sustainable development to address the excesses of capitalism is based on the principle
that natural resources are essential for development, and must be used in a rational way that
maintains the ecological equilibrium. The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela also recognizes that eliminating
poverty and raising the standard of living for all Venezuelans requires a healthy and protected
environment. For these reasons, the right of individuals to a clean environment is given the same
inalienable status in Venezuela’s constitutional framework as are the right to life, health and
education. The constitution also stipulates that environmental protections must be developed in
cooperation with local communities and civic groups. The new laws also require environmental education at all levels of
schooling in Venezuela. Now, for the first time, Venezuela is investing in and implementing environmentallyfriendly models of growth. One example is the decision made in 2005 by the Chávez administration and Venezuelan oil
company PDVSA to eliminate lead-based gasoline. Since then, PDVSA has begun recuperating green areas,
reducing emissions, and cleaning up rivers and lakes. A clear sign of progress came in 2007, when President Chávez
proudly announced: “You should all know that the gasoline produced in Venezuela is now ‘green’ gasoline, we don’t use lead anymore.”[1] That
same year, a presidential decree banned the opening of new coal mines in the state of Zulia, and expansions of the Guasare and Paso Diablo
mines were rejected.[2] THE GREEN REVOLUTION With
43 national parks and 36 natural monuments, Venezuela has
the largest proportion of protected lands in all of Latin America. Just over 55 percent of its territory is
protected. A similar portion of the country -- about half of national lands – is covered by forests and jungles. Venezuela is home about
20,000 species of plants and 5,711 types of animals, including birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and fish. These very high levels of
biodiversity make environmental protection a critical issue. Due to changes in the last decade, environmental policy in Venezuela is now crafted
through increased consultation with local communities who help identify environmental challenges and indicate the best use of local natural
resources. A number of mechanisms for citizen participation have emerged, such as Water and Energy Committees, Conservation Committees,
and farming cooperatives. Venezuela has also signed 14 international conventions on environmental protection and sustainable development,
while taking steps to protect and preserve the country’s domestic natural wealth. 2004,Venezuela ratified the Kyoto Protocol on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, and supported special measures applying to developing countries. Misión Arbol (Tree Mission) One of the most
noteworthy and productive efforts so far, Mision Arbol, is combating deforestation by protecting river basins and promoting the sustainable use
of Venezuela’s forests through collaboration with local communities. Nearly 2,000 reforestation projects have been completed by citizens who
have organized themselves into Conservation Committees. According to Misión Arbol statistics, 2,330 of these committees have been
established nationwide, resulting in the planting of 33 million forest and fruit plants. In 2006 and 2007 alone, 13,524 hectares of land were
reforested. Misión Energía (Energy Mission) Most of Venezuela’s population is concentrated in the many cities that dot the northern coastal
area of the country, while the interior is taken up by vast, grassy plains and thick jungles. The cities use most of the energy and generate the
bulk of pollution. Nonetheless, Venezuela’s “energy revolution” is touching all parts of the country, not just urban areas.[3] New programs
creating eco-friendly housing using building materials derived from waste generated during oil production have plans to build 60,000
“petrocasas.” The first such community was inaugurated in the state of Carabobo on March 30, 2008. Initiatives like the “petrocasas” bring
economic development to low-income areas while avoiding taking a high toll on the environment. Though over 70 percent of Venezuela’s
electricity comes from hydroelectric plants that produce very little pollution, efforts
are still being made to reduce the
country’s carbon output. To that end, Venezuela has begun replacing all incandescent light bulbs throughout the nation with energysaving bulbs that last longer. The program aims to replace 52 million bulbs during its first phase. President Chávez has also announced plans for
a windmill farm to generate electricity on the Caribbean coast and is exploring more uses for cleaner-burning natural gas and ways to reduce
the need for oil-fired power plants.[4] Clean and Potable Water Access to clean drinking water has also been a major issue for much of
Venezuela’s population. However, this problem is beginning to be addressed through the recent construction of aqueducts, dams, pipes, and
reservoirs. In 2006, two new aqueducts were built in different areas of the country, 65 miles of pipes were laid to connect water storage areas,
and maintenance work was completed on 45 percent of Venezuela’s 85 reservoirs. Venezuela
also initiated a process to help
keep its rivers, lakes, and beaches clean through the construction of sewage treatment plants. Among the
most ambitious projects is the restoration of the Guaire River, which serves as the main sewage disposal location for the city of Caracas. This
long-term project will extend over about a decade, and includes the reforestation of shorelines, relocation of housing settlements, installation
of sewage collectors, and construction of treatment plants along the tributaries of the river. CONLCUSION Although in the past it was difficult to
evaluate Venezuela’s environmental policy due to the fact that oil production dominates the economy, government attitudes on the issue have
become clarified in recent years. In fact, they have taken a marked turn. Adherence to international standards and efforts to reduce energy
consumption, lessen pollution, and combat deforestation indicate an increased respect for the environment on the part of the Chávez
administration. President Chávez has himself made this position clear, saying: “Venezuela is one of the countries that least contaminates the
environment, but nevertheless we want to give an example and be at the vanguard.”[5]
Venezuela’s harbors high biodiversity
McManis 7 (Professor Charles R. McManis is a nationally and internationally known expert on intellectual property. He is the past director
of the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Program and the founder, former director and co-director of Washington University in St. Louis
law school’s Center on Law, Innovation & Economic Growth. Co-author of a book on licensing intellectual property, Professor McManis is also
the editor of an intellectual property book on biotechnology and author of a nutshell on intellectual property and unfair competition, now in its
sixth edition., “Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge”,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nqofy1JSHM4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false, 2007) Proportionate to its size, Venezuela
is regarded as harbouring outstandingly high biodiversity, being ranked among the top 20 countries in
the world for plant, amphibian, bird and reptile species (Table 8.1). major portion of the biodiversity in the country,
including an estimated 75 per cent of plant species, is lovated in the southern Guayana region (Amazonas,
Bolivar and Delta Amacuro States) (Figure 8.1). Different types of deciduous, semi-deciduous and evergreen forests cover approximately
83 per cent of the surface of this region, amounting to over 375,000km2 of forested land area (Huber, 1995), making this
one of the largest continuous blocks of frontier forest existing in the world today (Miranda et al, 1998).
Biodiversity high – Especially in the Amazon
USAID 5 (United States Agency for International Development, “CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY IN THE AMAZON BASIN CONTEXT AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR USAID” May 2005, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADF441.pdf, MS)
The Amazon Basin’s biological diversity is staggering. It holds the largest area of contiguous and
relatively intact tropical forest in the world. While these biological assets could provide a sound foundation for regional
development, they are instead threatened by unsustainable resource uses that are associated with
agriculture, ranching, logging, mining, petroleum exploration, and fishing . These threats, in turn, are
provoked by forces such as population growth, infrastructure development, expanding commodity
markets, insecure land and natural resources tenure, and distorted policy incentives.
The Amazon is key to global environment
WWF 13 (World Wildlife Fund, First overall fundraising organization for wildlife safety, “AMAZON”, 2013,
http://worldwildlife.org/places/amazon, MS)
The Amazon is a vast region that spans across eight rapidly developing
countries: Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana, an overseas territory of France.¶
The landscape contains:¶ One in ten known species on Earth¶ •1.4 billion acres of dense forests, half of the planet's
remaining tropical forests¶ •4,100 miles of winding rivers¶ •2.6 million square miles in the Amazon basin, about 40 percent of South America¶
There is a clear link between the health of the Amazon and the health of the planet. The rain forests,
which contain 90-140 billion metric tons of carbon, help stabilize local and global climate.
Deforestation may release significant amounts of this carbon, which could have catastrophic
consequences around the world.¶
The Amazon has high Biodiveristy now
WWF 13 (World Wildlife Fund, First overall fundraising organization for wildlife safety, “AMAZON”, 2013,
Amazon contains millions of species, most of them still undescribed, and
It is one of Earth's last refuges for jaguars, harpy eagles and pink
http://worldwildlife.org/places/amazon, MS) The
some of the world's most unusual wildlife.
dolphins, and home to thousands of birds and butterflies. Tree-dwelling species include southern two-toed sloths, pygmy marmosets,
saddleback and emperor tamarins, and Goeldi's monkeys. The diversity of the region is staggering:¶ •40,000 plant species
3,000 freshwater fish species¶ •more than 370 types of reptiles
Venezuela is working towards environmental sustainability now, but capitalism
pushes it over the brink
AVN 9 (Henrik Bratfeldt, Agencia Venezolana de Noticias. “Venezuela-Capitalism puts the world on the brink of ecocide” December 27
2009, http://www.turismo-venezuela.com/travel-news/45-top-headlines/1055-venezuela-capitalism-puts-the-world-on-the-brink-of-ecocide,
Agencia Venezolana de Noticias (AVN) is the national news agency of Venezuela. It is part of the Ministry of Communication and Information
(MCI), but run as an autonomous service. It reports on national and regional issues, as well as on Latin America in general.)"Those
who
are putting us on the brink of ecocide are unthinkable. The causes of climate change must be forced to
assume their responsibilities," stressed the President of the Republic, Hugo Chávez. In his usual lines Chavez,
published Sunday and titled “Happy New Year, Happy 2010!” the Venezuelan president said that before the United Nations Organization (UNO)
and the countries of the world was clearly the position of countries developed that cause climate change, as to further ensure their own
interests over global welfare. "(...) Has become clear the position of the industrialized countries, since relative and jeopardize the functioning of
the UN as a global organization function effectively in defending the principle of equality among nations. At
the Summit on Climate
Change, held between 7 and 18 December in Copenhagen, Denmark, President Chavez urged people
everywhere to stay in the struggle against capitalism, the main culprit of climate crisis that affects the
planet today, mainly to underdeveloped countries and weaker. The Head of State also called for
reducing the inequalities gap between rich and poor countries and the signing of a document which commits industrialized nations to take
their huge share of responsibility in the effects produced at the rate of climate change and as to reduce the emission of
polluting gases. In this same line of ideas are the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), and the
president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, who proposed holding another summit as an alternative to lackluster climate meeting in Copenhagen on 19
April in the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Among
the main topics discussed at the event included the right of
mother earth and how to ensure a world referendum on the damage to the environment.
EE Destroys Environment
It’s a Tradeoff- No EE AND Biodiversity
IPS 10 (IPS - Inter Press Service, “ATIN AMERICA: BIODIVERSITY SUPERPOWER FACES DEVELOPMENT DILEMMA”, December 3, 2010,
If Latin America is to sustain continued
economic growth, it faces the dilemma of either threatening its rich biodiversity or transforming into a global
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)>BC
leader in providing environmental services based on its unique ecosystems. This is the message emerging from the report "Latin America and
the Caribbean: A Biodiversity Superpower" released on the eve of the 20th Ibero- American Summit, taking place Dec. 3-4, in the Argentine city
of Mar del Plata, 400 kilometres south of Buenos Aires. The vast study, coming in at more than 400 pages, involved a team of 500 people
working two years, under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and other regional and international entities. Their
goal was to inform governments and the private sector in the region about the economic opportunities and risks involved in areas like
agriculture, mining, fishing and forestry that have an effect on biodiversity and the environmental services that unique flora, fauna and
ecosystems can provide. The UN declared 2010 the International Year for Biodiversity to raise awareness about the serious problem of species
loss and to promote initiatives to slow the pace of extinction, which ultimately helps preserve human life. The UNDP study's conclusions are
optimistic because although the research explains the negative environmental impacts it also highlights incentives that benefit the region's
ecosystems and its economies alike. The
region is home to six of the countries with greatest biodiversity in the
world: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela," Emma Torres, the UNDP's environment and energy advisor in Latin America,
told IPS. These countries cover 10 percent of the world's land surface but hold 70 percent of mammal,
bird, reptile, amphibian, plant and insect species, according to the study. Within this territory is the area of greatest
diversity on the planet: the Amazon jungle. And 40 percent of the world's biodiversity as well as 25 percent of its forests are concentrated in
South America alone. Central America, despite covering just 0.5 percent of the Earth's landmass, possesses 10 percent of its biodiversity. In the
Caribbean, meanwhile, 50 percent of the plant life is endemic; in other words, it is not found anywhere else. The natural wealth of Latin
America and the Caribbean already contributes to the national economies. Nevertheless, to the extent that development is environmentally
unsustainable, this natural capital is at risk. From this premise, the report gives economic value to the environment and recommends options.
For example, it notes that Mexico's protected areas contribute 3.5 billion dollars annually to the national economy. That is, each Mexican peso
invested in national parks, for example, generates 52 pesos. The study also indicates that 66 to 75 percent of foreign tourists travelling to the
region visited at least one protected area, and nearly 94 percent of tourism operators in the Caribbean state that they rely on the natural
surroundings as a basis for their businesses. In Venezuela, 73 percent of the electricity generated in 2007 came from hydroelectric plants, with
the watersheds of various national parks providing the water. In Peru, 376,000 hectares of cultivated land is irrigated with water originating in
protected areas. The report points out that the last decade saw exceptional achievement in economic growth and poverty reduction in the
region, which also has a promising economic future despite the global financial crisis, In this context, biodiversity
plays a role
whose true scope is not yet sufficiently appreciated, according to the study. Torres said there are statistics experts working
to quantify this natural capital.
It is not just a matter of preserving resources that go towards economic production but also of valuing
the environment's potential as a laboratory for medical answers, an area in which the region could become a leader,
states the text. While just 12 percent of the world is under some sort of environmentally protected status, the region's average is higher, with
cases like Colombia, where 43 percent of its territory is protected area. Torres underscored that one of the region's main achievements has
been to slow the pace of deforestation in the Amazon, and applauded Brazil for establishing minimum pricing for products obtained from its
rich biodiversity. The UNDP expert also noted the commitment by the Brazilian Association of Meat Exporters to ban the purchase of livestock
and cattle products coming from recently deforested areas -- similar to a pledge from the soybean industry. Mexico, meanwhile, has enacted a
broad payment mechanism for hydrological services, which gives value to protecting the country's water resources. In Peru, a program for
reducing overfishing of anchovies was covered by government incentives for retraining the sector's workers, promoting microenterprise and
providing early retirement options. The study points to diverse and innovative proposals for compensating conservation efforts, citing the
example of Ecuador, which requested the international community pay 3.6 billion dollars for this Andean nation to leave oil reserves untouched
in a protected area, the 9,820-square-km Yasuní National Park. However, the
study warns about "near-sighted decisions"
that could lead to low-quality development and potentially to collapse. Beyond its intrinsic value, the region's
natural capital represents its main competitive advantage, according to the report. Its conclusion: The conservation of natural wealth presents
an opportunity -- not a cost or a limitation -- for creating a new development paradigm, one that is based on environmental integrity, human
health and social equality.
Human Intervention kills biodiversity
Isbell et. al. 7/16/13 (Isbell, F., Reich, P. B., Tilman, D., Hobbie, S. E., Polasky, S., & Binder, S. (2013). Nutrient enrichment, biodiversity
loss, and consequent declines in ecosystem productivity. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America,
110(29), 11911-11916. doi:10.1073/pnas.1310380110
http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=19ae2143-9ca4-4635-a10a6578020ac499%40sessionmgr114&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=89157177)BC Anthropogenic drivers
of environmental change often have multiple effects, including changes in biodiversity, species
composition, and ecosystem functioning. It remains unknown whether such shifts in biodiversity and species composition may,
themselves. be major contributors to the total, long-term impacts of anthropogenic drivers on ecosystem functioning. Moreover, although
numerous experiments have shown that random losses of species impact the functioning of ecosystems,
human-caused losses of
biodiversity are rarely random . Here we use results from long-term grassland field experiments to test for direct effects of chronic
nutrient enrichment on ecosystem productivity, and for indirect effects of enrichment on productivity mediated by resultant species losses. We
found that ecosystem
productivity decreased through time most in plots that lost the most species. Chronic
loss of dominant plant
species was associated with twice as great a loss of productivity per lost species than occurred with
random species loss in a nearby biodiversity experiment. Thus, although chronic nitrogen enrichment initially increased
nitrogen addition also led to the nonrandom loss of initially dominant native perennial C4 grasses. This
productivity, it also led to loss of plant species, including initially dominant species, which then caused substantial diminishing returns from
nitrogen fertilization. In contrast, elevated CO2 did not decrease grassland plant diversity, and it consistently promoted productivity overtime.
results support the hypothesis that the long-term impacts of anthropogenic drivers of
environmental change on ecosystem functioning can strongly depend on how such drivers gradually
decrease biodiversity and restructure communities
Our
Expansion leads to local environmental decline
ICF 1 (ICF International was founded in 1969 as the Inner City Fund, a venture capital firm whose mission was to finance inner-city
businesses. ICF International is a global, diversified firm that combines the entrepreneurship and dynamism of a new company with a solid
reputation in the consulting industry derived from more than 40 years of performance. “North American Trade and Transportation Corridors:
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Strategies”, August, 2001http://www.cec.org/Storage/41/3313_Trade_Corridors_Final-e1_EN.PDF)> BC
Increases in freight transportation can have adverse environmental impacts outside of air quality.
These impacts occur through increased levels of truck and rail traffic in a corridor and alsothrough construction
activities associated with building new or expanded freight handlinfacilities, widening highways, double- or triple-tracking rail lines, or
building new segments ofhighway or rail. Four areas of environmental impacts are discussed below—water resources,biological resources,
noise and ground-borne vibration, and hazardous materials. Noquantification of these impacts is attempted.6.1 Water ResourcesIncreased
truck traffic can contribute to higher levels of runoff pollution from highways,including particulates and heavy
metals from vehicle exhaust fumes, copper from brake pads, tire and asphalt wear deposits, and drips of oil, grease, antifreeze, hydraulic fluids,
and cleaningagents. Contamination
of surface water beyond the corridor itself could occur in the event of a
spill of material in transport. Spills can permeate the surrounding soil and contaminate thegroundwater.
Improperly disposed motor oil is an extremely concentrated water contaminant—one quart of motor oil can contaminate a million gallons of
fresh water.Construction impacts to water resources are often related to run-off from the impervious surfacescreated by construction sites and
erosion of barren rock and soil surfaces exposed duringexcavation. The use of vehicle washing effluents and oiland hazardous materials at
theconstruction facility could also lead to surface water contamination. When construction involveswork in surface water, like the dredging of a
new tunnel alignment, there is a danger ofdisturbing contaminated sediments. Ground excavation in areas with a long history of
industrialactivity may disturb shallow groundwater containing elevated levels of heavy metals andhazardous organic compounds. The
development of new railroad lines can contribute to leachingof creosote into soil and groundwater. Creosote is a hazardous material containing
carcinogenicimpurities, and is used to treat railroad ties to protect against decay and rot.6.2 Biological ResourcesIncreases in freight traffic
volumes can adversely impact sensitive species with habitat near thecorridor. However, construction impacts on biological resources are a
much bigger concern.Construction of a new right-of-way can lead to destruction or fragmentation of habitat.Construction
can also
impact biological resources when higher levels of run-off lead to a largephysical disturbance of habitats, such as fishspawning areas and water vegetation. High run-offvolumes of water from hot paved surfaces can boost surface water
temperatures, harming fishand other aquatic life. Open water disposal of dredged material can alter bottom habitats,decrease water quality,
and adversely affect marine organisms.6.3 Noise and Ground-Borne VibrationIntrusive
noise and vibration can degrade the
quality of life for people in affected areas. Inextreme cases, excessive noise can pose a threat to hearing.
Sound above 65 dB(A) is enough toNorth American Trade and Transportation Corridors: Final Report45cause annoyance and sound above 125
dB(A) is considered painful.50 In addition to the decibellevel, the frequency, duration and time of day affect the extent of noise impacts. Noise
can causestress and other health problems and can affect the habitat of species living near the roadway orrail line.Increased use of a
transportation system generates greater noise impacts. Noise from road andrail transport comes primarily from engine operations, but also
includes noise generated frompavement/rail-wheel contact, aerodynamic effects and the vibration of structures. Near a gradecrossing,
locomotive horns are typically the most significant contributor to noise. Typical noiselevels for highway vehicles at a distance of 7.5 meters
range from about 70 dB(A) forautomobile traffic to 85 dB(A) for a heavy trucks. Noise levels for railroad operations areapproximately 90dB(A)
for an electric locomotive, 92dB(A) for a diesel locomotive, and 120dB(A) for a locomotive horn. For safety reasons, locomotives typically sound
a horn at a gradecrossing, so increases in train frequency can significantly boost average noise levels for apopulation living near a crossing. A
recent trend to mitigate these impacts is to ban locomotivehorns in exchange for improvements to crossing protection.Perceptible noise and
vibration caused by construction equipment may cause annoyance topeople in the vicinity. As a general rule, the total noise level during a
typical 12-hour, daytimeconstruction workday is about 90 dB(A) at 15 meters from the construction site. Impact piledriving can cause daytime
annoyance out to a distance of approximately 76 meters and potentialvibration damage to structures at distances less than about 12 meters
from the pile driving.Tracked vehicles such as bulldozers as well as equipment used for vibratory compaction andexcavation can create
substantial noise and vibration during earth moving operations. Loadedtrucks on construction surfaces can causeannoyance at distances up to
61 meters away. Ifexposed to sufficient high levels of ground vibration, a building may suffer structural damage,such as glass breaking or
cracking plaster.6.4 Hazardous MaterialsHigher volumes of freight transport increase the likelihood of the accidental release of
hazardousmaterials. Most reported incidents of hazardous waste spills occur in the highway sector, whichtransports over 60 percent of the
hazardous materials in the United States, with rail reporting thenext largest number of incidents. Spills may impose substantial costs for
product loss, carrierdamage, property damage, evacuations, and response personnel and equipment. The environmental impact depends on
the type and quantity of material spilled, amount recovered incleanup, chemical properties (such as toxicity and combustibility), and impact
area characteristics (such as climatic conditions, flora and fauna density, and local topography). Thehazardous materials most likely to be
involved in a spill include corrosive and flammable liquids,gasoline, fuel oil, sulfuric acid, and compound cleaning liquids.50 Sound is most often
measured on a nonlinear scale in units of decibels (dB). An adjusted scale, the A-weightedscale, emphasizes sound frequencies that people hear
best. On this scale, a 10-dB(A) increase in sound level isgenerally perceived by humans as a doubling of sound.North American Trade and
Transportation Corridors: Final Report46During construction activity, the likelihood for encountering contaminated soils or groundwateris
greater as the volume of the earth to bemoved increases. The proximity of hazardous wastesites to the project will also affect the chance of
encountering contaminated soils or groundwater.Petroleum-related contamination is the most commonly encountered problem but is one
forwhich relatively well-developed procedures are available. Proximity of the project alignment tooil fields increases the possibility that
associated hydrocarbon contaminants may be encountered,including hydrogen sulfide gas. Soil contamination is a common issue with
construction projects,though it mainly affects project implementation and cost more than human health or ecology.6.5 Summary of Other
Environmental ImpactsThe specific impacts
of increased trade on environmental quality other than air depend greatly
on local conditions. In general, increased freight activity within an existing corridor poses greaterconcerns for air quality impacts than
non-air impacts. Noise is probably the most significant nonair impact resulting from higher traffic levels, particularly rail traffic, in places where
thecorridor passes through populated areas. The likelihood of a hazardous materials release mayalso increase with freight traffic levels. If
increased trade leads to the expansion of facilities orconstruction of new facilities, non-air impacts can be much more significant, and water
andbiological resources then become a major concern.7 DATA NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR COOPERATIONThe process of determining the
environmental impacts of cross-border trade reveals a number ofareas where necessary information is non-existent or highly uncertain. It is
important that thesdeficiencies are addressed as trade-related environmental issues become more prominent. Fourspecific areas are
mentioned below, followed by several examples of ways to improveinformation collection and environmental monitoring.7.1 Data NeedsCrossBorder Traffic VolumesAt many border crossings, truck and rail traffic counts are not readily available. Obtaining thedata usually requires
contacting the individual customs stations, but many customs stations donot have records of rail traffic or do not release cross-border traffic
information at all. It is alsoimportant to know the fraction of empty rail cars at a border crossing to properly estimateenvironmental impacts.
Yet this information is rarely available, in part because customs officesdo not compile it, and also because some rail crossings (e.g., tunnels) are
privately operated andtherefore the information is considered proprietary. One exception is the Texas-Mexico bordercrossings. Truck and rail
traffic volumes for all POEs are regularly collected and published byTexas A&M International University.
Market expansion destroys biodiversity- empirics prove
Ostfeld and Keesing 13 (Richard S Ostfeld, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA, Felicia Keesing, Bard College,
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, “Biodiversity and Human Health” http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/B9780123847195003324/3-s2.0-B9780123847195003324-main.pdf?_tid=e3f0ac3e-f33b-11e2-8ded00000aab0f02&acdnat=1374545112_3c915724869f82f0aad33f3288a1e075)The organization of economic activity into more-or-less private
markets is, by and large, a phenomenon that began several hundred years ago in the West and has expanded worldwide in more recent
decades (while the world's major economies have increasingly been organized along market lines, virtually all remain “mixed” economies, in
which economic activity is apportioned in varying degrees between private and public sectors). (For an interesting perspective on changes in
social views concerning private self-interest over the centuries, see Heilbroner, 1999.) BC The scale of economic activity neither tracks exactly
the degradation of the environment in general nor the decline in biodiversity. Technological improvements may result in the production of both
more valuable and less environmentally damaging goods. The empirical fact is, however, that biodiversity has
declined with the
appearance and expansion of modern market economies. It is easy to link the causes of biodiversity
loss with the hallmarks of economic growth. Overharvesting results when growing demands for fish,
timber, and other biological resources interact with emerging technologies for their extraction and
exploitation. Modern market economies are not conducive to the types of social norms and local
institutions that have, in many cases, led to sustainable resource extraction from common-pool
resources in small-scale preindustrial communities (e.g., Ostrom, 1990). International trade and travel are
leading causes of the introduction of exotic diseases, pests, and predators that have eliminated native
populations, particularly in isolated habitats. (It is worth noting, however, that prehistoric human migrations also had
devastating effects on native biota. Paleontological evidence suggests that the extinction of American megafauna were at least suspiciously
contemporary with the migration of humans across the Bering land bridge, even if experts disagree as to the culpability of humans. The
extinction of Pacific island fauna, such as the giant Moa of New Zealand, has been more definitively linked to the arrival of Polynesian voyagers
and, in some instances more importantly, the rats and pigs they brought with them.) In the early nineteenth century, William Blake wrote that
the industrial revolution had brought “dark satanic mills,” to “England's green and pleasant land,” and by the end of the twentieth century the
industrial air and water pollution that had transformed landscapes in the worlds' wealthier nations was also to be found, often in greater
quantities and concentrations, in less-developed countries. Perhaps most importantly, the
sheer scale of human activity has
resulted in the destruction of natural habitats to provide more area for industry, residences, and
agriculture
Increased trade causes Biodiversity loss
NPG 12(M. Lenzen, D. Moran, K. Kanemoto, B. Foran, L. Lobefaro & A. Geschke, Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is a publisher of high impact
scientific and medical information in print and online. NPG publishes journals, online databases, and services across the life, physical, chemical
and applied sciences and clinical medicine, “International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations”,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/pdf/nature11145.pdf)> BC Human
activities are causing Earth’s sixth
major extinction event1—an accelerating decline of the world’s stocks of biological diversity at rates
100 to 1,000 times pre-human levels2. Historically, low-impact intrusion into species habitats arose from local demands for food,
fuel and living space3. However, in today’s increasingly globalized economy, international trade chains accelerate habitat degradation far
removed from the place of consumption. Although adverse effects of economic prosperity and economic inequality have been confirmed4, 5,
the importance of international trade as a driver of threats to species is poorly understood. Here we show
that a significant number of species are threatened as a result of international trade along complex
routes, and that, in particular, consumers in developed countries cause threats to species through their
demand of commodities that are ultimately produced in developing countries. We linked 25,000 Animalia
species threat records from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List to more than 15,000 commodities produced in 187
countries and evaluated more than 5 billion supply chains in terms of their biodiversity impacts. Excluding invasive species, we found that 30%
of global species threats are due to international trade.
In many developed countries, the consumption of imported coffee, tea,
sugar, textiles, fish and other manufactured items causes a biodiversity footprint that is larger abroad than at home.
Our results emphasize the importance of examining biodiversity loss as a global systemic phenomenon, instead of looking at the degrading or
polluting producers in isolation. We anticipate that our findings will facilitate better regulation, sustainable supply-chain certification and
consumer product labelling. Many studies have linked export-intensive industries with biodiversity threats, for example, coffee growing in
Mexico6 and Latin America7, soya8 and beef9 production in Brazil, forestry10 and fishing11 in Papua New Guinea, palm oil plantations in
Indonesia and Malaysia12, and ornamental fish catching in Vietnam13, to name but a few. However, such studies are neither systematic nor
comprehensive in their coverage of international trade. They also do not link exports to consuming countries, and miss threats more difficult to
connect to specific exports, such as agricultural and industrial pollution. Our approach provides a comprehensive view of the commercial
causes of biodiversity threats. Using information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List on threat causes, we
associated threatened species with implicated commodities; for example, Ateles geoffroyi (spider monkey) is endangered and threatened by
habitat loss linked to coffee and cocoa plantations in Mexico and Central America. Using a high-resolution global trade input–output table, we
traced the implicated commodities from the country of their production, often through several intermediate trade and transformation steps, to
the country of final consumption (Methods). This is the first time, to our knowledge, that the
important role of international
trade and foreign consumption as a driver of threats to species has been comprehensively quantified.
We calculated the net trade balances of 187 countries (Supplementary Information section 1) in terms of implicated commodities
(Supplementary Information section 2). Countries that export more implicated commodities than they import are net biodiversity exporters,
and importers vice versa. A striking division exists between the world’s top ten net exporters and net importers of biodiversity (Fig. 1 and
Supplementary Information section 3). Developed countries tend to be relatively minor net exporters, but major net importers of implicated
commodities. This is probably due to environmental policies that effectively protect remaining domestic species and that force impacting
industries to locate elsewhere. Among the net importers a total of 44% of their biodiversity footprint is linked to imports produced outside their
boundaries. In stark contrast, developing countries find themselves degrading habitat and threatening biodiversity for the sake of producing
exports. Top net importers and exporters of biodiversity threats. In importer countries marked with an asterisk, the biodiversity footprint rests
more abroad then domestically; that is, more species are threatened by implicated imports than are threatened by domestic production. Next
Examining exporters and importers in unison shows that primarily the USA, the European Union and Japan are the main final destinations of
biodiversity-implicated commodities. Coffee, a top-ranking commodity, is threatening species in Mexico, Colombia and Indonesia. Agriculture
also affects habitat in Papua New Guinea (where coffee, cocoa, palm oil and coconut growing are linked to nine critically endangered species
including the northern glider, Petaurus abidi, the black-spotted cuscus, Spilocuscus rufoniger, and the eastern long-beaked echidna, Zaglossus
bartoni), Malaysia (the main export products are palm oil, rubber and cocoa; 135 species are affected by agriculture) and Indonesia (the main
crops are rubber, coffee, cocoa and palm oil, affecting 294 species including Panthera tigris, the Sumatran serow, Capricornis sumatraensis, and
Sir David’s long-beaked echidna, Zaglossus attenboroughi). Fishing
and forestry industries cause biodiversity loss
directly through excessive and illegal resource use and indirectly through bycatch and habitat loss . Such
impacts occur not only in developing countries such as the Philippines (affecting 420 species, 28 of which are critically endangered) and
Thailand (affecting 352 species, 28 critically) but also in the United States (affecting 450 species, 63 critically). Biological resource use is not the
only threat. In China, pollution is responsible for one-fifth (304 out of 1,526) of all threats. Consumers in the United States and Japan are the
largest beneficiaries of these trade flows. Finally, most species on the Red List suffer several different threats. For example, the vulnerable
round whipray, Himantura pastinacoides, is under threat in Indonesia owing to chemical pollution and loss of its native mangrove habitat to
shrimp aquaculture, logging and coastal development. Flow map of threats to species caused by exports from Malaysia (reds) and imports
into Germany (blues). Note that the lines directly link the producing countries, where threats are recorded, and final consumer countries.
Supply-chain links in intermediate countries are accounted for but not explicitly visualized. An interactive version is available at
http://www.worldmrio.com/biodivmap/. Our findings clearly show that local threats
to species are driven by economic
activity and consumer demand across the world. Consequently, policy aimed at reducing local threats to
species should be designed from a global perspective, taking into account not just the local producers
who directly degrade and destroy habitat but also the consumers who benefit from the degradation
and destruction. Allocating responsibility between producers and consumers is not straightforward, even as an academic exercise.
Producers exert the impacts and control production methods, but consumer choice and demand drives production, so that responsibility may
lie with both camps, and may hence have to be shared between them14. Notwithstanding its theoretical challenges, the consumer
responsibility principle is now receiving ample attention in the climate change debate. Its political relevance is demonstrated by China’s official
stance that final consumer countries should be held accountable for the greenhouse gases emitted during the production of China’s export
goods14. To inform this debate, countries’ carbon footprints are now being calculated using global multi-region input–output models15.
EE Causes Environmental Destruction
Boom 12 (Brian M. Boom, “Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through
Environmental Research,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*).
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders.)>BC Cuba
and the United States thus share much
biodiversity—ranging from varied populations of organisms to diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The living
components of this shared environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by natural or man-made
environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases,
hurricanes, and tropical storms. Such events provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. There is essentially no
intergovernmental environmentalinteraction between the United States and Cuba. The shared biodiversity of these countries, and in some
cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico regions, suffers
as a result Man-made environmental
disasters, such as oil and natural gas leaks, can likewise be of shared concern to the Cuban and U.S. governments. The Gulf of
Mexico is a rich source of oil and gas and will remain so for decades to come. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Given the near- and long-term
implications of gas, oil, and chemical dispersants on the Gulf of Mexico’s biodiversity, it is imperative
for the economic and ecological wellbeing of both Cuba and the United States that exploration is pursued with
enhanced safeguards to avoid the mistakes of past disasters, such as the dramatic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. While Cuba
Administration (NOAA)Cuba also has plans for new oil and gas platforms off its northerncoast.4
and the United States are signatories to several international protocols for cooperation on containment of oil spills, there is scant cooperation
between them on this front—although there were at least some low-level meetings between the countries after the Deepwater Horizon
blowout.5Given the potential of currents in the Gulf ofMexico to disperse spills from off the coast of one country to the waters and
shores of the other, there were ongoing concerns about the possible reach of the disaster. However, with increased drilling in the area,
including deep wells, more
than luck will be needed to avert future disasters. Even if oil and gas leaks or spills are
restricted to Cuban or U.S. waters, the negative environmental impacts can be important regionally. The two nations’
shared marine ecosystem is the foundation for the mid Atlantic and Gulf Stream fisheries. Many important commercial and sport
fish species breed and feed in Cuban waters. So destruction of Cuban mangroves and coral reefs will
impact stocks of species such as snapper, grouper, and tuna, along with myriad other animals, plants, and microbes that spend
different parts of their life cycles in the territorial waters of eachcountry.6 Given that urgent environmental problems can
ariserapidly and harm the economic and ecological health of the United States and Cuba, it is imperative that there should
be a mechanism for rapid, joint response to these shared threats.A complex mosaic of coral reefs, seagrass beds, and
mangroves knit together the marine and coastal ecosystems. These ecosystems are threatened increasingly by habitat modification, the
impact of tourism, overexploitation of marine fishes and other commercial seafood resources, the ramifications
of climate change and rising sea levels, and pollution from land-based sources (e.g., unsustainable agricultural
and forestry practices) and ocean-based sources (e.g., cruise ship waste). Increasing tourism especially threatens coral
reefs. Despite some positive measures taken by the cruise industry in recent years, more cruise ships in the region still mean greater potential
stresses to the marine and coastal environments. In addition to these and other shared ecosystems, many marine and terrestrial species are
shared by Cuba and the United States. Examples include migratory, invasive, endangered, and disease vector species. Both urgent natural and
man-made problems, such as hurricanes and oil spills, as well as more gradual, less dramatic threats, such as habitat modification and
pollution, threaten the native biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States.
Northern methods applied to the South causes environmental catastrophe
Franko 7 (Patrice M. Franko is the Grossman Professor of Economics, Latin American economic policy, and microeconomics. Dr. Franko is
also an adjunct fellow in the CSIS Americas Program. She has served as a consultant for the Office of Inter-American Affairs in the Department
of Defense, for the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University, and for the Office of International Affairs at the
National
Academy
of
Sciences.
She
holds
a
Ph.D
from
the
University
of
Notre
Dame,
http://books.google.com/books?id=0oeMjGEERiIC&pg=PA674&lpg=PA674&dq=economic+development+environment+latin+america&source=
bl&ots=sMs9X2kijh&sig=fDOMspltisXAGxlA2IcsbH2UmQU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zZTqUZDXMMqpqgHpID4Bw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=environ&f=false <<) .>> IL To asses the bundle of social and environmental capital that one
generation should pass on to the next, some environmental economists promote the concept of a safe minimum standard. The safe minimum is
Of course, the
differing priorities of the industrialized North and the developing South make such a compact on
global issue precarious. To a large degree, natural capital or biodiversity finds its home in the South,
whereas social capital, including scientific and technical knowledge to preserve natural capital, is large
lodged in the North. Different valuations placed on the need to employ natural capital today versus
desires to preserve ecological diversity for the future suggest that the North, having only 40 percent of
solid waste disposed of in an acceptable manner. Sixty percent lands in open dumps without sanitary
controls, breeding disease and promoting surface and groundwater contamination. Ironies abound. If
Latin Americans produced as much garbage as those who live in the United States, the result would
simply be unbearable.
seen as a social compact that, in the face of high ecological uncertainty, provides a basis for sustainable growth.
