Space Debris and Ozone DA WFI 3 Week
Space Debris/Ozone DA
1
2
***DEBRIS DISAD***
Debris DA 1NC (1/2):
Debris decreasing now
Nield ’11 (Dr. George C., an associate administrator at the Commercial Space Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration, “Fiscal 2012 Budget: Commercial Space Transportation”
Committee on House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Lexis)
The Administration's 2010 National Space Policy establishes specific goals to strengthen stability in space by, among other things, promoting safe and responsible operations in space.
This will require steps such as collecting and monitoring detailed knowledge of the orbital environment, and the sharing of that information with a variety of space actors. It will also be important to continue taking steps to minimize the creation of orbital debris and otherwise help preserve the space environment for responsible, peaceful, and safe activities by all users.
Over time, the FAA will play a central role in developing and enhancing our nation's capacity to conduct such efforts, along with the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce; the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence; NASA; and the Federal Communications
Commission. This collaboration will provide global benefits.
INSERT LINK
1. First, results in accidental nuclear wars due to misperception
Ritchie 82 (David, IT Business Relationship Manager at SELEX S&AS, Spacewar, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1768/)
Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the militarization of space is that of war by accident. At any given time, several thousand satellites and other pieces of equipment -- spent booster stages and the like -- are circling the earth, most of them in low orbit. The space immediately above the atmosphere has begun to resemble an expressway at rush hour. It is not uncommon for satellites to miss each other by only a kilometer or two, and satellites crashing into each other may explain some of the mysterious incidents in which space vehicles simply vanish from the skies. One civillian TV satellite has been lost in space; it never entered its intended orbit, and no signals were heard from it to indicate where it might have gone. Collision with something else in space seems a reasonable explanation of this disappearance. Even a tiny fragment of metal striking a satellite at a relative velocity of a few kilometers per second would wreck the satellite, ripping through it like a Magnum slug through a tin can. Now suppose that kind of mishap befell a military satellite -- in the worst possible situation, during a time of international tension with all players in the spacewar game braced for attacks on their spacecraft. The culpable fragment might be invisible from the ground; even something as small and light as a paper clip could inflict massive damage on a satellite at high velocity. Unaware of the accident, a less than cautious leader might interpret it as a preconceived attack. Wars have begun over smaller incidents .
3
Debris DA 1NC (2/2):
2. turns case—Debris will close off space
Broad ‘7 (William J., a senior writer, February 6, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a
Threat”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnl=1
&ref=science&adxnnlx=1311716684-Z6P3aXCPcb0UuQLBbsqdSA)
If nothing is done, a kind of orbital crisis might ensue that is known as the Kessler
Syndrome, after Mr. Kessler. A staple of science fiction, it holds that the space around
Earth becomes so riddled with junk that launchings are almost impossible. Vehicles that entered space would quickly be destroyed.
4
Debris UQ
Mitigation of debris happening now
Hertzfeld ’11 (Henry R., research Professor, Space Policy and International Affairs at George
Washington University, May 5, “Fiscal 2012 Budget: Commercial Space Transportation”
Committee on House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Lexis)
Finally, IADC Guidelines on Space Debris Mitigation are voluntary rules with no specific enforcement provisions. However, some of the recommended guidelines have become enforceable through enactment of specific legislation and agency regulations in the United
States.
Debris isn’t high now, only a nuisance
Moore ‘09 (Mike, Independent Institute Research Fellow, February 22, “SPACE JUNK IT'S
BEEN A NUISANCE; IT SOON MAY BECOME A NIGHTMARE,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09053/950576-109.stm)
And yet, no one was harmed. Space is a big place, isn't it? The reports noted that there were already thousands of pieces of space junk large enough to be tracked and catalogued.
Nonetheless, no one has ever been harmed by a bit of space garbage. At the moment, the amount of debris in "low-Earth orbit" -- the region of space that extends a few hundred miles above the atmosphere -- is merely a nuisance. The United States tracks objects in space and shares the data with the world. Satellite handlers based in many countries use the data to slightly alter the course of their birds if a collision seems possible.
5
Debris UQ—AT: Inevitable
Countries will work together to promote the use of space, mitigation is a cooperative issue
MacDonald ’9
(Bruce W., the Senior Director of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the
United States, “ Steps to strategic security and stability in space: a view from the United States”,
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdfart2907.pdf)
The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, led by two former US Secretaries of Defense, recognized the importance of space stability when it recommended in its final report that the United States should “develop and pursue options for advancing U.S. interests in stability in outer space ... includ[ing] the possibility of negotiated measures.”
7
This recommendation is relevant to other countries as well. It would allow everyone to continue to reap the civilian, commercial and military advantages of space and safeguard the continuing commercial development and utilization of space. It would give space and non-space powers alike a vested interest in avoiding space conflict.
The threat of traffic and debris would force other countries to not add more
MacDonald ’9
(Bruce W., the Senior Director of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the
United States, “
Steps to strategic security and stability in space: a view from the United States”,
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdfart2907.pdf)
These vital space assets face three forms of threat, all of them worrisome and growing.
First, the proliferation of space and other technologies, and specifically the anti-satellite
(ASAT) capabilities demonstrated within the past three years, call attention to the risk that an advanced country could exploit this fast-growing world dependence on space in a war.
1
Second, space “traffic” is heavier than it has ever been and getting heavier still, in terms of both vehicles and communications, but there is no space traffic control authority. The current level of simply monitoring space objects is widely regarded as far below what is needed: there is a substantial and growing need for space traffic management capabilities, including enforceable rules of the road and codes of conduct, and space situational awareness to inform a space traffic management capability. Third, space debris poses an insidious and growing threat to all space assets. Debris in space does not quickly fall to the ground: at all but the lowest orbits, debris can stay aloft for centuries and more. In addition to the 19,000 orbiting objects the United States Air Force is tracking, there are hundreds of thousands of potentially lethal objects in orbit, and millions of smaller objects that pose at least some risk.
2
If current space debris trends continue, there will be almost 1000% more debris than today within 25 years.
3
This would greatly increase the risk of satellite collisions and force satellite operators into making frequent, costly and satellite-lifetime shortening maneuvers. The collision earlier this year between a US Iridium satellite and an older Russian Cosmos dramatically illustrates the problem.
4
Obama and space allies are discussing mitigation strategies now, won’t increase debris
MacDonald ’9
(Bruce W., the Senior Director of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the
6
United States, “
Steps to strategic security and stability in space: a view from the United States”,
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdfart2907.pdf)
In consultation with allies, the Obama Administration is currently in the process of assessing US space policy, programs, and options for international cooperation in space as a part of a comprehensive review of space policy. This review of space cooperation options includes a
“blank slate” analysis of the feasibility and desirability of options for effectively verifiable arms control measures that enhance the national security interests of the United States and its allies.
9
There are several classes of agreement that can be considered for space, one of which includes codes of conduct and rules of the road. These kinds of agreement have been proposed in various forms for several years and are designed to ensure that those who operate in space do so responsibly, with due regard for the rights of others in space, and with an appreciation that space should be available for the benefit of future generations as well as the present one. Michael
Krepon of the Stimson Center has done valuable work in this area, and the European Union has issued a commendable draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.
10
One value of this kind of approach is that the agreements need not be in treaty form, which takes longer to negotiate.
There have been relevant ongoing discussions and meetings on the subject of space debris, a growing problem that cannot be entirely resolved by the voluntary guidelines recently approved by COPUOS.
11
Other issues that could be covered by this category of agreement include space situational awareness, space traffic management, and further debris mitigation measures.
7
Debris UQ—AT:Inevitable— Russia
Russia won’t increase debris, focus is on lowering it
Eaton ’10 (Kit, wrier for science, technology and generally-exciting-and-innovative, November
24, “Space debris? Russia’s got it covered”, Sign of the Times, http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218802-Space-Debris-Russia-s-Got-It-Covered)
Energia, Russia's space corporation, has revealed plans to build a special space "pod" which will grab around 600 defunct satellites and then safely deorbit them so that they either burn up in the atmosphere or splash down into the ocean. The pod will rely on a nuclear power core, and cost around $2 billion to develop and deploy. Energia plans to complete design and testing by 2020 and have it in service no later than 2023, with an operational lifespan of around 15 years. The company also said it has been working on a space interceptor capable of tackling any dangerous objects from the outer solar system that may be on a collision course with Earth. If it seems odd to think of Russia as Earth's space junk and comet defender, it's also welcome news. Space debris in the form of defunct or malfunctioning satellites is an increasingly severe problem. Numerous orbits are becoming inaccessible, or at least hopelessly dangerous, because of wandering hulls or showers of shredded metal debris--like the one caused by a collision between a working
U.S. Iridium satellite and a dead Russian Cosmos satellite in 2009.
8
Debris Link—Generic
Any space activity leads to space debris
Wright ’07 (David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, October 31,
“Space debris.” Physics Today, Ebsco)
There are two main sources of orbital debris. The first source is routine space activity and the accidental breakup of objects placed in orbit by such activity.
The international community is attempting to address this source, in part by developing debris-mitigation guidelines to limit the debris created as a result "of routine space activities.
9
Debris Link—Space Weapons
Space weapons cause debris
Wright ’07 (David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, October 31,
“Space debris.” Physics Today, Ebsco)
The second source of debris is the intentional creation of debris in orbit by the testing or use of destructive ASAT weapons.
Kinetic-energy ASAT weapons, such as the one tested by China in January, are intended to destroy satellites by physically colliding with them at high speed. Such collisions can create tremendous amounts of orbital debris--much more than is generally realized . We discuss such events in detail below.
Satellites, weapons and propulsion system all cause debris
Wright ’07
(David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, October 31,
“Space debris.” Physics Today, Ebsco)
To provide a sense of the origin of the debris population, figure 4 shows a rough breakdown of the cataloged objects in orbit. One-quarter of the "payloads" are active satellites; the rest are satellites that are no longer active and are therefore considered to be debris. The largest category of debris-nearly half of the total--is that caused by both accidental and intentional breakups of objects in orbit.
Explosions due to malfunctions of propulsion systems or the ignition of residual propellant in a rocket stage are the largest source of accidental-breakup debris. The Chinese ASAT test added some 2000 fragments to the catalog; they make up about 35% of the breakup-debris total. The Soviet
ASAT program in the 1970s and early 1980s, which attempted to destroy a satellite by shrapnel from an exploding ASAT weapon, created more than 700 pieces of large debris, roughly 300 of which remain in orbit. The last piece of cataloged debris from the one US
ASAT test, in September 1985, decayed from orbit in 2004.
Weapons produce large amounts of debris
Wright ’08
(Dr. David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, April,
“Space debris from Anti-Satellite Weapons” Union of concerned scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/debris-in-brief-factsheet.pdf)
The destruction of satellites by ASAT weapons can produce tremendous amounts of orbital debris: the destruction of a single large satellite such as a U.S. spy satellite could by itself double the total amount of large debris currently in low earth orbit (LEO), where nearly half of current satellites reside. There are currently no international restrictions on the testing or use of military systems intended to destroy satellites.
10
Debris Link—Space Weapons
Using weapons will increase debris, and could close off space or lead to conflict
Wright ’08 (Dr. David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, April,
“Space debris from Anti-Satellite Weapons” Union of concerned scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/debris-in-brief-factsheet.pdf)
The Chinese destruction of a relatively small satellite roughly doubled the debris threat to satellites in the most heavily used part of LEO. Fortunately, the debris threat to satellites is still relatively small, but continued testing of destructive ASAT weapons against satellites, or their use against several large satellites in a conflict, could result in a much higher risk.
ASAT weapons could therefore significantly increase the cost of using space, and could hinder using regions of space that today are widely used for a range of purposes. Beyond that, the sudden loss of a satellite due to debris during a crisis could remove important capabilities, or could lead to dangerous reactions and the escalation of the crisis, especially if the adversary was known to have an ASAT capability.
Weapons create a substantial amount of debris
Hsu ‘10 (Jeremy, senior writer, December 23, “Space Junk Rivals Weapons as a Major
Threat”, Space.com, http://www.space.com/10537-space-junk-rivals-weapons-majorthreat.html)
The criticism of past space weapons tests that have created space debris has already changed how countries plan their actions, said Joan Johnson-Freese, a space policy analyst at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "When the United States tested an anti-satellite
(ASAT) weapon in 1985 by destroying its Solwind satellite, and China tested its ASAT in
2007, neither broke any 'rules,'" Johnson-Freese said in an e-mail. "But each created a substantial amount of space debris potentially dangerous to other spacecraft."
Weaponizing worsens space debris
Zhang ‘4
(Hui, a Senior Research Associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, “Chinese Perspectives on the Prevention of Space Weaponization”, Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/space-weapons/issues/zhang-chineseperspectives.htm)
Weaponizing space would further worsen the space debris issues. Under U.S. space weaponization plans, a larger number of space weapons could be deployed. Most of these systems would be stationed in LEO. The launching and testing of these weapons would considerably increase space debris and pose serious hazards for satellites and other space activity. Moreover, the deployment of unlimited space-based weapons in the increasingly crowded realm of LEO would also limit orbit resource usage for civilian purposes.
11
Debris Link—Space Weapons
Weaponization worsens debris, effecting the economy and makes space unusable
Zhang ‘4
(Hui, a Senior Research Associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, “Chinese Perspectives on the Prevention of Space Weaponization”, Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/space-weapons/issues/zhang-chineseperspectives.htm)
Furthermore, many scientists are concerned that once a “critical density” of space debris is reached, a process called collisional cascading (or chain reaction) – collision fragments will trigger further collisions – would start. Thus, the Earth would be covered by a cloud of debris too dense to allow stationing any satellites or even passing through. It is also estimated that such a “critical density” of space debris in LEO would already be achieved when its population increases a few times.
[23]
Some scientists estimate that the density may already be sufficiently great at 900-1,000 km and 1,500-1,700 km that a cascade of collisions can be sustained.
[24]
Thus, fragmenting several satellites at LEO may lead to a chain reaction. Consequently, there would be no more satellites in LEO either for space exploration, civilian or military purpose, such as the Hubble Space Telescope (at about 600 kilometers), the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, earth-observing satellites, photo-reconnaissance satellites, and part of the navigation satellites. As Prof. Primack
(University of California at Santa Cruz) pointed out, “Weaponization of space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encase the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes.” [25]
In short, space weaponization will have a disastrous effect not only on global security but also on global economy, which is closely tied to assets in space.
Using weapons in the future perpetuates debris
Zhang ‘4 (Hui, a Senior Research Associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, “Chinese Perspectives on the Prevention of Space Weaponization”, Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/space-weapons/issues/zhang-chineseperspectives.htm)
Even worse, eventually these space weapons will be used to attack satellites – this is part of the U.S. space control strategy. In addition, an adversary could use ASAT weapons to attack these space weapons. Once a satellite is destroyed and fragmented, more orbital debris would be generated. For example, at an ASAT test in September 1985, the U.S. fragmented the Solwind spacecraft with an air-launched miniature homing vehicle. More than 200 catalogued pieces of debris were produced, and most remained in orbit for several years.
[21]
While the fragments from SBI impacts on boost-phase missiles could not significantly increase the amount of orbital debris in LEO,
[22]
an SBI would fragment a satellite into hundreds of pieces of tractable debris (larger than 10 cm) and far more medium-sized orbital debris. Then, these medium-size orbital debris, with mass of several grams to tens grams, at a collision velocity about 10 km/s, could fragment another satellite
12
of hundreds of kilograms or a few tons. Based on the mass distribution of fragments generated in hypervelocity impacts, for example, a two-ton satellite could be broken into several hundred thousands medium-size pieces, hundreds larger ones, and billions of debris smaller than 1 cm. Thus, fragments from several shattered satellites could several times the current orbital debris in LEO.