Capitalist expansion creates environmental destruction
PBS 10 (Public Broadcasting Service, “Cuba: The Accidental Eden
A Brief Environmental History”, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/cuba-the-accidental-eden/a-brief-environmental-history/5830/,
MS) The
expansion of Cuban commercialism and industry, particularly with the influence of European
and American capital, continued to threaten Cuban wildlife populations. Tobacco and more significantly sugar
transformed the country from a Spanish shipping port to a major agricultural exporter. As sugar demand rose, habitat was destroyed for
farming. Today, farmers still
compete with wildlife for use of the land. At the same time, heavy industrial
development polluted Cuban air, land, and water.¶ Cuba’s 1959 revolution set the country on a path apart from other postcolonial nations.¶ Although revolutionary Cuba instituted policies around agriculture, industry, forests, and water, like most states in the 1960s,
its moderate environmental efforts had mixed results. Focusing more heavily on agriculture rather than heavy industry probably did more to
save Cuban wildlife in the ‘60s and ‘70s than did any environmentally conscious policies.¶ While
global capitalism continued on
a general course of thoughtless environmental destruction, the U.S. embargo against Cuba, including a
travel ban, freed the country from its most salient environmental threat while putting the nation under great
economic strain. Cuba traded and underwent forms of “development,” but in many ways avoided the developments of late century American
capitalism. While
both “capitalism” and “communism” ultimately undervalued natural resources,
American executive and legislative dispositions helped nurture the blossoming of Cuban wildlife. ¶
Oil drilling causes marine degradation
Rose 9 (Mary Annette Rose Ed.D. is an assistant profefsor in the Department of Technology at Ball State University, Muncie, IN. “The
Environmental Impacts of Offshore Oil Drilling,” Februrary 2009, www2.tec.ilstu.edu/students/tec_304/Rose%20Oil%20Drilling.pdf) There
are known detrimental impacts upon the marine environment for all phases of offshore E&P (Patin, 1999).
While natural seepages contribute more hydrocarbons to the marine environment by volume, the
quick influx and concentration of oil during a spill makes them especially harmful to localized marine
organisms and communities. Plants and animals that become coated in oil perish from mechanical smothering, birds die from
hypothermia as their feathers lose their waterproofing, turtles die after ingesting oil-coated food, and animals become disoriented and exhibit
other behavior changes after breathing volatile organic compounds. When
emitted into the marine environment, oil,
produced water, and drilling muds may adversely impact an entire population by disrupting its food
chain and reproductive cycle. Marine estuaries are especially susceptible, as hydrocarbons and other toxins tend to persist in the
sediments where eggs and young often begin life. However, the severity and effects of oil exposure vary by concentration, season, and life
stage. The oil spill from the Ixtoc 1 blowout threatened a rare nesting site of the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, an endangered species. Field and
laboratory data on the nests of turtle eggs found a significant decrease in survival of hatchlings, and some hatchlings had developmental
deformities (Milton, Lutz & Shigenaka, 2003).
Every new offshore drilling operation threatens critical species in the ocean
environment
Gravitz 9 (Michael Gravitz, Oceans Advocate for Environment America Statement at the Department of Interior Hearing On Offshore
Ocean Energy Development in Atlantic City, New Jersey, April 6, 2009, pg. http://tinyurl.com/cxkzanz)
3. When
deciding whether to approve seismic testing or exploration and production off the east coast, your
department needs to balance the safety of those special areas against the potential for damage from
oil drilling. The only way to adequately assess the balance would be for your department (with the participation of NOAA and
possibly the National Academy of Science) to do a comprehensive census of those special places and analyze possible
impacts on them from drilling.¶ 1. The Ocean: More Like A Diverse Forest Than A Desert¶ Many people look at the ocean and see it as a pretty, shiny surface.
They may imagine a few fish swimming below the surface and a plain featureless bottom. This is not an accurate picture of the ocean in most places. Unless the
bottom is sandy and continually disturbed by wind, wave or current the bottom of the ocean is filled with communities of diverse creatures. Depending on depth,
penetration of light, type of bottom (i.e., muddy, sandy, pebbles, boulders) and other factors, the
ocean’s floor is teaming with diverse
communities of plants, invertebrates, shellfish, crustaceans and fish. Numerous kinds of fish live on
the bottom. Other fish swim above the bottom in the water column at different levels. Thousands of types of phytoplankton,
zooplankton and larvae at the base of most food chains ‘float’ around. Marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds
spend most of their time at or near the surface of the ocean. ¶ All of these creatures are sensitive to the impacts of oil and pollution
from oil and gas drilling; some are more sensitive than others. But none are immune to the short or long term effects of
oil. ¶ With this as background, it is important to recognize the special places in the ocean that are unique, especially sensitive to pollution or those that are
especially productive. These include: submarine canyons cutting across the continental shelf; deep water coral gardens; plateaus where the floor of the ocean rises
and becomes unusually productive because deeper nutrient rich waters come closer to the warmer temperatures and light of the surface; migratory pathways for
marine mammals and sea turtles; and areas where fish aggregate to spawn or where larval stages of animals are concentrated. Finally, the margins of the ocean:
beaches, bays and marshes are often unusually sensitive to oil pollution. ¶ 2. Special Places in the Atlantic Ocean Deserving of Protection ¶ Based
on the
Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) and a crude measure of marine productivity that your own department uses, the New England, Mid Atlantic and South
Atlantic planning areas are all very environmentally sensitive and highly productive . The South Atlantic planning
area and Mid Atlantic have the first and third most environmentally sensitive coastlines, respectively, of all 22 MMS planning areas. New England comes in at #11.
The South Atlantic and Mid Atlantic are ranked first and second respectively in terms of primary productivity among all the planning areas with North Atlantic being
#12. ¶ There are 14 submarine
canyons between Massachusetts and Virginia that slice through the continental shelf (See attached list). Submarine
canyons, some with a mouth as wide as eight to ten miles and 30-40 miles long, are important because they shelter unusual species , provide hard
bottoms and sidewalls for creatures to attach to or burrow in,
provide nursery areas
for many commercially important fish and
bring
nutrients from the deep ocean up to more shallow waters. Sea life in these canyons is unusually diverse
which is why drilling in or near submarine canyons with their risk from spills and chronic pollution
from production would be a very bad idea.¶ There are a number of important underwater plateaus
and reefs off the eastern seaboard which serve as fish baskets, places of unusual marine productivity where very high
populations of fish reproduce and grow. Often these are called ‘banks’ or ‘reefs’ with names like Georges Bank, Stellwagen Bank, Gray’s Reef or Occulina Bank.
Some of these areas of the ocean are shallow enough to allow sunlight to penetrate to the seafloor and nutrients from the deeper ocean feed a richer abundance of
life. These
banks and reefs sometimes offer the only hard substrate for creatures to attach in a wide area. .
Drilling in biological hot spots like these and jeopardizing productive commercial and recreational fisheries
would make no sense.¶ Like on land, certain areas of the ocean support migration corridors for fish, marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds. For
much of the Mid Atlantic there is a coastal corridor extending out 20 miles from shore in which endangered marine mammals like the northern right whale, various
sea turtles and migratory fish travel. For example, the last 350 northern right whales on earth travel each year from the Georgia-Florida border where they give
birth and nurse their calves to an area off Cape Cod where they spend the summer feeding. Loggerheads, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley turtles all use this corridor
at various times of the year.¶ Another corridor, farther offshore at the edge of the continental shelf break and slope provides food for various endangered sea
turtles and other kinds of whales and dolphins. Whales and dolphins are typically migratory and each is only seasonally present but taken together the area is
important year round to these marine mammals. ¶ There
are four more hotspots of marine diversity and unusual
productivity off the Mid Atlantic caused by ocean currents, type of bottom, [and] submarine canyons and other
special characteristics. These include: the coastal waters off North Carolina near and south of Cape Hatteras, the mouth of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays and
off New York harbor. Coastal waters and sandy bottoms off New Jersey support a large and economically important clam and scallop industry.
Environmental Regulation under Economic Expansion is impossible- empirics prove
McCarty 4 (Professor James McCarthy earned a B.A. in English and Environmental Studies from Dartmouth College and an M.A. and Ph.D.
in Geography from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to joining the Graduate School of Geography in 2011, he was an Assistant and
Associate Professor of Geography at Penn State University, “Privatizing conditions of production: trade agreements as neoliberal environmental
governance”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718503001064) .>> IL The environmental sting in these FTAs is found in
the protection from ‘expropriation’ afforded to transnational corporations. Under
the FTA, any environmental regulations
or resource use consent requirements which affect such a corporation must be ‘reasonable’ – but not
as determined by the people of New Zealand or their elected representatives. The reasonableness (or
otherwise) is decided by a panel of three arbitrators, one of whom is appointed by the corporation concerned. Any regulations or
requirements deemed ‘unreasonable’ would be an ‘expropriation’ under the FTA rules (in other
words, what is seen from a neoliberal standpoint as an illegal imposition on private property rights
known as ‘regulatory taking’). Compensation is payable for any such ‘expropriation’. This is not just a fear of what might happen.
James McCarthy has described how Metalclad Corporation was refused municipal permits for the expansion of a
waste disposal facility it had purchased in Guadalcazar, Mexico. The company sought arbitration
under the investment protection rules of the North American FTA (NAFTA) and was awarded US$16.7
million on the basis of the arbitration tribunal’s own interpretations of domestic Mexican law. It’s interesting to note that the investment
protection provisions of the China-New Zealand FTA (Chapter 11 – Investment) look very much like those in the notorious and ill-fated MAI (IV –
Investment Protection). While the MAI attracted huge opposition from anti-globalisation activists, unions, indigenous peoples and greens
around the world in the late 1990s, now the bilateral FTAs accumulate around the world with hardly a street protest, and the piecemeal MAI
arrives by stealth. The roll-out of neoliberalism The ‘roll-back’ of the state that I’ve described so far is accompanied by the ‘roll-out’ of
neoliberalism – the familiar “near worship of … the ‘self regulating market’ … as the mechanism for allocating all goods and services.” This
dogma leads to “privatization via putatively market-based schemes” along with a “deeply contradictory endorsement of excludable, private
property rights and commodification created and defended by the state” (p.276). Neoliberal ideas about environmental policy are found, for
example, in ‘ecosystem markets’ and also in the carbon market, which I focus on here. In current debates on the ways to address global
warming, it seems to be assumed that a market system is the only possible mechanism available to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas
emissions. To appreciate the fallacy in this thinking, it is worth noting how the idea of tradeable permits came to be the conventional wisdom of
emissions reduction. In Carbon trading: A critical conversation (at p. 51), Larry Lohmann describes how, during the Kyoto meetings in 1997, the
Brasilian delegation proposed a system whereby fines
were imposed on countries exceeding their emission cap to
fund ‘clean energy’ developments in the South. This proposal was accepted in principle by the ‘G-77 plus China’ group of
developing nations. However, after a few days of intensive negotiations, ‘fines’ had become ‘prices’ and a
‘judicial system’ had become a ‘market’, in line with what the US wanted. The dominance of US
power, the desire of other nations to keep the US on board, and the pressure applied by corporations
drove the agenda in this direction throughout. As most readers will realise, all this is deeply ironic because the US has never
ratified the Kyoto Protocol, having formally withdrawn from it in 2001. Nevertheless, the attachment to the idea of an emission permit/trading
system remains, promoted (by governments, political parties, policy wonks, international agencies and even many NGOs too) as the best way to
tackle climate change – regardless of the accumulating evidence to the contrary.
Market expansion causes environmental degradation: global implications
Dasgupta 2 (Sir Partha Dasgupta is the Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom;
Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge; and Professorial Research Fellow at the University of Manchester “Economic Development,
Environmental Degradation, and the Persistence of Deprivation in Poor Countries”, November 2002).>> IL That Nature is a part of our
productive base may appear a commonplace, but scratch
an economist and you are likely to find someone who
regards the natural environment as a mere luxury. For it is even today commonly thought that, to quote an editorial in
the UK’s The Independent (4 December 1999), "... (economic) growth is good for the environment because countries need to put poverty
behind them in order to care"; or, to quote The Economist (4 December, 1999: 17), "... trade improves the environment, because it raises
incomes, and the richer people are, the more willing they are to devote resources to cleaning up their living space." These passages reflect a
detached view, observed from Olympian heights. The viewpoint encourages even economic egalitarians to justify the use of GNP as a measure
of human wellbeing in poor countries: since the environment is a luxury, why should one care if it depreciates 5 For a study of indices that
reflect human well-being over time, and for conditions under which genuine investment is an ideal index of improvements in well-being over
time, see Partha Dasgupta and Karl-Göran Mäler, "Net National Product, Wealth, and Social Well-Being", Environment and Development
Economics , 2000, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 69-93; Partha Dasgupta, Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001); and Kenneth J. Arrow, Partha Dasgupta, and Karl-Göran Mäler (1), "Evaluating Projects and Assessing Sustainable Development in
Imperfect Economies", forthcoming, Environmental and Resource Economics , 2003, and (2) "The Genuine Savings Criterion and the Value of
Population", forthcoming, Economic Theory , 2003. 3 during the early stages of economic development? 6 Closer
to home, however,
matters look different. For Nature offers us a multitude of ecosystem services, which include
maintaining a genetic library, preserving and regenerating soil, fixing nitrogen and carbon, recycling
nutrients, controlling floods, filtering pollutants, assimilating waste, pollinating crops, operating the
hydrological cycle, and maintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. A number of these
services filter into a global context (e.g., the atmosphere as a sink for pollutants), many are spatially localized. 7 Spatially localized
natural assets are of the utmost importance to the world’s poor. When wetlands, inland and coastal fisheries, woodlands, ponds and lakes, and
grazing fields are damaged (say, owing to agricultural encroachment or urban extensions or the construction of large dams), traditional dwellers
suffer. For them - and they are among the poorest in society there are frequently no alternative source of livelihood. In contrast, for rich ecotourists or importers of primary products there is something else, often somewhere else, which means that there are alternatives. The range
between a need and a luxury is enormous and context-ridden. Macroeconomic reasoning glosses over the heterogeneity of Earth’s resources
and the diverse uses to which they are put - by people residing at the site and by those elsewhere. National income accounts reflect this
reasoning by failing to record a wide array of our transactions with Nature. The reason why changes in the size and composition of natural
capital are in large measure missing from national accounts is that Nature’s services most often do not come with a price tag. The reason for
that is that property rights to natural capital are often very difficult 6 The view’s origin can be traced to the World Bank’s World Development
Report 1992 . For an assessment of the empirical findings that led to the view, see Kenneth J. Arrow, Bert Bolin, Robert Costanza, Partha
Dasgupta, Carl Folke, Crawford S. Holling, Bengt-Owe Jansson, Simon A. Levin, Karl-Göran Mäler, Charles Perrings, and David Pimentel,
"Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment", Science , 1995, vol. 268, pp.520-1; and the commentaries on the note in invited
symposia in Ecological Economics , 1995, vol. 15, no. 1; Ecological Applications , 1996, vol. 6, no. 1; and Environment and Development
Economics , 1996, vol. 1, no. 1. See also the special issue of Environment and Development Economics , 1997, vol. 2, no. 4. In the text that
follows I focus on a different set of weaknesses in the view than are identified in the Arrow et al . note. 7 For the economics of ecosystem
services, see my book, The Control of Resources (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). A modern classic on the science of
ecosystem services is Gretchen Daily, ed., Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997).
4 to establish, let alone enforce. And
the reason for that is that natural capital is frequently mobile. At the
broadest level soil, water, and the atmosphere (which are capital assets themselves) are media that
enable capital assets to connect among themselves and flourish, meaning that a disturbance to any
one asset can be expected to reverberate on many others at distances away, sometimes at far
distances. Under current practice though the consequences of the connectedness of natural capital
can easily go unnoted in economic transactions. 8 It can then be that those who destroy mangroves in
order to create shrimp farms, or cut down forests in the uplands of watersheds to export timber, are
not required to compensate fishermen dependent on the mangroves, or farmers and fishermen in the
lowlands whose fields and fisheries are protected by the upland forests. Economic development in the guise of
growth in per capita GNP can come in tandem with a decline in the wealth of some of the poorest members of society.
Economic development causes resource depletion
Stern et. al. 96 (David I. Stern, “Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable
Development” Boston University, Massachusetts, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 1151-l 160, 1996 Copyright 0 1996)
IL
At low levels of development both the quantity and intensity of environmental degradation is limited to the impacts of subsistence economic
activity on the resource base and to limited quantities of biodegradable wastes. As
economic development accelerates with
the intensification of agriculture and other resource extraction and the take off of industrialization,
the rate of resource depletion begins to exceed the rates of resource regeneration, and waste
generation increases in quantity and toxicity. At higher levels of development, structural change towards informationintensive industries and services, coupled with increased environmental awareness, enforcement of environmental regulations, better
technology and higher environmental expenditures, result in leveling off and gradual decline of environmental degradation. (Panayotou, 93).
There is no incentive for environmental protection in Mexico industry
Blackman 10 (Allen Blackman, Bidisha Lahiri, William Pizer, Marisol Rivera Planter, Carlos Mun˜oz Pin˜a,Resources for the Future, 1616 P
Street, N.W. Washington DC 20036, USA Department of Economics, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Independent Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Mexico City, Mexico “Voluntary
environmental regulation in developing countries: Mexico’s Clean Industry Program”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60
(2010) 182–192,http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S0095069610000781) BC
We have used data on some 114,000 industrial facilities and other businesses in Mexico to evaluate
the Clean Industry Program, Mexico’s flagship voluntary regulatory program. The first stage of our analysis
focused on identifying the drivers of participation in the program, and the second stage focused on determining whether it improves
participants’ environmental performance. To analyze participation, we used a duration model, because it explicitly accounts for the timing of
the dependent variable (participation) and the main independent variable of interest (regulatory fines), and because it controls for right
censoring. Our results suggest that regulatory
fines do motivate participation in the program: a fine roughly
triples the probability of participation for three years after it is assessed. Hence, the Clean Industry
Program does not simply consist of already-clean plants. Rather, it has attracted dirty plants under
pressure from regulators. The analysis also shows that certain types of plants – those that sell their goods in overseas
markets and to government suppliers, use imported inputs, are large, and are in certain sectors and states – are more
likely to participate. To analyze program impacts, we used the postamnesty incidence of fines as a proxy for plants’ environmental
performance and used propensity score matching to control for bias created by self-selection into the program of plants with characteristics
likely to affect environmental performance. To control for the lengthy inspection amnesty granted to participating plants, we focused on plants
that joined the program in its first nine years. Our analysis indicates that after
their inspection amnesty expired, Clean Industry
participants were not fined at a substantially lower rate than matched nonparticipants. This suggests that the Clean Industry
Program did not have a large, lasting impact on average environmental performance.
It is important to
reiterate that we used a proxy for environmental performance instead of a direct measure, and we relied on a restricted sample of participants
from the program’s first nine years. Nevertheless, we believe our results are credible and shed important light on the environmental benefits of
an increasingly popular yet little-studied regulatory policy in developing countries. Our findings raise two questions. The first concerns the
relationship between the results from our participation and impact analyses: if Clean Industry Program participants included dirty firms under
pressure from regulators, and if program participants obtained certificates attesting that they had remedied all deficiencies identified by a
comprehensive independent environmental audit, then why were program graduates not cleaner on average than similar nonparticipants? The
most likely explanation is simply that the
effect of the Clean Industry Program on graduates’ environmental
performance was temporary, not permanent. After receiving their Clean Industry Certificates, at least
some plants reverted to pre-participation levels of environmental performance. This explanation is consistent
with an evidence that the effect on participants’ environmental performance of U.S. voluntary (climate and energy efficiency) programs was
temporary, lasting just two to three years after participation A second question concerns our participation analysis: how could regulatory
pressure have driven participation in the Clean Industry Program, if such pressure is reputed to have been relatively weak during our
participation study period (1992–2004) [32], [20] and [9]? We believe the explanation has partly to do with PROFEPA’s enforcement strategy.
For most of our study period, PROFEPA targeted facilities “at risk” of industrial accidents—i.e., large facilities in particularly dirty sectors [16],
[17] and [37]. Our duration analysis shows that these same plants were particularly likely to participate in the Clean Industry Program.
Therefore, although PROFEPA monitoring and enforcement may have been weak for the average facility, for targeted sectors, it was less so. The
design features of the Clean Industry Program may also explain how even weak regulatory pressure may have spurred participation. The
program provides carrots – namely certification and an inspection amnesty – that helped leverage PROFEPA’s enforcement sticks. Finally, we
note that the main findings from our participation and impact analyses are broadly consistent with research on voluntary programs in
industrialized countries. Like many studies of government led-voluntary programs, we find that dirty
firms under pressure from
regulators are more likely to participate, and like most such studies, we find that participation does
not significantly improve an average environmental performance [26] and [29]. Our findings raise questions about
the ability of voluntary programs to help shore up weak mandatory regimes in developing countries.
Oil spills decrease biodiversity on multiple fronts
West 7/14 (Larry West, “How Do Oil Spills Damage the Environment?: Oil spills always harm wildlife, ecosystems and fragile coastal
environments,” 7/14/13, http://environment.about.com/od/petroleum/a/oil_spills_and_environment.htm, studied journalism and
creative writing at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and completed the Managerial Excellence program at Stanford
University in Palo Alto, California. He also taught research and writing courses in continuing education programs at the University of
Washington and the University of Alaska.) Oil spills often result in both immediate and long-term environmental
damage. Some of the environmental damage caused by an oil spill can last for decades after the spill occurs.
Here are some of the most notable environmental damages typically caused by oil spills:
Oil Spills Damage Beaches, Marshlands and Fragile Marine Ecosystems
Oil spilled by damaged tankers, pipelines or offshore oil rigs coats everything it touches and becomes an
unwelcome but long-term part of every ecosystem it enters.
When an oil slick from a large oil spill reaches the beach, the oil coats and clings to every rock and grain of
sand. If the oil washes into coastal marshes, mangrove forests or other wetlands, fibrous plants and grasses
absorb the oil, which can damage the plants and make the whole area unsuitable as wildlife habitat.
When some of the oil eventually stops floating on the surface of the water and begins to sink into the marine
environment, it can have the same kind of damaging effects on fragile underwater ecosystems, killing or
contaminating many fish and smaller organisms that are essential links in the global food chain.
Despite massive clean-up efforts following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, for example, a 2007 study
conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that 26, 000 gallons of oil
from the Exxon Valdez oil spill was still trapped in the sand along the Alaska shoreline.
Scientists involved in the study determined that this residual oil was declining at a rate of less than 4 percent
annually.
Oil Spills Kill Birds
West 7/14 (Larry West, “How Do Oil Spills Damage the Environment?: Oil spills always harm wildlife, ecosystems and fragile coastal
environments,” 7/14/13, http://environment.about.com/od/petroleum/a/oil_spills_and_environment.htm, studied journalism and
creative writing at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and completed the Managerial Excellence program at Stanford
University in Palo Alto, California. He also taught research and writing courses in continuing education programs at the University of
Washington and the University of Alaska.)
Oil-covered birds are practically a universal symbol of the environmental damage wreaked by oil spills. Any oil
spill in the ocean is a death sentence for sea birds. Some species of shore birds may escape by relocating if
they sense the danger in time, but sea birds that swim and dive for their food are sure to be covered in oil. Oil
spills also damage nesting grounds, which can have serious long-term effects on entire species. The 2010 BP
Deepwater Horizon offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, occurred during prime mating and
nesting season for many bird and marine species, and the long-term environmental consequences of that spill
won't be known for many years. Oil spills can even disrupt migratory patterns by contaminating areas where
migrating birds normally stop.
Even a small amount of oil can be deadly to a bird. By coating the feathers, oil not only makes it impossible
for birds to fly but also destroys their natural waterproofing and insulation, leaving them vulnerable to
hypothermia or overheating. As the birds frantically try to preen their feathers to restore their natural
protections they often swallow some of the oil, which can severely damage their internal organs and lead to
death. The Exxon Valdez oil spill killed somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 seabirds, plus a number of
shore birds and bald eagles.
Oil Spills Kill Marine Mammals
West 7/14 (Larry West, “How Do Oil Spills Damage the Environment?: Oil spills always harm wildlife, ecosystems and fragile coastal
environments,” 7/14/13, http://environment.about.com/od/petroleum/a/oil_spills_and_environment.htm, studied journalism and
creative writing at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and completed the Managerial Excellence program at Stanford
University in Palo Alto, California. He also taught research and writing courses in continuing education programs at the University of
Washington and the University of Alaska.)
Oil spills frequently kill marine mammals such as whales, dolphins, seals and sea otters. The deadly damage
can take several forms. The oil sometimes clogs the blow holes of whales and dolphins, making it impossible
for the animals to breathe properly and disrupting their ability to communicate. Oil coats the fur of otters
and seals, leaving them vulnerable to hypothermia.
Even when marine mammals escape the immediate effects, an oil spill can cause damage by contaminating
their food supply. Marine mammals that eat fish or other food that has been exposed to an oil spill may be
poisoned by the oil and die or can experience other problems.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill killed thousands of sea otters, hundreds of harbor seals, roughly two dozen killer
whales and a dozen or more river otters. Even more troubling in some ways, in the years after the Exxon Valdez
oil spill scientists noted higher death rates among sea otters and some other species affected by the oil spill,
and stunted growth or other damage among other species.
Oil Spills Kill Fish
West 7/14 (Larry West, “How Do Oil Spills Damage the Environment?: Oil spills always harm wildlife, ecosystems and fragile coastal
environments,” 7/14/13, http://environment.about.com/od/petroleum/a/oil_spills_and_environment.htm, studied journalism and creative
writing at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and completed the Managerial Excellence program at Stanford University in
Palo Alto, California. He also taught research and writing courses in continuing education programs at the University of Washington and the
University of Alaska.)Oil spills often take a deadly toll on fish, shellfish and other marine life, particularly if large
numbers of fish eggs or larvae are exposed to the oil. The shrimp and oyster fisheries along the Louisiana coast were among the
first casualties of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon offshore oil spill. Similarly, the Exxon Valdez oil spill destroyed billions of
salmon and herring eggs. Those fisheries still have not recovered.
Oil Spills Destroy Wildlife Habitat and Breeding Grounds
West 7/14 (Larry West, “How Do Oil Spills Damage the Environment?: Oil spills always harm wildlife, ecosystems and fragile coastal
environments,” 7/14/13, http://environment.about.com/od/petroleum/a/oil_spills_and_environment.htm, studied journalism and
creative writing at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and completed the Managerial Excellence program at Stanford
University in Palo Alto, California. He also taught research and writing courses in continuing education programs at the University of
Washington and the University of Alaska.) The long-term damage to various species, and to the habitat and nesting or
breeding grounds those species depend upon for their survival, is one of the most far-reaching
environmental effects caused by oil spills. Even many species that spend most of their lives at sea—such as
various species of sea turtles—must come ashore to nest. Sea turtles can be harmed by oil they encounter in the water or
on the beach where they lay their eggs, the eggs can be damaged by the oil and fail to develop properly, and newly hatched young turtles
may be oiled as they scurry toward the ocean across an oily beach. Ultimately, the severity of environmental damages caused by a
particular oil spill depends on many factors, including the amount of the oil spilled, the type and weight of the oil, the location of the spill,
the species of wildlife in the area, the timing or breeding cycles and seasonal migrations, and even the weather at sea during and
immediately after the oil spill. But one thing never varies: oil spills are always bad news for the environment.
Many experts say drilling in the Gulf will inevitably cause spills
Mufson 12 (April 19, 2012, Steven Mufson, “Two years after BP oil spill, offshore drilling still poses risks,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/two-years-after-bp-oil-spill-offshore-drilling-still-posesrisks/2012/04/19/gIQAHOkDUT_story.html, Steven Mufson is a staff writer covering energy and other financial news. He has worked at the
Post since 1989 and has been its chief economic policy writer, Beijing correspondent, diplomatic correspondent and deputy editor of the
weekly Outlook section. Earlier, he spent six years working for The Wall Street Journal in New York, London and Johannesburg and wrote a book
about the 1980s uprisings in South Africa’s black townships.)Two
years after a blowout on BP’s Macondo well killed 11
men and triggered the largest oil spill in U.S. history, oil companies are again plying the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. Forty-one deep-water rigs are in the gulf. The vast majority of them are drilling new holes or working over old ones, while
the other behemoths are idle as they await work or repairs. A brand new rig — the South Korean-built Pacific Santa Ana, capable of drilling to a
depth of 7.5 miles — is on its way to a Chevron well. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has surpassed the size of the 1969 Santa Barbara spill and
the Exxon Valdez. But three
recent incidents in other parts of the world show just how risky and sensitive
offshore drilling remains. In the North Sea, French oil giant Total is still battling to regain control of a natural gas well that has
been leaking for nearly four weeks. Meanwhile, Brazil has confiscated the passports of 11 Chevron employees and five employees of drilling
contractor Transocean as they await trial on criminal charges related to an offshore oil spill there. And in December, about 40,000 barrels of
crude oil leaked out of a five-year-old loading line between a floating storage vessel and an oil tanker in a Royal Dutch Shell field off
the coast of Nigeria.
Many experts say that even with tougher regulations here in the United States, such
incidents are inevitable.
Oil spills are inevitable with drilling, and biodiversity loss that spills create leads to a
food crisis
Culture Change 10 (April 3, 2010, Culture Change, “No Offshore Oil Drilling: Committee Against Oil Exploration (CAOE),”
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=637&Itemid=1, Culture Change was founded by
Sustainable Energy Institute (formerly Fossil Fuels Policy Action), a nonprofit organization.
Some articles are published under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) The
environmental risk taken by offshore drilling is very
topical, made evident by oil spills such as the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989
off the coast of Alaska. In the case of the Exxon Valdez spill up to 250,000 sea birds died, over 2,800 sea otters and
thousands of other animals (figures from the BP oil spill are not yet complete), having had a massive impact on the local
wildlife and leading to a ban on all offshore drilling in America, until George Bush overturned it in
2008 - the recent oil spill suggests this repeal was a mistake. In this way, offshore drilling destroys
ecosystems and fish stocks. These resources are vital for humanity to feed its population , and wasteland
like much of the coast of southern USA is of no use until cleaned. There is also a long term effect because the remaining species will have a
lower heterozygosity index (the amount of allele variation within a species). This is important because if there is a change in selection pressure,
such as a new disease, this could leave the remainder of the species vulnerable as they are less likely to survive because they are less likely to
The potential environmental risk is massive and thus offshore
drilling should not be allowed because it can have such an effect on the environment, both in the
short term and long term. Offshore drilling could lead to the extinction of various species, and a ban would be a sure way to help
have a dormant allele that becomes advantageous.
preserve biodiversity.
Internal Links
Generic
The Gulf ecosystem is key – loss of Gulf biodiversity spills over to other ecosystems
Coastal Classroom No date (No date, “Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico,” The Coastal Classroom,
http://sanibelseaschool.org/classroom/biodiversity-in-the-gulf-of-mexico, The Coastal Classroom is a collaborative effort between START
(Solutions to Avoid Red Tide) and Sanibel Sea School to educate Lee County students about locally relevant coastal and marine
issues. )Biodiversity refers to the number of different species in a given area. The
Gulf of Mexico has a high level of
biodiversity. It s warm waters and diverse habitats are home to thousands of marine species. In
2009, scientists listed 15,419 species living in the Gulf of Mexico. Biodiversity is often used as a
measure of ecosystem health. The more species present in an ecosystem, the healthier it is. Biodiversity is typically higher in warm
regions of the world. The organisms that call the Gulf of Mexico home range from microscopic to gigantic. Karenia brevis, the organism
responsible for Florida Red Tide, is so small you need a microscope to see it. Karenia brevis, the organism responsible for Florida Red Tide.
Whale sharks, on the other hand, roam the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and can grow up to 40 feet long and weigh 80,000 lbs. The
decaying leaves of mangrove trees supply energy to entire ecosystems. Mangroves are unique for their ability to withstand inundation
(flooding) by salt water. The red mangroves pictured here exclude salt using filters at the base of their roots. Black and white mangroves
excrete salt through special glands located on their leaves. Each unique organism plays an important role in its ecosystem. Mangroves,
coastal trees that are adapted to life in saltwater, drop leaves into shallow bays and estuaries. The leaves provide food for decomposers –
organisms that consume dead matter in a process called decay. This provides energy and forms the basis for an entire ecosystem. The decaying
leaves of mangrove trees supply energy to entire ecosystems. Mangroves are unique for their ability to withstand inundation (flooding) by salt
water. The red mangroves pictured here exclude salt using filters at the base of their roots. Black and white mangroves excrete salt through
special glands located on their leaves. Bull sharks are an apex predator – meaning they are at the top of the food web. By consuming large
quantities of fish, they regulate the population size of many smaller species. The bull shark is an apex predator. When green sea turtles graze
When biodiversity is
lost, ecosystems are thrown off balance and sometimes suffer serious consequences. When a coral reef is
on seagrasses, they promote new growth and prevent the seagrasses from developing diseases and parasites.
destroyed, all of the creatures that inhabit it are also harmed. When a species is eradicated, it is called extinction. Extinction often occurs due
to loss of habitat. Extinction decreases biodiversity. When a species is in danger of extinction, it is called an endangered species. Threats to
biodiversity include habitat loss, invasive species, and climate change. Invasive species are species that are introduced to an ecosystem in
which they are not naturally found. They often take over the roles of naturally-occurring species and damage the balance of the ecosystem. The
lionfish is an invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico. It is important to protect and preserve biodiversity for a number of reasons.
Biodiversity provides the natural resources that we depend on for our daily lives – thanks to
biodiversity we have a wide range of food, products, and medicines. The rich biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico
attracts many tourists to the area, which supports local economies. A loss of species can have cascading effects on the
entire ecosystem, and these effects can even spill into other ecosystems.
Loss of Biodiversity bad, hurts future progress, collapses ecosystems
Chivian 11 (Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical
School,[1] where he is also an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, “Species Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health”, September,
2011, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-health-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health)> BC
Human activity is causing the extinction of animal, plant and microbial species at rates that are a
thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally (Wilson l992), approximating the largest
extinctions in geological history. When homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago, the number of species that existed was the largest
ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the lowest since the end of the Age of
Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l).
In addition to the ethical issues involved - that we
have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came
into being tens of millions of years prior to our arrival - this behaviour is ultimately self-destructive, upsetting the delicate
ecological balance on which all life depends, including our own, and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils
fertile, creates the air we breathe and provides food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered.
The exponential growth in human population coupled with an even greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the production of
wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species. Global warming, acid rain, the depletion of stratospheric ozone and the
discharge of toxic chemicals into the air, soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it
is
habitat destruction by human activities, particularly deforestation, that is the greatest destroyer. . Other models
Countless other examples could be mentioned of unique plants, animals and micro-organisms holding
the secrets of billions of evolutionary experiments that are increasingly threatened by human activity
and in danger of being lost forever to medical science. Scientists have analysed the chemistry of less than 1% of known
rainforest plants for biologically active substances (Gottlieb and Mors l980) - as well as a similar proportion of temperate plants (Schultes l992)
and even smaller percentages of known animals, fungi and microbes. But there
may be tens of millions of species as yet
undiscovered in the forests, in soils, and in lakes and oceans. With the massive extinctions currently in
progress, we may be destroying new cures for incurable cancers, for AIDS, for arteriosclerotic heart disease and for other
illnesses that cause enormous human suffering.Disturbing Ecosystem Equilibria Finally, the loss of species and the destruction of
habitats may upset delicate equilibria among ecosystems on which all life depends, including our own.
Food supplies Food supplies, for one, may be seriously threatened. Deforestation, for example, can result in significantly reduced rainfall in
adjacent agricultural areas and even in regions at some distance (Wilson l988; Shulka, Nobre and Sellers l990), compromising crop productivity.
The loss of
topsoil from erosion, another consequence of deforestation, can have an irreversible negative impact
on crops in forested regions, particularly in areas of hilly terrain, such as in regions of Nepal, Madagascar and the Philippines.
Are these cross-species viral transmissions from primates to humans the result of human encroachment into degraded forest environments?If
this is the case, we may be witnessing with AIDS the beginning of a series of viral epidemics originating from tropical rainforests where there
may be thousands of viruses that could infect humans, some of which may be as lethal as AIDS (approaching l00%) but spread more easily, for
instance by airborne droplets. These potential viral diseases could become the most serious public health consequence from environmental
disruption of the rainforests. Other effectsBut it may be the
disruption of other interrelationships among organisms,
prove the most catastrophic of all for
human beings. What will happen to global climate and to the concentration of atmospheric gases, for example,
when some critical threshold of deforestation has been reached? Forests play crucial roles in the maintenance of global
precipitation patterns and in the stability of atmospheric gases. What will be the effects on marine life if increased ultraviolet
radiation causes massive ocean phytoplankton kills, particularly in the rich seas beneath the Antarctic ozone “hole”? These
ecosystems and the global environment, about which almost nothing is known, that may
organisms, which are at the base of the entire marine food chain and which produce a significant portion of the world’s oxygen and consume a
What will
be the consequences for plant growth if acid rain and toxic chemicals poison soil fungi and bacteria
essential for soil fertility? There has already been a 40-50% loss in species of fungi in Western Europe during the past 60 years,
significant portion of its carbon dioxide, are highly vulnerable to ultraviolet damage (Schneider l99l; Roberts l989; Bridigare l989).
including many symbiotic mycorhizal fungi (Wilson l992), crucial to the absorption of nutrients by plants. No one understands what the effects
of this loss will be. Scientists do not know the answers to these and other critically important questions. But there are worrisome biological
signals which suggest that major damage to global ecosystems has already occurred. (Kurihara, Aoki and Tominaga l984; Davis and Hoel l990a,
1990b; Hoel l992) all suggest that environmental degradation may be starting to compromise not only the survival of frogs, marine mammals
and other animal, plant and microbial species, but that of the human species as well. Summary Human
activity is causing the
extinction of animal, plant and microbial organisms at rates that may well eliminate one-fourth of all
species on Earth within the next 50 years. There are incalculable human health consequences from
this destruction: the loss of medical models to understand human physiology and disease
the loss of new medicines that may successfully treat incurable cancers, AIDS, arteriosclerosis and
other diseases that cause great human suffering.
Reduction in biodiversity reduces quality of life
González 13 (Ivet Gonzalez, Inter Press Serivce News Agency, , “Cuba Wakes Up to Costs of Climate Change Effects”, June 17, 2013,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/cuba-wakes-up-to-costs-of-climate-change-effects/)
“How much is a species worth? What is the price tag on the services provided by a river or a forest?”