13
Debris Link—SPS
Plan causes a chain reaction of space debris – we’re on the brink now
Mehrholz et al 2 (D., L. Leushacke, W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf, FGAN
Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques and European Space
Operations Centre (ESOC), Feb, Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris , http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet109/chapter16_bul109.pdf)
Today’s man-made space-debris environment has been created by the space activities that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 rocket launches since then, as well as many other related debris-generating occurrences such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation events. Currently, there are more than 8700 objects larger than 10–30 cm in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and larger than 1 m in Geostationary Orbit (GEO) registered in the US Space Command Satellite Catalogue. US Space Command tracks these objects with radars and optical telescopes to determine their orbits and other characteristic parameters, including their sizes (Fig. 1). Approximately 6% are operational spacecraft, 21% are old spacecraft, 17% are rocket upper stages, 13% are mission-related debris, and 43% are fragments from (mostly) explosions or collisions. Consequently, about 94% of the catalogued objects no longer serve any useful purpose and are collectively referred to as ‘space debris’.
In addition, there are a large number of smaller objects that are not routinely tracked, with estimates for the number of objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 to 200 000.
14
Debris Impact—Brink
Remediation is needed, even adding one more piece of debris will cause the impact
Wright ’07 (David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, October 31,
“Space debris.” Physics Today, Ebsco)
An important implication of the study is that while mitigation efforts are important for slowing the increases, only debris-remediation measures such as removing large, massive objects already in orbit can hope to prevent their consequences.
Remediation efforts such as robotic missions to remove defunct satellites and rocket stages are very expensive, but are being studied.
15
Debris Impact—Hegemony
Space debris increasing will collapse American hegemony, the economy and lead to resource wars
Moore ‘09 (Mike, Independent Institute Research Fellow, February 22, “SPACE JUNK IT'S
BEEN A NUISANCE; IT SOON MAY BECOME A NIGHTMARE,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09053/950576-109.stm)
"Orbital space" is a natural resource, as surely as land, air and water. It must be protected because it is home to nearly a thousand satellites put up by many countries -- communications, geo-observation, geopositioning, weather and other types.
"Globalization" would not be possible without commercial satellites. Further, the United
States' military-related birds permit the country to conduct "precision" war. For the first time in history, satellites provide the data and the guidance necessary to enable bombs and missiles to actually hit the targets they are fired at. That's a moral plus. If a war must be fought, it should be prosecuted in such a way that military targets are hit and civilians spared to the greatest extent possible. No other country can fight a conventional war as cleanly and humanely as the United States. Satellites make the difference. Because of the importance of satellites to the American way of war, the United States insists that it must achieve the capability to militarily dominate space in a time of conflict. It is the only country that claims that right. Space, says international law, is the common heritage of humankind and must be devoted to "peaceful purposes." America's truculent spacedominance language annoys many of its friends and allies. Meanwhile, some major powers
-- particularly China and Russia -- think it smells of imperialism. A country that could control space in a time of conflict might also exercise that control in a time of peace. Since
1981, virtually every country save the United States and Israel has gone on record in the
U.N. General Assembly as favoring a treaty that would prevent an arms race in space.
Every year, the United States -- under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill
Clinton and George W. Bush -- has used its veto power at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to prevent serious talks. No one, including the United States, is likely to have actual weapons in space in the foreseeable future. Space control does not require such weapons. Ground-based, sea-based and even air-based antisatellite weapons (ASATs) can do the trick. The United States has long been working on a variety of highly sophisticated
ASAT programs -- indeed, the infrastructure for missile defense is the sort of infrastructure needed for ASAT systems. When a country builds ever greater military capabilities, potential rivals react
. China, in particular, is wary of the coercive possibilities of U.S. military power. The Middle Kingdom says it wants a space treaty, but in January 2007, it tested its own somewhat primitive ASAT -- a kinetic-kill device that roughly replicated a test the United States carried out in 1985. Is a space-related arms race under way? Yes.
But there is still time to ratchet it down, and the Obama administration has signaled that it might do so. That will be difficult, though. The belief in America as the exceptional nation is a major driver of
U.S. foreign policy, and influential people and hard-line think tanks are comfortable with the idea that full-spectrum dominance in all things military is America's right. A nightmare scenario: The United States continues to work on its "defensive" ASAT systems. China and Russia do the same to counter U.S. capabilities. India and Japan put together their own systems. Ditto for Pakistan, if it survives as a coherent country. Israel follows suit, as does
Iran. In a time of high tension, someone preemptively smashes spy satellites in low-Earth
16
orbits, creating tens of thousands of metal chunks and shards. Debris-tracking systems are overwhelmed and low-Earth orbits become so cluttered with metal that new satellites cannot be safely launched. Satellites already in orbit die of old age or are killed by debris strikes. The global economy, which is greatly dependent on a variety of assets in space, collapses. The countries of the world head back to a 1950s-style way of life, but there are billions more people on the planet than in the '50s. That's a recipe for malnutrition, starvation and wars for resources.
US leadership prevents great power wars and deters new threats
Thayer 6
, associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri
State University, 200 6
(Bradley, "In Defense of Primacy," The National Interest, November/December 2006, p. lexis)
Throughout history, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power -- Rome,
Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power.
Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The
Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly . As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world.
The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan,
Indonesia and Australia.
This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars.
Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition , once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced . This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan , where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in
January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Westernstyle democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy . With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets . The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World
Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The
17
United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War-and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force" --it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department.
Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United
States assists the countries in need . On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian
Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About
20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces .
American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on
Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States ; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on
Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on
Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close . The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.
18
Debris Impact—Economy
Debris threatens the economy and the ability of space exploration
Broad ‘7 (William J., a senior writer, February 6, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a
Threat”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnl=1
&ref=science&adxnnlx=1311716684-Z6P3aXCPcb0UuQLBbsqdSA)
Now, experts say, China’s test on Jan. 11 of an antisatellite rocket that shattered an old satellite into hundreds of large fragments means the chain reaction will most likely start sooner. If their predictions are right, the cascade could put billions of dollars’ worth of advanced satellites at risk and eventually threaten to limit humanity’s reach for the stars.
Federal and private experts say that early estimates of 800 pieces of detectable debris from the shattering of the satellite will grow to nearly 1,000 as observations continue by tracking radars and space cameras. At either number, it is the worst such episode in space history.
Today, next year or next decade, some piece of whirling debris will start the cascade, experts say.
Economic crash causes nuclear world war III
O'Donnell 9
[Sean, 2/26, Baltimore Republican Examiner writer and Squad Leader in the Marine Corps
Reserve, the Baltimore Examiner, "Will this recession lead to World War
III?," http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Willthis-recession-lead-to-World-War-III]
Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of
Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into
World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or
South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.
19
Debris Impact—Miscalculation
Debris will lead to accidents, mistrust and misperceptions with other nations
Creedon ’11
(Madelyn, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, July 19,
“Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing”, Congressional Documents and Publications,
Lexis)
Given the concern about the increase in space debris, and the need to improve the ability to forecast and avoid potential conjunctions, in your view there is an opportunity to cooperate with Russia and other nations in the area of space debris analysis and warning? The significant increase in space debris presents challenges to all space faring nations. I believe that coordinated international efforts to develop and share information, particularly with respect to space debris, could help increase awareness and prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust. I understand that the Department recently signed statements of principles on Space Situational Awareness sharing with Australia, Canada, and France.
Additional such statements signed with other nations, and with commercial firms, would continue to enhance spaceflight safety for all parties.
Misperception leads to war
Jervis ’88 (Robert, Professor of International Affairs, Spring, “The Origin and Prevention of
Major Wars” Journal of Interdisciplinary History , Jstor)
Although war can occur even when both sides see each other accurately, misperception often plays a large role. Particularly interesting are judgments and misjudgments of another state's intentions. Both overestimates and underestimates of hostility have led to war in the past, and much of the current debate about policy toward the Soviet Union revolves around different judgments about how that country would respond to American policies that were cither firm or conciliatory. Since statesmen know that a war between the United States and the Soviet Union would be incredibly destructive, however, it is hard to see how errors of judgment, even errors like those that have led to past wars, could have the same effect today. But perceptual dynamics could cause statesmen to see policies as safe when they actually were very dangerous or, in the final stages of deep conflict, to see war as inevitable and therefore to see striking first as the only way to limit destruction.
War is dominated by misperception, win and loss rate signifies
Lindley ‘5
(Dan, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science at Notre Dame, February
9, “Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War”, www.nd.edu/~dlindley/IWR/IWR%20Article.doc)
Is war the rational and well-calculated pursuit of states, or are decisions for war more often dominated by miscalculation and misperception? This is an important question because assumptions about the extent of rationality in decisions for war underlie policy debates on a range of subjects from deterrence and missile defense to peacekeeping. Arguments about rationality also underlie academic debates about the general causes of war and the methodologies to study them, as well as historical debates about the causes of specific wars. If one assumes that states start wars intending to win them, then losses by war initiators will tend to indicate that the decision for war was dominated by miscalculation and misperception. This assumption means that the extent of miscalculation and
20
misperception can be measured by looking at the win and loss rates of initiators.
Wars are started by misperceptions, numerous historical examples
Lindley ‘5
(Dan, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science at Notre Dame, February
9, “Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War”, www.nd.edu/~dlindley/IWR/IWR%20Article.doc)
Just as general causes of war can be parsed into the table above, debates about the causes of specific wars often turn on arguments about rationality versus miscalculation and misperception. The best example is the literature on World War I. Copeland and Fischer blame deliberate German policy (2000; 1967). In contrast,
Snyder and Van Evera argue that WWI was caused by a web of misperceptions which they file under the rubric “cult of the offensive” (
1984; 1985,
1999).
Levy runs up the middle, arguing for a fairly subtle form of miscalculation: many of the Great Powers wanted a limited war prior to WWI, but that the huge scale of WWI was not what they intended or predicted
(1991).
In the debate over the Japanese decision to attack
Pearl Harbor, Ienaga
(1978)
contends that Japan had fallen into the grip of militaristic hypernationalism while Sagan (1988) holds that Japan rationally weighed its choices and chose war.
In assessing
Saddam Hussein’s decisions to go to war in
1990/91
,
Pollack argues that Saddam, although a risk-taker, was not irrational or suicidal and had successfully been deterred in the past (2002, 248).
On the other hand, Baram states that
Saddam and his government had been irrational, prone to take unreasonable risks, and made many colossal errors in judgment (
1992).
Stein believes that Saddam stayed in Kuwait because of an unfounded belief in an American conspiracy to destroy him (
1993).7
21
Debris Impact—Satellites Module
If satellites are damaged, countries will retaliate
Wright ’07 (David, co-director and senior scientist of the Global Security Program, October 31,
“Space debris.” Physics Today, Ebsco)
In principle, a country could use several types of weapons, such as lasers or electromagnetic jammers, to interfere with the operation of satellites.( n13) However, the effectiveness of many of those weapons is uncertain and difficult to verify. A successful attack by a kinetic-energy ASAT weapon would likely cause damage that could be detected by sensors on the ground, and detection of severe physical damage would strongly imply that the satellite was no longer functioning. If a satellite were deemed an important enough military threat that a country decided to attack it, that country might have a strong incentive to use a kinetic-energy ASAT.
22
Debris Impact—Turns Case (Space Unusable)
Debris needs to be taken care of, or will close of space- turns case
Hansen ’11 (Matthew, correspondent of space issue, July 17, “StratCom battles space crunch”, Omaha World-Herald, http://www.omaha.com/article/20110717/NEWS01/707179907)
But the reality, StratCom officials say, is that space has grown more cluttered and dangerous, especially since the military's current technology can detect less than 10 percent of the objects adrift in space. "We're trying to work this as a global community, because this affects everybody," said Maj. Duane Bird, a space situational awareness officer stationed at Offutt Air Force Base's StratCom headquarters. "The long-term impact of us not being able to use the space environment is huge," Bird said. "We need to take some action so we can continue to use the space environment for generations. So that's what we're doing."
Debris will close off space
Broad ‘7 (William J., a senior writer, February 6, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a
Threat”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnl=1
&ref=science&adxnnlx=1311716684-Z6P3aXCPcb0UuQLBbsqdSA)
If nothing is done, a kind of orbital crisis might ensue that is known as the Kessler
Syndrome, after Mr. Kessler. A staple of science fiction, it holds that the space around
Earth becomes so riddled with junk that launchings are almost impossible. Vehicles that entered space would quickly be destroyed.
Increased debris will make it too expensive to do business in space
Broad ‘7 (William J., a senior writer, February 6, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a
Threat”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnl=1
&ref=science&adxnnlx=1311716684-Z6P3aXCPcb0UuQLBbsqdSA)
Still, he warned of an economic barrier to space exploration that could arise. To fight debris, he said, designers will have to give spacecraft more and more shielding, struggling to protect the craft from destruction and making them heavier and more costly in the process. At some point, he said, perhaps centuries from now, the costs will outweigh the benefits. “It gets more and more expensive,” he said. “Sooner or later it gets too expensive to do business in space.”
23
Debris Impact—Space Good: Economy
Not using space hurts the economy
Campbell 2000 (Doctor Jonathan W., scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, December,
“Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”, Center for Strategy and
Technology, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf)
The use of space is vital for future economic and political power for many reasons .
Since an impact from a meteorite, asteroid, or comet would be an unimaginable catastrophe, we have little choice but to deal with this threat. On a lesser scale, the threat of orbital debris to spacecraft raises important economic questions. While there are many risks with spaceflight, we must decide at what threshold the risks are too high and action is necessary. That threshold must balance the possible impact to the mission, resources available to accomplish that mission, and the technical arid cost feasibility of reducing that risk. In addition, that threshold must balance all of the risks that are associated with a mission. In other words, if there is a practical way to reduce risk, then it is probably prudent to do so. The purpose of this study is to describe one solution for reducing the risk posed by orbital debris.
Economic crash causes nuclear world war III
O'Donnell 9
[Sean, 2/26, Baltimore Republican Examiner writer and Squad Leader in the Marine Corps
Reserve, the Baltimore Examiner, "Will this recession lead to World War
III?," http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Willthis-recession-lead-to-World-War-III]
Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of
Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into
World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or
South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.
24
Debris Impact—XTN: Space Good—Economy
Space access is key to the economy
Hauser et. al ‘9 ( Marty, Vice President, Washington Operations, research and analysis, Space
Foundation; J.P. Stevens, Vice President Space systems, Aerospace program industries; Scott
Page, Director, Space Institute, George Washington University; Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Director,
European Space policy institute, NOVEMBER 19, "THE GROWTH OF GLOBAL SPACE
CAPABILITIES: WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHY IT MATTERS", Federal News
Service, Lexis)
We spend a lot of time in this room talking about the benefits of space-based technology, industries, and exploration. It's critical to convey that those benefits are not limited to the
United States but that the impact is global. After all, satellites don't just orbit America.
Whether the efforts are to better understand our climate, to help people recover from natural disasters, or to connect the economies around the globe, we can look to space to help make our world a better place. And that is the goal we're discussing. It is more than worth the time of this committee and our witnesses, again, to share your insights with us.