These are the questions biologist María Elena Perdomo is asking to encourage Cubans to take account of environmental costs, which may
apparently be incorporated in the present economic reforms.¶ “Climate change
effects reduce biodiversity, cause a
decline in quality of life, change landscapes and have enormous social consequences. But what does all this
mean in economic terms?” asks Perdomo, a researcher at the Centre for Environmental Studies and Services in Villa Clara, 268 kilometres from
Havana.¶ In an interview with IPS, she said that this kind of analysis should be given more attention when decisions are being made about how
to protect the environment, and when planning ecological projects, defining environmental education messages and programmes and planning
construction or other works that could harm vulnerable areas.¶ “One way of determining the value of a service, resource or ecosystem is to
consider the cost of replacing it if it were not available,” she said. “What losses are caused by a tropical cyclone or a prolonged drought? How
much would it cost to take clean water to arable lands left without water sources?Ӧ In
Cuba, as in other Caribbean countries,
the effects of global warming will have the greatest impact on coastal areas, although the whole
island will be increasingly affected by extreme weather events, such as heat waves, prolonged periods
of drought and heavy rains. Potable water and fertile land will be scarcer and biodiversity will be
diminished. Some 80 coastal settlements are likely to be affected and 15 could disappear by 2050 if
the Cuban government does not implement adaptation measures in response to the prediction that,
by then, 2.32 percent of the national territory will be permanently under water, according to the Ministry of
Science, Technology and the Environment. Because of this situation, conservation and remediation of natural areas that can contribute to
mitigating temperature rise is another challenge for Cuba’s 11.2 million people and its economy, which is struggling to emerge from a severe
crisis that has lasted over 20 years.¶ The strategic programme of economic and social reforms begun in 2008 by the government of President
Raúl Castro includes addressing environmental problems. This year, that approach became more visible as using renewable sources of energy,
which are much less polluting than fossil fuels, became a higher priority.¶ The authorities are directing investments so that by 2030 about 10
percent of the energy consumed in the country will come from wind, sun, water and other renewable sources, it was announced this month.¶
The ministry has also created an environmental research and management macro-project to consider climate change vulnerability and risk
assessment in coastal zones from 2050 to 2100, which includes recommendations for adaptation measures.¶ “Often there is no reliable
quantitative evaluation of natural resources,” said Perdomo. Other problems that have been identified, she added, are the lack of “financing for
remediation, lack of decision-making power in local communities, and lack of financial support for environmental education.Ӧ A study
published in 2012 by the Revista Cubana de Geografía, an online geographical journal, estimated the total cost of restoring the vegetation along
the banks of the river Guanabo, in the Cuban capital, at 825,500 dollars, according to figures from Unidad Silvícola, a state forestry unit in
Havana.¶ To remedy damage to the vegetation of the Guanabo river basin caused by human activity, the research study found that forests,
“cuabal” (dry-adapted thorny scrub growing on thin soil or bare rock) and mangroves would all have to be restored, to allow natural
regeneration to occur.¶ Replanting efforts would take until 2022, says the study titled “Valoración económica de las afectaciones ambientales
al recurso bosque en la franja hidrorreguladora de la corriente principal del río Guanabo, La Habana, Cuba” (Cost of environmental damage to
forest resources in the hydro-regulating zones along the main course of the Guanabo river, Havana, Cuba).¶ This area has been subjected to
indiscriminate exploitation for years, with the result that forests and thickets have been fragmented and destroyed, river channels eroded and
bodies of water polluted with sediments, among other effects, the study says. If nothing is done, the costs of remediation will increase, the
authors warn.¶ The National Statistics Office reported that Cuba spent 37 million dollars more on environmental protection in 2012 than in the
previous year. However, expenditure on river basins of national interest fell by 81,000 dollars in the same period.¶ The report “Social Panorama
of Latin America 2012″ by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) says that the environment was one of the
most neglected areas in the region over the last two decades. On average, the region’s countries devoted 0.2 percent of public expenditure to
environmental actions, sanitation, housing and drinking water during that period.¶ “Communities should be mitigating factors, not agents that
accelerate climate change,” Sandra Ribalta, the coordinator of Ando Reforestando, a community reforestation and awareness-raising project in
Havana, told IPS. “Our population sees climate change as something that will happen far in the future, or simply isn’t aware of it as a
problem.”¶ Alba Camejo, an environmental communicator, told IPS that “things are being done, but information about them needs to be
circulated more widely.”¶ That is why she started Árbol de Vida (Tree of Life), a way of spreading the word about environmental actions using a
web site and a subscriber list of more than 10,000 email addresses.¶ Torrential rains from tropical storm Andrea buffeted the western province
of Pinar del Río in the first few days of June, pouring down almost twice the province’s average rainfall for the month. Local authorities are now
taking stock of the environmental damage and agricultural and housing losses left in its wake.¶ According to preliminary reports, the state
Provincial Environmental Unit of Pinar del Río identified damage to the dunes of the Boca de Galafre beach. The local press was told that the
downpours may also have caused deforestation in certain locations, among other destructive effects.
A Latin American role model is key to change environmental ideologies of other
countries – Chile proves
Speiser 9 (July 29th, 2009, Robert M. Speiser “Chile fighting climate change — role model for the (developing)
world”, http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/07/29/chile-fighting-climate-change-role-model-for-the-developingworld/, Robert is an environmental and energy analyst currently working as an independent consultant on the
carbon markets, environmental impact assessments, and on GHG quanitification issues in Santiago, Chile. He
received his BA at UCLA.) The event brought together speakers from the Chilean private sector that gave concrete
examples of their companies’ climate change and GHG management initiatives. First, it showed how Essbio, a
water purification company, has been dealing with the ever-prescient and escalating challenges of decreasing water reserves due to climate
change. Second, it illustrated
the emissions and energy reductions Xstrata Copper, a mining company, has
committed to and the steps it has taken to minimize the release of contaminants in its industrial
processes. Third, it explained what Natura cosmetics has done since 2007 to become a “carbon
neutral” business by calculating all GHG emissions in the company’s supply chain, transportation, and
production of its various cosmetics products, and purchasing the equivalent amount of CO2 tonnage in carbon credits on the international
carbon markets. One recent study from the University of Chile actually found that Chile’s national GHG footprint is projected to jump 4.2 times
its current amount by 2030. This conclusion assumes the country continues on its current pace and manner of economic development, and with
the increased reliance on new coal plants that are currently in different stages of construction. So,
yes, not only are the effects of
climate change real in Chile but so too is a growing movement and public consciousness to reduce
people’s and companies’ carbon footprints. In addition to Essbio, Xstrata, and Natura, there are other enterprises in Chile
making efforts to reduce GHG emissions in their industrial processes or take action in other local environmental issues. Yet, it is safe to say that
such “climate change conscious” companies are still a small minority here in Chile. And, even though President Bachelet and the Minister of
Energy are making genuine, good-faith efforts to bring the latest solar and geothermal energy technology to Chile such as with partnerships
with California and the US Department of Energy, the situation of increasing national GHG emissions reveals a deeper complexity we all need to
address: How can a middle-income economy, such as Chile, afford the latest in clean and renewable energy technology to reduce its climate
change footprint, while at the same time, continuing to address more pressing needs of economic and social development? In other words, a
country such as Chile still needs to put its food on the table by mining the copper, whether imported gas or a cheaper “clean” energy solution is
currently available; and, if they are not available, a bunch of coal will certainly do.
Cuba
Cuban Biodiversity loss cause less clean water and fertile land
González 5/7 (Ivet Gonzalez, Co-editor of the Inter Press Service News Agency, “Cuba Wakes Up to Costs of Climate Change Effects”,
May, 7, 2013, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/cuba-wakes-up-to-costs-of-climate-change-effects/, MS)
“Climate change effects reduce biodiversity, cause
a decline in quality of life, change landscapes and have
enormous social consequences. But what does all this mean in economic terms?” asks Perdomo, a researcher at the Centre for
Environmental Studies and Services in Villa Clara, 268 kilometres from Havana.¶ In an interview with IPS, she said that this kind of
analysis should be given more attention when decisions are being made about how to protect the
environment, and when planning ecological projects, defining environmental education messages and
programmes and planning construction or other works that could harm vulnerable areas.¶ “One way of
determining the value of a service, resource or ecosystem is to consider the cost of replacing it if it were not
available,” she said. “What losses are caused by a tropical cyclone or a prolonged drought? How much would
it cost to take clean water to arable lands left without water sources?”¶ Related IPS Articles¶ Greening Havana¶
Spreading Climate Literacy in Cuba¶ ENVIRONMENT-CUBA: 'Forest Ranger' Looks After Havana's Trees¶ In Cuba, as in other Caribbean
countries, the effects of global warming will have the greatest impact on coastal areas, although the whole
island will be increasingly affected by extreme weather events, such as heat waves, prolonged periods of drought and
heavy rains. Potable water and fertile land will be scarcer and biodiversity will be diminished. ¶ Some 80
coastal settlements are likely to be affected and 15 could disappear by 2050 if the Cuban government
does not implement adaptation measures in response to the prediction that, by then, 2.32 percent of the national territory will
be permanently under water, according to the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment.
Commercialism kills Cuban ecosystems
Dean 7 (Cornelia Dean is a science writer for the New York Times, where she writes mostly about environmental issues and science policy,
“Conserving Cuba, After the Embargo” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/science/25cuba.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) BC
Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba
is a priceless ecological resource. That is why many scientists are so
worried about what will become of it after Fidel Castro and his associates leave power and, as is widely anticipated, the
American government relaxes or ends its trade embargo.Cuba has avoided much environmental degradation in recent
decades, but now hotel developments are seen extending into the water in Cayo Coco. More Photos >Cuba, by far the region’s largest island,
sits at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Its mountains, forests, swamps, coasts and marine areas
are rich in plants and animals, some seen nowhere else.And since the imposition of the embargo in 1962, and especially with the collapse in
1991 of the Soviet Union, its major economic patron, Cuba’s economy has stagnated.Cuba has not been free of development, including Sovietstyle top-down agricultural and mining operations and, in recent years, an expansion of tourism. But it also has
an abundance of
landscapes that elsewhere in the region have been ripped up, paved over, poisoned or otherwise
destroyed in the decades since the Cuban revolution, when development has been most intense. Once the
embargo ends, the island could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit
those landscapes.Conservationists, environmental lawyers and other experts, from Cuba and elsewhere, met last month in Cancún,
Mexico, to discuss the island’s resources and how to continue to protect them.Cuba has done “what we should have done — identify your hot
spots of biodiversity and set them aside,” said Oliver Houck, a professor of environmental law at Tulane University Law School who attended
the conference.In the late 1990s, Mr. Houck was involved in an effort, financed in part by the MacArthur Foundation, to advise Cuban officials
writing new environmental laws.But, he said in an interview, “an
invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated
future, could roll over it like a bulldozer” when the embargo ends.By some estimates, tourism in Cuba is increasing 10 percent
annually. At a minimum, Orlando Rey Santos, the Cuban lawyer who led the law-writing effort, said in an interview at the conference, “we can
guess that tourism is going to increase in a very fast way” when the embargo ends.“It is estimated we could double tourism in one year,” said
Mr. Rey, who heads environmental efforts at the Cuban ministry of science, technology and environment.About 700 miles long and about 100
miles wide at its widest, Cuba runs from Haiti west almost to the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. It offers crucial habitat for birds, like Bicknell’s
thrush, whose summer home is in the mountains of New England and Canada, and the North American warblers that stop in Cuba on their way
south for the winter.Zapata Swamp, on the island’s southern coast, may be notorious for its mosquitoes, but it is also known for its fish,
amphibians, birds and other creatures. Among them is the Cuban crocodile, which has retreated to Cuba from a range that once ran from the
Cayman Islands to the Bahamas.Cuba
has the most biologically diverse populations of freshwater fish in the
region. Its relatively large underwater coastal shelves are crucial for numerous marine species, including some whose larvae can be carried
by currents into waters of the United States, said Ken Lindeman, a marine biologist at Florida Institute of Technology.Dr. Lindeman, who did not
attend the conference but who has spent many years studying Cuba’s marine ecology, said in an interview that some of these creatures were
important commercial and recreational species like the spiny lobster, grouper or snapper.Like corals elsewhere, those in Cuba are suffering as
global warming raises ocean temperatures and acidity levels. And like other corals in the region, they reeled when a mysterious die-off of sea
urchins left them with algae overgrowth. But they have largely escaped damage
frompollution,boattrafficanddestructivefishingpractices.Diving in them “is like going back in time 50 years,” said David
Guggenheim, a conference organizer and an ecologist and member of the advisory board of the Harte Research Institute, which helped
organize the meeting along with the Center for International Policy, a private group in Washington.In a report last year, the World Wildlife Fund
said that “in dramatic contrast” to its island neighbors, Cuba’s beaches, mangroves, reefs, seagrass beds and other habitats were relatively well
preserved. Their
biggest threat, the report said, was “the prospect of sudden and massive growth in mass
tourism when the U.S. embargo lifts.” To prepare for that day, researchers from a number of American institutions and
organizations are working on ecological conservation in Cuba, including Harte, the Wildlife Conservation Society, universities like Tulane and
Georgetown, institutions like the American Museum of Natural History and the New York Botanical Garden, and others. What they are studying
includes coral health, fish stocks, shark abundance, turtle migration and land use patterns.Cuban scientists at the conference noted that this
work continued a tradition of collaboration that dates from the mid-19th century, when Cuban researchers began working with naturalists from
the Smithsonian Institution. In the 20th century, naturalists from Harvard and the University of Havana worked together for decades
Oil drilling in Cuba would devastate biodiversity.
Kozloff 10 (Nikolas , writer for the Huffington Post and PhD in Latin American History from Oxford, , “Left Must Fine Tune its Position on
Cuba Embargo in Light of Oil Spill,” Monga Bay, May 26, Online: http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0526-kozloff_cuba.html) From an
environmental point of view, the
prospect of offshore oil development going forward is not something to be
taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular
white sand beaches, vast coral reefs, and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and
mangroves serve as breeding grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine
organisms. Ocean currents carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters, which in turn help to
replenish ailing American fisheries. The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching
all the way up to North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish such as
grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [the latter already in danger as a result of BP’s oil spill as I recently pointed
out]. Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for endangered species
Oil spills would damage beaches and key turtle habitats – Deep water Horizon was
just likely timing
Gibson 2012 (William E. Gibson, Washington Bureau sun-sentinel Drilling off Cuba prompts disaster plan¶ Officials stress inlets, not
beaches¶ April 15, 2012 (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-04-15/news/fl-cuba-oil-drilling-local-spill-plan-20120415_1_inlets-andintracoastal-waterways-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill/2) WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials, game-planning for a potential oil spill off the shores of Cuba, are
preparing to leave South Florida's beaches exposed while shielding inlets and intracoastal waterways to protect the most vulnerable parts of the state's coastline.¶
Two years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster underscored the damage to marine life and tourism
of a massive oil spill, Cuban-sponsored drilling less than 60 miles from Florida has raised new alarms. In
response, the Coast Guard has devised an elaborate plan to contain the damage if an oil slick rushes north on the
¶
Gulf Stream, the powerful current that runs along the East Coast. ¶ Broward and Palm Beach county officials feel better prepared because of lessons from the
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which erupted on April 20, 2010. But they
are not so confident that their beaches, reefs and bays
-- and the tourism dollars they generate -- can be fully protected.¶ "If we do have a large spill, I'm not sure
we have the capability of intercepting all of it," said Eric Myers,Broward County's natural resources administrator. "It will go to the beaches. And
quite honestly, I think that most of the plans assume that a lot of oil can be collected from the beaches, which is what they did in the upper Gulf Coast."¶ U.S.
officials are increasingly confident that Cuban authorities would allow Americans to enter Cuban waters to help contain a major spill at its source. They plan to skim
oil from the ocean surface, contain it, burn it or disperse it with chemicals before it comes near land.¶ But if a slick heads for South Florida, the Coast Guard plan
calls for a series of booms to block surface oil from entering inlets and intracoastal waterways, especially near Port Everglades, Hillsboro Beach,Boca Raton, Boynton
Beach and Jupiter. Officials would not try to screen off beaches, which are much harder to protect but easier to clean up. ¶ "We're telling people not to expect a
cocoon around the coast of Florida, because it's not practical. And with the fast currents we have here, booms all along the beaches really wouldn't be that
effective," said Capt. John Slaughter, chief of readiness at the Coast Guard's 7th district in South Florida. ¶ "Our priority is going to be to protect the inlets," he said.
"The beaches are incredibly important to us, but inlets are what allow water to get into inland areas where the most sensitive environmental areas are." ¶ The Coast
Guard plan focuses on protecting bays, mangrove forests and lagoons – rich spawning grounds, where oil would cause great damage and be very difficult to remove.
Local officials generally support the plan but say they can only hope to minimize damage if a slick arrives. ¶ "We've looked at their [Coast Guard] response
capabilities, which honestly are somewhat limited," Myers said. "The main thing they have the ability to do is to boom certain areas and try to deal with floating
near-surface oil. Anything that's down deeper than that, nobody seems to have a way to manage that much volume of water." ¶ "I would hate to see our beaches
covered with tar balls or oil," he said. "We know that if that were to occur it would be a real mess for our whole tourism
and recreation interest."¶ Plans include rounding up hundreds of volunteers to clean up beaches if they are slathered. Both counties are updating computer lists of
those who offered to help when the Gulf spill raised fears that a slick would ride the Loop Current through the Florida Keys and up the southeast coast.¶ In fact, oil
streamers were headed for the Keys but were shut off by eddies, smaller cross-currents.¶ "We got lucky that time," said Dan Bates, deputy director
of the Department of Environmental Resources Management in Palm Beach County. "Deepwater Horizon was a wake-up call for many folks who didn't realize that
what may happen a long distance away could have dramatic effect locally." ¶ "If
it happens during sea-turtle nesting season, that's a
huge potential impact," he said. "That's an endangered species, and we're one of the primary nesting
habitats in the world. In shore, we have all the nursery habitats we've worked very hard to enhance.
Many tens of millions of dollars have been spent on that habitat, and we certainly want to protect
that investment." Cuban drilling plans raised new alarms because the sites are much closer to Florida and very near the Gulf Stream. Frosty relations
between the United States and Cuba have complicated contingency plans. Repsol, a Spanish company that has contracted with Cuba, has been using a new selfpropelled rig called the Scarabeo 9 to search for oil since January. The company hopes to tap a reservoir before turning the rig over to a Malaysian company,
Petronas, to dig exploratory wells in Cuban waters farther west, probably in late May or June. The exact location has not been disclosed.¶ Repsol has been delayed
by minor equipment problems on the new rig and has not hit the expected reservoir, said Jorge Pinon, a former oil executive and energy expert at the University of
Texas, who is familiar with the drilling operation. The Petronas site, he said, is farther from Florida but closer to currents that flow toward the state. ¶ ¶ "If you move
that prospect further west, a greater area could be impacted, including Florida Bay and the Florida Keys," he said. ¶ To coordinate emergency-response plans in the
Caribbean, U.S. officials met in Jamaica last week with energy experts from Cuba and Mexico, as well as from the Bahamas and Jamaica, which are considering
offshore drilling. Slaughter, who attended the meetings, was hopeful that Cuba would allow a multi-national response in case of disaster.¶ "I certainly can't speak
for Cuba," Slaughter said, "but I would say they understand that a spill of Deepwater Horizon magnitude is beyond one country's ability to address."¶ "I think
Deepwater Horizon really opened everybody's eyes to the magnitude of the challenges," he said. "We have to set a lot of things aside to make sure the response is
done to protect everybody's interests. Based on the vibes I've gotten from the meetings, everybody feels that same way."
Lifting the embargo would turn Cuba into a target for tourists and business
exploitation – this would destroy its environment.
Lovgren 6(Stefan winner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award, “Castro the Conservationist? By
Default or Design, Cuba Largely Pristine,” National Geographic, August 4, Online: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804castro-legacy.html) So
what will happen if Castro's regime falls and a new, democratic government takes root?
Conservationists and others say they are worried that the pressure to develop the island will increase and Cuba's rich
biodiversity will suffer. Barborak said he is concerned that "environmental carpetbaggers and scalawags will
come out of the woodwork in Cuba if there is turbulent regime change. "One could foresee a flood of
extractive industries jockeying for access to mineral and oil leases," he said. "A huge wave of extraction
of unique and endemic plants and animals could occur to feed the international wildlife market. And a
speculative tourism and real estate boom could turn much of the coastline into a tacky wasteland in
short order." "If foreign investments take a much firmer hold, more hotels will be built and more
people will descend on the reefs," added Gebelein, the Florida International University professor. "If the Cuban government does
not have a swift policy framework to deal with the huge influx of tourists, investors, and foreign government interests, a new
exploitative paradigm will be the beginning of the end for some of the last pristine territories in the
Caribbean."
Oil spill would devastate Florida’s economy and key coral reefs.
Newswise 12 [Nova Southeastern University 1/30/2012 Long-Term Response Plan for Cuban Oil Spill
(http://www.newswise.com/articles/long-term-response-plan-for-cuban-oil-spill)] Newswise — FT. LAUDERDALE-DAVIE Fla. — Nova
Southeastern University (NSU) and Florida International University (FIU) researchers have drafted a plan to best prepare South Florida for an oil
spill off the coast of Cuba.¶ The proximity of intended Cuban oil drilling and production puts the U.S. coastal zone at risk from Florida to the
Oil from a spill would quickly enter the Gulf Stream and reach Florida's shores in
hours or days with potentially devastating effects on the densely populated South Florida coastline
and its coastal ecosystems. South Florida's accounts for 3.4 million jobs and 45 percent of the $587
billion contribution to Florida's GDP generated by coastal and ocean economic activity.¶ A likely first
impact of a major spill would be the iconic and economically valuable Florida Reef Track, a coral reef
Carolinas and northward.
ecosystem that stretches from the Dry Torgugas in the Keys to Palm Beach County. Effects could be
devastating to the ecology of the reef, Florida's beaches, coastal property and South Florida’s
economy.¶ The sustainability plan calls for a partnership between the U.S. Coast Guard, other federal agencies, and a consortium of South
Florida academic institutions, including Nova Southeastern University’s Oceanographic Center, Florida International University, other schools,
and private industry. The Coast Guard is the designated operational leader in any response to a Cuban oil spill.¶
Oil spills devastate the environment.
Weber and Crew 2K (J. M. Weber University of Kaiserslautern, Germany and R. E. Crew, Jr Deterrence theory and marine oil¶ spills: Do coast guard
civil penalties¶ deter pollution?¶ J. M., Jr Journal of Environmental Management (2000) (http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0301479799903262/1-s2.0-S0301479799903262main.pdf?_tid=22c20598-ddd9-11e2-afcb-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1372193723_e832ee536908d9fa2114f5c01a283d79)]Oil
pollution continues to
play a prominent role in degradation of the marine environment, both in the United States and
elsewhere. Catastrophic oil spills such as the 11 million gallon discharge by the tankship Exxon Valdez
in 1989 (ARLIS,¶ ¶ 1997a) have immediate environmental consequences. While there is no conclusive
estimate of the impact of this spill on marine life, popular and scientific research suggests an
enormous loss. In addition to the immediate closing of the Alaskan commercial salmon fisheries, an estimated 300 harbor seals, 2800 sea otters, 250 000
seabirds and possibly 13 killer whales were lost (ARLIS, 1997b). Other major oil spills have taken somewhat similar tolls on the
environment. (National¶ ¶ Research Council (NRC), 1985) As devastating as these one-time events are, however, they
should not divert attention from the routine oil spills that strike the environment every day . The long-term¶
¶ impacts of such spills can have huge consequence for marine ecosystems. In 1985, the¶ ¶ US National Research
Council estimated that¶ ¶ 73% of oil spilled in marine transportationcomes from sources other than tankships. ¶ ¶ (NRC, 1985) This means that a substantial¶ ¶
volume of oil is spilled into the marine environment from sources that gather little public ¶ ¶ or media attention. While society can and¶ ¶ should expend effort to
prevent the Exxon¶ ¶ Valdez-type oil spills, it should be just as¶ ¶ vigilant in reducing the chronic pollution of ¶ ¶ smaller vessels and land-based facilities.¶ ¶ The
US government has long been engaged in efforts to prevent oil spills.
Mexico
NAFTA catalyzed BioD loss
Ackerman et. al. 3 (Frank Ackerman, Timothy A. Wise, Kevin P. Gallagher, Luke Ney, and
Regina Flores, “Free Trade, Corn, and the Environment: Environmental Impacts of US – Mexico Corn Trade Under NAFTA”, June 2003,
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/wp/03-06-naftacorn.pdf)> BC The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had a profound impact on
corn trade between the United States and Mexico. Negotiated tariff reductions and the Mexican government’s decision not to charge some
tariffs to which it was entitled resulted in a doubling of US corn exports to Mexico. This paper examines the environmental implications of this
change on both sides of the border. For the US,
increased exports to Mexico due to trade liberalization represent one
therefore be considered responsible for one percent of the environmental
impacts of corn production. These are considerable, including: high chemical use; water pollution due
to runoff; unsustainable water use for irrigation; the expansion of genetically modified corn; soil
erosion; and biodiversity loss . Trends in these areas are presented. For Mexico, the principal potential environmental
percent of total US production and should
impact of the loss of a significant share of its domestic corn market to the US is the threat to agro-biodiversity. Preliminary evidence is
presented on the extent to which imports and declining prices are reducing the production of native corn varieties. The authors conclude that
shifting corn trade under NAFTA is having significant negative environmental effects on both sides of
the border and could have even more profound impacts in the future if it results in the loss of significant agro-biodiversity in
Mexico.
Mexican deforestation results in global warming and lost peasant lumber
Susana Ochoa-Gaona (Division of Biodiversity Conservation at El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, “Land use and deforestation in the
highlands of Chiapas, Mexico”, January 2000,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S014362289900017X) Old-growth tropical forests represent a
number of values related to biodiversity conservation (Franklin & Forman, 1987; Crow, 1990; Kim & Weaver, 1994) and carbon sequestration (Cooper, 1982;
Dobson, Jolly & Rubenskin, 1989; Bawa & Markham, 1995). Both local and global
effects have been identified as possible
consequences of tropical deforestation. On a local scale, in addition to declining species richness and genetic variation, deforestation may
result in a disturbance of the hydrological balance and degradation of the physical and chemical attributes of the soils (Siebert, 1987; Gibson, Collins & Good, 1988;
Saunders, Hobbs & Margules, 1991; Ojima, Gavin & Turner, 1994). Furthermore,
significant sources of forest products for the
primary needs of poor peasants in developing countries may be lost (Buschbacher, 1990). On the other hand, climatic
patterns may be changing due to global warming related to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
(Macdonald, 1994; Ojima et al., 1994; Bloomgarden, 1995). ¶ Increasing awareness about the drastic and accelerated transformation of natural landscapes
(particularly in tropical regions), and its effects on global climatic trends and biodiversity, led to the adoption of the International Convention on Biodiversity and
Change of the Global Climate at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio of Janeiro (Kim & Weaver, 1994). A non-legally binding statement
of principles was adopted for the management, conservation, and sustainable development of multiple-use forests (de Jong, Montoya-Gómez, Nelson, Soto-Pinto,
Taylor & Tipper, 1994). Notwithstanding these measures, deforestation and degradation of the remaining forest stands in developing countries are still continuing,
exacerbated by persistent policies and incentives which may enhance them (Leonard, 1989; Cairns, Dirzo & Zadroga, 1995; Clark, 1995). Development models based
on market-driven economics and priorities set for public investment have proved to be unsympathetic towards traditional agriculture (Garcı ́a-Barrios and Garcı ́aBarrios, 1990 and Garcı ́a-Barrios and Garcı ́a-Barrios, 1992). These economic policies provide incentives for high-technology and/or export agriculture, but have
frequently failed to encourage sustainable forestry alternatives (Clark, 1995; Goodland, 1995). ¶ Detailed and updated resource inventories are needed to support
land-use planning and sustainable management. Spatial analyses of land-use patterns using geographical information systems (GIS) have increased noticeably over
the last decade. However, at least in tropical Latin America, detailed GIS studies describing the dynamics of vegetation cover changes are still lacking (but see
Harrison, 1991; Dirzo & Garcı ́a, 1992; SARH, 1992; Skole & Tucker, 1993; Sader, Sever, Smoot & Richards, 1994). It is generally agreed that extensive forested areas
in the region are rapidly being converted to pasture and agricultural land (Fresco, 1994 ).
It has been estimated that Latin American
countries include 27% of the world's tropical forests (Browder, 1989) and that they have been
disappearing over the last decade at a rate of 10 000 km2 yr−1, which represents a 50% increase for the period (Johnson &
Cabarle, 1993). Within the region, Mexico has the highest deforestation rates (Sayer & Whitmore, 1991), estimated at 3650–15 000 km2 yr−1 during the 1980s and
6780–7460 km2 yr−1 in the early 1990s (SARH, 1992; Cairns et al., 1995). ¶ The objective of this study is to provide an estimate of deforestation over the period
1974–90 in the highly populated and economically marginalized highlands of Chiapas in southern Mexico (Parra-Vázquez & Dı ́az-Hernández, 1997). An attempt is
made to relate deforestation rates and land-use patterns to environmental factors such as slope angle and soil type, in addition to some local population and
economic attributes. The information used in this study refers to two municipalities within the same physiographic region that share general environmental
conditions, but have striking differences in population density and forest-use history. We believe that the major issues related to deforestation and land-use
patterns that are identified in the study area might be similar to those in other tropical highland areas of Mexico (Landa, Meave & Carabias, 1997), Central America
and Andean regions, which may account for 25–30% of their respective territories (de Boer, 1989). ¶ 2. Study area¶ The state of Chiapas is located in southern
Mexico, in the central part of Mesoamerica (Fig. 1). This region includes one of the richest biotas of Mexico and Central America (Rzedowski, 1978 and Rzedowski,
1991; Breedlove, 1981 and Breedlove, 1986; Martı ́nez, Ramas & Chiang, 1994; González-Espinosa, Ochoa-Gaona, Ramı ́rez-Marcial & Quintana-Ascencio, 1997). The
highlands of Chiapas (Central Plateau sensu; Müllerried, 1957) comprise a limestone mass with extrusive volcanic rocks at the highest peaks, extending for over
11 000 km2, ca. 160 km along a northwest–southeast axis, and ca. 70 km at its widest (Müllerried, 1957). The region includes 30% out of about 9000 vascular plant
species of the flora of Chiapas (Breedlove, 1981), and had an original cover of several forest formations, including oak, pine–oak, pine–oak–liquidambar, pine and
evergreen cloud forest (Miranda, 1952; Rzedowski, 1978; Breedlove, 1981; González-Espinosa, Quintana-Ascencio, Ramı ́rez-Marcial & Gaytán-Guzmán, 1991;
Quintana-Ascencio & González-Espinosa, 1993). The region is densely populated by Maya peasants who have made clearings for shifting cultivation and used
firewood and other forest resources since pre-Columbian times (Cowgill, 1962; Collier, 1975). The traditional shifting cultivation or milpa is a rain-fed, labourintensive system using different cultivars of maize in association with beans, squash, chili and other edible vegetables, and frequently involves cultural and social
activities related to some of the agricultural practices (Nigh, 1975). In recent times, the traditional and widespread system of milpa agriculture has faced severe
limitations derived from high population density, intensification of land use, reduction of soil fertility, and the asymmetrical economic relationships between the
Indian and mestizo societies
Venezuela
Petro-Venezuela frequently has Environmental mishaps
El Universal 12 (El Universal is a major Venezuelan newspaper, headquartered in Caracas with an average daily circulation of about
150,000. The online version carries news, politics, sports, economy and more."Pdvsa is not responsive", April 7, 2012,
http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/120407/pdvsa-is-not-responsive) BCSomehwere in Anzoátegui state
residents
wonder why they have to fill their water tanks with water tankers due to state-run oil holding Petróleos
de Venezuela (Pdvsa) fault. Now that the issues of drinking water and the environmental damages caused by
oil holding industry PDVSA elsewhere in the country are in vogue; the members of indigenous communities around
Mesa de Guanipa remember that a gas leak made them lose their right to receive water service through
pipes.
Along the rivers of the area, bubbles are released. If it was not for technicians and spokesmen from Petróleos de Venezuela
company, who have approached the place to warn that such water cannot be used for consumption; any stranger may confuse it
with thermal water.The phenomenon, anyway, is not older than 10 years. Rafael Maita, a native leader, remembers that particular
smells and bubbles in the water were the first warnings that something wrong was going on in Tascabaña and other settlements in Eastern
Anzoátegui.The first charges were made in the local press in 2005; later, they were supported by non-governmental organizations such as
Provea (The Venezuelan Program of Education-Action in Human Rights) and, in 2008, when complications arouse at homes and crops of the
communities; their complains echoed in Caracas. Congress deputies, the Ombudsman's Office and other state agencies would acknowledge
that gas is released from oil wells thought to have been closed in Anzoátegui area.The very Attorney General Office - which these days demands
proofs from the media before speaking of pollution- admitted four years ago that the waters of the zone are altered. By means of an analysis whose details are unknown- it pointed to damages to the population.On behalf of the Indigenous Organization Taguala, Rafael Maita and other
neighbors require that such and any other studies which may reveal the situation they are going through are brought out. "People are quite
afraid to denounce," he regrets. "Additionally, people in here let go the idea of having water well; they are getting used to drinking water
supplied by water tankers instead."Salt waterAccording to the Environmental Perspectives in Venezuela that the Ministry of Environment
submitted in 2010 to the United Nations Program for Environment; the
aquifers of Mesa de Guanipa represent one of the
four most potent underground water reservoirs in the country.That explains why the most fatalist voices exclaim that
there is a methane gas bomb in one of the most productive aquifers. This is not about putting Petróleos de Venezuela in a tight corner. It is
clear that Anzoátegui and the whole country are supported by its oil production; however, Tascabaña residents need to find a solution to their
problem.Sociologist Rafael Uzcátegui, from non-governmental organization Provea, believes that besides giving responses to the affected
communities;
it is time to reopen the debate that environmental activists triggered in the 90's, concerning
the consequences provoked by means of production based on mineral and hydrocarbon extraction.By the same
token, Rafael Maita adds from the very indigenous towns of Freites Municipality, that residents are not asking for the removal of either drilling
rigs or pipes which have been installed along their houses. What he means is that the people
want to know more about their
environmental and sanitary conditions; as well as be granted again access easement which the oil holding company had always
negotiated when occupying their lands."In 2004, the rights of way of Tascabaña, Bajo Hondo and Kashama communities expired, and now that
we decide to protest, they put the National Guard in," he denounces. "Pdvsa does not give any responses; it tells us that lands need to be
delimited but we have the title deeds of these lands since 1783."There is no longer yucca or chili pepper or any other crops, such as plantain
bordering Tascabaña River. The few local residents willing to talk about the issue, display a wide range of problems: from consequences to their
farming activities to legends about heads of cattle dead as a result of the oil spills.The raindrops that fall onto the place even turn into bubbles
when getting in contact with the ground. That is -after all- a sign that in Freites Municipality something is wrong. Only a few local residents have
given their opinion on the case. There is fear, some assert. "At that eastern zone, Pdvsa has the real power," explains Rafael Uzcátegui, a leader
of Provea, from Caracas.An
oil spill on Tascabaña River brought the matter to light again last February . The
Guard restricted the access to this zone and, under such circumstances, the only neighbors who would
open their doors to the press did it,preferring not to be identified by name. They are certainly concerned and want to know
what is really going on in their rivers; additionally, they fear to lose the support, missions and
construction projects that Pdvsa has funded them."Kari'ña members of the past lacked training; they had no access to
Bolivarian National
Internet or high schools, but they were certainly more warlike," adds Maita on behalf of the Indigenous Organization Taguala. "We have now
become politicized and therefore we do not fight for what is ours."
Venezuela’s integral role in the Amazon makes it a key role model – most of its forests
are still preserved
Gusmán 11 (17 November 2011, Evelyn Gusmán, “Concerns over the Conservation of the Amazon Rainforest in
Venezuela,” http://www.oecoamazonia.com/en/news/venezuela/345-de-olhos-voltados-a-amazonia-venezuelana,
The Guardian Environment Network brings together the world's best websites focusing on green topics. The
network connects sites from across the globe.)
A feeling of uneasiness took hold of the group of scientists who worked on the development of the Red Book of Terrestrial Ecosystems of
Venezuela (LR)edited by the Venezuelan environmental organization Provita, which first number was published in December 2010. The
area
known as “evergreen forests”, in south Venezuela, is apparently not free from human intervention
anymore. On the picture the change of the vegetation formation in present-day Venezuela can be seen, compared to the one of 1988.
Credit: Red Book Terrestrial Ecosystems of Venezuela The LR reports the country's forests cover an area of 311,496 km ², of which 290,018 km ²
are in the states of Amazonas, Bolívar and Delta Amacuro - some scientists argue that all three states should be part of the Venezuelan Amazon.
Only the state of Amazonas was taken into account for the publication – region where officially are 53,000 km ² of the Amazon, with its palm
trees, evergreen shrubs and woodlands, riparian forests, shrub grasslands on white sand and saxicolous vegetation. The study indicates that in
1988 the
evergreen forest covered 145,555 km² of the Amazonas state. Up until 2010, 13.825 km² had been cleared,
leaving it with its current area of 131.730 km². Among the main threats to its conservation are mining, illegal
logging, burning, changes in agricultural practices, population growth, tourism and commercial
exploitation of natural resources, which are "the most important triggers of the change or loss of
forest, as well as the newly recognized effect of climate change". Biologist Franklin Rojas-Suarez, one of the editors of
the paper, says, "The situation in the Venezuelan Amazon ecosystem is similar to other regions south of the Orinoco." Despite the threats the
forest faces, he believes the decree on protected areas (four natural monuments, two national parks and one biosphere reserve) "was one of
the main strategies ever implemented towards their conservation". Despite
these results, the botanist Otto Huber,
scientific adviser to the Botanical Garden Foundation of Venezuela, says that the Venezuelan Amazon
still retains "a setting very close to its natural state" in its landscapes, - since the evergreen forest cover has been
reduced by 10% from 1988 to 2010. Huber affirms the tepuyes (flat-topped mountain found mainly in Venezuela) or mountains located north of
the Amazonas state are "virtually unexplored."