25
Debris Impact—Space Good: Hegemony
Space power is key to America’s way of war, debris eliminates that
Sheldon ’11 (John B. Ph.D. Marshall Institute Fellow & School of Advanced Air & Space
Studies, July 19, “A Day Without Space: Considering National Security Implications”, http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/967.pdf)
Spacepower & the American Way of War.
Spacepower enables the American Way of War Critical dependency in peace as well as conflict Applies equally throughout spectrum of conflict
All military and diplomatic means space dependent Spacepower enhances U.S. strengths and preferred means of warfighting
For all of its critical importance, U.S. spacepower vulnerable to purposeful attack
Turn- Space is quintessential for American hegemony
Sheldon ’11
(John B. Ph.D. Marshall Institute Fellow & School of Advanced Air & Space
Studies, July 19, “A Day Without Space: Considering National Security Implications”, http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/967.pdf)
U.S. Space Leadership: An Imperative U.S. is becoming complacent about space just as rest of the world is realizing its potential U.S. simply cannot afford to abrogate leadership in space: a national security imperative Leadership cannot be maintained by ‘more of the same’ policies: change is happening ... ...so embrace it! Reform export laws; protect investments; assert control when needed; encourage friends in space; thwart and dissuade adversaries U.S. does not own space, but space is quintessentially American
Space is key for the American military
Baldor ’11 (Lolita C, staff writer for The Associated Press, February 21, “Pentagon strategy stresses the importance of satellites”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022003484.html)
The U.S. military needs to better protect its satellites and strengthen its ability to use them as weapons as the uncharted battlefield of space becomes increasingly crowded and dangerous, Pentagon leaders say. A new military strategy for space, as mapped out by the
Pentagon, calls for greater cooperation with other nations on space-based programs to improve the United States' ability to deter enemies. "It's a domain, like air, land and sea," said Gen. Kevin Chilton, who led U.S. Strategic Command until he retired late last month.
"Space is not just a convenience. It's become a critical part in every other [battlefield] domain." The United States, Chilton said, needs to make sure that it protects and maintains the battlefield capabilities it gets from space, including global-positioning data, missile warning system information, and communications with fighters or unmanned drones that are providing surveillance or firing missiles against the enemy.
26
27
***OZONE DISAD***
Ozone Disad 1NC
The ozone is recovering rapidly in the status quoe
Witze 11
(Alexandra Witze, Alex Witze is Senior News and Features Editor with Nature, in its Washington, D.C., bureau. From 1996 to
2005 she had covered the physical science for The Dallas Morning News. She is responsible for news features in the earth sciences, including climate, Friday, May 13th,
2011
, Ozone hole on the mend, http://iluginespasig.wordpress.com/learners-portal/ozone-hole-on-the-mend/)
IN RECOVERY
Scientists
may have already spotted the annual Antarctic ozone hole
, shown here in September 2006, getting better
thanks to an international environmental treaty. NASA Scientists may have spotted
Antarctica’s ozone hole on the road to recovery, at least a decade sooner than they thought healing would be noticeable.
In
1989, an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol began phasing out chemicals that have gnawed away at Earth’s protective ozone layer.
Most researchers thought it would take until at least 2023 to detect the hole’s slow recovery, but researchers in Australia now claim to have seen ozone ticking upward since the late 1990s.
“The key is to account for large year-to-year fluctuations that have obscured a gradual increase in the long-term evolution of ozone,” says atmospheric scientist Murry Salby of Macquarie University in Sydney. His team published its findings online May 6 in Geophysical Research
Letters.
First spotted in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole was quickly linked to chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, emitted mainly in the
Northern Hemisphere but concentrated over the South Pole by atmospheric circulation patterns. Chlorine atoms from these CFCs react with ozone molecules, seasonally destroying the layer that shields Earth from cancer-causing and crop-damaging ultraviolet radiation.
Scientists had predicted that ozone loss would bottom out and start recovering by now.
They just didn’t think they would be able detect that change yet, since ozone levels vary dramatically from year to year because of complex atmospheric processes, sometimes by almost as much as the magnitude of the ozone hole itself. To better understand these year-to-year ozone fluctuations, Salby’s team looked at “dynamical” influences such as waves that ripple through the planet’s atmosphere much like the ocean’s swells. The researchers found that winter dynamical factors closely tracked how much ozone was depleted the following spring. In essence, these processes control how much chlorine breaks away from CFCs each winter, which determines how much ozone will later disappear. Knowing what caused these year-to-year changes, the scientists could then subtract them out, unmasking the long-term signal of ozone. After plummeting since the analysis began in
1979, that signal leveled off and began creeping up after 1996, Salby says. Using different analytical techniques, other scientists have reported seeing a slowdown in the rate of ozone decline, but not an actual recovery.
Not all experts are convinced by the new work. The link between year-to-year dynamics and ozone levels seems strong now but could change on further analysis, says Darryn Waugh, an atmospheric scientist at Johns Hopkins University. “I expect Antarctic ozone to be slowly recovering,” he says, “but would have thought that we need several more years of data to statistically show this.” Atmospheric chemist Paul Young of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., agrees. “My response is slightly cautious,” he says. “It’s a bold claim.” Salby says he’s confident the ozone uptick represents a real trend; it has gone on almost as long as the decline observed during the
1980s and 1990s. He now wants to develop a way to better predict future ozone levels. Whether or not the ozone hole has been spotted recovering, its long-term prognosis calls for many more decades of sick leave; it is not expected to heal fully before 2070. The northern pole is also having its own ozone issues; this spring, ozone thinned over the Arctic more than scientists have ever seen
INSERT LINK
Extinction
Williams 96 , David Crockett Jr., author of Tetron Natural Unified Field Theory, Chemist, Personal and Financial Agent. February 7, THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/video96.html
Today all life on earth is threatened by many problems associated with the materialistic and shortsighted human activities out of harmony with nature that have led to an oxygen crisis from massive deforestation and fossil fuel combustion which has created global warming responsible for increased weather extremes, flooding, droughts, disease vectors, etc., and an ozone layer depletion that threatens all life on earth by the imminent destruction of the ocean's phytoplankton which produce over half of earth's oxygen and form the beginning of the oceanic food chain .
Nuclear testing has caused lasting increases in seismic and volcanic activity, explainable by free energy science, which threatens cataclysmic earth changes. The danger of nuclear conflagration
28
still exists. All these conditions have been predicted independently by many different religious prophecies since many hundreds of years ago. How can this be understood and resolved?
29
Ozone—UQ
The ozone is beginning to heal
Crow 11
James Mitchell Crow, Assistant Editor for RSC Magazine Published online 16 May
2011 First signs of ozone-hole recovery spotted, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110516/full/news.2011.293.html
The average size of the Antarctic ozone hole in October 2010. Its recovery has so far been masked by annual fluctuations.
The hole in the ozone layer
over Antarctica is starting to heal
, say researchers in Australia. The team is the first to detect a recovery in baseline average springtime ozone levels in the region, 22 years after the Montreal Protocol to ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related ozonedestroying chemicals came into force. Each spring, those chlorine- and bromine-releasing chemicals eat a hole in the ozone layer above the
Antarctic. Thanks to the Montreal agreement, levels of anthropogenic ozone depleters detected in the region's stratosphere have been falling since around the turn of the millennium. However, detecting any corresponding ozone recovery has been difficult.
That difficulty is down to significant natural variations in average
Antarctic stratospheric springtime ozone levels from year to year, which mean that the hole can be small one year and large the next. Scientists did not expect to be able to detect the gradual recovery of ozone for decades, masked as it is by these dramatic swings. However, Murry Salby, an environmental scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues have now shown how this annual fluctuation can be accounted for — and so removed from the data. They are left with the underlying systematic change in Antarctic ozone levels. Salby's calculations reveal that the levels are now rising; the findings are published in Geophysical Research Letters1. The team's breakthrough was in showing that annual swings in average springtime ozone levels are linked to changes in a particular pattern of stratospheric weather known as dynamical forcing. In years in which this phenomenon is strong during the winter, more cold air is trapped above the pole. As a result, there are more ice crystals in the atmosphere. These crystals form the surface on which chlorine destroys ozone, catalysed by sunlight returning to the
Antarctic during the spring.
"I think this is the first convincing observationally-derived evidence of the ozone rebound," says Adrian McDonald, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. "It's the first where the statistical significance is high enough, and you can see the pattern well enough, that you feel comfortable in believing it." Salby's results reveal a fast decline in ozone levels until the late 1990s, then a slow rebound that closely matches what theoretical calculations had predicted, says David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, Australia. "It is the sort of result that was expected, but is the first to provide detection of an increase in Antarctic ozone levels," he says. Adding weight to Salby's argument, the increase in ozone levels revealed by the calculations closely mirror the decrease in the levels of anthropogenic chlorine in the region. "For now, they agree pretty well," says Salby. "My feeling is that as time goes on we will start to see other influences on the systematic evolution of ozone level beside chlorine." One such influence is likely to be the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Salby's data reveal that average springtime Antarctic ozone levels have already recovered by 15% since the late 1990s. However, projecting forward, natural weather-related fluctuations mean that even as late as 2085, ozone will still drop below 1980 levels for at least one year in every ten. A complicating factor in that prediction is the influence of climate change, says Karoly. "Even when CFCs are removed, ozone levels will be different in the future than they were in the 1960s, because of changes in temperature in the stratosphere."
The ozone will be healed by 2020
Kerr 11
Richard A.
Kerr
( Writer for Science Magazine) Science 8 April First Detection of Ozone Hole Recovery Claimed, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/160.full
The feel-good environment story of recent decades—the recovery of the
so-called ozone hole—may be passing a major milestone far ahead of schedule.
Every austral spring, an ominous “hole” appears in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica.
In 1989, international regulations began restricting emissions of ozone-destroying chemicals, such as chlorine-containing refrigerants and propellants. The restrictions quickly capped and then began steadily reducing atmospheric concentrations of those dangerous chemicals.
Although ozone-destroying chemicals have been in decline for a decade now, researchers have long projected that they will not glimpse the first signs that the hole is healing until well past 2020. But for the first time, a group of researchers claims they can already see the ozone hole slowly recovering.
Many others, however, say the paper, now in press in Geophysical Research Letters ( GRL ), leaves out critical information needed to clinch the case. No one had been expecting to discern the recovery quite so soon. Scientists thought large, wholly natural, year-to-year variations in Antarctic ozone would obscure any small upward trend. Those natural ozone variations can be traced back through physical and chemical changes in the atmosphere to natural changes in atmospheric circulation. But no one had been able to take those circulation changes into account accurately enough to reveal the underlying ozone recovery. Meteorologist Murry Salby of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and his Australian colleagues think they have nailed down the
30
natural influences on the hole's ozone. In their GRL paper, they consider how much of the observed polar ozone variation each spring could be accounted for by changes in two kinds of atmospheric circulation that ultimately influence the amount of ozone destroyed in making the hole each spring. Taken together, the two observed that circulation changes accounted for “virtually all” of the year-to-year changes in springtime Antarctic ozone, Salby and colleagues write. Subtracting their estimate of the natural changes in ozone from actual changes, the group finds “a clear upward trend since the late 1990s” in the hole's ozone that represents “a systematic rebound.”
Over the past decade, the rebound has amounted to about 15%, they estimate. “ It's a small trend, but it's all we've been waiting for,”
says meteorologist Lorenzo Polvani of Columbia University.
“Now we're actually seeing it.”
The ozone is making major steps toward major recovery
Shanklin 10
Jonathan Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey Member, 2010, The Ozone Layer Fact Sheet, http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm
Over the last 50 years we have introduced chemicals into the atmosphere that are capable of destroying ozone through photochemical processes.
Chloro-fluoro-carbons (CFCs) are widely known, but there are also other ozone depleting substances such as halons (bromo-fluoro-carbons) and methyl bromide. In certain circumstances the chlorine or bromine from these substances can react with ozone to turn it back into oxygen. In most parts of the world the reactions are very slow and there is little damage to the ozone layer, however over the Antarctic a dramatic hole opens in the ozone layer every spring and fills in again by mid-summer.
This is created by the unusual atmospheric conditions that exist during the Antarctic winter.
An international treaty, the
Montreal Protocol, has been drawn up to control the release of ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere. This treaty is clearly working,
and the amount of these chemicals in air near the surface is beginning to decline. The chemicals are however so stable that it will take a long time before they drop to the levels that existed 50 years ago and it is likely that we will see an annual ozone hole over Antarctica for many decades to come. The answer is essentially ' because of the weather in the ozone layer '. In order for rapid ozone destruction to happen, clouds (known as PSCs, Stratospheric Clouds Mother of Pearl or Nacreous Clouds) have to form in the ozone layer. In these clouds surface chemistry takes place. This converts chlorine or bromine (from CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals) into an active form, so that when there is sunlight, ozone is rapidly destroyed. Without the clouds, there is little or no ozone destruction. Only during the Antarctic winter does the atmosphere get cold enough for these clouds to form widely through the centre of the ozone layer. Elsewhere the atmosphere is just too warm and no clouds form. The northern and southern hemispheres have different 'weather' in the ozone layer, and the net result is that the temperature of the Arctic ozone layer during winter is normally some ten degrees warmer than that of the Antarctic. This means that such clouds are rare, but sometimes the 'weather' is colder than normal and they do form. Under these circumstances significant ozone depletion can take place over the Arctic, but it is usually for a much shorter period of time and covers a smaller area than in the Antarctic. Some reports in the media suggest that the ozone layer
over Antarctica is now recovering.
This message is a little confused. Recent measurements at surface monitoring stations show that the loading of ozone destroying chemicals at the surface has been dropping since about 1994 and is now about 6% down on that peak. The stratosphere lags behind the surface by several years and the loading of ozone depleting chemicals in the ozone layer is at or near the peak. Satellite measurements show that the rate of decline in ozone amount in the upper stratosphere is slowing, however the total ozone amount is still declining. The small size of the 2002 ozone hole was nothing to do with any reduction in ozone depleting chemicals and it will be a decade or more before we can unambiguously say that the ozone hole is recovering. This assumes that the decline in ozone depleting chemicals continues and that there are no other perturbations to the ozone layer, such as might be caused by a massive volcanic eruption or Tunguska like event. It will be the middle of this century or beyond before the ozone hole ceases to appear over Antarctica. What we saw in 2002 is just one extreme in the natural range of variation in the polar stratosphere and is the equivalent of an extreme in 'stratospheric weather'. By contrast the 'weather' in 2003 moved to the opposite extreme and we saw one of the largest ozone holes on record.
31
Ozone—UQ Link
The ozone will recover now if we don’t do the plan
Pete Spotts, March 31, 2009, Staff Reporter for Christian Science Monitor, As rocket launches increase, ozone layer could feel the heat, The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.
Just when it looks as though people could breath a sigh of relief over the hole in the stratospheric ozone over Antarctica -- it's expected to heal by 2050 -- scientists are raising a new ozone-related concern: rocket launches.
That's right. Rocket launches. The idea is not as wiggy as it may sound. As early as 1974, some scientists
had noted that the space shuttle
-- still a gleam in NASA's eye at the time -- would be a source of chlorine emissions as it climbed through the atmosphere and passed through the stratosphere.