Oil projects in the Amazon threaten biodiversity
Finer et al. 8 (Matt Finer, Clinton N. Jenkins, Stuart L. Pimm, Brian Keane, Carl Ross, Oil and Gas Projects in the Western Amazon: Threats
to Wilderness, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Peoples, August 13, 2008,
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002932#s1.)The western Amazon includes parts of Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and western Brazil (Figure 1). It is
one of the most biodiverse areas of the planet for many
region maintains large tracts of intact
tropical moist forest and has a high probability of stable climatic conditions in the face of
global warming [8]. By contrast, the eastern Amazon in Brazil, where much of the global attention has focused, has a high probability of
taxa, including plants, insects, amphibians, birds, and mammals [1]–[7]. The
continued massive deforestation [9] and drought risk in the coming decades [10]. The western Amazon is also the home to many indigenous
ethnic groups, including some of the world's last uncontacted peoples living in voluntary isolation[11]–[13]. Underlying
this
landscape of extraordinary biological and cultural diversity are large reserves of oil and gas,
many yet untapped. Record oil prices and growing global demand are now stimulating
unprecedented levels of new oil and gas exploration and extraction. It is the nations of the region, and not
the indigenous peoples who live on much of the land, who assert their constitutional ownership of subsoil natural resources. National
governments delimit specific geographic areas or “blocks” that are zoned for hydrocarbon
activities, which they may lease to state and multinational energy companies for exploration
and production. Oil exploration in the western Amazon started as early as the 1920s in Peru [14] and Ecuador [15], with a production
boom arriving in the 1970s. The subsequent three decades have seen numerous large projects, such as several oil projects in the central
Ecuadorian Amazon, the Urucu gas project in Brazil, and the Camisea gas project in Peru. Oil
and gas development in the
western Amazon has already caused major environmental and social impacts 16–19. Direct impacts
include deforestation for access roads, drilling platforms, and pipelines, and contamination
from oil spills and wastewater discharges. The technologies of the 1970s-era oil operations
caused widespread contamination in the northern Ecuadorian[20]–[21] and northern
Peruvian Amazon [22]–[23]. Even the much newer Camisea pipeline, which began operations
in the fall of 2004, had five major spills in its first 18 months of operation [24]. A 1990s-era oil
operation experienced a major spill in Ecuador's Yasuní region as recently as January 2008 [25]. There are also direct impacts
associated with seismic testing activities during the exploration phase of projects [17], [26]. Indirect
effects arise from the easy access to previously remote primary forest provided by new oil roads and pipeline routes, causing increased logging,
hunting, and deforestation from human settlement [27]–[29]. For example, much of the extensive deforestation in the northern and central
Ecuadorian Amazon followed colonization along the oil access roads [30]–[32].
High Venezuelan Biodiversity threatened by Human activity
Miloslavich et. al. 3 (Patricia Miloslavich, Eduardo Klein, Edgard Yerena and Alberto Martin, Jounrnalists at the Department of
Environmental Studies, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela and The Institute of Marine Science and Technology (INTECMAR),
“MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN VENEZUELA: STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES”,http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/gayana/v67n2/Miloslavich%202.pdf, MS )
Venezuela is among the ten countries with the highest biodiversity in the world, both in the
terrestrial and the marine environment. Due to its biogeographical position, Venezuelan marine
flora and fauna are composed of species from very different marine bioregions such as the Caribbean
and the Orinoco Delta. The ecosystems in the Caribbean have received considerable attention but now, due to the tremendous
impact of human activities such as tourism, over-exploitation of marine resources, physical
alteration, the oil industry, and pollution, these environments are under great risk and their
biodiversity highly threatened. The most representative ecosystems of this region include sandy beaches, rocky shores,
seagrass beds, coral reefs, soft bottom communities, and mangrove forests. The Orinoco Delta is a complex group of freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems; the habitats are very diverse but poorly known. This paper summarizes the known, which is all of the
information available in Venezuela about research into biodiversity, the different ecosystems and the knowledge that has become
available in different types of publications, biological collections, the importance and extents of the Protected Areas as biodiversity
reserves, and the legal institutional framework aimed at their protection and sustainable use. As the unknown, research priorities are
proposed: a complete survey of the area, the completion of a species list, and an assessment of the health status of the main ecosystems
on a broad national scale. This new information must be integrated and summarized in nationwide Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
databases, accessible to the scientific community as well as to the management agencies. In the long term, a genetic inventory must be
included in order to provide more detailed knowledge of the biological resources. Future projects at the local (Venezuela), regional
(Southern Caribbean: Colombia, Venezuela, and the Netherlands Antilles), and global (South America) scales are recommended.
Deforestation of the amazon rainforest has massive effects on climate change
Greenpeace No date
(http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/climate-change, Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning
organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and
to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.)
As our understanding of the role forests play in stabilizing global climate increases, it is becoming clear that their destruction is only
exacerbating climate change. If
we're serious about tackling this, then preserving our remaining ancient forests
has to be a priority. Mature forests store enormous quantities of carbon, both in the trees and vegetation itself and within the soil in
the form of decaying plant matter. Forests in areas such as the Congo and the Amazon represent some of the
world's largest carbon stores on land. But when forests are logged or burnt, that carbon is released into the atmosphere,
increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and accelerating the rate of climate change. So much carbon is
released that they contribute up to one-fifth of global man-made emissions, more than the world's
entire transport sector. Deforestation has such a massive effect on climate change that Indonesia and
Brazil are now the third and fourth largest emitters of carbon dioxide on the planet. This dubious honour
comes not from industrial or transport emissions, but from deforestation - up to 75 per cent of Brazil's emissions come
solely from deforestation - with the majority coming from clearing and burning areas of the Amazon
rainforest.
Oil extraction has serious, detrimental effects on Venezuelan biodiversity
Wykes 12 (Dr. Sarah Wykes and the Green Political Foundation, THE ORINOCO OIL BELT –
UPDATE, October 10, 2012, http://www.boell.de/downloads/VenezuelaOrinoco.pdf.)Summarizing the impacts of current oil extraction in the country, the report
concluded that: “the fact that the Venezuelan government has access to extraordinary economic
resources and the persistence of an economy based on the existence of overly cheap fuels, have created
a culture where waste, uncontrolled consumption, the devaluation of nature and a lack of foresight, are
having intense impacts on the country, including air, soil and water pollution, huge volumes of solid
waste, and the waste of energy and resources.” The report highlights the following specific concerns:
Deterioration of sensitive ecosystems in production sites in the area of the Orinoco Oil Belt and of the
ecosystem of Lake Maracaibo as a result of continuous spills and leaks;Loss of soil and the triggering of
erosion processes in exploration and production zones in the Orinoco Oil Belt;Presence of
environmental liabilities, including holding pits for waste products that are at risk of
Flaws in the handling of by-products of the refining process (mainly
sulphur and coke) that are causing water, air and soil pollution;High levels of emissions of CO2, SO2 and
NOx in refining and upgrading processes;Discharge of petroleum products and bodies of water, the
product of failures in monitoring, maintenance and prevention processes;Pollution and degradation of
soils due to the presence of waste products of oil exploitation, as well as from engineering works
associated with this activity. lvii
Additionally, the report warns of the “enormous environmental and social risks associated with the
development of oil and gas mega projects [including further development of the Orinoco Belt], about which there
was a lack of adequate public information regarding the environmental and socio-cultural standards that were to
be applied”. lviii
Mining threatens biodiversity
Butler 6 (Rhett Butler founded mongabay.com in 1999 with the mission of raising interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife,
while examining the impact of emerging local and global trends in technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development.,
“Mining in Venezuelan Amazon threatens biodiversity, indigenous groups”, November 9, 2006, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1109atbc.html#js7XCZK4EGbwFqMS.99) BC Troubles are mounting in one of Earth's most beautiful landscapes. Deep
in the Venezuelan
Amazon, among ancient forested tabletop mountains known as tepuis, crystalline rivers, and breathtaking waterfalls, illegal gold miners
are threatening one of world's largest remaining blocks of wilderness, one that is home to indigenous
people and strikingly high levels of biological diversity. As the situation worsens -- a series of attacks have counted
both miners and indigenous people as victims -- a leading scientific organization has called for the Venezuelan government to take action.The
drama is playing out in the southern Venezuelan state of Bolivar, near the border of Brazil and Guyana, in the Caroni and Caura River basins.
The southern-most of these rivers, the Caura, is the second largest river draining the Guiana shield, highlands that separate the Orinoco and
Amazon River basins. Characterized by lowland tropical rainforest, the Caura basin has impressive levels of biological diversity -- 2,600 vascular
plant species, 168 mammal species, 475 bird species, 34 amphibian species, 53 reptile species, and 441 species of fish have been identified to
date -- and stores some 700 million metric tons of carbon, or about the amount released by 162 million cars in a year.The region is also home to
indigenous groups -- including the Ye'kwana, Sanema and Hoti -- who rely heavily upon local rivers for drinking water, food, and transportation.
Being one of the most isolated parts Amazonia, these Indians live in mostly traditional ways.A golden problemAn accident of geography
has put this biodiversity and these indigenous populations at risk. The Guiana shield is incredibly old, with exposed
rock dating back to the Precambrian period some 600 million years ago. This geology, like that of parts of West Africa, Western Australia, and
the Brazilian Shield, produces rich deposits of gold, diamonds, iron, and bauxite. While these have long been exploited, since the
early 1990s the region has experienced a gold rush rivaling those of 19th century in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and
South Africa. sUpstream from informal mining area. While in Venezuela and Suriname much of the area is nominally protected on paper, in
reality national parts are becoming dotted with illegal settlements, clandestine landing strips sometimes used for drug trafficking and other
smuggling, and small scale mining operations. In the nearby Caroni and other areas, this informal mining
sector is having a
significant environmental impact -- one that will likely be replicated in the Caura with the September invasion of more than 600
miners into the basin.Miners rely heavily on hydraulic mining techniques, blasting away at river banks with high-powered water cannons and
clearing forests to expose potential gold-yielding gravel deposits. Gold is usually extracted from this gravel using a sluice box to separate
heavier sediment and mercury used to amalgamate the precious metal. While most of the mercury is removed for reuse or burned off, some
invariably ends up in rivers."The main problem
with this type of gold mining is that it is almost entirely unmanaged in
every aspect." explained Hammond. "Mercury sales are poorly regulated and its use is widespread. Most often mercury recovery, through
the use of retorts, is not undertaken. The result, operators inhale mercury vapor, airborne mercury is dry
deposited across many areas and liquid mercury makes its way into the aquatic environment. Once there, it
is methylated, taken up by benthic feeders, who then are eaten by predatory fish, and then up through the
food chain. "Downstream from informal mining area. Note the significantly higher levels of suspended sediments. Hammond says that
bioaccumulation of mercury in fish poses health threats to people living downstream."Fish account for the major share of protein in the diet of
local residents, creating well-documented accumulation, particularly in children," he said "The impacts of mercury on humans is wellestablished." Mercury accumulation in humans has been tied to neurological damage and birth defects."Further," added Hammond, "poorly
managed mining sites create conditions ideally suited to mosquito breeding, making mining camps hotspots of vector-borne disease
transmission. These diseases [malaria, dengue fever] are then spread further as untreated miners return to their communities and
families."Hammond says these effects are long-lasting."To place in context, there are still lakes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California
that remain off-limits to fishing and swimming due to uncontrolled mercury use during the California gold rush more than 120 years ago. The
sites continue to record toxic mercury bioaccumulation according to studies conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)."Both
solid and liquid waste contaminate mining areas. According to Hammond, "Mercury methylation is largely controlled by the
presence of sulfur-reducing bacteria that are found in conditions where dissolved oxygen levels are low.
Impact Scenarios
General Extinction
Biodiversity loss is as devastating as climate change and pollution
Green Building Elements 12 (“Biodiversity Loss Ranks with Climate Change and Pollution in Terms of Impacts to Environment”,
May 10, 2012, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) BC
The "Flume Room" at the University of Michigan is used to assess how species diversity affects water quality in streams.
A recent study published by an international research team working at UC Santa Barbara s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
(NCEAS) has found that loss
of biodiversity impacts the environment as significantly as climate change and
pollution. The study, titled, a global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change, was published May 2 in the
journal Nature. For the past 15 years, ecologists have built a rich understanding of the consequences of humans driving species extinct. What
we didn't know before this paper is whether those impacts of species loss rank up there with those from the major drivers of environmental
change, said Jarrett Byrnes, a postdoctoral fellow with NCEAS.
Led by Western Washington University biologist David Hooper, the scientists, including those from institutions in the U.S., Canada, and Sweden,
examined the effects of various environmental stressors on plant growth and decomposition, two crucial processes in any ecosystem. With data
synthesized from almost 200 published studies, they measured the rate of species loss in different ecosystems, and found that the
greater
the plant species loss, the higher the negative impact on plant growth. The effects of biodiversity loss
on biomass were similar to the effects from other environmental stressors, including global warming
and pollution. Our work shows that, indeed, the impacts of species loss look to be on par with many kinds of
human-driven environmental change, said Byrnes. And more intriguingly, it suggests that if environmental change also causes
loss of species, ecosystem functions like productivity could get hit with a 1-2 punch. The news looks bleak, with some projections suggesting
that, at
the current rate of biodiversity loss, Earth may face another mass extinction within 240 years. To
has to be considered alongside the more prominent forms of
environmental change. Researcher measuring the productivity of algae in a stream. For the researchers, there is more to be studied,
combat this scenario, said Byrnes, species loss
as they plan to dig deeper into the effects of species loss on multiple functions and explicitly link loss of species to changes in ecosystem
services. One thing this study opens up is the need to better understand the interactions between environmental change and species loss.
They’re not independent, and may interact in some particularly unexpected ways, said Byrnes.
Ocean biodiversity loss will result in a domino effect resulting in extinction.
McCarthy 11(Michael McCarthy , award winning environmental journalist & editor, “Oceans on the brink of catastrophe,” The
Independent, June 21, Online: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html) The
world's oceans are faced with an unprecedented loss of species comparable to the great mass
extinctions of prehistory, a major report suggests today. The seas are degenerating far faster than anyone has
predicted, the report says, because of the cumulative impact of a number of severe individual stresses,
ranging from climate warming and sea-water acidification, to widespread chemical pollution and gross overfishing.¶ The
coming together of these factors is now threatening the marine environment with a catastrophe
"unprecedented in human history", according to the report, from a panel of leading marine scientists brought together in Oxford
earlier this year by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN).¶ The stark suggestion made by the panel is that the
potential extinction of species, from large fish at one end
of the scale to tiny corals at the other, is directly comparable to the five great mass extinctions in the
geological record, during each of which much of the world's life died out. They range from the Ordovician-Silurian
"event" of 450 million years ago, to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction of 65 million years ago, which is believed to have wiped out the
dinosaurs. The worst of them, the event at the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago, is thought to have eliminated 70 per cent of
species on land and 96 per cent of all species in the sea.¶ The panel of 27 scientists, who considered the latest research from all areas of marine
science, concluded that a
"combination of stressors is creating the conditions associated with every previous
major extinction of species in Earth's history". They also concluded the speed and rate of degeneration of
the oceans is far faster than anyone has predicted; ¶ * Many of the negative impacts identified are greater
than the worst predictions; ¶ * the first steps to globally significant extinction may have already begun.
Biodiversity loss leads to Extinction
Tschakert et. al. 12 (Dr. Tschakert received a PhD in arid lands resources science from the University of Arizona and a mag. Phil
in geography and economic from Karl-Franzens University, “Human Extinction”, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog030/node/398)
Earlier in this module, we used the house of cards (or Jenga) metaphor for ecosystem resilience. As
more species go extinct,
it becomes more likely for ecosystems to collapse. Given how many species are endangered, it is difficult to put an
upper limit on how severe the ecosystem collapses could be. The collapses could be so severe that human
extinction is threatened. The current honey bee colony collapse situation illustrates this. Without
honey bees, humans would struggle - and perhaps fail - to grow many important crops. As more
biodiversity is lost, we may find ourselves learning the hard way how important it is to our
civilization and indeed our very survival.
Biodiversity poses an imminent threat to human survival
Raj 12 (Dr. P.J. Sanjeeva Raj, consultant ecologist and the Professor and Head of the Zoology Department of the Madras Christian College
(MCC), “Beware the loss of biodiversity”, September 23, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/beware-the-loss-ofbiodiversity/article3927062.ece) Professor
Edward O. Wilson, Harvard visionary of biodiversity, observes that
the current rate of biodiversity loss is perhaps the highest since the loss of dinosaurs about 65 million
years ago during the Mesozoic era, when humans had not appeared. He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all
biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic reasons, as has been seen now, it is
sure to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and helplessness on this
planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to lead us into an age that may be appropriately called the “Eremozoic
Era, the Age of Loneliness.” Loss of biodiversity is a much greater threat to human survival than even climate
change. Both could act, synergistically too, to escalate human extinction faster.
Biodiversity is so indispensable for human survival that the United Nations General Assembly has
designated the decade 2011- 2020 as the ‘Biodiversity Decade’ with the chief objective of enabling
humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its biodiversity. We should be happy that during
October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from
193 party countries are expected to meet. They will review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the
Earth Summit or the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries.
Biodiversity provides all basic needs for our healthy survival — oxygen, food, medicines, fiber, fuel,
energy, fertilizers, fodder and waste-disposal, etc. Fast vanishing honeybees, dragonflies, bats, frogs,
house sparrows, filter (suspension)-feeder oysters and all keystone species are causing great
economic loss as well as posing an imminent threat to human peace and survival. The three-fold biodiversity
mission before us is to inventories the existing biodiversity, conserve it, and, above all, equitably share the sustainable benefits out of it.
Loss of biodiversity has the capacity to cause human extinction
Buczynski 10 (Beth Buczynski is the author of Sharing is Good (Fall 2013, New Society
Publishers), a practical guide
to collaborative consumption that includes hundreds of tips and resources to help you participate in the growing sharing economy. She
received a BA in creative writing from the University of Tennessee and a MS in public communication and technology from Colorado
State University, “UN: Loss Of Biodiversity Could Mean End Of Human Race”, http://www.care2.com/causes/un-humans-are-rapidlydestroying-the-biodiversity-ne.html#ixzz2ZXlGvUz0)
UN officials gathered at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Japan have issued a global warning
that the rapid loss of animal and plant species that has characterized the past century must end if humans
are to survive. Delegates in Nagoya plan to set a new target for 2020 for curbing species loss, and will discuss boosting medium-term
financial help for poor countries to help them protect their wildlife and habitats (Yahoo Green). “Business as usual is no more an option for
mankind,” CBD executive secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf said in his opening statements. “We need a new approach, we need to reconnect with
nature and live in harmony with nature into the future.” The CBD is an international legally-binding treaty with three main goals:
conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of biodiversity; fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic
resources. Its overall objective is to encourage actions which will lead to a sustainable future. As Djoghlaf acknowledged in his opening
statements, facing the fact that many countries have ignored their obligation to these goals is imperative if progress is to be made in the
future. “Let us have the courage to look in the eyes of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfill the
Johannesburg promise made to them by the 110 Heads of State and Government to substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010,”
Djoghlaf stated. “Let us look in the eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus
mortgaging their future. “Earlier this year, the U.N. warned several eco-systems including the
Amazon rainforest,
freshwater lakes and rivers and coral reefs are approaching a “tipping point” which, if reached, may see
them never recover. According to a study by UC Berkeley and Penn State University researchers, between 15
and 42 percent of the mammals in North America disappeared after humans arrived. Compared to extinction
rates demonstrated in other periods of Earth’s history, this means that North American species are already half
way to a sixth mass extinction, similar to the one that eliminated the dinosaurs. The same is true in many other parts
of the world. The third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook demonstrates that, today, the rate of loss of biodiversity is up
to one thousand times higher than the background and historical rate of extinction. The Earth’s 6.8 billion
humans are effectively living 50 percent beyond the planet’s bio capacity in 2007; according to a new
assessment by the World Wildlife Fund that said by 2030 humans will effectively need the capacity of two
Earths in order to survive
Species loss can lead to extinction
King et. al. 12 (Petra Tschakert, Assistant Professor of Geography; Karl Zimmerer, Professor and Department Head of Geography; Brian
King, Assistant Professor of Geography; Seth Baum, Graduate Assistant and Ph.D. student in Geography and Chongming Wang, Teaching
Assistant, Geography, “Human Extinction“,https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog030/node/398, MS) Biodiversity loss. Earlier in this module,
we used the house of cards (or Jenga) metaphor for ecosystem resilience. As more species go
extinct, it becomes more likely
for ecosystems to collapse. Given how many species are endangered, it is difficult to put an upper limit on how
severe the ecosystem collapses could be. The collapses could be so severe that human extinction is
threatened. The current honey bee colony collapse situation illustrates this. Without honey bees,
humans would struggle - and perhaps fail - to grow many important crops. As more biodiversity is lost,
we may find ourselves learning the hard way how important it is to our civilization and indeed our
very survival.
Loss of Biodiversity leads to loss of resources
Weidema No date (Bo P.Weidema., M.Sc. in horticulture from the Royal Agricultural University of Copenhagen, “Can resource
depletion be omitted from environmental impact assessments? http://www.lca-net.com/files/resources-postertext.pdf, MS) Present
rate
of extinction of species is estimated upwards from 1000 species per year (out of an¶ estimated total of 14*109
species). It is generally agreed that the reduction in biodiversity is caused ¶ by over-exploitation of
specific species (hunting and deliberate extermination), introduction of new¶ species, and habitat destruction.¶ As a protection area,
biodiversity is affected not only by direct or indirect use of biological¶ resources (over-exploitation of specific
species and physical habitat destruction) but also by many¶ environmental mechanisms, both those typically
included in environmental assessments (global¶ warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication etc.) and such
which are not so often¶ included (e.g. introduction of new species). In this presentation, I deal only with those effects that¶ are
related to direct or indirect use of biological resources.¶ Over-exploitation of specific species, i.e. harvesting of species
which are threatened with extinction,¶ may be recorded as a resource use in the inventory (e.g. expressed
in terms of numbers of¶ individuals, weight or area exploited, allowing a later assessment of the size of the impact in¶ relation to the size of the
remaining and/or viable population and the value assigned to the species¶ in question).¶ Physical
habitat destruction may be
recorded in the inventory in terms of both the area affected¶ (when a change in habitat quality is implied) and
area*time (to cover the effects of the mere¶ occupation of an area). In the impact assessment, these inventory items
may be weighted with¶ coefficients expressing the specific characteristics of the affected area in
relation to the species¶ density relative to the average species density, the scarcity of areas where the
specific ecosystem¶ can exist, and the scarcity of areas where the specific ecosystem actually exists . This
concept is¶ further developed in Weidema & Lindeijer (2001).
Biodiversity stabilizes Earth’s Ecosystems
Calzadilla 13 (Erasmo Calzadilla, the General Assembly of the United Nations, “Cuba and its Biodiversity”, May 24, 2013,
http://humanrightsincuba.blogspot.com/2013/05/cuba-and-its-biodiversity.html, MS)
the aim of alerting humanity to the ¶ extinction of ecosystems, species and
genes and the accelerated decline ¶ in biodiversity it was causing, the United Nations' General Assembly ¶ declared
HAVANA TIMES — In 2000, with
May 22 International Day for Biological Biodiversity. ¶ One may think that, ultimately, humanity does not need so many bugs ¶ around it to get
by, that it is an aesthetic, or, at most, an ethical ¶ issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. ¶ In addition to all of the direct or indirect
diversity is the stabilizer of the biosphere, its shield against ¶ disturbances and
aggressions. Without it, we're toast. ¶ We are the species with the most sophisticated brain the earth
has ever ¶ known and we behave like a lowly plague attacking a planet. We're a ¶ sorry sight indeed.
"services" these bugs ¶ offer,
Life is dependent on the environment
Ash and Fazel, 7 (Neville and Ashgar, Neville Ash heads the Ecosystem Assessment Programme of the United Nations Environment
Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Senior Advisor at UNEP-WCMC ¶ Lecturer, Dean, Chancellor at University of
Environment ¶ CBD/SBSTTA Chair at UNCBD, “Biodiversity”, NO DATE, http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/report/05_Biodiversity.pdf)
Human health is affected by changes¶ in biodiversity and ecosystem services.¶ Changes to the environment
have altered¶ disease patterns and human exposure¶ to disease outbreaks. In addition,¶ current patterns of
farming, based on¶ high resource inputs (such as water and¶ fertilizers) and agricultural intensification,¶ are
putting great strains on ecosystems,¶ contributing to nutritional imbalances and¶ reduced access to wild foods.¶ � Human
societies everywhere have¶ depended on biodiversity for cultural¶ identity, spirituality, inspiration,
¶
aesthetic¶ enjoyment and recreation. Culture can¶ also play a key role in the conservation¶ and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Loss of biodiversity affects both material and¶ non-material human well-beings. Both the¶ continued
loss of biodiversity and the¶ disruption of cultural integrity represent¶ obstacles towards the
attainment of the¶ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).¶ Biodiversity loss continues because current¶ policies and
economic systems do not incorporate¶ the values of biodiversity effectively in either¶ the political or the market systems, and many¶ current
policies are not fully implemented.¶ Although many losses
of biodiversity,¶ including the degradation of ecosystems, are¶ slow or
to sudden¶ and dramatic declines in the capacity of¶ biodiversity to contribute to
human wellbeing
gradual, they can lead
Each instance increases the risk of extinction- evaluate linear risk of net benefit
Major David N.
Diner, U.S. Army, 94 [“The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161.
Winter, 1994, LEXIS] By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems.
As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each
new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects,
could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the
abyss.
Biodiversity loss will cause planetary extinction
Diner 93 (David N. Diner is the judge advocate general’s corps of US Army, “THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO' S
ENDANGERING WHOM?”, April, 1993, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456541.pdf (pg. 11-14))
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a singleminded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. N67 In
past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new
species replaced the old. So why the world should be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all
animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point
at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species
the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In
addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological
value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are
prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services
-- pollution control, oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and
Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world.
Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value
is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been
examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip
sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are
useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their
extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of
a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of
each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically . n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main
premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has
progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the
number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future
implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions,
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively
mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction , with all its
dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new
extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind
may be edging closer to the abyss.
These environmental hotspots are vital for human survival
Nautiyal & Nidamanuri 10 (Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources @ Institute for Social and Economic Change
& Department of Earth and Space Sciences @ Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology [SUNIL NAUTIYAL1 & RAMA RAO NIDAMANURI
“Conserving Biodiversity in Protected Area of Biodiversity Hotspot in India: A Case Study,” International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences 36 (2-3): 195-200, 2010) The
hotspots are the world’s most biologically rich areas hence recognized as
important ecosystems not important¶ only for the rich biodiversity but equally important for the
human survival as these are the homes for more than¶ 20% of the world’s population. India got recognition of one of the megadiversity countries of world as the country¶ is home of the two important biodiversity hotspots: the Himalaya in north and the Western Ghats
in the southern¶ peninsula. Policy makers and decision takers have recognized the importance of biodiversity
(flora and fauna) and¶ this has resulted to segregate (in the form of protected areas) the rich and diverse landscape for biodiversity¶
conservation. An
approach which leads towards conservation of biological diversity is good efforts but
such¶ approaches should deal with humans equally who are residing in biodiversity hotspots since time immemorial.
In¶ this endeavor, a study was conducted in Nagarahole National Park of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, in Karnataka. Our¶ empirical studies reveal
that banning all the human activities in this ecosystem including agriculture, animal¶ husbandry has produced the results opposite to the
approach ‘multiple values’ of national park. To monitor the¶ impact, existing policies have been tested from an economic and ecological viewpoint. Unfortunately, the local¶ livelihoods (most of them belongs to indigenous tribes) in the area have received setbacks due to the¶
implementation of the policies, though unintentionally. However, the ecological perspective is also not showing¶ support for the approach and
framework of the current policies in the hotspots. Satellite data showed that the¶ temporal pattern of ecosystem processes has been changing.
An integrated approach for ecosystem conservation and¶ strengthening local institutions for sustainable ecosystem management in such areas
is therefore supported by this¶ study.
Some species carry more weight than others, making their loss catastrophic- Just like
the Miami Heat Losing Lebron James
Lemonick, 12 (Michael D. Lemonick, Senior science writer at Time magazine in New York ”How Biodiversity Loss is Like LeBron James &
Miami Heat”, Jun 9, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/09/495988/how-biodiversity-loss-is-like-lebron-james-amp-miami-
Ecologists have been saying for decades now that the world is in the midst of a
biodiversity crisis. Hundreds of species are vanishing every year, thanks to assaults to the
environment that include deforestation, overfishing, toxic pollution and, increasingly, climate change
— the lethal icing on an already poisoned cake. Twenty years ago, 150 countries signed the international Convention on
heat/?mobile=nc, MS)
Biodiversity to try and hold back the tide of extermination, but without much success: Scientists are now saying the planet may be going
through its sixth mass extinction in the past 540 million years, and the first caused by humans.¶ But experts haven’t been so good at explaining
exactly why this is such a terrible thing. “Most of the arguments have been based on the idea that biodiversity has some intrinsic value,” said
Bradley Cardinale, an ecologist at the University of Michigan, in an interview yesterday. “We like it. It’s pretty. The Pope says we should
conserve God’s creation. Maybe we’ll find new medicinal plants in the rainforest.”¶ In a new paper just published in Nature, however, Cardinale
and 17 colleagues have made a much more solid argument. “We’re saying that biodiversity does things that are really important,” he said.
“There’s really strong evidence that if we lose biodiversity, it will, among other things, affect food production and fresh water supplies and
increase the frequency of pests and diseases that affect crops and animals.”¶ The paper is what’s known as a meta-analysis: the 18 authors, all
of them leaders in the field of ecology, gathered more than a thousand studies published over the past 20 years that looked at biodiversity from
a myriad of angles. Then they looked at whether differences in biodiversity affected an ecosystem’s ability to do useful things — the ability of a
forest to remove carbon from the atmosphere, for example, or supply wood for construction; the ability of bacteria in a stream to neutralize
pollutants; the ability of natural predators and parasites to control agricultural pests.¶ The answer, it turns out, is yes, to these and many other
similar questions. In many cases, it boils down to two primary reasons. The first is that the
most diverse ecosystems tend to
include what the scientists call “super species.” Say you’re talking about the capacity of a diverse forest to
produce wood, or to take carbon from the air, Cardinale said.¶ “About 50 percent of that effect will come
from a single, highly productive species,” he said. The other half comes from a wide variety of other
species that occupy different niches, grow at different rates. “It’s like the Miami Heat,” he said. “Half of their
productivity comes from LeBron James, but without a strong supporting cast of players, that would
not be enough.”
Biodiversity loss impact comparable to global warming impact
National Science Foundation 12 (Ecosystem Effects of Biodiversity Loss Rival Climate Change and Pollution, 5/2,
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124016) Loss of
biodiversity appears to affect ecosystems as much
as climate change, pollution and other major forms of environmental stress, according to results of a new study
by an international research team.¶ The study is the first comprehensive effort to directly compare the effects of biological diversity loss to the
anticipated effects of a host of other human-caused environmental changes.¶ The results, published in this week's issue of the journal Nature,
highlight the need for stronger local, national and international efforts to protect biodiversity and the benefits it provides, according to the
researchers, who are based at nine institutions in the United States, Canada and Sweden.¶ "This analysis establishes that reduced
biodiversity affects ecosystems at levels comparable to those of global warming and air pollution," said
Henry Gholz, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research directly and
through the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis.¶ "Some people have assumed that biodiversity effects are relatively minor
compared to other environmental stressors," said biologist David
Hooper of Western Washington University, the lead
author of the paper.¶ "Our results show that future loss of species has the potential to reduce plant production
just as much as global warming and pollution."¶ Studies over the last two decades demonstrated that more biologically
diverse ecosystems are more productive.¶ As a result, there has been growing concern that the very high rates of modern extinctions--due to
habitat loss, overharvesting and other human-caused environmental changes--could reduce nature's
ability to provide goods and services such as food, clean water and a stable climate.¶ Until now, it's been
unclear how biodiversity losses stack up against other human-caused environmental changes that affect ecosystem health and productivity.¶
"Loss of biological diversity due to species extinctions is going to have major effects on our planet, and we need to prepare ourselves to deal
with them," said ecologist Bradley Cardinale of the University of Michigan, one of the paper's co-authors. "These extinctions may well rank as
one of the top five drivers of global change."¶ In the study, Hooper, Cardinale and colleagues combined data from a large number of published
studies to compare how various global environmental stressors affect two processes important in ecosystems: plant growth and the
decomposition of dead plants by bacteria and fungi.¶ The study involved the construction of a database drawn from 192 peer-reviewed
publications about experiments that manipulated species richness and examined their effect on ecosystem processes.¶ This global synthesis
found that in areas where local species loss during this century falls within the lower range of projections (losses of 1 to 20 percent of plant
species), negligible effects on ecosystem plant growth will result, and changes in species richness will rank low relative to the effects projected
for other environmental changes.¶ In ecosystems where species losses fall within intermediate projections of 21 to 40 percent of species,
however, species loss is expected to reduce plant growth by 5 to 10 percent.¶ The effect is comparable to the expected effects of climate
warming and increased ultraviolet radiation due to stratospheric ozone loss.¶ At higher levels of extinction (41 to 60 percent of species), the
effects of species loss ranked with those of many other major drivers of environmental change, such as ozone pollution, acid deposition on
forests and nutrient pollution.¶ "Within the range of expected species losses, we saw average declines in plant growth that were as large as
changes in experiments simulating several other major environmental changes caused by humans," Hooper said.¶ "Several of us working on this
study were surprised by the comparative strength of those effects."¶ The strength of the observed biodiversity effects suggests that
policymakers searching for solutions to other pressing environmental problems should be aware of potential adverse effects on biodiversity as
well.¶ Still to be determined is how diversity loss and other large-scale environmental changes will interact to alter ecosystems.¶ "The biggest
challenge looking forward is to predict the combined effects of these environmental challenges to natural ecosystems and to society," said J.
Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a co-author of the paper.¶ Authors of the paper, in addition to Hooper, Cardinale and
Duffy, are E. Carol Adair of the University of Vermont and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Jarrett Byrnes of the
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Bruce Hungate of Northern Arizona University; Kristen Matulich of University of
California, Irvine; Andrew Gonzales of McGill University; Lars Gamfeldt of the University of Gothenburg; and Mary O'Connor of the University of
British Columbia and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis.
Decrease in biodiversity will lead to extinction
Craig 3 (Robin Kundis Craig, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and
Hawaii,” Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge Law Review 155, Attorneys’ Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at
Florida State University) Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for
terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values
- the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other
environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant,
non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in
the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements. " In a
very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support
life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems . Current evidence
shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent
on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their
biodiversity. Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component
species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem
functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise
insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. Thus, maintaining and restoring
the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they
provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine
disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean
ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little
we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to
protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef
ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know
what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when
the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about
the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
The Black Sea is almost dead, its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a
monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web
of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The
Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing,
oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The
sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to
the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea
were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved "dead zones"
appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. Ethics
as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems
wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.
Biodiversity is key to our survival
Young 10 (Dr. Ruth Young, “Biodiversity: what it is and why it’s important”, 2/9/10,
http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/biodiversity/biodiversity-what-and-why/ PB, PhD in coastal marine ecology) Different species
within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function , they all have a niche. They interact with each
other and the physical environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival. For example plant
species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and energy from the sun into useful things such as
food, medicines and timber. Pollination carried out by insects such as bees enables the production of ⅓ of our
food crops. Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential for
many fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of services offered by biodiversity, a team of
researchers estimated their value – it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. “By protecting biodiversity we maintain ecosystem
services” Certain species play a “keystone” role in maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal
of these species can result in the collapse of an ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services.
The most well-known example of this occurred during the 19th century when sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a
population explosion in the sea otters’ main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of
habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of
otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire
functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hance’s post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years, over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a
population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two
One could argue that to maintain
ecosystem services we don’t need to protect biodiversity but rather, we only need to protect the species and
functional groups that fill the keystone roles. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for
most ecosystems we don’t know which species are the keystones! Ecosystems are so complex that we are still
discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its groups of species not just one
species that are vital for the ecosystem. Second, even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and
protecting all keystone species, what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g. pollution or
disease) led to the demise of these ‘keystone’ species? Would there be another species to save the day and take
over this role? Classifying some species as ‘keystone’ implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone species being considered ecologically worthless
and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The “over-fishing” was simulated by fencing off coral
examples demonstrating how biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as fisheries.
bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem – the coral
became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the
reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But, surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed ‘unimportant’ species – the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was
previously thought to feed on invertebrates – small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore – a cow of the sea – grazing the algae in no time.
So a fish previously thought to be ‘unimportant’ is actually a keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are out there with
unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases it’s easy to see who the keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant species are also capable of changing
The more biodiverse an ecosystem is, the more likely these species will be present and the
more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts. Presently we’re only scratching the surface of understanding
the full importance of biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is
immense. In the meantime, a wise insurance policy for maintaining ecosystem services would be to conserve
biodiversity. In doing so, we increase the chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the event of future
impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of biodiversity – a time to recognize that biodiversity
makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of biodiversity maintains this service.
niches and maintaining ecosystems.
Global Warming Food Security
Deforestation of the amazon rainforest has massive effects on climate change
Greenpeace No date
(http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/climate-change, Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful
protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and
peaceful future.) As our understanding of the role forests play in stabilizing global climate increases, it is becoming clear that their destruction is
only exacerbating climate change. If
we're serious about tackling this, then preserving our remaining ancient
forests has to be a priority. Mature forests store enormous quantities of carbon, both in the trees and vegetation itself and within
the soil in the form of decaying plant matter. Forests in areas such as the Congo and the Amazon represent some of
the world's largest carbon stores on land. But when forests are logged or burnt, that carbon is released into the atmosphere,
increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and accelerating the rate of climate change. So much carbon is
released that they contribute up to one-fifth of global man-made emissions, more than the world's
entire transport sector. Deforestation has such a massive effect on climate change that Indonesia and
Brazil are now the third and fourth largest emitters of carbon dioxide on the planet. This dubious honour
comes not from industrial or transport emissions, but from deforestation - up to 75 per cent of Brazil's emissions come
solely from deforestation - with the majority coming from clearing and burning areas of the Amazon
rainforest.
OR
Offshore oil drilling leads to a host of environmental consequences, including warming
Eyre 12(September 26, 2012, Safia Eyre, “The Environmental impacts of offshore oil drilling : the case of BP oil
spill,” http://www.iefpedia.com/english/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Environmental-impacts-of-offshoreoil-drilling-the-case-of-BP-oil-spill-SADIKI.pdf) In this phase, oil rigs release the wastes of oil E&P. these discharges contain mainly: •
Produced water that form 98% of the total waste. It consists of hydrocarbons that cause water toxicity and eventually aquatic toxicity. • Drilling
fluids (drilling muds) discharged during the drilling process. They contain toxic substances like: benzene, zinc, arsenic, chromium, iron, mercury,
barium, and other contaminants that are used to lubricate drill bits and maintain pressure, e.g. barium acts as lubricant and increase the
density of mud. Tests
have found a high concentration of these metals accumulated in the sea floor, often
causing: malformation, smothering organisms, genetic damage and mortality in fish embryos. In addition
to these discharges, oil E&P release other dangerous substances among them: cutting (crushed rock), diesel emissions, and chemicals
associated with operating mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical equipment such as biocides, solvent, and corrosion inhibitors. 3. Air pollution
Statistics have shown that over its lifespan, a single oil rig can pollute as much as 7.000 cars driving 50
miles (80Km) per day. The main polluter factor is greenhouse gases (GHG) that are generated directly
by offshore rigs, and indirectly through refineries’ emissions. These gases are behind climate change
including: global warming, melting ice at the poles, and ocean acidification which means that ocean
absorbs all CO2 therefore carbonate become less available to marine organisms that need it to build
shells and skeletal materials. 216 The Environmental impacts of offshore oil drilling : the case of BP oil spill 4. Oil spills Oil spills are
becoming more consistent due to different factors like : equipment failure, transportation accidents, human errors, tectonic events, and
unstable weather conditions, for instance 115 platforms were destroyed and 124 spills were reported during Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Toxins
within spilled oil have been related to a myriad of detrimental impacts to both marine and human life.
Global warming decreases food availability and increases food prices
Worldwatch Insitute 7/27(July 27, 2013, World Watch Institute “Climate Change: The Unseen Force Behind Rising Food
Prices?,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5434) While governments and consumers decry the steady increase in food prices, groups like the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are taking a harder look at some of the factors contributing to this rise—including the
role of climate change. Changing climatic conditions, in particular the decline in water availability, are forcing farmers to continually adapt their
agricultural production. According
to the FAO, climate change has both environmental and socioeconomic
outcomes for agriculture: changes in the availability and quality of land, soil, and water resources, for
example, are later reflected in crop performance, which causes prices to rise. Climate change has been
attributed to greater inconsistencies in agricultural conditions, ranging from more-erratic flood and drought cycles to longer growing seasons in
typically colder climates. While the increase in Earth’s temperature is making some places wetter, it is also drying out already arid farming
regions close to the Equator. This year’s Inter-govermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report states that “increases in the
frequency of droughts and floods are projected to affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes.” The
decline in production in the face of growing demand can drive up prices in markets that may lack the
technology to fight environmental hazards to overall production. Such has been the case in Australia,
where the once-fruitful food-production regions of New South Wales have been subject to a severe
drought for the last five years. There is evidence of shifting rainfall patterns in the region, and a growing number of Australians
now view this as a repercussion of climate change. The crop failures, economic hardship in rural communities, and subsequent jump in food
prices are forcing the country to reassess its approach to climate change and to consider increasing food imports, a move that would drive
prices up further. Speaking on the issue last year, Mike Rann, the premier of South Australia, remarked,
“what we’re seeing with
this drought is a frightening glimpse of the future with global warming.” By FAO estimates, the developing world
will spend $52 billion between 2007 and 2008 on imports of wheat, corn, and other cereal crops. If current trends persist, these countries will
also be worst affected by climate change’s pressure on food production and pricing, while experiencing the effects of more varied and more
severe environmental conditions. Advances in technology make it unlikely that overall world food production will decline due to climate
change, but agricultural capacity in large parts of Africa and Asia is expected to shift dramatically. Climate-related changes in agricultural
conditions will likely only increase developing countries’ dependence on imported food, a pricey prospect considering rising global
transportation costs.
Climate change poses a grave threat to global food security
Oxfam 12 (March 2012, Oxfam Briefing Note, “Averting Tomorrow's Global Food Crisis,”
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/20120416-averting-tomorrows-food-crisis-en.pdf, Oxfam is a nonprofit international
confederation of 17 organizations working in approximately 90 countries worldwide to find solutions to poverty and related injustice around
the world.) Climate
change poses a grave threat to global food security, adding further stress to an
already creaking global food system. Research commissioned for the GROW campaign suggests that
food prices could double by 2030, with around half the increase driven by the effects of climate
change. 20 Just when more food is needed to feed a growing world population, climate change will put
a brake on yield improvements. Meanwhile, an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events threatens further devastation for harvests. Already, slow onset changes in growing seasons are making
it harder for poor farmers to know when best to sow, cultivate, and harvest their crops.
A Latin American role model is key to change environmental ideologies of other
countries – Chile proves
Speiser 9 (July 29th, 2009, Robert M. Speiser “Chile fighting climate change — role model for the (developing) world”,
http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/07/29/chile-fighting-climate-change-role-model-for-the-developing-world/, Robert is an environmental and
energy analyst currently working as an independent consultant on the carbon markets, environmental impact assessments, and on GHG
quanitification issues in Santiago, Chile. He received his BA at UCLA.) The event brought together speakers from the
Chilean private
sector that gave concrete examples of their companies’ climate change and GHG management
initiatives. First, it showed how Essbio, a water purification company, has been dealing with the ever-prescient and escalating challenges of
decreasing water reserves due to climate change. Second, it illustrated the emissions and energy reductions Xstrata
Copper, a mining company, has committed to and the steps it has taken to minimize the release of
contaminants in its industrial processes. Third, it explained what Natura cosmetics has done since
2007 to become a “carbon neutral” business by calculating all GHG emissions in the company’s supply
chain, transportation, and production of its various cosmetics products, and purchasing the equivalent amount of CO2 tonnage in carbon
credits on the international carbon markets. One recent study from the University of Chile actually found that Chile’s national GHG footprint is
projected to jump 4.2 times its current amount by 2030. This conclusion assumes the country continues on its current pace and manner of
economic development, and with the increased reliance on new coal plants that are currently in different stages of construction. So,
yes,
not only are the effects of climate change real in Chile but so too is a growing movement and public
consciousness to reduce people’s and companies’ carbon footprints. In addition to Essbio, Xstrata, and Natura, there
are other enterprises in Chile making efforts to reduce GHG emissions in their industrial processes or take action in other local environmental
issues. Yet, it is safe to say that such “climate change conscious” companies are still a small minority here in Chile. And, even though President
Bachelet and the Minister of Energy are making genuine, good-faith efforts to bring the latest solar and geothermal energy technology to Chile
such as with partnerships with California and the US Department of Energy, the situation of increasing national GHG emissions reveals a deeper
complexity we all need to address: How can a middle-income economy, such as Chile, afford the latest in clean and renewable energy
technology to reduce its climate change footprint, while at the same time, continuing to address more pressing needs of economic and social
development? In other words, a country such as Chile still needs to put its food on the table by mining the copper, whether imported gas or a
cheaper “clean” energy solution is currently available; and, if they are not available, a bunch of coal will certainly do.
Independently, climate change will cause resource wars over water that spill over
globally
Science Codex 9
(October 6, 2009, Science Codex, “Scientist predicts resource wars as climate change takes its
toll,”http://www.sciencecodex.com/ water_scarcity_will_create_global_security_concerns, Science Codex posts articles on the
latest science findings from all over the world. The Earth Science feed is for news related to climate science, energy and geology
issues such as earthquakes and volcanoes.) Water scarcity as a result of climate change will create far-reaching
global security concerns, says Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, chair of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a co-recipient of the
2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Pachauri spoke this morning at the 2009 Nobel Conference at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MN. "At one
level the world's water is like the world's wealth. Globally, there is more than enough to go round. The
problem is that some countries get a lot more than others," he says. "With 31 percent of global freshwater resources, Latin America has 12
times more water per person than South Asia. Some places, such as Brazil and Canada, get far more water than they can use; others, such as
countries in the Middle East, get much less than they need." And
the effects of a warmer world will likely include
changes in water availability. "Up to 1.2 billion people in Asia, 250 million Africans and 81 million Latin
Americans will be exposed to increased water stress by 2020," Pachauri says. Water shortages have an enormous
impact of human health, including malnutrition, pathogen or chemical loading, infectious disease from water contamination, and uncontrolled
water reuse. "Due to the very large number of people that may be affected, food and water scarcity may be the most important health
consequences of climate change," Pachauri says. When communities fight over water resources, there's a great danger for a disruption of peace
and security. "That water
scarcity plays a role in creating the preconditions of desperation and discontent
is undeniable," he says. Competition for water from the river Jordan was a major cause of the 1967 war.
India has been in dispute with Pakistan over the Indus and with Bangladesh over the Ganges. "Over
260 river basins are shared by two or more countries," he says. "As the resource is becoming scarce, tensions among
different users may intensify, both at the national and international level. In the absence of strong institutions and agreements, changes within
a basin can lead to trans-boundary tensions." "We live on a small planet where communication and influences go from one corner of the Earth
to another," he says. "If
there's a major disruption to peace in one part of the globe, no other part is
insulated from it. We need to look at what happens to the rest of the world with some degree of
alarm; these influences have very dangerous implications for the rest of the world." Societies so far have
been able to adapt to changes in weather and climate – via crop diversification, irrigation, disaster risk management, and insurance – but
climate change might go beyond what our traditional coping mechanisms can handle, Pachauri suggests. Even societies with "high adaptive
capacity" are vulnerable to climate change, variability and extremes, he says, citing examples of the 2003 heat wave that took the lives of many
elderly in European cities and 2005's Hurricane Katrina. "A technological society has two choices," Pachauri says. "It can wait until catastrophic
failures expose systemic deficiencies, distortion and self-deceptions, or the culture can provide social checks and balances to correct for
systemic distortion prior to catastrophic failures." "Global emissions of greenhouse gases will have to decline by 2015. If we can achieve that,
we may be able to avoid the worst effects of climate change," he says. "The costs of this are not high. A major mitigation would only postpone
growth domestic product growth by one year at most over the medium term. That's not a high price to pay for the world." "There is no more
crucial issue to human society than the future of water on this planet," he says. "We must work diligently to see that the worst effects don't
come to pass. We have very little time. Unless
we act with a sense of urgency, there will certainly be conflict and
a disruption of peace."
Climate change leads to questions of sovereignty and resource wars – empirics prove
Mayoral et. al. 11 (June 10, 2011, Amanda Mayoral et. al. “Hot and Cold Resource Wars: One More Reason to Care
about Climate Change,” http://inec.usip.org/blog/2011/jun/10/hot-and-cold-resource-wars-one-more-reason-care-about-
climate-change, This is a joint posting by Amanda Mayoral, Program Assistant for the Sustainable Economies Center of
Innovation at the U.S. Institute of Peace and Michelle Swearingen, Moderator of the International Network for Economics and
Conflict) As people worldwide become more and more engaged in the climate change issue, this blog directs attention to a relatively
unexplored aspect of the topic – the impact of climate change on conflict dynamics. Climate change
can trigger conflict in
many ways, such as forcing migration and displacement, destabilizing group power relations,
increasing or decreasing availability of resources and raising issues of sovereignty as new lands and
seaways appear. Economic research has shown historical trends between conflict and changes in
temperature and precipitation. There are also documented case studies that demonstrate this type of impact from the time of the
Neanderthals to modern day societies.[1] Broadly speaking, hot and cold wars represent the distributed effects of a warming planet, as
resources are transferred from hot to cold states, causing scarcity in hot states and abundance in cold. As the name suggests, hot wars are
those climate-related conflicts that take place in equatorial countries, many of which are already poor and conflict-affected.
Hot wars
occur from heightened resource scarcity and induced migration. Coupled with rising populations
these conditions diminish living standards and provide conditions for conflict. Specifically, climate change
causes increases in volatile rainfall patterns, occurrences of droughts, and the spread of water borne illnesses – all leading to stress on access to
clean water. We can see how climate change has been a factor in the conflict in Darfur with droughts and famines pitting agriculturalists and
pastoralists against each other as well as in Gaza where increasing water scarcity has exacerbated other conflict triggers in the region. Hot
wars tend to go on for long periods and grow in intensity and frequency
as populations increase and make the
strain on resources more acute.
Resource wars lead to nuclear winter and extinction – brings in major powers
Lendman 7(June 06, 2007, Stephen Lendman, “Resource Wars – Can We Survive Them?,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/resource-warscan-we-survive-them/5892, Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of
US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a
marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing
on major world and national issues began in summer 2005.)
Near the end of WW II, Franklin Roosevelt met with Saudi King ibn Saud on the USS Quincy. It began a six decade relationship guaranteeing US
access to what his State Department called a “stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history” –
the region’s oil and huge amount of it in Saudi Arabia. Today, the
Middle East has two-thirds of the world’s proved oil
reserves (around 675 billion barrels) and the Caspian basin an estimated 270 billion barrels more plus
one-eighth of the world’s natural gas reserves. It explains a lot about why we’re at war with Iraq and
Afghanistan and plan maintaining control over both countries. We want a permanent military presence in them aimed at controlling
both regions’ proved energy reserves with puppet regimes, masquerading as democracies, beholden to Washington as client states. They’re in place to observe what their ousted predecessors
ignored: the rules of imperial management, especially Rule One – we’re boss and what we say goes. The Bush administration is “boss” writ large. It intends ruling the world by force, saying so
in its National Security Strategy (NSS) in 2002, then updated in even stronger terms in 2006. It plainly states our newly claimed sovereign right allowed no other country – the right to wage
preventive wars against perceived threats or any nations daring to challenge our status as lord and master of the universe. Key to the strategy is controlling the world’s energy reserves starting
with the Middle East and Central Asia’s vast amount outside Russia and China with enough military strength to control their own, at least for now. These resources give us veto power over
which nations will or won’t get them and assures Big Oil gets the lion’s share of the profits.
In Iraq, the new “Hydrocarbon Law,” if it passes the puppet parliament, is a shameless scheme to rape and plunder the country’s oil treasure. It’s a blueprint for privatization giving foreign
investors (meaning US and UK mainly) a bonanza of resources, leaving Iraqis a sliver for themselves. Its complex provisions give the Iraqi National Oil Company exclusive control of just 17 of
the country’s 80 known oil fields with all yet-to-be-discovered deposits set aside for foreign investors. It’s even worse with Big Oil free to expropriate all earnings with no obligation to invest
anything in Iraq’s economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire local workers, respect union rights, or share new technologies. Foreign investors would be granted long-term contracts up to 35
years, dispossessing Iraq of its own resources in a scheme to steal them. That’s what launched our road to war in 1991 having nothing to do with Saddam threatening anyone. It hasn’t stopped
since. The Bush (preventive war) Doctrine spelled out our intentions in June, 2002. It then became NSS policy in September getting us directly embroiled in the Middle East and Central Asia
and indirectly with proxy forces in countries like Somalia so other oil-rich African nations (like Sudan) get the message either accede to our will or you’re next in the target queue. With the
world’s energy supplies finite, the US heavily dependent on imports, and “peak oil” near or approaching, “security” for America means assuring a sustainable supply of what we can’t do
without. It includes waging wars to get it, protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over which it travels. That means energy’s partnered with predatory New World Order globalization,
militarism, wars, ecological recklessness, and now an extremist US administration willing to risk Armageddon for world dominance. Central to its plan is first controlling essential resources
everywhere, at any cost, starting with oil and where most of it is located in the Middle East and Central Asia. The New “Great Game” and Perils From It The new “Great Game’s” begun,
but
this time the stakes are greater than ever as explained above. The old one lasted nearly 100 years
pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue wasn’t oil. This time, it’s the US with
help from Israel, Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan challenging
Russia and China with today’s weapons and technology on both sides making earlier ones look like
toys. At stake is more than oil. It’s planet earth with survival of all life on it issue number one twice
over. Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing, peace declining, and the planet’s
ability to sustain life front and center, if anyone’s paying attention. They’d better be because beyond the point of no
return, there’s no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split. His famous quote on future wars was : “I know not with
what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Under a worst case scenario, it’s more dire
than that. There
may be nothing left but resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust
meaning even a new stone age is way in the future, if at all. The threat is real and once nearly
happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. We later learned a miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary
October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with host country Cuba. For the first time, we were told how
close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation
was avoided only because Soviet submarine captain Vasily
Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were
attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy’s “quarantine” line. Had he done it, only our imagination can speculate what
might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big part of it, would have survived.
Health
Biodiversity shields us from disease
Doyle 5 (Alister Doyle, Writer for Reuters, Biodiversity May Help Slow Disease Spread: Experts, 10/26,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1026-02.htm) Better
protection for the diversity of the planet's creatures
and plants could help shield humans from diseases like AIDS, Ebola or bird flu and save billions of
dollars in health care costs, researchers said on Tuesday.¶ They said human disruptions to biodiversity -- from roads through the
Amazon jungle to deforestation in remote parts of Africa -- had made people more exposed to new diseases that originate in wildlife.
"Biodiversity not only stores the promise of new medical treatments and cures, it buffers humans
from organisms and agents that cause disease," scientists from the Diversitas international group said in a statement.¶
"Preventing emerging diseases through biodiversity conservation is far more cost effective than
developing vaccines to combat them later," it said ahead of a November 9-10 conference of 700 biodiversity experts in
Oaxaca, Mexico.¶ Peter Daszak, a scientist who helped find links between Asian bats and the SARS virus, said the 2003 outbreak of the flu-like
disease cost about $50 billion, largely because it cut travel and trade from Asia. About 800 people died.¶ And AIDS, widely believed to have
originated in chimpanzees, killed an estimated 3.1 million people in 2004 and the United Nations estimates that $15 billion will be needed for
prevention, treatment and care in 2006 alone.¶ "Emerging diseases are causing a crisis of public health," Daszak, executive director of the
consortium for conservation medicine at the Wildlife Trust, New York, told Reuters.¶ WILDLIFE TO PEOPLE¶ Diversitas experts urged
governments to work out policies to protect biodiversity, including tougher regulations on trade, agriculture and travel to reduce chances that
diseases like avian flu can jump from wildlife to people.¶ "We're not saying that we should lock up nature and throw away the key," said Charles
Perrings, a biodiversity expert at Arizona State University. But he said humans
should be more careful about disrupting
areas of rich biodiversity.¶ He said diseases had spread from wildlife to humans throughout history but the risks were rising because
of the impact of growing human populations on habitats.¶ The experts said the preservation of a wider range of species could also ease the
impact of disease.¶ A factor helping the spread of Lyme disease in the eastern United States, for instance, was the absence of former predators
like wolves or wild cats that once kept down numbers of white-footed mice -- a reservoir of the infection.¶ Lyme disease was also less of a
problem for humans in U.S. states where the ticks that transmit the disease had more potential targets, like lizards or small mammals.¶ "The
value of services provided by nature and its diversity is under-appreciated until they stop," said Anne Larigauderie, executive director of Parisbased Diversitas, a non-government organization. She said China had to employ people in some regions to pollinate apple orchards because the
over-use of pesticides had killed off bees. "It maybe takes 10 people to do the work of two beehives," she told Reuters.¶ And the Australian
gastric brooding frog had once been seen as key for anti-ulcer drugs because it bizarrely incubated its young in its stomach after shutting off
digestive acids. It has since become extinct, taking its secrets with it
Natural Drugs may hold the key to thwart many devastating diseases
Hong-Fang et. al. 9 (Hong-Fang Ji, Xue-Juan Li & Hong-Yu Zhang are at the Shandong Provincial Research Center for Bioinformatic
Engineering and Technique at Shandong University of Technology in Zibo, People's Republic of China, March 2009, “Natural products and drug
discovery. Can thousands of years of ancient medical knowledge lead us to new and powerful drug combinations in the fight against cancer and
dementia?”, Published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658564/) BC
The medicinal use of natural products—compounds that are derived from natural sources such as plants, animals or micro-organisms—precedes recorded human
history probably by thousands of years. Palaeoanthropological studies at the cave site of Shanidar, located in the Zagros Mountains of Kurdistan in Iraq, have
suggested that more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals might have been aware of the medicinal properties of various plants, as evidenced by pollen deposits in
one of the graves at the site (Solecki, 1975). Over the ensuing millennia, humankind discovered and made use of an enormous range of natural compounds; the
latest version of the Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP; http://dnp.chemnetbase.com) has just over 214,000 entries. Throughout
our evolution,
the importance of natural products for medicine and health has been enormous. Since our earliest ancestors
chewed on certain herbs to relieve pain, or wrapped leaves around wounds to improve healing , natural products have often been the sole
means to treat diseases and injuries. In fact, it has only been during the past decades that natural products have taken a secondary role in
drug discovery and drug development, after the advent of molecular biology and combinatorial chemistry made possible the rational design of chemical compounds
to target specific molecules. The
past few years, however, have seen a renewed interest in the use of natural
compounds and, more importantly, their role as a basis for drug development. The modern tools of chemistry and biology—in
particular, the various ‘-omics' technologies—now allow scientists to detail the exact nature of the biological effects of
natural compounds on the human body, as well as to uncover possible synergies, which holds much promise for the
development of new therapies against many devastating diseases, including dementia and
cancer.…Throughout our evolution, the importance of natural products for medicine and health has been enormous This new strategy could have several
advantages as it would modulate biological networks rather modestly and might therefore be more efficient in dealing with complex diseases (Csermely et al, 2005;
Dancey & Chen 2006; Zimmermann et al, 2007). Moreover, it could prevent, or at least slow down, the development of resistance against many antibiotics,
antimalarials and anti-cancer drugs. The
prospect of new and better drug combinations is enticing, and natural
compounds hold great promise. Nevertheless, a huge challenge remains to identify natural compounds—or naturally inspired compounds—that
can be combined to be effective against human disease. The enormous number of possible drug combinations, the inherent risks of harmful drug–drug interactions,
the possible antagonistic effects and the unpredictable pharmacokinetic properties of multi-component formulations must still be addressed. As pointed out above,
we have a rich historical record from ancient physicians about how to use natural medicines alone and in combination, which might provide important clues for
developing new drugs (Schmidt et al, 2007; Verpoorte et al, 2009). To make the best use of our forbearers' knowledge, we need to analyse these medical formulae
and elucidate their synergistic effects. We already know of some compounds that are more powerful in combination than alone: for example, the combination of
Realgar, Indigo naturalis, Radix salviae miltiorrhizae and Radix pseudostellariae constitutes a formula in TCM that has proven effective against human acute
promyelocytic leukaemia (Huang et al, 1995). Its synergistic effect was recently attributed to the direct anti-cancer properties of tetra-arsenic tetrasulphide from
Realgar and the complementary effects of indirubin and tanshinone IIA from Indigo naturalis and Radix salviae miltiorrhizae, respectively, which enhance the
transport of tetra-arsenic tetrasulphide into target cells and thus potentiates its efficacy (Wang et al, 2008). …we have a rich historical record from ancient
physicians […], which might provide important clues for developing new drugs…
Biodiversity key to Human Health
Ostfeld and Keesing 13 (Richard S Ostfeld, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA, Felicia Keesing, Bard College,
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, “Biodiversity and Human Health” http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/B9780123847195003324/3-s2.0-B9780123847195003324-main.pdf?_tid=e3f0ac3e-f33b-11e2-8ded-
Biodiversity supports and protects human
health in many ways, and the continuing loss of biodiversity will compromise this support system. Some
species currently or potentially of conservation concern provide animal models important for basic
biomedical research. Others contain substances that can be used or modified to produce medicines of enormous health benefit.
Biodiversity is critical for reducing impacts of disease on crop production, for increasing nutritional
diversity, and for providing insurance against climate change and other environmental changes. High
biodiversity reduces the rates of transmission of various human pathogens, including the agents of Lyme
disease, West Nile fever, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, and schistosomiasis. Areas with high diversity of free00000aab0f02&acdnat=1374545112_3c915724869f82f0aad33f3288a1e075)BC
living organisms also appear to maintain high diversity of parasites and pathogens, and some have argued that these areas might be “hot spots”
for disease emergence. However, reductions
in native biodiversity associated with human activities are
consistently associated with increases in disease risk and incidence. In a private, unregulated market economy,
private agents guided by self-interest decide for themselves what to make, buy, and consume. A celebrated result dating back to Adam Smith's
Wealth of Nations (1904 (1776)) holds that the “invisible hand” of the market will generate a socially desirable outcome even though it is driven
by the selfish interests of myriad independent actors. This result was later formalized in what is known in economics as the “First Welfare
Theorem”: A perfectly competitive market economy is efficient. (Efficiency has a specific and limited meaning in economics: An outcome is
efficient if no one can be made better off without making another worse off.) Efficiency does not address another social objective: equity.
However, another fundamental result, known as the Second Welfare Theorem, holds that any efficient outcome – including any that are both
efficient and equitable – can be achieved by first reallocating the initial distribution of wealth and then allowing trading in a market economy.
There is, however, controversy as to whether it is ever possible to reallocate wealth without altering the incentives to amass wealth, which
would violate the assumptions under which the welfare theorems are derived. Even introductory economics courses quickly teach their
students that the perfectly competitive market economy as envisioned by Smith and mathematically formalized in the middle of the twentieth
century by Nobel laureates such as Kenneth Arrow, Gerard Debreu, and John Nash rests on a number of very restrictive assumptions. For
readers interested in environmental policy, the most problematic of these assumptions is that there are complete markets; that is, all goods in
the economy are, in fact, owned by someone, and, consequently, if one person could realize greater satisfaction from a good than could its
current owner, the former will purchase the good from the latter. This sounds like a reasonable depiction of the circumstances of ownership of,
say, bread, cars, and cell phones. For what types of goods is this description not adequate? The answer, in brief, is “public goods.” It may be
best to define a public good by contrasting it with a private good. You and I cannot both consume all of the same loaf of bread, because bread is
a private good. It is by definition, a good from whose enjoyment I can exclude you – if I have a loaf of bread, I can prevent you from simply
taking it from me without compensating me a mutually agreed-on amount (Of course in most societies, preventing you from appropriating my
belongings involves more than personal defense; police and courts play a role as well. Such mechanisms are no less necessary in the allocation
of public goods than they are in the defense of private ones, but the authors will abstract from further consideration of them here.) – and
whose enjoyment is rival – if I eat my loaf of bread, you cannot eat the same loaf of bread. A public good such as environmental quality, in
contrast, is neither excludable nor rival. You cannot be excluded from enjoying the benefits of, say, cleaner air, even if it is my actions that have
resulted in the air being cleaner. Nor does my consumption of clean air diminish in any way the benefits you enjoy from cleaner air.
Biodiversity gives rise to many public goods. For example, preserved natural ecosystems may both harbor
a diverse collection of species and provide downstream communities with protection against flooding
by retaining water. The flood protection, however, is necessarily available to all members of the downstream communities if it is
available to any. There are numerous other examples. Consider, for instance, the simple moral or esthetic satisfaction one realizes from
knowing that such unique and fascinating creatures as giant pandas, California condors, and tigers continue to exist. This is a quintessential
public good. My satisfaction in knowing that there are still tigers in the wild in no way reduces the satisfaction you may take in the same
knowledge. Furthermore, villagers in India may “pay for” preserving tigers in that tigers they refrain from killing may attack their livestock or
themselves. These villagers are providing a benefit to people elsewhere who care about the continued existence of tigers for purely moral or
esthetic reasons. The types of markets envisioned by Smith are incapable of allocating public goods efficiently. The reason is simple. Goods are
efficiently produced when the benefits accruing to all members of society collectively from one additional unit of their production are exactly
offset by the cost of that production. This balancing occurs naturally when a private purchaser compares the benefit she alone receives from
the purchase of a good with price she must pay for it, and that price is exactly the same as the incremental cost the good's provider incurs to
offer.
When one provides a public good, however, the benefits accrue to many people. Unless one accounts for the benefits to others when making
the choice of whether to provide a public good, the public good will be undersupplied. This would not occur if everyone who benefited could be
compelled to pay for the benefits she receives, but this is where the problems of nonexcludability and nonrivalry arise. People will not choose
voluntarily to pay their fair share of the cost of providing public goods because each would be better off to let others pay their shares and to
“free ride” on the benefits the others provide. Consider again the tiger example. Those of us in the wealthier countries who care about the
survival of tigers could pay villagers not to kill the tigers, or perhaps pay to relocate the villagers to areas away from tigers. If I were willing to
pay for this outcome, though, why would you want to “buy” a good that I was providing to you anyway? Perhaps we could devise a system
under which we both contributed to the payments necessary to compensate Indian villagers for tiger preservation. When you consider that
such a scheme would have to involve millions of people to cover all the beneficiaries of tiger preservation, however, you appreciate that what
we are then contemplating is really a public program for the provision of a public good – an alternative to a private free market.
Impacts of Pandemics are far reaching
Morag 12 (Dr. Nadav Morag is Deputy Director for Policy Research and a faculty member at the Center for Homeland Defense and
Security, Naval Postgraduate School, and teaches senior federal, state and local homeland security officials selected and funded by the
Department of Homeland Security within the context of the center’s Master’s in Homeland Security program., Ph.D., Political Science (1999),
Tel Aviv University; MA, Political Science (1989), University of California, Los Angeles; BA, Political Science (1987), University of California, Los
Angeles, “The Ripple Effects of Pandemics on Modern Society”, November 28, 2012, http://www.coloradotech.edu/Student-Life/CTUBlog/November-2012/Pandemic-2) Human history records a number of significant pandemics, from influenza to tuberculosis. From this, most
people associate pandemics with death, but few
understand the severe impact pandemics have on society as a
whole. The following three cases explore the potentially devastating nature of pandemics, both in terms of the loss of life and economic
impact.The Black DeatIn the Spring of 1348, the Bubonic Plague struck Asia and Europe and continued to return, in varying degrees of virulence,
until the eighteenth century. The plague caused painful swelling of the lymph nodes, known as “buboes,” which caused the skin to be covered
with dark blotches. From this, the name, “Black Death,” was popularized.Rodents carried the disease and another version of it, known as the
Pneumonic Plague, was transmitted by air. Set in a period devoid of modern medical care and sterile hygiene standards, four out of five
infected persons died within a week of contracting the Bubonic Plague, or in as few as one or two days if infected by the Pneumonic Plague.
Collectively, some 75 million people are thought to have died from the pandemic with at least 20 million deaths in Europe, which accounted for
potentially two-thirds of Europe’s population. The
impact of a highly contagious pandemic of such virulence led to
what is commonly referred to today as “social distancing,” but in a very extreme way. People fled cities,
abandoning family and friends, which caused old class and religious structures to break down. For a
time, the process of urbanization was reversed and Europe reverted to a more agrarian society. The
economic impact was startling. With fewer people left to produce goods, basic commodities became
extremely expensive. Additionally, wages for peasants increased creating slightly more social mobility for those who were lucky
enough to survive.SmallpoxSmallpox is a highly contagious disease caused by the Variola virus, which in the twentieth century, is thought to
have killed over 300-500 million people globally. Its more virulent strain has a mortality rate of 30-35%. Originally transmitted by Europeans to
the Americas during the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of Latin America, smallpox is thought to have been the main reason for the
devastating drop in population among the native population because they had no natural immunity to the disease. Some estimates suggest as
many as 95% of the native population perished. Further, the collapse of advanced Native American civilizations, such as the Aztecs and the
Incas, has been attributed to ravages of smallpox. In 1979, as a result of the successful worldwide vaccination campaigns, the World Health
Organization (WHO) declared smallpox to have been completely eradicated. The virus is thought to only exist in a handful of laboratories
around the world.Ironically, the success of the WHO’s eradication campaign has left today’s human population at risk. People are no longer
vaccinated against the virus, and consequently, human populations are highly vulnerable to it.Spanish FluBetween 1918 and 1919, the Spanish
Flu killed approximately 50 million people globally. Caused by the influenza virus, some people were able to stave off the disease and only
experienced severe flu symptoms. Yet, many fought a losing battle with the disease experiencing an excruciating death as their lungs filled with
fluid and they quickly asphyxiated. The disease was so rapid that people sometimes died only hours after being infected. This strain of Influenza
received its name because Spain, a non-combatant in World War I, provided most of the information about the outbreak. Other combatant
countries, including the United States, suppressed the news, choosing to exercise military censorship. It is difficult to know the number of
people who became infected because of censorship, but the worldwide impact is clear.The Spanish flu claimed the lives of 20-50 million people
worldwide, infecting people in all age groups, from very young children to elderly people. But most striking and of greatest social impact, was
the very large percentage of working-age people, aged 15-34, who were killed by the disease.Lessons for TodayAs the above sampling of cases
suggest, pandemics
are a considerable threat to lives and livelihoods. Some public health officials estimate
that in a major pandemic, particularly one that is highly contagious, some 60% of the workforce will be homebound
resulting in basic goods disappearing from store shelves, the shutting down of basic services such as
municipal services, health, transportation, law enforcement and schools. All could lead to runaway
inflation due to price rises. Increasing global transportation links make managing pandemics a challenge. Pandemics are
poised to spread more quickly than they did in the past, which complicates the process of identifying the virus or bacteria
in question and developing vaccinations and drug treatments. Ultimately, pandemics will spread rapidly and kill many more people before they
can be stopped.
Disease Causes Extinction
DJUS 9 (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate”, May 22, 2009,
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate#.UfQumb4o7Kp, MS)
A pandemic will kill off
all humans .¶ In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was
the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While
vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are
constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human
extinction.¶ Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that
scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and
constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase,
which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though,
there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body
for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. ¶ However,
for more easily
transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more
consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and
antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of
influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this
lag time could potentially lead to a “ global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million
people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is
the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only
infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).
Food Security
Marine ecosystem collapse is a serious threat to global food security
Worm 6 (Boris Worm et al. , Dr. Boris Worm is a Marine Research Ecologist and Associate Professor at Dalhousie University, Canada.[1] He
has made scientific contributions to the fields of marine ecology and fisheries conservation. Worm was a postdoctoral fellow under the late
Ransom Myers[2] and now leads his own lab at Dalhousie. The Worm Lab includes students and postdoctoral fellows engaged in the study of
marine biodiversity, its causes, consequences of change, and conservation. “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Servies, 2006 ”
http://kfrserver.natur.cuni.cz/gztu/pdf/WORM_ES_ocean.pdf) Positive relationships between diversity and ecosystem functions and
services were found using experimental (Fig. 1) and correlative approaches along trajectories of diversity loss (Figs. 2 and 3) and
recovery (Fig. 4). Our data highlight the societal consequences of an ongoing erosion of diversity that
appears to be accelerating on a global scale (Fig. 3A). This trend is of serious concern because it
projects the global collapse of all taxa currently fished by the mid – 21st century (based on the
extrapolation of regression in Fig. 3A to 100% in the year 2048) Our findings further suggest that the elimination of
locally adapted populations and species not only impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed a
growing human population but also sabotages their stability and recovery potential in a rapidly
changing marine environment. We recognize limitations in each of our data sources, particularly the inherent problem of inferring
causality from c orrelation in the largerscale studies. The strength of these results rests on the consistent agreement of theory, experiments,
and observations across widely different scales and ecosystems. Our analysis may provide a wider context for the interpretation of local
biodiversity experiments that produced diverging and controversial outcomes ( 1 , 3 , 24 ). It suggests
that very general patterns
emerge on progressively larger scales. High-diversity systems consistently provided more services
with less variability, which has economic and policy implications. First, there is no dichotomy between biodiversity
conservation and long-term economic development; they must be viewed as interdependent societal goals. Second, there was no evidence for
redundancy at high levels of diversity; the improvement of services was continuous on a log-linear scale (Fig. 3). Third, the buffering impact of
species diversity on the resistance and recovery of ecosystem services generates insurance value that must be incorporated into future
economic valuations and management decisions. By
restoring marine biodiversity through sustainable fisheries
management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and the creation of marine
reserves, we can invest in the productivity and reliability of the goods and services that the ocean
provides to humanity. Our analyses suggest that business as usual would foreshadow serious threats
to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability, affecting current and future
generations.
The food crisis will exponentially increase if no action is taken
Annan 11 (Kofi A. Annan was the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, serving two terms from 1 January 1997 to 31
December 2006 and was the first to emerge from the ranks of United Nations staff. In 2001 Kofi Annan and the United Nations were jointly
awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace with the citation praising his leadership for “bringing new life to the organisation”, “Food Security is a Global
Challenge”, November 2011 http://kofiannanfoundation.org/newsroom/speeches/2011/11/food-security-global-challenge) Only
last
week [in 2011] the UN marked the world’s population reaching seven billion. And it was just 13 years earlier, in
Sarajevo, where the world celebrated the birth of the six billionth child. This growth has been driven by great advances in healthcare, higher
levels of prosperity, and longer life expectancy. But these achievements are marred by the knowledge that our successes go hand in hand with
a shameful failure. For almost one in seven people on our planet will today not have enough to eat. Addressing this failure, urgent as it is, will
be made much harder by climate change. For rising temperatures and more frequent severe weather will have a disastrous impact on the
availability and productivity of agricultural land. Indeed they already are. It is these two inter-linked global challenges- food security in an era of
climate change, and their impact on our ambitions for a fairer and more secure world that I want to talk about today. I will focus in particular on
the challenges and opportunities that currently exist in Africa. Ladies and gentlemen, we live at a time of great contrasts. New technologies and
the benefits of globalisation have created greater prosperity and more opportunity than ever before. But this progress has not been shared
evenly. Hundreds of millions of our fellow citizens continue to live in poverty, and without dignity. At the heart of this global inequality lies food
and nutrition insecurity. The lack of food security for almost one billion people is an unconscionable moral failing. But it is also a major brake on
overall socio-economic development. It affects everything from the health of an unborn child to economic growth. But despite the increase in
our knowledge and capabilities, instead of seeing a reduction in the number of people going hungry, we are seeing an increase. According
to the World Bank, rapidly rising food prices during 2010 and 2011 pushed an additional 70 million
people into extreme poverty. We also know that we will have to find food to feed many more mouths
in the coming decades. Recent projections warn that the number of people may not stabilize at nine
billion, as was forecast only two [four] years ago, but could surpass 10 billion by the end of the
century. At the same time, greater prosperity in developing countries will see three billion people moving up the food chain with a growing
appetite for meat and dairy products. So grain, once used to feed people, is increasingly being switched to feed animals. And rising oil prices
have brought greater competition from heavily subsidized agro or bio fuels. These
factors alone could lead to demand for
food increasing by 70 per cent by 2050. This would be a tough enough challenge. But it is only half of a dangerous equation.