Chlorine-based compounds called chlorflorocarbons have been the main driver behind the loss of ozone in a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere. They've been banned via the
1987 Montreal Protocol, along with other ozone-trashing compounds. Indeed, some people have argued -- wrongly -- that the space shuttles have been responsible for the ozone hole. For a team led by Martin Ross at the Aerospace
Corporation in Los Angeles, it's not a question of today's launches being a problem. In a new research paper that appears in the on-line issue of the journal Astropolitics, he and his colleagues note that today's launch and reentry emissions are far too small to have a significant effect. Down the road, however, the picture could change, especially if aerospace-industry launch projections pan out. The team's pitch: Don't wait until then to figure out if this will be an issue. That could lead to a mishmash of regulations that could choke off the launch business. Instead, gather the data now in a rigorous, transparent way so that if emissions regulations are required in the future, they won't be cobbled together at the last minute with little scientific basis for designing them. "Currently we've got launch activity that's really ramping up," says Darian Toohey, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the research team. Projections that aerospace companies are trotting out in Powerpoint slides at industry meetings point to a launch rate by 2030 or 2040 that is three to 10 times higher than it is today. At the same time, scientists' ability to gather and analyze samples from rocket exhaust plumes has improved dramatically, giving them an ability to more-thoroughly study the issue. Some of that sampling already has taken place, thanks to NASA's cooperation, Dr. Toohey says during a phone chat. That's given the team an opportunity to take an initial crack at estimating what sort of effect higher launch rates could have on stratospheric ozone. No surprise, but depending on worldwide launch rates, heft of the payloads, fuels used, and other factors, a decline in ozone loss reverses around 2028 and loss begins to skyrocket if countries triple their launch rates every 10 years . The increase in ozone loss comes later and destruction rises somewhat less rapidly if launch rates only double every 10 years.
32
Ozone Link—Generic
Rocket launches destroy the ozone
Minard 9
(Anne Minard, National Geographic News, April 14, 2009 Rocket Launches Damage Ozone Layer,
Study Says , http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone_2.html
Plumes from rocket launches could be the world's next worrisome emissions, according to a new study that says solid-fuel rockets damage the ozone layer, allowing more harmful solar rays to reach Earth. Thanks to international laws, ozone-depleting chemicals
such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and methyl bromide have been slowly fading from the atmosphere. But when solid-fuel rockets launch, they release chlorine gas directly into the stratosphere, where the chlorine reacts with oxygen to form ozonedestroying chlorine oxides. Increased international space launches
and the potential commercial space travel boom could mean that rockets will soon emerge as the worst offenders in terms of ozone depletion,
according to the study, published in the March issue of the journal Astropolitics.
Rocket Launches will polute the ozone
ATKINSON 9
N A N C Y on APRIL 2, science journalist who writes mainly about space exploration and astronomy. She is the Senior Editor and writer for Universe Today, the project manager for the
365 Days of Astronomy podcast, and part of the production team for Astronomy Cast. She also has articles published on Wired.com, Space.com, NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, Space Times Magazine, and several newspapers in the Midwest. Will Rocket Launches Deplete the Ozone?, http://www.universetoday.com/28412/will-rocket-launches-deplete-the-ozone/
A new study predicts that
Earth’s
stratospheric ozone layer will suffer significant damage from future unregulated rocket launches.
The study provides a market analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and known impacts of rocket launches.
The increase in launches could cause ozone depletion
that eventually could exceed ozone losses from CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which were banned in the 1980′s. “
As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions,”
said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department, a member of the study. “
If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized
by CFCs.” The study says more research should be done on how different rockets affect the ozone before imposing stricter regulations on chemicals used in rocket fuels. Current global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer by no more than a few hundredths of 1 percent annually, said Toohey. But as the space industry grows and other ozonedepleting chemicals decline in the Earth’s stratosphere, the issue of ozone depletion from rocket launches is expected to move to the forefront.
Rockets around the world use a variety of propellants, including solids, liquids and hybrids. Martin Ross, lead author of the study from The Aerospace Corporation Ross said while little is currently known about how they compare to each other with respect to the ozone loss they cause, new studies are needed to provide the parameters required to guide possible regulation of both commercial and government rocket launches in the future.
Rocket emissions will destroy the ozone
Science Daily 9
Martin Ross; Darin Toohey; Manfred Peinemann; Patrick Ross. Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. Astropolitics, 2009; Rocket Launches May
Need Regulation To Prevent Ozone Depletion, Says Study, http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/multistage_rocket.htm
Future ozone losses from unregulated rocket launches will eventually exceed ozone losses due to chlorofluorocarbons
, or CFCs, which stimulated the 1987 Montreal Protocol banning ozone-depleting chemicals
, said Martin Ross, chief study author from The Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles. The study, which includes the University of Colorado at Boulder and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, provides a market analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and known impacts of rocket launches.
"As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions,"
said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department.
"If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized
by CFCs."
33
Ozone Link—Generic
Keeping rocket launches low is key to maintain the ozone
Ross and Zittel 7
(Martin N. Ross and Paul F. Zittel, 05/16/07,Martin N. Ross (left), Environmental Systems
Directorate, leads research on the stratospheric impact of Air Force launch vehicles. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of California at Los Angeles in Earth and planetary sciences and has been with Aerospace since
1989. Paul F. Zittel (right), Remote Sensing Department, leads research on the radiative and chemical properties of rocket plumes and has conducted basic research in the areas of laser-induced chemistry, vibrational energy transfer, and cryogenic spectroscopy. He holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and has been with Aerospace since 1976. Rockets and the Ozone Layer, http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
Protecting Earth's ozone layer remains an important environmental issue. Without this shielding layer, ultraviolet (UV) radiation would harm life on Earth. We hear alarming statistics on increasing incidences of skin cancer and other disorders that may be linked to a thinning of
Earth's ozone layer.
We know that the presence of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)—chemicals used as solvents and refrigerants—and other industrial gases in the atmosphere is the major cause of ozone depletion. But what about exhaust from launch vehicles? Can the cumulative effect of emissions from rockets launched every three or four days from various launch sites around the globe significantly alter Earth's delicately balanced, natural sunscreen?
Space transportation, once dominated by government, has become an important part of our commercial economy, and the business of launching payloads into orbit is expected to nearly double in the next decade. Each time a rocket is launched
, combustion products are emitted into the stratosphere. CFCs and other chemicals banned by international agreement are thought to have reduced the total amount of stratospheric ozone by about 4 percent. In comparison, recent predictions about the effect on the ozone layer of solid rocket motor (SRM) emissions suggest that they reduce the total amount of
stratospheric ozone
by only about 0.04 percent.
Chemical reactions result from rocket launches and hurt the ozone
Ross and Zittel 7
(Martin N. Ross and Paul F. Zittel, 05/16/07,Martin N. Ross (left), Environmental Systems
Directorate, leads research on the stratospheric impact of Air Force launch vehicles. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of California at Los Angeles in Earth and planetary sciences and has been with Aerospace since
1989. Paul F. Zittel (right), Remote Sensing Department, leads research on the radiative and chemical properties of rocket plumes and has conducted basic research in the areas of laser-induced chemistry, vibrational energy transfer, and cryogenic spectroscopy. He holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and has been with Aerospace since 1976. Rockets and the Ozone Layer, http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
Both solid and liquid rocket-propulsion systems emit a variety of gases
and particles directly into the stratosphere. A large percentage of these emissions are inert chemicals such as carbon dioxide that
do not directly affect ozone levels
. Emissions of other gases, such as hydrogen chloride and water vapor, though not highly reactive, indirectly affect ozone levels by participating in chemical reactions that determine the concentrations of the ozone-destroying radicals in the global stratosphere. A small percentage of rocket- engine emissions, however, are highly reactive radical compounds that immediately attack and deplete ozone in the plume wake following launch. Aerosol emissions, such as alumina particles, carbon (soot) particles, and water droplets, can also act as reactive compounds when heterogeneous chemical reactions take place on the surface of these particles.
Rocket emissions have two
distinct effects on ozone: short-term and long-term.