And global food crises cause geopolitical crises and conflict between major powers
Brown 11 (Lester R. Brown is the recipient of 26 honorary degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, the Library of Congress requested
Brown’s personal papers noting that his writings “have already strongly affected thinking about problems of world population and resources,”
while president Bill Clinton has suggested that "we should all heed his advice."In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.
Brown helped pioneer the concept of sustainable development.Since then, he has been the recipient of many prizes and awards, including, the
1987 United Nations Environment Prize., “The New Geopolitics of Food,” June 2011,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_new_geopolitics_of_food?page=0,2,) IN
THIS ERA OF TIGHTENING world
food supplies, the ability to grow food is fast becoming a new form of geopolitical leverage, and
countries are scrambling to secure their own parochial interests at the expense of the common good.
The first signs of trouble came in 2007, when farmers began having difficulty keeping up with the growth in global demand for grain. Grain and
soybean prices started to climb, tripling by mid-2008. In response, many
exporting countries tried to control the rise of
domestic food prices by restricting exports. Among them were Russia and Argentina, two leading
wheat exporters. Vietnam, the No. 2 rice exporter, banned exports entirely for several months in early
2008. So did several other smaller exporters of grain. With exporting countries restricting exports in
2007 and 2008, importing countries panicked. No longer able to rely on the market to supply the grain they needed, several
countries took the novel step of trying to negotiate long-term grain-supply agreements with exporting countries. The Philippines, for instance,
negotiated a three-year agreement with Vietnam for 1.5 million tons of rice per year. A delegation of Yemenis traveled to Australia with a
similar goal in mind, but had no luck. In a seller's market, exporters were reluctant to make long-term commitments. Fearing
they might
not be able to buy needed grain from the market, some of the more affluent countries, led by Saudi
Arabia, South Korea, and China, took the unusual step in 2008 of buying or leasing land in other
countries on which to grow grain for themselves. Most of these land acquisitions are in Africa, where some governments
lease cropland for less than $1 per acre per year. Among the principal destinations were Ethiopia and Sudan, countries where millions of people
are being sustained with food from the U.N. World Food Program. That the governments of these two countries are willing to sell land to
foreign interests when their own people are hungry is a sad commentary on their leadership. By the end of 2009, hundreds of land acquisition
deals had been negotiated, some of them exceeding a million acres. A 2010 World Bank analysis of these "land grabs" reported that a total of
nearly 140 million acres were involved -- an area that exceeds the cropland devoted to corn and wheat combined in the United States. Such
acquisitions also typically involve water rights, meaning that land grabs potentially affect all downstream countries as well. Any water extracted
from the upper Nile River basin to irrigate crops in Ethiopia or Sudan, for instance, will now not reach Egypt, upending the delicate water
politics of the Nile by adding new countries with which Egypt must negotiate. The
potential for conflict -- and not just over
water -- is high. Many of the land deals have been made in secret, and in most cases, the land involved was already in
use by villagers when it was sold or leased. Often those already farming the land were neither consulted about nor even informed of the new
arrangements. And because there typically are no formal land titles in many developing-country villages, the farmers who lost their land have
had little backing to bring their cases to court. Reporter John Vidal, writing in Britain's Observer, quotes Nyikaw Ochalla from Ethiopia's
Gambella region: "The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no
consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of
tractors to invade their lands." Local hostility toward such land grabs is the rule, not the exception. In 2007, as food prices were starting to rise,
China signed an agreement with the Philippines to lease 2.5 million acres of land slated for food crops that would be shipped home. Once word
leaked, the public outcry -- much of it from Filipino farmers -- forced Manila to suspend the agreement. A similar uproar rocked Madagascar,
where a South Korean firm, Daewoo Logistics, had pursued rights to more than 3 million acres of land.
Word of the deal helped
stoke a political furor that toppled the government and forced cancellation of the agreement.
Indeed, few things are more likely to fuel insurgencies than taking land from people. Agricultural equipment
is easily sabotaged. If ripe fields of grain are torched, they burn quickly. Not only are these deals risky, but foreign investors producing food in a
country full of hungry people face another political question of how to get the grain out. Will villagers permit trucks laden with grain headed for
port cities to proceed when they themselves may be on the verge of starvation? The potential for political instability in countries where
villagers have lost their land and their livelihoods is high. Conflicts
could easily develop between investor and host
countries.
Global resource wars lead to catastrophic nuclear proliferation
Klare 6 (Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of
Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency, “The Coming Resource Wars,” March 9 2006
"Military confrontation may be triggered by a
desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over
ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top American and
http://www.alternet.org/story/33243/the_coming_resource_wars,)
British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance
and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other -- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at
Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental
perils may soon dominate
the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a
significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of
the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other
such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they
conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely
cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it
is clearly gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of global climate
change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain
species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing
climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon
study make clear,
the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se,
but rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass
migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt
climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the
minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against
countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply
of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar
scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In
particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and
the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he
observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur
primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and
humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When
reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and
clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But
these scenarios also envision the
use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted,
"nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries
will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear
proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national
security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change,
we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us,
and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments
indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.
Global political aggression leads to nuclear war
Hermann 1 (Charles F. HermannBrent Scowcroft Chair of International Policy Studies Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Program
Director for Masters Program in International Affairs George Bush School of Government and Public Service Texas A&M University “Enhancing
Crisis Stability: Correcting the Trend Toward Increasing Instability”, 2001,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RtNub6rfBNsJ:www.voxprof.com/cfh/hermann-pubs/HermannEnhancing%2520Crisis%2520Stability%2520Correcting%2520the%2520Trend.pdf+&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) From
the
perspective of policy-makers in a country, an international politico-military crisis exists when they
perceive a severe threat to the basic values of their political system from sources that are at least
partially outside their polity; when they believe there is relatively short time before the situation (if unaltered) will evolve in ways
unfavorable to them; and when they have an increased expectation that in the near future there will be an
outbreak of military hostitilies or a sharp escalation of already existing hostilities.3 The period of extreme
antagonism and severe competition that has marked relations between the Soviet Union and the United States since World War II has been
punctuated by such crises. In the most recent years there has been no shortage of provocations by either side——the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, the American insertion of Marines in Lebanon backed by naval and air strikes against Syrian controlled areas, the Soviet shooting
down of a civilian airliner with Americans including a Congressman aboard, the American air strikes against Libya or the shooting of a US. Major
on duty in East Germany by one of their soldiers. Despite such aggressive acts toward one another, these provocations fail to meet our criteria
for a major crisis and lead to the observation that recent years have not entailed the kind of episodes that earlier transpired repeatedly over
Berlin, or the Cuban missile crisis, or the potential escalation during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Crises, as defined, can put force in several
different ways: 1. Crises can expose technical features of strategic plans or had been disregarded. ICBMs, the process of fuel fueled the missiles
had to 1 time or a refueling proces initiated. These features co pressures of a crisis. 2.
Crises
may require as defensive preparations ( highly
susceptible to misintended by the initiator : Page 3 Charles P. Hermann ledly rejected in actual cases to date regarded by political leaders at a
more laments as probably suicidal. Because :1, one
might conclude, as many have, include beginning abruptly as a
bolt out of achieving potential political advantage, makes nuclear war seem less remote.
Economy Turn
Loss of Biodiversity has massive negative implications towards the Economy
Open Knowledge 11 (Open knowledge, an Allianz initiative. Allianz (help·info) SE[2] is a German multinational financial services
company headquartered in Munich, Germany. Its core business and focus is insurance. As of 2010, it was the world's 12th-largest financial
services group and 23rd-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine,[3] as well as the largest financial services
company when measured by 2012 revenue. “Biodiversity loss spells economic crisis “ , May 7, 2011
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?1486/conservation-biodiversity-loss-economic-crisis-ecosystem) bcWe
are living
through the greatest mass extinction of life in about 65 million years. We lose three species an hour to
urbanization, deforestation, overfishing, climate change, and invasive species, reckons the United
Nations.It is shocking to think of a world without tigers or orang utans, but species loss is just the tip of the iceberg .‘Biodiversity’ includes
not just species but the genes that make species and the ecosystems that support them. Therefore biodiversity loss ranges from the eradication
of ancient seed varieties to the destruction of coral reefs. What’s
gone unnoticed until recently is how expensive
biodiversity loss can be, between 2 and 4.5 trillion dollars in 2008, according to a landmark UN report
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).That’s more than the 1.7 trillion dollars in economic costs that the
Stern Review calculates will result from the same year’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions .In other words: biodiversity loss
will hit the global economy harder than climate change. That’s because biodiversity provides us with vital ‘ecosystem
services’ like fertile soil and freshwater. Forests, for example, provide flood prevention and drought control services,
as well as nutrients and freshwater for farming, fuel wood for cooking, fodder for cattle, construction
materials and foods. Over a billion of the world's poorest people depend on these services, which are
generally available free.And therein lays the problem.“ The economic invisibility of nature’s flows into the economy is
a significant contributor to the degradation of ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity,” writes Pavan
Sukhdev, leader of the UN's Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative, in the foreword to TEEB. Markets simply don’t
value nature’s bounty accordingly. The consequences can be catastrophic. Protective measures Decades of
mangrove deforestation to make way for shrimp farms and other developments left victims of the Asian
tsunami in 2004 defenseless. Short-term profits dictated that the mangroves must go; longer-term
thinking that valued the mangroves' protective qualities would have saved lives. When consultants
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) surveyed corporate attitudes to biodiversity loss, they found that only 27 percent of 1100 global CEOs said they
were concerned or extremely concerned. “Corporates
need to start thinking about ecosystems as an extension of
their asset base, part of their plant and machinery, and appreciating the value they deliver ,” commented
Jon Williams, partner, sustainability and climate change, PwC. Clearly not many people have noticed that 60 percent of the planet’s ecosystem
services have been degraded in the last 50 years.Nor is anyone doing much about it. "We failed miserably," said Jean-Christophe Vie of The
International Union for Conservation of Nature in early 2010, referring to the globally agreed target of slowing the rate of plant and animal
extinction by 2010. However, in the autumn the international community tried again at the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan.
Delegates agreed to at least halve the rate of loss of natural habitats by 2020 and to create protected conservation zones in 17 percent of all
land areas (currently 13 percent) and 10 percent of all marine areas (currently 1 percent).In line with this the European Commission has
adopted a new strategy to halt biodiversity loss and restore 15 percent of degraded ecosystems in the EU by 2020. Among its main targets are
more sustainable agriculture and forestry and better management of fish stocks. However, as with the Nagoya document, the plan is more a
collection of targets and guidelines than a firm commitment with specific measures. Those will have to come laterAs the EC plan recognizes,
we’re not just talking about losing exotic wild animals and plants. The farm down the road is also threatened.Where are the bees?Consider the
strange deaths of honey bee colonies around the world. Insecticides, parasites, and pollution have been blamed, but whatever the causes the
consequences can be devastating. Pollination is worth about 153 billion Euros annually, representing 9.5 percent of global agricultural output
for human food, according to TEEB. In 2007, the collapse of bee colonies cost agriculture in the United States 15 billion dollars. Soil
erosion, accidentally introduced pests, and overfishing cost the global economy hundreds of billions of
dollars every year. And if coral reefs were to disappear, 152 billion dollars of annual revenues would
go with them.There are huge economic opportunities in biodiversity conservation. Dynamite fishing may net short-term
profits but in the long run if you kill the coral reef the fish (and the tourists) will disappear. Meanwhile the certified organic
food market, which protects biodiversity and ecosystem services, has mushroomed to over 40 billion dollars annually worldwide. The obvious
answer to biodiversity loss is to properly value ecosystem services and species : to pay our debt to nature by
paying people to protect it. The REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) initiative would operate along these
lines by paying forest nations not to cut down their trees. In the United States, investors can get banking credits for protecting wetlands and
there are other new schemes for biodiversity credits in the pipeline. Now the challenge is to persuade businesses, politicians, and the public
that nothing in nature comes for free.
Conservation is economically significant
Edwards and Abivardi 98(Peter J. Edwards & Cyrus Abivardi
Geobotanical Institute ETH, Zurichbergstrasse 38, 8044 Zurich, Switzerland, “The value of biodiversity: Where ecology and economy blend,
Elsevier Biological Conservation, Volume 83, Issue 3, March 1998, Pages 239–246,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S0006320797001419) BC As
problems of
environmental change become more evident, we increasingly realize how much we depend upon wildlife
for a wide range of so-called ecosystem services. These services, which include soil protection, pest control and the
supply of clean water, are to a significant extent provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems which in the past were
thought to have little or no economic significance. This recognition has important implications for conservation. The emerging
discipline of ecological economics provides methods for assessing the economic value of wildlife. While it is idle to pretend that the application of such methods will
solve the biodiversity crisis, economic analysis can be useful in strengthening the case for conservation . Such analysis
can demonstrate the potentially high economic value of wildlife, and reveal more clearly the economic and social pressures which threaten it. It is argued that while
nature reserves and other protected areas will always be important, we
must shift our attention increasingly to the
preservation of biological diversity within the major forms of land-use. High priority must be given to finding ways of
restoring biological diversity and enhancing ecosystem function in those areas which have already been seriously damaged. In these tasks ecological
economics has an important role to play.
Biodiversity key to Developing economies and peoples
Christie et. al. 12 (Mike Christie, Ioan Fazey, Rob Cooper, Tony Hyde, Jasper O. Kenter, Aberystwyth University, UK, University of St. Andrews, UK,
University of Aberdeen, UK, “An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the
importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries
with developing economies”, Volume 83, November 2012, Pages 67–78, November 2012, http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/S092180091200328X/1-s2.0-S092180091200328X-main.pdf?_tid=8badde8a-f704-11e2-b80000000aacb35f&acdnat=1374961149_9c74378dea09ef5b055b485fb601fa5b ) BC Biological
diversity underpins ecosystem
functioning and the provision of ecosystem services that are essential in supporting human existence,
for health, well-being and the provision of livelihoods (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; MA, 2005; Sachs et al., 2009;
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000; TEEB, 2010a). Global biodiversity is increasingly threatened by a
range of drivers of change, including population and economic growth, land use change and climate
change. As a consequence, biodiversity continues to decline at unprecedented rates (Butchart et al., 2010;
MA, 2005; Stern, 2006; TEEB, 2010a; Turner et al., 2009; United Nations, 2007;WWF, 2006). Despite international commitments (through
among others the Convention on Biological Diversity), the target agreed by theWorld's governments in 2002‘to achieve by 2010 a significantly
reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level’ has not been met (Secretariat of the Convention on
Much of the World's biological resources are located in least developed countries
(LDCs) (Fisher and Christopher, 2007) and it is likely that the drivers of change will have a disproportionately higher
impact on biodiversity in these countries (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Furthermore, it is often
the people from these poorest nations that have the greatest immediate dependency on biodiversity
and ecosystem services to meet their basic needs. Thus, it is likely that the poor will face the impacts of biodiversity loss
Biological Diversity, 2010).
more rapidly and severely (MA, 2005; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Developing an understanding of the
relationship between biodiversity and the benefits that it provides to the poor is therefore essential to develop policies that both protect
biodiversity and sustain the livelihoods of people in LDCs. An increasingly important aspect of effective conservation and development policies
is the valuation of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (TEEB, 2011b). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that ‘…
economic valuation of biodiversity and biological resources is an important tool for well-targeted and
calibrated economic incentive measures’ and encourages the Parties to ‘take into account economic,
social, cultural, and ethical valuation in the development of relevant incentive measures’ (CBD's
Conference of the Parties, Decision IV/10). The CBD's commitment to utilising biodiversity values was further strengthened in 2011 through the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets in which it set governments with the goal that ‘By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values havebeen integrated into
national and local development and poverty reduction strategies’ (CBD Conference of the Parties, Decision X/2). Understanding
the
true value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and embedding these values in decision-making
therefore appears essential for ensuring more equitable and sustainable policies. The recent TEEB initiative
provides useful guidance on how the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services might best be incorporated into decision making
at: the national and international policy level (TEEB, 2011b); the local and regional policy level (TEEB, 2011a); by businesses (TEEB, 2011c); and
by citizens (http://bankofnaturalcapital.com/). Over the past few decades, environmental and ecological economists have developed a range of
methods capable of measuring the value that people attain from biodiversity and associated ecosystem services(Christie et al., 2006; Eftec,
2006; Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001; TEEB, 2010a). Most of this research, however, has been conducted in the mostdeveloped countries
(MDCs) (Abaza and Rietbergen-McCracken, 1998; Georgiou et al., 2006; van Beukering et al., 2007), and currently there is only limited data on
the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services in LDCs (TEEB, 2010a).). TEV provides an anthropocentric view of the instrumental value of
biodiversity and includes both use andnon-use values. Use values include direct use benefits (such as the consumption of provisioning and
cultural services), indirect use benefits(through the contribution of biodiversity to the maintenance of regulation services), and option value
(where people attain satisfaction frompossible future use of provisioning, regulating and cultural services)(Table 1). TEV also includes the
concept ofnon-use values, which includealtruistic values (the satisfaction of knowing that other people haveaccess to nature's benefits),
bequest values (the satisfaction of knowingthat future generations will have access) andexistencevalues (satisfactionof knowing that a species
or ecosystem exists) (Table 1).Although TEV provides a useful (and much used) framework inwhich to value the economic benefits from
biodiversity, the conceptdoes have its limitations and therefore may not capture all the bene-fits that biodiversity provides. Alternative value
frameworks includesocial and ecological values (TEEB, 2010a). Socialbenefits include mentalwell-being, ethical, religious, spiritual and cultural
values, which areoften prominent in LDCs (UNEP, 1999); . Biodiversity
may also deliver ecological benefits which
include the maintenance of many of the essential life support processes (e.g. soilformation, nutrient cycling).
Althoughsuch services clearly contribute to people's welfare, the complexity andthe indirect nature of the benefits often means that they
cannot readilybe expressed through monetary valuation techniques (Farber et al.,2002), and non-monetary methods may be required to
uncover the importance of these benefits.
Biodiversity loss causes monetary losses – Turns case
Watts 10 (Jonathan Watts, award-winning journalist and president of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China, “Biodiversity loss seen
as greater financial risk than terrorism, says UN”, October 27, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/27/biodiversity-lossterrorism, MS) The
financial risks posed by the loss of species and ecosystems have risen sharply and are
becoming a greater concern for businesses than international terrorism , according to a United Nations report
released today.¶ From over-depletion of fish stocks and soil degradation caused by agricultural chemicals to water shortages and mining
pollution, the paper – commissioned by the UN Environment Programme and partners – said the
that declines in biodiversity would have a "severe" $10bn
(£6bn)
likelihood has climbed sharply
to $50bn impact on business. ¶ With the
European Union and other regions increasingly holding companies liable for impacts on ecosystem services, it suggests banks, investors and
insurance companies are starting to calculate the losses that could arise from diminishing supplies, tightened conservation controls and the
reputational damage caused by involvement in an unsound project.¶ Achim Steiner, UN under-secretary general and Unep executive director,
said: "The
kinds of emerging concerns and rising perception of risks underlines a fundamental sea
change in the way some financial institutions, alongside natural resource-dependent companies, are now starting to
glimpse and to factor in the economic importance of biodiversity and ecosystems".¶ The briefing paper
cites the 55% crash of BP's share price and the decline of its credit rating in the wake of the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill as an extreme example of the potential impact of inadequate environmental controls.¶
Richard Burrett, who co-chairs the Unep Finance Initiative and authored the report, said such cases highlighted the need for a new form of risk
assessment that takes the value of ecological services into account. Water systems and forests are currently considered "externalities" that do
not show up on corporate books. In the past year, he said, biodiversity loss is increasingly seen as a business concern and that a World
Economic Forum survey in 2010, found it was perceived as a greater economic risk than international terrorism.¶ But he insisted this should be
just the start. "The way we assess the performance of companies is flawed. It does not account for all externalities," said Burrett in releasing
the briefing paper, which is aimed at executives and fund managers. "We believe we must bring these externalities into mainstream
accounting."¶ For the report, the UN commissioned a study of 3,000 of the world's biggest corporations, which found them responsible for
$2.15 trillion in environmental costs in 2008, equivalent to 7% of their combined revenues and about a third of their profits. Based on this
figure, the report estimates that institutional investors with a $100m holding in a typical diversified equity fund could "own" $5.6m in external
costs.¶ However, the authors note that awareness of biodiversity risks is still at an early stage, partly because they remain difficult to quantify.
Concerns are clearly very different from nation to nation. This year, PwC conducted a separate study that
found strong awareness of biodiversity risks among South American executives, but worldwide it said only two
of the world's largest 100 companies saw loss of species and ecosystems as a strategic business risk.
Environmental degradation is the root cause of all conflict
Foster 00 (Gregory Foster, civilian professor at the National Defense University, September 2000,
http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/china-environmental-dragon.pdf) It has now been more than two decades since the Worldwatch Institute’s
Lester Brown first issued a plea to adopt a new and more robust conception of national security attuned to the contemporary world. The
threats to security, he argued even then, now may arise less from relations between nations than from man’s
relations with nature—dwindling reserves of critical resources, for example, or the deterioration of earth’s
biological systems: The military threat to national security is only one of many that governments must now address. The
numerous new threats derive directly or indirectly from the rapidly changing relationship between humanity and the earth’s
natural systems and resources. The unfolding stresses in this relationship initially manifest themselves as
ecological stresses and resource scarcities. Later they translate into economic stresses —inflation,
unemployment, capital scarcity, and monetary instability. Ultimately, these economic stresses convert into social unrest and
political instability.1 Brown was followed—cautiously at first—by others who recognized the need not only to expand the bounds of
national security thinking and discourse, but to take particular account of environmental concerns in such deliberations. Jessica Tuchman
Mathews, then affiliated with the World Resources Institute, argued, for example: “Global
developments now suggest the
need for . . . [a] broadening definition of national security to include resource, environmental and demographic issues.”2
One of the most powerful observations made to date—one that could be judged, in equal measure, as either visionary or hyperbolic—is that by
writer-analyst Milton Viorst, who argues that “population and environment
. . . seem the obvious sources of the
next wave of wars, perhaps major wars.”3…CONTINUES…Where Homer-Dixon is especially insightful is in leading us in the
direction of the most powerful counterargument that can be made to resolute critics of environmental causation. He says that whereas, on
first analysis, the main causes of civil strife appear to be social disruptions (e.g., poverty, migrations, ethnic tension,
institutional breakdown), in reality scarcities of renewable resources, including water, fuelwood, cropland and fish,
can precipitate these disruptions and thereby powerfully contribute to strife. By broadening his
formulation, we may posit the existence of a more general masking phenomenon by which
ostensibly political and economic causes of unrest, violence, conflict, and destabilization (e.g., political repression;
economic deprivation, exploitation, and dislocation) actually may mask underlying, less visible, less discernible
environmental sources of dissatisfaction, discontent, and alienation (e.g., diminished quality of life; threats to safety and
well-being).
Econ decline causes war
ROYAL 10 Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense
[Jedediah Royal, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215]
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external
conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory,
finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,
exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see
also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation
(Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive
environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999).
Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict
among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and
security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future
expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that
interdependent states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if
the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy
resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain
access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it
triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic
decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict , particularly during periods of
economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity
are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in
turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which
international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic
decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan
a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions . Furthermore,
crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have
increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag'
effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and
use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards
diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more
susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In
summary, rcccni economic
scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in
the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline
with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict
has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Global Conflict
AT: Regulations Check
Irresponsible yet legal oil company regulations make Gulf spills inevitable
Markey 5/10(May 10, 2013, Rep. Ed Markey, “Markey Report: Americans Still at Risk from Dangerous Offshore Drilling Practices,”
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/press-release/markey-report-americans-still-risk-dangerous-offshore-drilling-practices, Edward
John "Ed" Markey (born July 11, 1946) is an American politician and lawyer who is the junior United States Senator from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts). WASHINGTON (May 10, 2013) – A
new report, released today by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.),
shows that oil and gas companies drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico continue to suffer major
safety lapses three years after the BP spill and that penalties are still insufficient to deter risky
practices. The report, prepared by Rep. Markey's staff on the Natural Resources Committee, analyzes data from the Department of the
Interior (DOI)—including company-by-company data, which has not been publicly disclosed before—to assess progress over the last three
years, comparing accidents, inspections, safety violations and civil penalties before and after BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster. “Oil
and gas
companies with the worst safety records in the Gulf before the BP disaster continue to spill oil, lose
control of their wells and rack up safety violations today,” said Rep. Markey, the top Democrat on the House Natural
Resources Committee. “We need to make sure these companies change their ways and pay a price for their risky practices.
Unfortunately, House Republicans have blocked legislation to strengthen regulatory enforcement and
raise penalties for offshore safety violations.” Rep. Markey also sent letters today to BP and the
Environmental Protection Agency expressing displeasure that BP has refused to provide information and documents related to
the company’s guilty plea of obstructing Congress. Rep. Markey asks EPA not to lift BP’s debarment from receiving federal contracts until the
company has provided the requested documents.
“First, BP lied to Congress when I asked for information about the
amount of oil being spilled into the Gulf,” Rep. Markey said. “Now, BP won’t provide me information
about why company officials lied. Until it comes clean and cleans up its act, the government should not be in business with BP.”
The data in the report -- “Dangerous Drillers: Offshore Safety Lapses Continue Three Years After BP Spill” -- show some positives. The number of
injuries from offshore accidents is down 50 percent over the last two years, as DOI has been more aggressive in handing out violations, and
companies have less frequently lost control of their wells -- as happened in the BP spill -- since DOI adopted stronger regulations in 2010
following the catastrophic blowout at BP's Macondo well. However, the
companies with the most safety violations before
the BP spill are still racking up the most violations today, and a number of companies, including
Chevron, Shell and Apache, have spilled oil into the Gulf or lost control of wells both just before and
after the spill. Even BP has been cited for more major offshore safety violations in the last two years
than before the spill.
Venezuela
Environmental regulations not achieving protection of Venezuelan sea turtles
Joaquín Buitrago 8 (Estación de Investigaciones Marinas de Margarita, Fundación La Salle de Ciencias, “Conservation science in
developing countries: an inside perspective on the struggles in sea turtle research and conservation in Venezuela”, October 2008,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S1462901108000336
Human exploitation of sea turtles in Venezuela dates back at least 800 years and continues to the
present day. The first concerns about the status of sea turtle populations arose in the 1970s, and the projects from this early era were a tagging program,
beach evaluation and in situ nest protection. Since then, efforts to develop a sea turtle research and conservation sector in
Venezuela have resulted in a number of successes and rather more failures. Among the achievements is a course “Sea
Turtle Biology and Conservation Techniques”, which has now been run for 15 years and has educated several hundred participants and enabled the establishment
of a valuable professional network, and the publication of the Venezuelan “Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan” in 2000. But Venezuela
shares with
other developing countries some crucial shortcomings which have restricted the success of
conservation and research efforts. Whilst regulations relating to protected areas and natural resource
use have proliferated, enforcement is weak. Community-based projects and environmental education
programs exist, but levels of participation are low. A large number of conservation approaches have been applied, including headstarting and nest translocation to hatcheries, but their value as conservation tools remains unproven. Research has increased, but its impact on decision-making is
not significant. Taking an insider's perspective on the challenges to date in sea turtle research and conservation in Venezuela reveals much about the reality facing
conservation scientists in developing countries and the forces that shape and can potentially derail research and conservation efforts.
Better forest management needed in Venezuela
Vilanova 12 (Emilio Vilanova 12, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development in Forest Ecosystems BIODESUS) Research Team, “Compliance
with sustainable forest management guidelines in three timber concessions in the Venezuelan Guayana: Analysis and implications”, April 2012,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S1389934111001833)
After more than 40 years of natural forest management (NFM) in Venezuela, out of 16 million ha of production forests only 10%
located in the Guayana region is currently being managed with some consideration of sustainability. A
recent survey of three private concessions in the Imataca Forest Reserve, based on partial consideration of criteria and indicators for the
sustainable management of tropical forests, revealed that a new form of management is needed.
Compliance with reduced impact logging was very low, with poor planning in logging operations
detected in all cases, highly affecting forest stands and biomass recovery. A limited capacity for
monitoring was also found. Social assessments showed that local communities in all cases demanded more participation in wood
production benefits and tended to value provision services such as timber, food and water above other
important regulations and cultural services. Here, three strategies are proposed as an effective way to partially modify NFM into a more integrated
approach: 1) strengthening of institutional cooperation between private and public sectors and capacity building in the process of monitoring; 2) creation of a
training framework for reduced impact logging techniques 3) a review of current legal structures and national policies related to NFM in order to favour small-scale
operations. Since 1980, the area of tropical forests used for wood production purposes has consistently increased. In recent years it has risen from about 42 M ha to
close to 353 M ha (Food and Agriculture Organization – FAO, 2001 and International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), 2006). This increase has represented a
significant contribution to national and local economies. However the implementation of sustainable forest management procedures for timber is still very limited.
Complex challenges are being faced in many tropical countries where natural forest management (NFM) still represents a sound option. These critical issues include
land tenure and social participation in forest benefits management, reduction of the ecological impact of logging activities, biodiversity conservation, small-scale vs.
large-scale operations (Karsenty et al., 2008) and more recently the role of tropical forest ecosystems in climate change mitigation (Lewis, 2006). In addition, how to
capture the total value from tropical forests through multiple-use options is presently a matter of concern (Guariguata et al., 2009). ¶ Forest concessions have been
an important part of forestry in many tropical countries. Management operations have been implemented through large-scale industrial models involving a mutual
contract based on the agreement of a forest owner (in most cases represented by the figure of the national government) and another party permitting the use of a
given area for harvesting of timber or other forest resources (Gray, 2002). In South American countries, for example, industrial forest concessions have been
operating for over two decades (for instance Bolivia started in 1996 and Peru in 2001) using a concession-based regime for managing and selectively logging their
natural forests. More often than not, the concession experience in these countries has not been successful (Gray, 2002). Logical arguments against this model
remain when poor logging practices are still the rule in most cases of wood extraction in the tropics (see for example Putz et al., 2000, for a more detailed analysis).
Opponents to the use of tropical forests for timber production argue that misguided forestry can play a critical role in the overexploitation of forest resources,
promoting other critical forces of degradation such as illegal logging, wild-life hunting, land-use changes, which may aggravate rather than slow down the problem
of biodiversity loss (Niesten and Rice, 2006). ¶ Venezuela is a tropical country with one of the longest history of forest management under the forest concession
model (see Dourojeanni, 2000, Kammesheidt et al., 2001 and Torres-Lezama et al., 2008). During the 1970s, the introduction of a forest concession system
represented a significant advance in NFM at a regional level. The first private concessions were awarded in 1970. By 1992 almost 3.2 million ha had been allocated
in more than 30 forest management units (FMUs) or concessions (Centeno, 1995); the highest proportion was in the Imataca Forest Reserve (Guayana region). In
1995, the national government planned to increase the area under forestry concessions to 10 million ha over 5 years, but the country's adoption of structural
adjustment policies and the rising criticism of forest management strategies prevented this from happening (Torres-Lezama et al., 2008).¶ A significant reduction in
timber production coming from FMUs occurred when in 1987 almost 40% of the national round wood production came from this form of management (Centeno,
1995), and 20 years later this proportion dropped to 7% (MinAmb, 2008). A critical analysis of the forest management model applied in Venezuela is explained in
detail in Centeno, 1995, Aicher, 2005 and Lozada, 2007. Those reports remarked on critical limitations in the implementation of adequate measures to assure the
long term permanence of production forests and a total absence of sustainable management guidelines during the monitoring activities. After more than four
decades of NFM in Venezuela, of the 16 million ha of production forests, a very low proportion of close to 3% of permanent production forests (PFF) are considered
as being sustainably managed (ITTO, 2006). In addition, a lack of updated management plans and adequate monitoring are also part of the current situation of
forest management in the country. The few community-based efforts to incorporate local people into benefits management resulted in catastrophic ecological
effects (cf. Lozada, 2007 and Rojas-López, 2007), and there are currently no certified natural forests in Venezuela. As occurs in many tropical production forests,
most of the timber coming from natural forests in Venezuela is harvested to meet the demands of the domestic market where environmental concerns have less
weight. As a consequence, many wood companies are reluctant to implement better logging practices and to improve other critical areas of forest management. ¶ In
the last 20 years several initiatives, mainly through the efforts of international organisations such as the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO, 2005),
have been developed for the purpose of ensuring that the sustainable management of tropical forests can be achieved. One important initiative is the instrument of
Criteria and Indicators (C&I) to measure and monitor the sustainability of forests (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000). In general, it is useful to think of C&I as information
nodes on several areas of concern, which together provide a full picture of the state of the forests and current sustainability trends (Pokorny and Adams, 2003). An
example of how C&I work in forest concessions is explained in Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000 and Pokorny et al., 2005. Further information about the concession
model and its effectiveness can be found in Gray, 2002 and Karsenty et al., 2008. ¶ Improving the performance of forest concessions is not likely to be a popular
topic. Nevertheless, if sustainable management is to be achieved in Venezuelan tropical forests, it may be necessary to assess and analyse the results of more than
40 years of concession management. So far, considering that Venezuela is one of the countries in the tropics that have been largely neglected in the subject of NFM
literature, there is an urgent need for information on how critical issues of management are being implemented nowadays. Therefore, in this paper we present an
analysis after applying the first known attempt to evaluate a selected group of C&I for assessing specific aspects of sustainable forest management for timber. Based
on a survey of three industrial forest concessions located in the Venezuelan Guayana, we include a discussion on the compliance of current practices with
sustainable management guidelines, followed by a debate considering the perspectives of the concession model in national forest management.¶
Cuba
Cuba neglects Environment
Rasha Maal-Bared 6 (Works at Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Library Processing at University of British
Columbia “Comparing environmental issues in Cuba before and after the Special Period: Balancing sustainable development and survival”,April
2006,http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S0160412005001741)
The Republic of Cuba belongs to the West Indies and is the largest Caribbean country with a total area of 111,000 km2. The Cuban Archipelago,
which is formed of nearly two thousand islands and cays, lies between the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, 180 km south of Florida
and 210 km east of the Mexican Yucatan Peninsula. Cuba is located in the Tropic of Cancer between 74°8′ and 84°58′ western longitude
(Borhidi, 1991). The climate is categorized as semi-continental and the average temperature ranges between 25 °C and 26 °C. As for rainfall, the
dry season starts in November and ends in April, with December being the driest month of the year. The wet season starts in May and ends in
October, with the heaviest rainfall occurring in August (Stanley, 1997).¶ The island has a wide variety of ecosystems and environments: the
coastal terrain is fairly flat with many interior mountain ranges of different heights (Borhidi, 1991 and De La Cruz, 1989). There are more than
two hundred, mostly small rivers, streams and creeks, in the country. The most notable rivers are: the Cauto (longest 370 km), the Toa (77 km),
and the Almendares River (402.02 km2 basin), which flows through the capital Havana. Most of these rivers lack water periodically and dry up
completely during the winter season (Arcia Rodriguez, 1994). Major dam construction programs were launched after a major flood in 1962 in
the Eastern Provinces. By 1992, Cuba had completed the construction of 200 dams and 800 micro-dams (Servicio Hidrologico Nacional
(CENHICA), 1996). There also are a number of natural lakes in Cuba. Larger lakes are usually salt-water lagoons, such as Laguna de Leche or
Laguna Barbacoas. The largest lakes in the country are Ariguanabo and Laguna del Tesoro, which have a surface area of approximately 9 km2
each (Borhidi, 1991). As for underground water sources, the largest aquifers are concentrated in two areas. The first aquifer lies in Western
Cuba running from Pinar del Rio to the Matanzas province. The second aquifer extends from Ciego de Avila and Sancti Spiritus through parts of
Camaguey and Las Tunas (Servicio Hidrologico Nacional, 1996).¶ Cuba is known as the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean Islands. 50% of
its flora and 41% of its fauna are endemic (Vales et al., 1998). These species are harbored in a variety of ecosystems, such as the mountain
zones in Sierra del Rosaria and Sierra Maestra (with Moa–Sagua–Baracoa and Nipe–Sagua–Baracoa being particular hotspots). Cuban caves are
of particular natural value and have become part of several bioreserves in Santiago de Cuba and in Pinar del Rio (Silva Lee, 1996). Some of these
endemic species are also harbored in the different Cuban forest, which are divided into five categories: mangroves (77 × 102 km2), inland
swamp (36 × 102 km2), montane rainforests (72 × 102 km2), lowland rainforests (78 × 102 km2), and sub-montane rainforests (25 × 102 km2)
(Domech and Glean, 1999).¶ 1.2. Cuba and the Special PeriodEver
since the Cuban revolution in 1959, Cuba followed
the Eastern Block Paradigm of resource exploitation and environmental domination. While
anthropocentric and social issues, such as education, health care, economy and security ranked high
on the country's priority list, environmental issues were of no importance (Lane, 2000). For three decades after
the first US Blockade in 1961, Cuba maintained favorable trade relations with the former Soviet Block. This allowed Cuba to focus on its
economy and grow at an annual rate of 2% between 1965 and 1975, while improving health and social indices. Between 1975 and 1989, the
annual economic growth rate reached 4% (Garcia, 1992).¶ Despite the repeated efforts for diversification, Cuba's model for development was
based on a centralized sugar economy, leaving many sectors of the economy underdeveloped (Figueras, 1992). Thus, the dissolution of the
Soviet Union and the Community for Economic Cooperation (COMECON) in 1989, compounded with the Toricelli Act in 1992 and the Helms
Burton Legislation in 1994, resulted in a national economic disaster. Soviet Block exports to Cuba dropped by about 70% between 1989 and
1993; and the value of all Cuban imports declined from $8 billion to $1.7 billion (Garfield and Santana, 1997). Before the economic collapse,
Cuba was energy-rich, supplied with cheap crude oil from the Soviet Union, a portion of which was refined and exported again. Oil and sugar
constituted the largest portion of Cuba's exports. After the collapse of its main partners, Cuba was left without fossil fuel. At the time, 98% of
the country's electricity production was fossil fuel dependent and many factories had to close down due to the lack of oil and spare parts
(Garfield and Santana, 1997). The lack of oil, gas, batteries, spare parts, and tires crippled the country's transportation systems (Garcia, 1992).
Agriculture in the country was based on the Green Revolution Model and was hit hard due to the lack of fertilizers, weed killers, fuel and parts
for irrigation pumps as well as other machinery (Díaz-Briquets and Pérez-López, 1995). The sugar industry was hit the hardest, but crop yields in
general declined (Fitzgerald, 1994). Hospital equipment went unrepaired. Doctors lacked medicines and opted for herbal cures. Paper was no
longer available to print newspapers and supply schools. Drastic measures had to be taken to save the country from total collapse; in a period
referred to by Fidel Castro as “the Special Period in Time of Peace”. The main economic measures taken by Cuba at the time were: promotion
of tourism, curtailment in consumption, selective cutbacks in state spending, implementation of a food self-sufficiency program, legalization of
foreign investment and dollar possession (Dello Buono, 1995).¶ Despite the negative effects that the fall of COMECON and the US Blockade had
on the Cuban economy, some inadvertent positive by-products resulted with respect to Cuba's prospects for sustainability and sound
environmental management (Fernandez, 1999). By
the time the Special Period hit Cuba in 1990, the Cuban
environment was undergoing very serious degradation. Deforestation was still a major problem
despite all attempts to reforest. Deforestation and habitat fragmentation were identified as main
causes of species endangerment and extinction in Cuba (Tuxill and Bright, 1998). Water pollution from
domestic sewage, industrial waste, agricultural runoff and drainage, and other point and non-point
sources was ubiquitous. The bays were very polluted by anthropocentric activity. Industrial activities
posed threats to ecosystem integrity and human health. Several provinces, such as Holguin and Moa,
were devastated due to strip mining activities. Finally, Cuba had been subjected to serious urban degradation with 70% of its
population living in cities, and more Cubans moving towards the western parts of the island (Comite Estatal de Estadisticas, 1998).¶ After
attending the 1992 Rio Summit, the Cuban Government planned on changing its relationship with the Environment. It started with establishing
numerous institutions, policies, programs, and laws governing environmental impact assessments, forests, management of protected areas,
and environmental education (Lane, 2000). The government also realized the intrinsic link between sustainable development and conservation
of natural resources. It turned to organic farming, renewable resource sources, energy conservation, while applying precautionary measures
and clean technologies when possible. Cuba also decreased dumping into rivers and bays, emission of gases into the atmosphere, and
overexploitation of water resources (CITMA (Ministry of Science Environment and Technology), 1992). And while many think that this drive
towards sustainable development was steered by necessity not choice, the decisions the Cuban government will make over the next several
decades could demonstrate their commitment towards this newly found ideology.¶
It would be naïve to say that the Special
Period has only brought environmental benefits to Cuba. Between 1992 and 1995 Cuban statistics
reported that deforestation indices showed a clear increase, which was mostly obvious in mangrove
forests and the Zapatas Swamp. Other negative effect reports included increases in illegal hunting and
fishing, illegal trade of wild species to tourists, habitat fragmentation and loss, forest fires, and illegal
dumping (CITMA (Ministry of Science Environment and Technology), 1992). Combined, the positive and negative effects of the Special
Period on the Cuban environment have resulted in a very complex dynamic of environmental risks in the country, which will definitely affect
the country's prospects for sustainability.
Mexico
Mexican Environment on a downhill slope
Agence France Presse 9 (Agence France-Presse (AFP) is a French news agency, the oldest one in the world,[1][2] and one of the
three largest with Associated Press and Reuters. It is also the largest French news agency, “Mexico plants trees, loses forests: Greenpeace” June
3, 2009, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) Mexico
is failing to stop
deforestation, despite planting millions of trees, Greenpeace said here Wednesday, two days before the country hosts the
UN World Environment Day .Mexico is fifth in the world for species diversity, but also fifth in the world for
deforestation, the lobby group said."We call on the government of (President) Felipe Calderon to be coherent. It's not possible to extol
Mexico as an example in defending the environment ... whilst systematically destroying ecosystems with environment policies which do not
stop deforestation," a statement said.Mexico loses around 600,000 hectares (almost 1.5 million acres) of trees and jungle each year, which is
Environmental policy
under Calderon -- who will host World Environment Day on Mexico's Caribbean coast -- has not changed, Greenpeace said." Mexico
even has one of the highest rates of environmental degradation in the world," it added. Greenpeace said that bad
equivalent to four times the size of the country's sprawling capital of some 20 million people, the group said.
practice in tourism -- one of Mexico's main sources of foreign income -- had accelerated the destruction of the environment. Mexico has so far
planted 537 million trees and is a "leading partner" in a plan to plant seven billion trees worldwide by the end of 2009, according to the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).The UN-sponsored World Environment Day began 37 years ago and takes place annually on June
5.This year's event will focus on combating climate change, one of the top priorities of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Mexico City emissions numbers are corrupt
Olivia 12(Paulina Olivia, Assistant Professor Department of Economics University of California,
Santa Barbara, “Environmental Regulations
and Corruption: Automobile Emissions in Mexico City”, March 2012, http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~oliva/Docs/Smog_Checks_Jan2012.pdf)
Researchers and governments have questioned the effectiveness of smog checks in reducing vehicle
emissions. They have cited repeated testing and cheating as potential explanations for why vehicles
with high on-the-road emissions have been able to pass the emissions test. This paper uses indirect evidence to
show that cheating is a wide spread practice in Mexico City. I develop a test for cheating relies on detecting serial
correlation patterns in consecutive emissions generated by the use of donor cars. This test predicts that 79 percent of centers have engaged in
donor car use, a cheating practice that involves using emissions from a clean car to substitute for emissions of a cheater. The test for cheating is
also an input for the estimation of a structural model of car owner decisions that recovers the underlying parameters of the cheating decision
and is used to simulate individual responses to the smog check requirement. Although cheating decisions are unobserved, the parameters of
the model can be recovered without any explicit information on cheating decisions. The
model’s identification relies on the
difference in costs between odd and even retests, and on observing the distribution of the probability
of passing the test. The maximum likelihood estimation of the model yields an estimate for the bribe amount of about 20 U.S. dollars.
This estimate is within the range of bribes that has been reported in newspapers. The simulations of individual decisions suggest that about
9 percent of car owners choose to cheat on the smog check. Because cheating is an alternative to car maintenance, and
the price of the bribe is relatively low, the model suggests that incentives for car maintenance are very
low or non-existent. An extension to the model further allows to estimate the benefits and costs from boosting incentives for car
maintenance through plausible policies such as increased enforcement and higher retesting costs. These combined policies are predicted to
induce car maintenance in 4 percent of the vehicles. The
resulting emission reductions are equivalent to less than
one day of Mexico City traffic a year. However, the emission reductions come at a high cost for the entire car
fleet: smog check-costs for car owners increase by about 3.7 million per cycle. These calculations suggest that, forcing car owners to pass
smog checks twice a year is not a cost effective policy for reducing vehicle emissions in Mexico City.
Mexico Land-Use policy does not stop environmental destruction
Aguilar and Santos 11 (Adrian Guillermo Aguilar, Clemencia Santos, Institute of Geography, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico (UNAM), Mexico, “Land Use Policy”, Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 649–662, 2011,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S0264837710001134)
The aim of this article is to analyze the effectiveness of land-use policy in Mexico City in controlling the expansion of informal human
settlements in peri-urban zones of high ecological value. It is argued that Mexico
City's land-use policy has been reactive
and internally inconsistent, failing to take informal settlements into account, has not offered the poor
access to housing with adequate services and greater security in terms of land tenure, and lacks the
necessary financial resources and institutional capabilities for providing solutions to these problems.
Through a case study of informal settlement management policy in the Tlalpan Delegation,1 applied in what has been termed SC or
“Conservation Land,”2 we conclude that local government
exhibits an inability to confront the new challenge of
that it resorts to conventional solutions which give rise to contradictory situations
where political decision-making prevails over ecological considerations, so land-use policy is permissive
and does not halt informal urban expansion in areas of high environmental value. One of the most dramatic
urban sustainability,
manifestations of poverty conditions and inequalities in Latin American cities is the persistence and even increase of informal human
settlements (IHSs). It was estimated that in 2005, there were 134 million people in Latin America and the Caribbean living in such settlements –
this figure represented a bit more than 30% of the total urban population –, and that from 1990 to 2005 there was an increase of slightly more
than 23 million people living in this type of settlement in the region (UN-HABITAT, 2006, Table 1.2.1). Despite this growing number of
inhabitants with illegal and precarious living conditions, land-use
policies have been unable to find solutions for these
settlements, and that has a direct repercussion on Latin American cities’ lack of social justice and
environmental sustainability. Urban policies have generally failed to address the fundamental
determinants of informality and have evidenced a lack of orientation for the purpose of mitigating the
impacts of social and economic vulnerability among the urban poor and meeting their basic needs
(Winchester, 2008:28; McGranahan et al., 2008:77, Smolka and Larangeira, 2008:100). The main contribution intended by the authors of this
study is an analysis of what possible solutions local government can offer for a challenge that is currently most significant: how do we reconcile
the protection of ecological conservation areas and the needs of informal settlements in a peri-urban zone? New urban development patterns
should implement measures to cut local, regional, and global environmental costs and, therefore, are in need of effective policies for managing
urban expansion. Conceptually this paper deals with how urban policy confronts the challenge of working with new innovative schemes not
only to address the traditional needs of informal settlements such as housing, basic services, and land tenure security, but also to incorporate
the conservation of the environment where these settlements are located. The upgrading and environmental conservation of IHSs have
become very important areas to focus on, and the emphasis and operational support given to these areas through more innovative
mechanisms show the present effectiveness of land-use policy in each city. Several analysts in Latin America have used a wide variety of terms
to refer to informal settlements,3 among which we could mention the following: informal housing, irregular settlements, squatter settlements,
self-help housing, colonias populares (lower class neighborhoods), etc. (see Turner, 1965, Mangin, 1967, Portes, 1972, Cornelius, 1975, Burgess,
1982, Gilbert and Ward, 1982 and Connolly, 2009). Naturally, none of those terms fully conveys all the dimensions of the problems affecting
those settlements or the heterogeneity among them. In essence, what they all attempt to describe is that poor people try to find housing
solutions on their own; they occupy urban land, in most cases illegally; and engage in the settlement process in the absence of public services,
albeit the conditions of their dwellings can improve over the years. The precarious nature of dwellings with insecure land tenure is as serious
and severe as is inhabitants’ poverty according to their income and employment status. In Latin America, estimates vary from one country to
the next, but it has been found that in some cities, a significant share of the population – which could be as high as 50% – lives in informal
conditions in terms of land tenure, occupying public or private land illegally (Winchester, 2008:33). Unfortunately, the inability of urban policy
to resolve the urban poor's lack of access to land or affordable housing led to a high degree of tolerance by urban governments as regards
informal settlements. Urban governments were forced to “accommodate” a large number of poor inhabitants in the urban space. This
“accommodation” was not only expressed in the form of great tolerance, but also facilities for occupying urban land illegally and thus increasing
the number of precarious dwellings (Smolka and Larangeira, 2008:101). One strategy that has remained constant in efforts to deal with this
issue has been land tenure regularization, a strategy that has been criticized because it leads to land price rises and promotes greater
irregularity in land occupation. Many of the settlements that are regularized give in to new pressures for incorporating even more dwellings at
greater densities through a large number of informal occupations in surrounding areas, since infrastructure provision helps to encourage more
informal settlements (Smolka and Larangeira, 2008:103). In
fact, regularization programs are focused on dealing with
the consequences, rather than with the causes, of informality. Regularization is an “easy way out,”
being a short-term, relatively inexpensive solution for urban governments. It is politically advantageous because
it facilitates manipulation of inhabitants and provides a certain degree of control over an illegal city (Durand-Lasserve, 2006:287).
Recently, informal human settlements (IHSs) have been the object of renewed interest because solving this problem has become a new
challenge from the perspective of urban sustainability: it is imperative to cope with rapid urban growth in many cities, to endow them with
infrastructure and health and educational facilities, as well as to improve living standards among the urban poor because it has been claimed
that ameliorating conditions of poverty will surely have a positive effect upon the urban environment. Throughout this decade, the problem of
poverty and IHSs has been closely linked to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (www.un.org/millenniumgoals). For example, for MDG
Goal No. 7, Ensure Environmental Sustainability, its Target 4 proposes by 2020, “to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at
least 100 million slum dwellers.” This puts pressure on the international community to tackle a specific feature of urban poverty which
heretofore has not been adequately captured in national statistics, much less in urban ones. By overlooking the problem of IHSs, governments
are indirectly adopting urbanization models that are neither sustainable nor acceptable (UN-HABITAT, 2006:50). Any city that undergoes a
certain degree of economic development and population growth has a series of complex, changing demands for non-urban land, particularly in
adjoining areas located in what has been called the “urban fringe” or “peri-urban area.”4 As regards environmental impacts, several different
changes and processes characterize peripheral urban spaces. Some important processes related to the environment are:
encouragement of a scattered pattern of urban occupation for housing and infrastructure; the emergence of informal settlements for groups of
poor inhabitants with precarious dwellings and a deficit of public
services; disposal of solid and toxic waste; extraction
of building materials and surface water and groundwater; and alteration of river courses; flooding and
landslides; and environmental stress in conservation areas, green areas or recreational spaces (Douglas,
2006:18; Aguilar, 2008:134). To a large extent, the aggravation of urban problems such as environmental damage is
derived from the inability of local governments to manage rapid urban growth, to offer public goods
and services to all social groups, and to evidence suitable technical and political capacities (Aguilar,
2008:135). On this issue, two relevant questions arise: How are cities moving towards more ecologically sustainable patterns of production and
consumption and land-use policy? And: How can zoning and development controls be used not only to protect environmental quality for the
rich and powerful but also for the most socially deprived groups? In short, it is obvious that conventional approaches to informal settlements
need to be transformed. As McGranahan et al. (2008:93) point out, looking to the future it is clear that steps need to be taken now to avoid a
new generation of IHSs from forming, not by halting urbanization, but by accommodating urban growth more efficiently and equitably; local
governments should stop regarding IHSs as a symptom of over-urbanization and stop utilizing land-use policies as a means of curbing urban
growth. Instead, these governments need to: work constructively with IHSs dwellers, design and apply measures for informal land and housing
markets, and develop physical and financial strategies for future growth. To this issue, our paper will attempt to make a contribution by
analyzing the effectiveness of land-use policy in Mexico City in controlling the expansion of informal human settlements in peri-urban zones of
high ecological value. Our study explores this challenge in the Tlalpan Delegation, which recently established a specific policy to attempt to
cope with this problem in the city's “Conservation Zone (SC).”5 This strategy functions as a pilot plan worth assessing in order to determine the
effectiveness and repercussions of a policy of this nature at the local level. Following this introduction, the paper briefly outlines the tolerant
position taken by urban policy towards illegal occupation of private and ejido and communal land, and the application of land tenure
regularization as an ex-post solution. It then goes on to emphasize the importance of the SC in the Federal District, but also the lack of
consistency of urban and environmental zoning in this area, as well as the absence of a policy to manage informal settlements. Subsequently,
the authors provide a detailed review of this strategy's weaknesses in terms of managing informal settlements in the Tlalpan Delegation. The
paper concludes with a number of reflections on the significance of this investigation for urban and environmental land-use policy in Mexico
City. Research for this article has been based on information derived from the following: existing studies on the topic; census data; a review of
documentary material and urban planning regulations in the Federal District; statistical data and cartographic material provided by officials of
the Tlalpan Delegation on informal settlements and the strategy for managing them; fieldwork in the SC and in several informal settlements to
observe the application of the pilot plan; a series of semi-structured interviews with different officials of the Tlalpan Delegation in charge of
managing informal settlements in the second half of 2008 and first half of 2009; a revision of the Official Gazette of the Federal District to
identify regularized lots in the 2000–2007 period; and calculations of urban expansion in the SC based on satellite images taken between 2003
and 2007.
Affirmative
Loss of Biodiversity Inevitable
Biodiversity loss inevitable- Five warrants
Eniscuola 13 (The Eniscuola project was created by eni together with the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in 2000. Its goal is to give
students qualified extensive information on energy and environment issues. The Eniscuola project has been acknowledged by UNESCO’s Italian
National Commission and is part of the U.N.’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, by contributing to spread its goals and ideals,
“Causes of the Loss of Biodiversity”, May 2013, http://www.eniscuola.net/en/life/contenuti/biodiversity/left/loss-of-biodiversity/causes-of-
The main cause of the loss of biodiversity can be attributed to the influence of
human beings on the world’s ecosystem, In fact human beings have deeply altered the environment, and have modified the
the-loss-of-biodiversity/) BC
territory, exploiting the species directly, for example by fishing and hunting, changing the biogeochemical cycles and transferring species from
one area to another of the Planet. The
threats to biodiversity can be summarized in the following main points:
Alteration and loss of the habitats: the transformation of the natural areas determines not only the loss of the vegetable species,
but also a decrease in the animal species associated to them. Refer to “Alteration and loss of the habitats”. Introduction of exotic
species and genetically modified organisms; species originating from a particular area, introduced into new natural
environments can lead to different forms of imbalance in the ecological equilibrium. Refer to, “Introduction of
exotic species and genetically modified organisms”.
Pollution: human activity influences the natural environment producing negative, direct or indirect, effects that
alter the flow of energy, the chemical and physical constitution of the environment and abundance of the
species; Climate change: for example, heating of the Earth’s surface affects biodiversity because it endangers
all the species that adapted to the cold due to the latitude (the Polar species) or the altitude (mountain species).
Overexploitation of resources: when the activities connected with capturing and harvesting (hunting, fishing, farming) a renewable
natural resource in a particular area is excessively intense, the resource itself may become exhausted, as for example, is the case of sardines,
herrings, cod, tuna and many other species that man captures without leaving enough time for the organisms to reproduce.
Biodiversity loss unstoppable
Clark et. al. 13 (Jeannine Cavender-Bares, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA, James Heffernan, Florida International University,
Miami, FL, USA, and Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, Elizabeth King, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, and University of Georgia,
Athens, GA, USA Stephen Polasky, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA Patricia Balvanera, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico,
Morelia, Me´xico William C Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, “Sustainability and
Biodiversity”, 2013, http://ac.els-cdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/B9780123847195003907/3-s2.0-B9780123847195003907main.pdf?_tid=87968c3c-f337-11e2-a336-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1374543239_d5d085ef90d9efb74e77823438456a7c)BC Biological systems
exhibit extraordinary diversity, whether considering the genetic variation within species, the differences among the more than 8 million
recognized species found on the Earth, or the range of environments inhabited and shaped by those organisms. Over the past two centuries,
the expansion of human populations, resource demands, and influence on the Earth’s landscapes is
the driving force behind a dramatic, planet-wide reduction in biodiversity at all of these levels (genes,
species, and ecosystems). Estimates of species extinction over that time period range from 100 to 1000 times
background levels (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), a magnitude of biodiversity loss that has been matched only
five times in Earth’s history, and the first mass extinction known to be caused by a living species. That this catastrophic loss of
diversity is linked with a dramatic increase in both the human population and its overall wellbeing raises fundamental questions for efforts to
provide for human needs and preserve the planet’s biodiversity, including whether the human population and its well-being can be maintained
in the face of declining biodiversity. Exploitation
of ecosystems for human gain has usually ignored sustainability
and often depleted biodiversity
Biodiversity loss inevitable- alt causes
Epoch Times 11 (The Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media organisation. As a newspaper, the Times has been publishing
in Chinese since May 2000. Headquartered in New York City, the newspaper has local news bureaus and a network of local reporters
throughout the world. It is either sold or distributed free-of-charge in roughly 35 countries worldwide, and maintains editions in English,
Chinese, nine other languages in print, and 21 on the internet,“Global Biodiversity Loss Inevitable With Protected Areas Only”, July 28, 2011
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.html) BC
It is not enough to set aside "protected areas" to prevent global biodiversity loss. This message comes
from a comprehensive assessment by North American scientists published today, July 28, in the journal Marine
Ecology Progress Series.Biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate, despite extensive efforts to increase the number of
protected areas over the past 30 years—now more than 100,000, covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers
of ocean.This
rate is expected to accelerate due to unsustainable demands on Earth’s ecological
resources from human consumption and population growth.“Biodiversity is humanity’s life-support system, delivering
everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilization,” explains lead
author Camilo Mora of Hawaii University at Manoa in a press release.Ongoing losses have prompted strong calls to expand protected areas as a
remedy."Protected
areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity," Mora says. "We need
them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity
problems.""We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of human
overpopulation and consumption."Why Protected Areas Are Not EnoughThe minimum target for effective biodiversity conservation is 30
percent of the world’s ecosystems, but this is simply unachievable at their current growth rate: it will take 185 years for land and 80 years for
oceans to reach this target, which is insufficient in the face of rapid climate change, habitat loss, and resource exploitation predicted to cause
widespread species extinction before 2050.One limiting factor is funding for effective management of protected areas—the requisite $24 billion
a year estimate is four times the current global expenditure. Despite strong support, budget growth is slow and probably will not rise
significantly in the near future.Furthermore, even if the 30 percent target were reached, intense
conflicts with humanity’s
needs for housing and food would occur, displacing many people and impairing their livelihoods. A compromise
between the two is unlikely to achieve biodiversity preservation. Another problem lies in the inability of protected areas
to counteract human stressors on biodiversity. They are most effective against overexploitation and habitat loss. But
climate change, pollution, and invasive species continue to cause losses, with 95 percent of land and
83 percent of ocean protected areas are vulnerable.Related ArticlesEurope’s First Sustainable Seaweed FarmMany current
protected areas are not large enough to sustain viable populations, nor close enough to maintain a healthy exchange of species across
protected populations.The study authors affirm that biodiversity loss is unlikely to stop without confronting humanity’s ecological
footprint."The international community is faced with a choice between two paths," says fellow author Peter F.
Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations University’s Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health, in the release.
"One
option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that
they curtail biodiversity loss," he added. "That path will fail."
"The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption
rate of our global population."
Even Despite protected areas, Biodiversity loss continues
UPI 11 (Since 1907, United Press International (UPI) has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses,
governments and researchers worldwide. UPI is a global operation with offices in Beirut, Hong Kong, London, Santiago, Seoul and Tokyo. Our
headquarters is located in downtown Washington, DC, surrounded by major international policy-making governmental and non-governmental
organizations. “Ongoing global biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, August 8, 2011
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) BC Continued
reliance on a strategy of
setting aside land and marine territories as "protected areas" is insufficient to stem global biodiversity
loss, according to a comprehensive assessment published in the journal Marine Ecology Progress
Series. Despite impressively rapid growth of protected land and marine areas worldwide - today totalling over
100,000 in number and covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers of oceans - biodiversity is in
steep decline. Expected scenarios of human population growth and consumption levels indicate that
cumulative human demands will impose an unsustainable toll on the Earth's ecological resources and services
accelerating the rate at which biodiversity is being loss. Current and future human requirements will also exacerbate the
challenge of effectively implementing protected areas while suggesting that effective biodiversity conservation requires
new approaches that address underlying causes of biodiversity loss - including the growth of both
human population and resource consumption.Says lead author Camilo Mora of University of Hawaii at Manoa:
"Biodiversity is humanity's life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and
air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilization. Yet there is an
increasingly well-documented global trend in biodiversity loss, triggered by a host of human
activities." "Ongoing biodiversity loss and its consequences for humanity's welfare are of great concern and have prompted strong calls for
expanding the use of protected areas as a remedy," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations University's
Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health. "While many protected areas have helped preserve some species at local scales,
promotion of this strategy as a global solution to biodiversity loss, and the advocacy of protection for specific proportions of habitats, have
occurred without adequate assessment of their potential effectiveness in achieving the goal." Drs. Mora and Sale warn that long-term failure of
the protected areas strategy could erode public and political support for biodiversity conservation and that the disproportionate allocation of
available resources and human capital into this strategy precludes the development of more effective approaches. The authors based their
study on existing literature and global data on human threats and biodiversity loss."The global network of protected areas is a major
achievement, and the pace at which it has been achieved is impressive," says Dr. Sale. "Protected areas are very useful conservation tools, but
unfortunately, the steep continuing rate of biodiversity loss signals the need to reassess our heavy reliance on this strategy." The study says
continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations: + Expected growth in protected area
coverage is too slow While over 100,000 areas are now protected worldwide, strict enforcement occurs on just 5.8% of land and 0.08% of
ocean. At current rates, it will take between 185 years in the case of land and 80 years for oceans to cover 30% of the world's ecosystems with
protected areas - a minimum target widely advocated for effective biodiversity conservation. This slow pace contrasts sharply with the rapid
growth of threats, including climate change, habitat loss and resource exploitation, predicted to cause the extinction of many species even
before 2050. + The size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate To ensure species' survival, protected areas must be sufficiently
large to sustain viable populations in the face of the inevitable mortality of some individuals trespassing their borders, and areas must be close
enough together for a healthy exchange of individuals among protected populations. Globally, however, over 30% of the protected areas in the
ocean, and 60% on land are smaller than 1 square kilometer - too small for many larger species. And they tend to be too far apart to allow a
sufficient exchange among populations for most species. + Protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats Biodiversity loss is triggered
by a host of human stressors including habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species. Yet protected areas are
useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to
continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas
on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors. + Underfunding Global expenditures on protected
areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management. Effectively managing
existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected
areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to raise funding appropriate for effective management as well
as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated. + Conflicts with human development Humanity's footprint on Earth is ever
expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and food. If it did prove possible to place the recommended 30% of world habitats under
protection, intense conflicts with competing human interests are inevitable - many people would be displaced and livelihoods impaired. Forcing
a trade-off between human development and sustaining biodiversity is unlikely to lead to a solution with biodiversity preserved. Concludes Dr.
Mora: "Given the considerable effort and widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised to
find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of biodiversity loss. Clearly, the
biodiversity loss
problem has been underestimated and the ability of protected areas to solve this problem
overestimated."The authors underline the correlations between growing world population, natural resources consumption and
biodiversity loss to suggest that biodiversity loss is unlikely to be stemmed without directly addressing the ecological footprint of humanity.
Based upon previous research, the study shows that under
current conditions of human comsumption and
conservative scenarios of human population growth, the cummulative use of natural resources of
humanity will amount to the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050."Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight
to preserve biodiversity. We need them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity
problems," adds Dr. Mora. "We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of
human overpopulation and consumption." "Our study shows that the international community is faced with a choice between two paths," Dr.
Sale says. "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss.
That path will fail. The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global
population."
At Current Rate Biodiversity loss is inevitable
Phys Org 10 (PhysOrg is a science, research and technology news website specializing in the hard science subjects of physics, space and
earth science, biology, chemistry, electronics, nanotechnology and technology in general. It is known for timely updates of scientific
breakthroughs and press releases from major research labs and universities across the world. The site also publishes daily reports,[1] blogs and
exclusive comprehensive articles[2] on new peer-reviewed scientific papers. It also runs the website MedicalxPress, which features medical
news stories.“Continuing biodiversity loss predicted but could be slowed” October 26, 2010, http://phys.org/news/2010-10-biodiversityloss.html#nRlv)BC A
new analysis of several major global studies of future species shifts and losses foresees
inevitable continuing decline of biodiversity during the 21st century but offers new hope that it could be slowed if
emerging policy choices are pursued. Led by experts Henrique Miguel Pereira and Paul Leadley, the 23-member scientific team from nine
countries, under the auspices of DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC and the secretariat of the CBD compared results from five recent global
environmental assessments and a wide range of peer-reviewed literature examining likely future changes in biodiversity. Published today in
the journal Science, the analysis found universal agreement across the studies that fundamental
changes are needed in
society to avoid high risk of extinctions, declining populations in many species, and large scale shifts in
species distributions in the future Says Dr. Leadley, of the University Paris-Sud, France: "There is no question that
business-as-usual development pathways will lead to catastrophic biodiversity loss. Even optimistic scenarios
for this century consistently predict extinctions and shrinking populations of many species." He notes that the target of stopping biodiversity
loss by 2020 "sounds good, but sadly isn't realistic." Among the brightest spots of hope: recent scenarios show that slowing climate change and
deforestation can go hand-in-hand to reduce biodiversity loss thanks to "significant opportunities to intervene through better policies, such as
those aimed at mitigating climate change without massive conversion of forests to biofuel plantations" says Dr. Leadley. But action
must
be taken quickly, as the study indicates the window of opportunity is closing rapidly, as differences in policy
action taken now could either lead to an increase in global forest cover of about 15% in the best case or losses of more than 10% in the worst
case by 2030. The authors say the creation of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-like mechanism for biodiversity (to be
called the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services -- IPBES) is "extremely important" for achieving commonlyagreed definitions and indicators for biodiversity and to inform decision making."The issues are so urgent and the stakes for humanity so
important, scientists need to coalesce through the IPBES to inform policy-makers with a unified, authoritative voice," states Dr. Pereira, of the
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.IPBES could also play an important role in organizing the scientific co-operation to reduce uncertainty in
biodiversity scenarios. Models foresee extinction rates ranging from less than 1% per century (close to the current rate of extinctions) to more
than 50%. "The degree of both land use and climate change explains a substantial fraction of the range of projected extinctions, but incomplete
understanding of species ecology is also an important source of uncertainty," says Dr. Leadley. Among the key issues is the lack of consensus
defining the length of time involved in species' extinction - which may be decades or millennia - leading to "considerable uncertainty in models
and substantial disagreement within scientific community concerning the likelihood of massive extinctions over the coming century."
Furthermore, the researchers note that changes in species distributions and population sizes should receive more attention because they are
likely more critical to human well-being and better short-term indicators of the pressures of humans on ecosystems.For example the continuing
overall decline in populations of large-bodied fish species due to over-fishing, the poleward migration of marine species at a rate of more than
40 km per decade due to climate change, and the 10 to 20% decline in the abundance of terrestrial species by mid-century primarily due to
land-use change.The analysis also concludes that the difficulty of trade-offs between meeting human wants and needs and protecting
biodiversity is likely to intensify."Future
extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is
much more than extinctions," says Dr. Pereira. "Much of what will happen to biodiversity in 21st century is not global extinctions,
but major changes in the abundance of species and the composition of communities".
Biodiversity loss inevitable – 5 warrants prove
Bacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation
Senior Research and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown University, “UN study says
biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, July 28, 2012, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php , MS)
The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and
practical limitations. The first of these limitations is that "protected areas only ameliorate certain
human threats." ¶ "Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss,
overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species," according to the study. "Yet protected areas are
useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to
continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas
on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors." ¶ This conclusion by the scientists echoes one of the
key criticisms of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative - the "marine protected areas" created by this widely-contested
process don't comprehensively protect the ocean from the main threats to the ocean and marine life in California. These threats include
massive water diversions out of the Bay-Delta Estuary, water pollution, oil spills and drilling, wave and wind energy projects, military testing,
habitat destruction and all other human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering. ¶ Ironically, even before the imposition of these
largely redundant ocean closures that are now being contested by coalition of fishing organizations in court, California marine and anadromous
fisheries had the strictest recreational and commercial fishing regulations on the entire planet. MLPA advocates refuse to acknowledge the
existence of one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, the Rockfish Conservation Area, that encompass the entire continental
shelf of California from the Oregon border to the Mexican border! ¶ A
second limitation cited in the study is
"underfunding." "Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per
year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management," the assessment notes. ¶ "Effectively
managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current
expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to
raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated," according to the
report. ¶ Again, the assessment echoes the criticism by fishermen and grassroots environmentalists that there is not sufficient funding for
enforcement of new marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The game wardens refer to these new
MPAs as "marine poaching areas," since they will only spread a force of wardens already unable to effectively monitor existing reserves even
thinner. In fact, Jerry Karnow, the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, has repeatedly asked the California Fish and
Game Commission to not create new marine protected areas unless sufficient funding is provided to hire new wardens. ¶ The
three other
limitations pinpointed by the scientists are: ¶ • the expected growth in protected area coverage is too
slow ¶ • the size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate ¶ • conflicts with human
development.
Biodiversity loss inevitable
Wright 10 (George Wright, first chief of the wildlife division of the U.S. National Park, “Continuing biodiversity loss inevitable, but could
be slowed, scientists say”, October 26, 2010, http://www.georgewright.org/node/2701 MS)
ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2010) — A
new analysis of several major global studies of future species shifts and losses
foresees inevitable continuing decline of biodiversity during the 21st century but offers new hope that it could
be slowed if emerging policy choices are pursued.¶ Led by experts Henrique Miguel Pereira and Paul Leadley, the 23-member scientific
team from nine countries, under the auspices of DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC and the secretariat of the CBD compared results
from five recent global environmental assessments and a wide range of peer-reviewed literature examining likely
future changes in biodiversity.
Biodiversity loss inevitable
Bacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation
Senior Research and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown University, “UN study says
biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, July 28, 2012, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php ,
MS)"Humanity's
footprint on Earth is ever expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and
food," the scientists stated. "If it did prove possible to place the recommended 30% of world habitats under
protection, intense conflicts with competing human interests are inevitable - many people would be
displaced and livelihoods impaired. Forcing a trade-off between human development and sustaining
biodiversity is unlikely to lead to a solution with biodiversity preserved."
Biodiversity is already declining at a rapid rate and is still able to recover
Science Daily 2 (University of Texas, Austin, “Extinction Rate Across the Globe Reaches Historical Proportions,” 1/10/2002,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm) Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant
or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in
the College of Natural Sciences, said research shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying
the present period as one of the six great periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth. "The numbers are
grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone
extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North
America in the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past."
Biological diversity ultimately recovered after each of the five past mass extinctions, probably requiring several million
years in each instance. As for today's mass extinction, Levin said some ecologists believe the low level of species diversity may become a
permanent state, especially if vast tracts of wilderness area are destroyed.
Regulations Check Economic Expansion/is safe
Generic
US-Latin America cooperation is key to improving environmental regulations
Inter-American Dialogue 12 April 2012, Inter-American Dialogue, “Remaking the Relationship: The United
States and Latin America,” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, The InterAmerican Dialogue is the leading U.S. center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in
Western Hemisphere affairs. The Dialogue's select membership of 100 distinguished citizens from throughout the
Americas includes political, business, academic, media, and other nongovernmental leaders. Sixteen Dialogue
members served as presidents of their countries and more than three dozen have served at the cabinet level. In
addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming
enhanced roles on an array of global political, environmental, and security issues . Several for which US and
Latin American cooperation could become increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America
has the opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts . Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge
on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals . For example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing
and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists. In that context, south-south
connections are crucial . Brazil could play a pivotal role. Many
countries in the region give priority to climate change
challenges. This may position them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of
the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a
special role to play. Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active
in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico
hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún in 2010. The United States is handicapped by its inability to devise
a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the presumption of shared interests on a critical
policy challenge. Latin Americans are taking more active leadership on drug policy in the hemisphere and could become increasingly
influential in global discus sions of drug strategies . Although the United States and Latin America are often at odds on drug policy, they have
mutual interests and goals that should allow consultation and collaboration on a new, more effective approach to the problem. Even
as
Latin America expands its global reach and presence, it is important that the U nited S tates and the region
increase their attention to
reshaping regional institutions to
make them more effective.
better align them with current realities and challenges and to
The hemisphere’s institutional architecture is in great flux, and there is growing need for decisions
about priorities and objectives
US-Latin American cooperation is key to solving climate change
O’Neil et. al. 8 (2008, Shannon K. O’Neil et. al, The Council on Foreign Relations, “US-Latin America Relations:
A New Direction for a New Reality,”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CEEQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.cfr.org%2Fcontent%2Fpublications%2Fattachments%2FLatinAmerica_TF.pdf&ei=g9_tUaPRNfGgyQHViID
gAQ&usg=AFQjCNFVs4KlGST0Y7EWbpXCt4-ATVom4A&sig2=KRi2FDeB9S3qK_5UabNlnQ O’Neil holds a BA from
Yale University, an MA in international relations from Yale University, and a PhD in government from Harvard
University. She was a justice, welfare and economics fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at
Harvard University; and a Fulbright Scholar in Mexico and Argentina.
As the United States and other nations look to diversify their energy sources and reduce dependence on oil, Latin
America presents a
unique opportunity for engagement and cooperation. Latin America already leads the United States in the production and
use of hydroelectric power, which supplies 23 percent of its energy needs (as compared to less than 3 percent in the United States).50 The
region has also made investments in solar- and wind-powered technologies, particularly in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Cooperation on
alternative energy research and production could become an important component of U.S.-Latin America relations in the years ahead.
Partnering with Latin American nations in the development of alternative energy sources would allow the United
States to build and deepen diplomatic relationships through joint initiatives on development, climate
change, and environmental sustainability. Two areas in particular—biofuels and nuclear energy— present important and
immediate opportunities. Only in the past several years have scarcity in oil markets, environ- mental awareness, scientific advances, and
proactive subsidy policies combined to make biofuels, notably ethanol and biodiesel, reasonably price competitive with petroleum products on
a wider scale. Biofuels
now provide an opportunity for Latin America and the United States to assume
global leadership in a sector of future competitive and environmental value (namely, decreased
greenhouse gas emissions). Brazil and the United States are currently the largest producers of ethanol in the world (with 38 and 50
percent of global production in 2007, respectively).51 Brazil has become a global leader in the promotion of sugar-based ethanol usage through
the implementation of flex-fuel technology, mandatory fuel blends, and infrastructure investment. In 2006, domestic consumption of ethanol
accounted for nearly half of Brazilian passenger vehicle fuel supply by volume.
US methodology and financial resources are key to effective environmental
regulations in Latin America
Sbert 4
(November 2004, Carla Sbert , “Towards Effective Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in Latin America and the
Caribbean,” http://unisfera.org/IMG/pdf/New_approaches_to_environmental_protection_vfinale3_ajout_.pdf, Carla Sbert is a
Mexican lawyer who will soon be co-ordinating the Environment and Sustainable Development Law Programme at Unisféra
International Centre in Montreal. Focusing on environmental law and policy, she has worked in the Mexican government, in a
New York City law firm and in Mexico's state-owned oil company, Pemex. She was trained in law at ITAM and obtained a Master
of Laws degree from Harvard Law School) Since the entry into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994,
trade liberalization agreements signed by Canada and the United States with several countries of the
Americas have been accompanied by commitments to enhance environmental protection and
strengthen environmental management regimes (EMR). In this trade liberalization context, effective environmental
enforcement has become an international obligation, aimed essentially at preventing countries from establishing competitive advantages for
producers or service providers within their borders at the expense of the environment. Countries
are free to set their own
levels of protection and are encouraged-but not obligated-to increase these levels and upwardly harmonize environmental protection
measures. They are, however, required to effectively enforce the environmental laws they choose to establish. Complying with
these enforcement related obligations poses considerable challenges for countries of Latin America
and the Caribbean (LAC), given the scarcity of human and financial resources and the structural,
operational and cultural obstacles that are often also present to make the task even more difficult. The fact that countries have
committed themselves or are willing to commit themselves to the effective enforcement of existing environmental laws, rather than to
implementing effective environmental regimes is understandable: the latter obligation would potentially raise too many issues in terms of
sovereignty. In other words, countries are unsurprisingly reluctant to open their policymaking, legislative and regulatory actions to scrutiny for
determining whether these are effective in protecting the environment. However, enforcement is no guarantee of environmental performance:
effective enforcement of ineffective measures does not advance environmental goals. Similarly, ineffective environmental policies, laws and
regulations are often unenforceable. This is likely to be the case for environmental laws and policies that are unrealistically ambitious and have
not been adopted pursuant to an assessment of the feasibility of their compliance by the regulated community and of their verification and
enforcement by the environmental authorities. Environmental
enforcement is an essential component of any
effective environmental protection effort. An environmental management regime implies government action to verify and
secure compliance with the law. However, compliance verification and enforcement may be expensive and
cumbersome, compromising an otherwise appropriate choice of policy instruments, especially in the
context of LAC countries where governments face scarce human and financial resources. For this
reason, it is important that the resources, expertise, time, legal authority and technical ability needed
for enforcement be taken into account at the design stage of environmental management
instruments.
The wealth that market expansion creates incentivizes environmental protection
Ostfeld and Keesing 13 (Richard S Ostfeld, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA, Felicia Keesing, Bard College,
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, “Biodiversity and Human Health” http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/B9780123847195003324/3-s2.0-B9780123847195003324-main.pdf?_tid=e3f0ac3e-f33b-11e2-8ded00000aab0f02&acdnat=1374545112_3c915724869f82f0aad33f3288a1e075) BC Whether or not the emergence of the market economy may be
blamed in whole or in part for the biodiversity crisis, there is increasing interest in harnessing markets to halt biodiversity loss. The ways in
which this might be done comprise the topic of the remainder of this article. Let us make one more observation before turning to that topic,
however. It
is commonly observed in the economic literature that environmental improvement is a
normal good – that people manifest a greater concern for environmental protection when their incomes
increase (see, e.g., Kolstad, 2000). There may yet be some hope, then, that even if the emergence of market economies is
to blame for the decline of biodiversity, the wealth such economies have produced may also be
channeled into preserving what is left of the natural world.
CO2 output from oil drilling can increase global biodiversity
Solomon 8 (Lawrence Solomon, “In Praise of CO2,” June 7, 2008 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-isbooming-co2-the-cause/, Lawrence Solomon is one of Canada's leading environmentalists. An advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on
the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970's, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid,
stop nuclear power expansion and adopt toll roads. Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and
the executive director of its Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute divisions. He has been a columnist for The Globe and Mail, a
contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the editor and publisher of the award-winning The Next City magazine, and the author or co-author of
seven books.) The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in
analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as
a whole became
more bountiful a whopping 6.2%. by About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square
kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that
each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Why the increase? Their
2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas
indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take
the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along
with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by
32,000, U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and
larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent
and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”
Venezuela
Venezuela currently working on solutions to lessen Oil footprint
IPS 12 (Inter Press service, “Nanotechnology Could Lighten Venezuela’s Oil Footprint”, November 14, 2012,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/nanotechnology-could-lighten-venezuelas-oil-footprint/) BC Venezuela
is studying the use of
nanotechnology as a means of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases caused by the oil
industry.Nanotechnology operates at the sub-microscopic scale: a nanometre is a unit of measure equal to one billionth of a metre. “We are
seeking to use nanoparticles of metallic salts, such as iron, nickel or cobalt nitrates, as catalysts in oil-related processes that produce
greenhouse gas emissions,” said Sarah Briceño, a researcher at the Centre for Physics at the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research
(IVIC).Catalysts are substances used to speed up chemical processes, “and our goal is to develop catalysts adapted to Venezuelan industry that
will make it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from activities such as oil refining and fuel consumption by motor vehicles by up to 50
percent,” Briceño told Tierramérica*.Venezuela, a founding member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), extracts
close to three million barrels of oil a day and has over two billion barrels of heavy crude oil reserves.There are six refineries in the South
American country that process a total of 1.1 million barrels daily.Related IPS ArticlesA Crusade Against NanotechnologyControversy Surrounds
'Nano' MatterMeanwhile, according to OPEC figures, the country consumes 742,000 barrels of different types of fuel daily, of which 300,000
barrels correspond to the gasoline used by more than six million motor vehicles.The
Ministry of the Environment reports that
Venezuela is responsible for 0.48 percent of worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases and 0.56
percent of one of these “villains”, carbon dioxide.During the experimental phase, “we have observed with scanning
electron microscopes the chemical reactions between the metallic salt nanoparticles and the surfactant agents (which influence the surface
tension between substances) involved in these processes,” said Briceño.Since the concept of nanotechnology – the manipulation of matter at
the molecular and atomic level – was first introduced in 1959 by U.S. physicist Richard Feynman (1918-1988), winner of the Nobel Prize in
Physics in 1965, it has been developed in a wide range of fields including medicine, pharmaceuticals, energy, electronics, metallurgy and
environmental conservation.“The entire periodic table (of elements) can be taken to the nano scale. We are focusing our research on how
Venezuela, with its technology and infrastructure, can make this environmental contribution through its work with hydrocarbons,” explained
Briceñ“Our emphasis is on the reduction of emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, two of the most potent greenhouse gases,” she added.The
research is expected to yield results in 2013. Putting these to use in industry will be a long-term objective, given the scale of work in the
laboratory: at the IVIC results are obtained in masses of particles that weigh 0.1 grams, while oil production in Venezuela in a single day equals
400,000 tons.The relationship between energy and the environment provides fertile ground for nanotechnology, as demonstrated by the
research undertaken at the U.S. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where nanoparticles containing iron have been mixed with oil in
order to make it possible to clean up offshore oil spills with magnets.“The
energy demand will increase in coming years,
and we need to be able to generate cheap, abundant energy with the lowest possible environmental
impact. Fossil fuels are not an adequate alternative, but even worse is using them badly when there are incredible opportunities to make
them so much more efficient,” said Javier García Martínez, director of the Nanotechnology Laboratory at the University of Alicante,
Spain.Nanotechnology
“offers the opportunity to generate new materials and processes, and in the
field of energy there is great potential to improve the efficiency of the photovoltaic cells that make up
solar panels,” Venezuelan consultant Juan Carlos Sánchez told Tierramérica.Sánchez is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 jointly with former U.S. vice president Al Gore (1993-2001).“The
development of processes through nanotechnology aimed at greater and more effective use of solar energy isn’t necessarily in the interests of
the big oil producers, whether companies or countries,” said Sánchez“Any technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions is bad for their
business, since the demand for oil would decline with an increase in the use of solar energy,” he explained.In his opinion, Venezuela should
direct its efforts towards other technologies that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases associated with oil industry activity, “such as socalled sequestration of the carbon dioxide generated in the refineries, in order to sink it in the subsoil of oil wells and keep it from entering the
atmosphere.”Other OPEC
members are moving forward with this type of research, including Saudi Arabia,
Algeria and the United Arab Emirates, as a response to the fingers of blame pointed at the oilproducing countries as being responsible for global warming, said Sánchez.Venezuela could use its thousands of old,
abandoned oil wells for this purpose, burying carbon dioxide more than 1,000 metres underground.Briceño, meanwhile, thinks that the results
achieved through the research at the IVIC could help to promote studies for the application of nanotechnology to other environment-related
areas of the Venezuelan oil industry.One example is the use and disposal of petroleum coke, a solid waste byproduct of oil refining with a
carbon content of over 90 percent. Venezuela produces 20,000 tons of petroleum coke daily during the upgrading of heavy and extra heavy
crude oils to make them light enough for most refineries.The dust from the resulting mountains of coke affects communities in eastern
Venezuela who live near the crude oil upgrading facilities. Perhaps at
some point in the future, the impact of this waste
could be lessened through treatment with nanoparticles.
Mexico
Structures in place to curb Environmental Impacts
Storrs 6 (K. Larry Storrs Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, CRS Report for Congress, “Mexico’s
Importance and Multiple Relationships with the United States” January 18, 2006
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33244_20060118.pdf) BC Established under the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1993, the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission is a joint U.S.-Mexico international organization with a
mandate to assist border communities in developing environmental infrastructure projects, and to certify
the feasibility of these projects for the purpose of receiving loans from the sister institution, the North American Development Bank (NADBank).
The BECC is governed by a Board of Directors, with members fromU.S. and Mexican public and private sectors, and is located in Ciudad
Juarez,Chihuahua. In 2004, the mandate of the BECC and NADBank were expanded toinclude communities in Mexico up to 300 kilometers from
the border, and toestablish a joint Board of Directors for both institutions. Funding for the U.S. sidecomes from the International Commissions
section of the Department of State appropriation in the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations. The BECC has alsoreceived funds directly
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mexico’s Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL), and has provided more than
$30.2 million to aid in the development of 230 water, sewage, and municipal wasteprojects in 131 communities on both sides of the border.
Since the establishment of the BECC, it has certified 105 environmental infrastructure projects for
funding in Mexico and the United States worth $2.4 billion. Established by the trilateral North American
Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) of 1993, a companion side agreement to NAFTA,
the Commission was formed to strengthen environmental cooperation between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada, and to consider complaints of non-compliance with environmental law brought by various nongovernmental groups. The Commission is governed by aCouncil composed of the environment ministers (or alternative representatives
) from each of the three countries, who receive outside input from National Advisory Committees, Governmental Advisory Committees and the
Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC). At the most recent Commission meeting, on June 22, 2005, the Ministers adopted the Strategic Plan
2005-2010 for cooperating on environmental protection matters. More recently, the
Commission, in November 2005, issued the
first ever trinational conservation plans for six wildlife species, and in December 2005, made public
the factual record developed in response to a Mexican nongovernmental organization’s complaint
that Mexico was failing to enforce environmental laws in the Sierra Tarahumara.13
Mexico moving towards more stringent emissions laws
McDermott 12 (Mat McDermott, Editor, Business & Energy / New York City Mat edits the Business and Energy sections of TreeHugger,
as well as writing about resource consumption, animal welfare issues, and the response of religious communities to our current environmental
problems. He holds a Masters degree from New York University's Center for Global Affairs, where he concentrated in environment and energy
policy. His Bachelors degree from Burlington College (Vermont) is in Writing & Literature, with research focused on the work of Rabindranath
Tagore, Bengali devotional poetry, and the Beat Generation., http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/mexico-new-climate-energylaw.html) BC Somehow this one passed us by, a pretty glaring omission: Mexico
has passed a serious climate change and
renewable energy law. It's just the second time that a nation has put long-term climate targets into national law. Some of the
highlights of the legislation, passed unanimously, BBC reports: 30% lower emissions compared to business-as-usual by
2020, and 50% lower by 2050, with a national reporting scheme, covering various economic sectors, planned. 35% of all
energy must come from renewable sources by 2024, with government agencies obliged to use
renewable energy sources. Note that those emission reduction targets are not actually emission reductions, per se, rather they are
reductions in the rate of increase. A bit of fiddling while the planet burns perhaps, considering that even Mexico's comparatively modest carbon
emissions are likely above where we need to get to collectively. The link above has some decent background analysis of why the law has such
wide support in Mexico. One quote in particular jumps out though. Munoz Ledo of the Democratic Revolution Party and head of the Foreign
Affairs Commission: Mexico is aware this is the end of the oil era, so we need to implement this fiscal reform, and if we go through it, we'll be
able to do without this oil. Power for the US is based on the army and energy and oil. In 1989 you had [George] Bush senior coming into office
from an oil background; if you go through Clinton and Obama, they serve the oil interest first. We're talking about the politics of neo-liberalism
here which is based on oil interests and indebtedness - this is why so many in the US don't accept climate change, even though it's based on
scientific evidence. Essentially an accurate summation of both US foreign policy and why US politicians lag so far behind the world in just
accepting that climate change is happening, let alone doing something about it.
Cuba
The U.S. is working multilaterally with Cuba on oil safety
Werner 12 (Johannes Werner, “U.S. to work indirectly with Cuba on oil safety,” January 10, 2012,
http://www.cubastandard.com/2012/01/10/u-s-to-work-indirectly-with-cuba-on-oil-safety/, Werner has worked for 20 years as a
business/economic journalist in Europe, Latin America and the United States. His award-winning articles cover a wide range of beats. Werner,
who has been traveling to Cuba since 1999, has a master’s degree in Latin American history from Freie Universität Berlin.)
Avoiding direct bilateral contact, the United States will continue to work with Cuba through an international
forum, the Department of the Interior said in a press statement.
“The United States is participating in multilateral discussions with the Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica and Mexico
on a broad range of issues, including drilling safety, ocean modeling, and oil spill preparedness and
response,” said the press release, issued to report the completion of a U.S. inspection of a Cuba-bound drilling rig.
On Dec. 7-9, U.S. and Cuban officials participated in a meeting of the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency
Information and Training Center (REMPEITC) in Nassau, Bahamas. The participants talked about regional
cooperation in preventive regulatory frameworks, safety standards for drilling platforms, and best practices
in oil spill containment. The announcement came as personnel from Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE) and the U.S. Coast Guard completed an inspection of the Scarabeo 9 oil rig on Jan. 9, as it was anchored off Trinidad and Tobago.
The review followed an invitation from the rig’s operator, Repsol, before it will move to Cuban waters to begin exploratory drilling.
The platform is now ready for its last leg of the trip to Cuba, where it is expected to begin drilling by the end of next week, according to
sources close to the project. The U.S. inspectors reviewed vessel construction, drilling equipment, and safety
systems, including lifesaving and firefighting equipment, emergency generators, dynamic positioning
systems, machinery spaces, and the blowout preventer. “U.S. personnel found the vessel to generally comply with existing
international and U.S. standards by which Repsol has pledged to abide,” the BSEE statement said. The Florida Coast Guard sectors
Jacksonville, Miami, Key West and St. Petersburg are also updating area contingency plans, “to ensure readiness to
respond to any potential oil spills in international waters that could potentially affect U.S. waters and coastline,” the BSEE
statement said.
Repsol drilling in Cuba makes spills inevitable – the US increasing economic engagement
and taking away the embargo is key to solve
Clayton and Bert 12 (March 2012, Captain Melissa Bert and Blake Clayton, Council on Foreign Relations Press, “Addressing the Risk of
a Cuban Oil Spill Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 15,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515, is a military fellow
(U.S. Coast Guard) at the Council on Foreign Relations, Blake Clayton is fellow for energy and national security at the Council on Foreign
Relations. He received a doctorate from Oxford University, where he studied business economics and strategy. The recipient of the University
of Chicago Endowed Fellowship, he holds dual master's degrees from the University of Chicago and Cambridge University. He is a regular
contributor to Forbes.com.) The
imminent drilling of Cuba's first offshore oil well raises the prospect of a
large-scale oil spill in Cuban waters washing onto U.S. shores. Washington should anticipate this possibility by
implementing policies that would help both countries' governments stem and clean up an oil spill effectively. These policies should ensure that
both the U.S. government and the domestic oil industry are operationally and financially ready to deal with any spill that threatens U.S. waters.
These policies should be as minimally disruptive as possible to the country's broader Cuba strategy. The Problem A
Chinese-built
semisubmersible oil rig leased by Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters in January
2012 to drill Cuba's first exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas
reserves are substantial—somewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Although the United States typically welcomes greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries
that are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a surge in Cuban
oil production would complicate the United States' decades-old effort to economically isolate the
Castro regime. Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off
the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and
approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year
tourism industry. Washington
cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry
to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to
prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled
is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol
will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days.
Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill
would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil
cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has
been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and
Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have
the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met
international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse. The
complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the
1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law
and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in
Cuban territory. Shortfalls in U.S. federal regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further problem. The Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against damages stemming from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In
the case of Deepwater Horizon, BP was liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United States. Were any of
the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would fall to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully
undercapitalized. OPA 90 limits the OSLTF from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs, subject to a few
exceptions, and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than $150 million.
Cuban drilling is safe – access to technology and safety standards prove
Sadowksi 12 (Richard – Managing Editor of Production of the Journal of International Business and Law Vol. X, J.D Candidate at Hofstra
University, “Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and Prevention within the Framework of the United States’ Embargo”, 2012,
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp) Fears
that Cuban offshore drilling
poses serious environmental threats because of the proximity to the U nited S tates and the prohibition
on U.S. technology transfer are overblown . Cuba has at least as much incentive to ensure safedrilling practices as does the U nited S tates, and reports indicate that Cuba is taking safety seriously . 64
Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, “[t]he Cuban oil industry has put a
lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill,” and that “they are very
knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these principles into
their safety and regulatory planning and requirements.” 65 Thus, while the economic embargo of Cuba restricts
American technology from being uti - lized, foreign
sources have provided supplemental alternatives . 66
Cuban environmental regulations
Rasha Maal-Bared 6 (Works at Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Library Processing at University of British
Columbia “Comparing environmental issues in Cuba before and after the Special Period: Balancing sustainable development and survival”,April
2006,http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S0160412005001741)
Following the Earth Summit in
1992, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative
structures, and public awareness activities to promote sound environmental management and
sustainable development. This came shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and the strengthening of the US blockade in 1990, which resulted in a
35% drop in Cuban GDP. This period, referred to as the Special Period, witnessed a decrease in many
environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity, but also resulted in many decisions to resuscitate the
Cuban economy. The purpose of this work was to compare and rank the environmental risks Cuba faced before and during the Special Period (1990–2000) using two
Comparative environmental risk assessments (CERAs). To do so, an
ecosystem integrity risk assessment matrix was
constructed with 42 risk end points. The matrix assessed the risk posed by 17 problem areas including air pollution,
water contamination, solid waste sites, pesticides and ecosystem degradation. The risks were calculated using five
criteria: area affected, vulnerability of affected population, severity of impact, irreversibility of effect and uncertainty. To construct this matrix, both literature
reviews and expert interviews in Cuba were conducted in 2000. The results showed a general decrease in risk scores during the Special Period. Before the Special
Period, high risks were posed by: terrestrial degradation and industrial wastewater and sludge, followed by freshwater degradation, surface water stressors, and
pesticides. After the Special Period, industrial wastewater and sludge and pesticides were no longer high-risk areas, but municipal wastewater and marine coastal
degradation ranked higher than previously. Also, the risk endpoints most stressed after 1990 were affected by activities controlled by the government, such as
mining and tourism, and lack of infrastructure. Therefore, the claims that public environmental education is the main pathway to sustainable
development in Cuba seem uninformed and other management practices should be evaluated.
Cuban environmental regulations in place
José Antonio Suárez 12 (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Orient, “Energy, environment and development in
Cuba”, June 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S1364032112001177)
In Cuba, since 1959, the energy, environment and socio-economic development have been given high
priority in national development plans.¶ Fifty years later, the Cuban people have achieved a society with notable advances in
literacy and education, health, culture, sports, social security and per capita of the gross domestic product (GDP), which has permitted the
attainment of a sustainable development, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report in 2006.¶ The energy sector has been evolving
constantly in the last 50 years, achieving as the main result the distribution of electricity to 97% of the country, the growth of domestic oil
production to achieve about 47% of the total consumption, the introduction of the distributed generation of electricity reaching 40% on the
generation, rehabilitation of the electric appliances, systematization of the Cuban Electricity Conservation Program (PAEC), the Energy
Conservation Program of the Ministry of Education (PAEME) and rapid introduction of renewable energy technologies, with good results in
demand side management, energy efficiency and energy education.¶ Actually, soil
degradation, deforestation, pollution, loss
of biological diversity and lack of water have been identified as the main environmental problems;
several plans and projects have been applied, in order to reduce their impact, following the policy
expressed in the National Environmental Strategy.¶ However, challenges exist for future development in Cuba in coming
years, from an economical point of view will be necessary the enhancement of the economic relations with the American and European
countries, to solve internal problems such as insufficient productivity, correspondence between the level of activities with the financial,
material and human resources, to promote growth in the levels of exports and to achieve the substitution of imported basic food; the energy
sector need to achieve growth in the levels of prospection and exploitation of domestic oil, to diversify fossil energy and energetic technologies
suppliers, energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy; the protection of the environment will demand to develop research about
adaptation and mitigation of climate change, conservation and rational use of natural resources, in particular, the lands, water and forests.
Cuba is a developing country which emerged, half a century ago, from nearly 450 years of Spanish colonialism followed by 60 years of
neocolonialism until the Cuban Revolution of January 1st, 1959.¶ The energy, the environment and socio economic development have been
strategic objectives of the Cuban policy, in order to improve economic growth and quality of life of the population. In this regard, different
economical and social plans have been implemented during the past five decades, achieving progress in the field of social developments in
spheres such as health, education, culture, employment, sports and social security, among others. The Cuban economy has reached important
growth in the production of food, electricity, nickel, petroleum, biotechnological and pharmaceutical products and tourism. The
implementation of the National Environmental Strategy, since 1997, has contributed significantly in
bettering the main environmental problems of the past, in addressing present problems and in
avoiding any further degradation of the environment. Protection of the environment and the rational use of natural
resources have been a common heritage of Cuban society.¶ ¶ The first National Environmental Strategy (NES) was adopted in 1997, and
represented the results of efforts that were spearheaded by the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (CITMA), which was
created in 1994 as the lead agency for the activity, together with a number of other Cuban institutions and bodies that are involved in the
At present, the environmental policy and management in Cuba
are based on the National Environmental Strategy 2007–2010, approved in 2007, this is supplemented
by the National Biodiversity Strategy; the National Strategy for Environmental Education; the National
Action Program against Desertification and Drought; and the National Strategy for Biological Safety.
economic and social development of the country.¶ ¶
Other instruments include the 1997 Environment Act; the sectoral strategies of the Organizations of the State Central Administration (OSCA) of
the period 1997–1998; and the Territorial Strategies of the same period [26].¶ ¶ Within the framework of the integrated management of
natural resources there are: the Mountain Ecosystems which are special regions for sustainable development; the Hydrographic Basins; the
National Council of Hydrographic Basins constituted in 1997 and contains Provincial Councils; the National and Provincial Groups for Bays and
Harbours, directed towards integrated management; and the Beaches, Swamps and Protected Areas which fall within a National System,
resulting from a Global Environment Facility (GEF/UNDP) project which has been continued under another project entitled: Strengthening of
the National System of Protected Areas, which will preserve many representative associations of four eco-regions of the country that will enjoy
world wide recognition. The reforestation effort carried out after 1959, received wide support from the population and led to an increase in the
forest cover to 127,500 ha during the period 1999–2001, at an approximate rate of 30,000 ha per year. Total forest cover currently stands at
24.5%, as against a potential level of 28%. At present, the National Environmental Strategy incorporates actions to address the problem of
deforestation and to improve forest management; a combination of educational and legal tools for the infringement of the legislation in force;
support for forest restoration in mountainous areas and fragile ecosystems; and provisions for an increase in the volume of forests for power
generation. Cuba
has adopted a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, the main activities of this
development of programs for the management and
restoration of Hydrographic Basins; the strengthening of the National System of Protected Areas; the
strategy that are currently being implemented are the
rehabilitation of biodiversity in degraded areas; the strengthening of air, water (marine and coastal)
and soil pollution controls.¶ ¶ Areas identified for priority attention include the preservation of germoplasm banks; the regulation
and control of risks from the use of genetically modified organisms; and special programs for the conservation of species in danger of
extinction.
EE does not lead to environmental destruction, and as LA countries develop economic
independence, environmental reforms will follow
Vogel 99 (David Vogel Haas School of Business
University of California, “Environmental Regulation and Economic Integration”, Prepared for a Workshop on Regulatory Competition and
Economic Integration: Comparative Perspectives Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy October 1999,
http://iatp.org/files/Environmental_Regulation_and_Economic_Integrat.pdf)BC Contrary
to the fears of many
environmentalists, increased economic interdependence has not led to a weakening of either product
or process environmental standards.1International trade as a proportion of GNP has significantly increased
in every industrial nation since the late 1960s, yet during this same period, environmental regulations
have become progressively stricter in all industrial nations and a number of ndustrializing ones as well.2Virtually all
nations now devote substantially more resources both in absolute and relative terms to environmental protection
than they did in 1970.Since the early 1970s few major economies have experienced a greater increase in their
exposure to the global economy than the United States: between 1970 and 19803 both its imports and exports as a share of
GNP more than doubled.3At the same time, American regulatory standards have become substantially stronger
during the last quarter century. The proportion of America's GNP devoted to pollution control stood at 1.5% in 1972; it has been
higher every year since, averaging more than 1.7% between 1980 and 1986 and increasing to 2.2% in 1992.4 Annual expenditures on
compliance with federal environmental regulations totaled $90 billion in 1990 and increased by approximately $30 billion following passage of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.5In
Europe, the goal of creating a single market was in large measure motivated bythe interests of
Single European
Act also authorized and has contributed to a significant strengthening of EU environmental
regulations. In recent years, the EU has emerged as the world's pace-setter for environmental innovation,
led by Germany, its largest and most important member state. Since the early 1970s Japan has been both a major
international exporter and has significantly increased its environmental expenditures.6The
strengthening of domestic environmental standards has not been confined to the world's richest
nations. In recent years, Taiwan, South Korea. Israel and Singapore - all major exporters - have committed
substantially more resources to environmental protection.7The compatibility between increased exposure to the global
economy and the strengthening of domestic regulatory efforts is also borne out by the experience ofMexico. Since 1986, Mexico has
business managers and political leaders in making European industry more competitive in the global economy. Yet the
significantly opened its economy, while between 1988 and 1991, government spending on
environmental protection increased ten fold .8The United States itself provides the clearest example of the compatibility of
strict4 regulatory standards and economic interdependence 9 However it is important to note that concerns about the impact ofenvironmental
regulation on firm growth, profitability and employment would exist evenin the absence of pressures from foreign competitors. Strategic
considerations are not the only reason why a government might hesitate to impose stricter environmental standards on domestic firms.13 In
short, an increasingly integrated and competitive global economy has not interfered with the ability of many governments to enact both
product and process regulations regulations stricter than those of their trading partners. Why
hasn’t increased regional and
international integration not led regions, nations, or sub-national governments to compete with one
another by enacting less stringent environmental regulations? How can we account for this phenomena? For example,
why did the Single European Act, which was primarily enacted to strengthen the competitiveness of European firms, also contain provisions
facilitating the6 strengthening of European environmental standards? Why have various Member States sought to impose stricter
environmental standards than those of other Member States with whose products they compete? Why have many American states enacted
more demanding environmental standards than those of other states? Why have those central European nations who have applied for
membership in the EU strengthened their environmental standards? Why did Mexico both strengthen its environmental standards and improve
their enforcement prior to opening up its market to Canadian and American products? One important reason is that for
all but a
handful of industries, the costs of compliance with stricter regulatory standards have not been
sufficient to force relatively affluent nations or sub-national governments to choose between
competitiveness and environmental protection. In marked contrast to labor costs, the overall costs of
compliance with environmental regulations have to date been modest. According toMartin Houldin, the
environmental director at the consulting firm KPMG Peat Marwick in London, "The international differences in the cost of labor are generally so
much more important that the environment pales into insignificance.14 This is not to say that such7 costs are non-existent: many expenditures
to improve environmental quality do reduce output and lower the rate of productivity growth and employment and in particularsectors these
burdens can be severe.15 But in the aggregate, increases
in national levels of pollution-control expenditures have
had little effect on the growth of economic output.16Nor have American states with stronger environmental policies
experienced inferior ratesof economic growth and development.17 While production standards obviously can and do affect corporate plant
location decisions, for most industries the effects are not significant.18"22 In addition, just as industrial production often
imposes public costs, so doprotective regulations produce public benefits. Thus expenditures on air pollution mayincrease agricultural output
while improvements in water quality may result in betterfishing yields or increased tourism. Equally importantly, improvements in
environmentalquality can improve the health, and thus the productivity, of a nation's work-force, in Not only has national, regional and
international competition not forced aweakening of environmental standards, but in some respects, economic
openness andcapital
mobility have actually encouraged nations to enact higher standards than theywould have in the
absence of increased economic interdependency.There are a number of ways in which open markets can strengthen
regulatory
standards.
Biodiversity loss =/= Extinction
Human extinction as a result of biodiversity loss is unlikely
Doremus 0 (Holly Doremus, The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward a New Discourse, 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 11 (2000),
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol57/iss1/3, Professor of Law, University of California at Davis. JD., University of California at
Berkeley (Boalt Hall), Ph.D., Cornell University.) Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a
catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less credible today than it
seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass wave of extinctions,213
the complete elimination of
life on earth seems unlikely.214 Life is remarkably robust. Nor is human extinction probable any time
soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment. Even if the world of the future includes
far fewer species, it likely will hold people.215 One response to this credibility problem tones the story
down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring
economies, and consequently civilizations, to their knees.2 6 But this too may be overstating the case.
Most ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This functional redundancy means that
a high proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a collapse.217 Another response drops the horrific
ending and returns to a more measured discourse of the many material benefits nature provides humanity. Even these more plausible tales,
though, suffer from an important limitation. They call for nature protection only at a high level of generality. For example, human-induced
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may cause rapid changes in global temperatures in the near future, with drastic consequences
for sea levels, weather patterns, and ecosystem services.21 Similarly, the loss of large numbers of species undoubtedly reduces the genetic
library from which we might in the future draw useful resources.219 But it is difficult to translate these insights into convincing arguments
against any one of the small local decisions that contribute to the problems of global warming or biodiversity loss." ° It is easy
to argue
that the material impact of any individual decision to increase carbon emissions slightly or to destroy
a small amount of habitat will be small. It is difficult to identify the specific straw that will break the
camel's back. Furthermore, no unilateral action at the local or even national level can solve these
global problems. Local decision makers may feel paralyzed by the scope of the problems, or may
conclude that any sacrifices they might make will go unrewarded if others do not restrain their
actions. In sum, at the local level at which most decisions affecting nature are made, the material
discourse provides little reason to save nature. Short of the ultimate catastrophe, the material
benefits of destructive decisions frequently will exceed their identifiable material costs.22
Humans will survive despite biodiversity loss
Sagoff 97 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar @ Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs @ U. Maryland, William
and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF
GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and
Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N) Although
earth stands on the brink of an episode of
massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics
such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the
10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild
systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of
other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny
minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This
skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 " The human
species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct , provided only that we
retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two
one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the
positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to
the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any,
ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the
opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the
biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological
functions they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological
processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions
and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even
the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context
for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this
community or ecosystem." n349 Other
point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven
by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional
redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an
What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo,
for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of
any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose
them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example,
between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant
reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of
ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow,
it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer
number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly,
answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned.
we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number
In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of
species has been increasing dramatically , not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is
because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the
number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and
of additions to that "library.")
more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In
Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how
many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there
are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all
exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances.
n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here,
as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones
for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that
a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems
together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359
The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical
component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much
of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem
properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a
point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What
about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated
80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are
extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or
"market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get
people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to
add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable.
Has anyone found any
consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human
diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were
n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant?
thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by
artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us
to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should
recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA.
There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words,
not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of
protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for
moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow
creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for
promoting human welfare,
mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.
Environment resilient and improving – their authors lie
Dutton 1 (Dr. Dennis, Professor of Philosophy – University of Canterbury (New Zealand), “Greener Than You Think”, The Washington Post,
10-21, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=& contentId=A12789-2001Oct18) That the human race faces
environmental problems is unquestionable. That environmental
experts have regularly tried to scare us out of our wits with
doomsday chants is also beyond dispute. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A
decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s. This was an especially chilly prospect, since, as Newsweek reported
in 1975, we were in a climatic cooling trend that was going to reduce agricultural outputs for the rest of the century, leading possibly to a new
Ice Age. Bjorn Lomborg, a young statistics professor and political scientist at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, knows all about the enduring
appeal -- for journalists, politicians and the public -- of environmental doomsday tales, having swallowed more than a few himself. In 1997,
Lomborg -- a self-described left-winger and former Greenpeace member -- came across an article in Wired magazine about Julian Simon, a
University of Maryland economist. Simon
claimed that the "litany" of the Green movement -- its fears about overpopulation, animal
species dying by the hour, deforestation -- was hysterical nonsense, and that the quality of life on the planet was
radically improving. Lomborg was shocked by this, and he returned to Denmark to set about doing the research that would refute
Simon. He and his team of academicians discovered something sobering and cheering: In every one of his claims, Simon was
correct. Moreover, Lomborg found on close analysis that the factual foundation on which the environmental
doomsayers stood was deeply flawed: exaggeration, prevarications, white lies and even convenient
typographical errors had been absorbed unchallenged into the folklore of environmental disaster
scenarios.
Marine ecosystems are resilient
Kennedy 2 (Victor Kennedy, PhD Environmental Science and Dir. Cooperative Oxford Lab., 2002, “Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and
Global Climate Change,” Pew, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine.cfm) There is evidence that marine organisms and
ecosystems are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the biological components of marine
systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to respond quickly to rapid
environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable. Some species also have wide
genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to climate change.
Mass extinctions have occurred before, but never resulted in a permanent loss of life
Kunich 94 (John Charles Kunich, 1994, “SPECIES & HABITAT CONSERVATION: THE FALLACY OF DEATHBED CONSERVATION UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT,” https://litigationessentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=24+Envtl.+L.+501&srctype=smi&srcid=3B
15&key=cfe32641c588ff93a47ea4b23c17be68, John Charles Kunich is a Professor of Law and Fulbright Senior Specialist based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and a Master of Laws degree from George Washington
University School of Law in addition to Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from the University of Illinois, published in Environmental
Law) More dramatically, mass extinctions have occurred at a few points in earth's history, when many species,
even the majority of [*510] all species on the planet, became extinct during a relatively brief span of time.
n20 Although there is some scientific debate as to whether the extinction rates during these periods significantly exceeded the usual
background rate, it is generally accepted that the fossil record evidences heavy extinction in at least five
geologic ages. n21 Given the huge number of species terminated by the various mass extinctions, one may
be surprised to learn that, devastating as these events were, their victims are outnumbered by the species
that have expired during less remarkable epochs. Most of the literally millions of extinct species perished in
relative isolation, each failing to adapt to changing conditions that threatened only a few, or even only one species. n22
Almost all of the species that ever existed on this planet have long been extinct by no act of humans , and yet
more species are currently living than at any time in the past.
The survival of ecosystems are not crucially dependent on biodiversity
Grime 97 (J.P. Grime, 8/29/97, “Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens,”
http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/1997/grime1997a.pdf, biologist in the Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology at the University
of Sheffield, article published in Science volume 277.) This view that "biodiversity begets superior ecosystem function" is
not shared by all ecologists[5, 6]. There are obvious conflicts with published evidence from work on natural rather than synthesized
ecosystems. As early as 1982, Leps et al.[7] had suggested that ecosystem processes were determined primarily by
the functional characteristics of component organisms rather than their number. The same conclusion was drawn by
MacGillivray et al.[8] who showed that differences between five adjacent ecosystems in northern England in their responses to frost, drought,
and burning were predictable from the functional traits of the dominant plants but were independent of plant diversity. This edition of Science
(pages 1296, 1300, and 1302) includes three contributions[9-11] to this important debate. One is a report of results from the Cedar Creek
synthesized plant assemblages, whereas the two others describe biodiversity-ecosystem studies conducted on natural systems (mediterranean
grassland in California and northern forest in Sweden). In all three, variation in ecosystem properties is found to be related to differences in the
functional characteristics, especially resource capture and utilization, of the dominant plants, and there is no convincing evidence that
ecosystem processes are crucially dependent on higher levels of biodiversity. The evidence presented by Wardle
et al.[10] is particularly compelling because it involves an extensive study of ecosystem properties on 50
relatively pristine forested islands of varied size and plant biodiversity. It is clearly shown that a suite of ecosystem
properties -- including higher microbial biomass, high litter quality, and more rapid rates of litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization -coincide with the lower botanical diversity and the earlier successional state of the vegetation on larger islands (both consequences of the
higher incidence of lightning strikes and more frequent fire history of larger islands). On small islands, succession proceeds
uninterrupted to more species-rich vegetation, but here the dominant plants, Picea abies and Empetrum
hermaphroditum, are extremely stress tolerant and produce litter of poor quality, thereby slowing the rates of
ecosystem processes. This strongly supports the contention of MacGillivray et al.[8] that it is the biological
characteristics of the dominant plants rather than their number that control ecosystem productivity and
biogeochemistry. This same conclusion is prompted by the new data presented by Tilman et al.[9] and Hooper et al.[11]. Both of these
groups have adopted a more experimental approach and created ecosystems in field plots where they can control both the functional
composition and species richness of the vegetation. Here again, there is strong evidence that productivity and nutrient cycling are controlled to
an overwhelming extent by the functional characteristics of the dominant plants, and evidence of immediate benefits of species-
richness within functional groups remains weak.