Following launch, rapid chemical reactions between plume gases and particles and ambient air that has been drawn into the plume wake cause immediate changes in the composition of the local atmosphere. During this phase, which lasts for several hours, the concentrations of radicals in the plume can be thousands of times greater than the concentrations found in the undisturbed stratosphere, and
the ozone loss is dramatic.
34
Ozone Link—Generic (Climate)
Rocket launches will perpetuate climate change
Pete Spotts, Staff writer / October 25, 2010, Will space tourists be Earth polluters? Scientists sound a warning., http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/1025/Will-space-tourists-be-Earth-polluters-Scientists-sound-awarning
Pete Spotts, Staff writer / October 25, 2010
Scratching an expensive itch to take a pleasure trip to the doorstep of space might come with an unintended consequence: altering the climate back on Earth.
A new study suggests that projected increases in so-called suborbital flights – including space tourism launches – will boost the amount of soot in the stratosphere, measurably changing climate
. The soot comes from hybrid rocket motors, which burn a rubbery solid fuel, aided by a gas "oxidizer" as a stand-in for oxygen. By contrast, many liquid-fueled rockets burn oxygen and hydrogen, which produces a cleaner exhaust. According to the results, temperatures in the region around the launch site would likely cool slightly as the high-altitude soot blocked some sunlight.But the soot would spread around the globe, warming the stratosphere and touching off changes in its circulation that would bring additional warming to the poles. If demand for
suborbital
flights grow s
to levels some in the industry project by 2020, black carbon's climate effect could rival the impact from soot coming from all the world's trains, trucks, and heavy construction equipment, the researchers calculate.
35
Ozone Link—SPS
SBSP launching costs are astronomical and create gigantic disruptions to the ozone layer.
Howard 9 (George, President of NSS Heart of America, Sept 6, A Position Paper on Space
Solar Power Satellite Technology , http://www.nssheartofamerica.org/sspskc.html)
According to The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology, copyright 1981; the total mass to be placed in space would be 88,000 to 110,000 US tons for SSPS that could produce a commercially viable amount of power. Using this information we can determine that if boosters capable of placing 100 tons into orbit were used it would require 880 to 1100 such launches. A Saturn 5 booster of the Apollo program could launch about 140 tons into orbit.
This is about the size needed for a booster to accomplish the task to launch one booster per day for about 3 years. One hundred tons for cargo and 40 tons for a crew module. 110000 tons of equipment ___ = 1100 days to launch completion or 3.01 years. 100 tons launched per day.
Each carrier vehicle with a 100 ton payload would be about the size of an Apollo Saturn 5 rocket, the Apollo program required 15 to 18 Saturn 5 boosters to be built. The SSPS program would require over 1000 of this size booster to be built. This is a tall order to say the least.
Environmental impact: There is no real world comparison to launch one Saturn 5 sized rocket every day for three years. However it is known what happens when one Saturn 5 rocket is launched or a Space Shuttle or Energia booster. The launch results in an approximately 150 mile wide disruption of the ozone layer for several days. If you launch one rocket this size each day it would result in a persistent disruption that would extend over several thousand miles. If as an example the ozone hole persisted for 15 days before ozone completely recovered you may end up with the following result. A rough calculation would be 150 miles multiplied by 15 equaling a 2250-mile long disruption area. If you do this for three years it may result in a wider disruption area. The affected area will vary based on the fuels and oxidizers used.
SBSP damages atmosphere, and raises the risk of cancer
Bansal 11
(Gaurav, staff writer for EcoFriend , May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly:
Space based solar energy”, EcoFriend, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-andthe-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)
Potential
damage to Atmosphere: Till now microwave and other transmission methods that are adopted for all over the world are for communication and broadcast purposes only. However, for energy transmission, the wavelength has to very high which can be potentially dangerous to our atmosphere and will increase the risk of leukemia and cancer among humans.
Suggested concentration and intensity of such microwaves at their center would be of 23 mW/cm2 and at periphery would be 1 mW/cm2 , which compares to the current United States
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves.
Similarly very high frequency used for such long distance propagation can be very dangerous and may lead to increase in radioactivity in earth’s environment.
36
Ozone Impact—Extinction
Destruction of the ozone causes extinction of the human race
Festive Earth Society 9,
17 February 2009, http://festiveearth.com/content/view/96/54/index.html
The ozone layer is essential for human life. It is able to absorb much harmful ultraviolet radiation, preventing penetration to the earth’s surface .
Ultraviolet radiation (UV) isdefined as radiation with wavelengths between 290-320 nanometers, which are harmful to life
because this radiation can enter cells and destroy the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of many life forms on planet earth. In a sense, the ozone layer can be thought of as a ?UV filter? or our planet?s ?built in sunscreen? (Geocities.com, 1998).
Without the ozone layer, UV radiation would not be filtered as it reached the surface of the earth. If this happened, cancer would break out and all of the living civilizations, and all species on earth would be in jeopardy. Thus the ozone layer essentially allows life, as we know it, to exist.
The ozone is a key factor is human life
Gruijl 95
(Frank R. de Gruijl, Summer 1995, is a biophysicist on the research staff of the Dermatology
Department, University Hospital, University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Since 1977 he has been involved in studies of effects of ultraviolet radiation on health, and now serves on the committee of the United Nations
Environment Programme that deals with effects of an ozone depletion., Impacts of a Projected Depletion of the
Ozone Layer, http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/impacts.html
Life on Earth depends in part on a thin shell of gaseous ozone that stretches from about 10 to 25 miles above our heads, encompassing the planet like an invisible, protective shield. At this altitude, it lies well above the height at which normal commercial aircraft fly, and far beneath the orbital paths of spacecraft. The ozone layer is the main barrier between us and the hazardous ultraviolet radiation that streams toward the Earth, day in and day out, from the burning surface of the Sun. Ozone--a form of oxygen--is selective in what it takes from sunlight: screening out, through a process of atomic absorption, only the more energetic ultraviolet rays while allowing the visible light and the warm infrared to pass through, untouched
37
Ozone Impact—Biodiversity
If the ozone is diminished then it would severely affect biodiversity
Gruijl 95
(Frank R. de Gruijl, Summer 1995, is a biophysicist on the research staff of the Dermatology
Department, University Hospital, University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Since 1977 he has been involved in studies of effects of ultraviolet radiation on health, and now serves on the committee of the United Nations
Environment Programme that deals with effects of an ozone depletion., Impacts of a Projected Depletion of the
Ozone Layer, http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/impacts.html
)
All animals and plants and other organisms that are exposed to the Sun, though well shielded by the ozone layer, have developed ways to cope with and protect themselves from the small fraction of solar UVB radiation that normally reaches the Earth's surface.
Even a small amount of UVB radiation can have a significant effect on ecosystems. In the tropics
, for example, where a thinner ozone layer and a higher Sun result in systematically stronger UV dosage, certain trees have been found to be restricted in their growth by current levels of solar UV radiation.
In ecosystem studies, as in medicine, science has not yet reached the point where any practically useful assessments of the consequences of increased dosages can be made. Research has thus far been mainly limited to more rudimentary studies in laboratories and greenhouses that test the sensitivity of different plant species to enhanced UV radiation. Only a few field investigations have been performed on an appreciable scale, and proper ecological studies are still in their infancy. In general, it appears that plant species can react in widely different ways to increased levels of UVB radiation
: some may be clearly limited
in their growth
; other varieties may be insensitive or rapidly become so by adaptive mechanisms; and still others may even exhibit enhanced growth. Under added stress, as through drought, the differences in UV sensitivity may be completely lost. The majority of plant species that have been tested were agricultural plants; trees appear to run a higher risk of accumulating UV damage over their far longer lifetimes. In addition to direct effects on photosynthesis and growth, there may also occur more subtle changes, such as a delay in flowering, a shift in the distribution of leaves, a change in leaf structure, or a change in a plant's metabolism. As verified in field studies, such subtle changes may have far-reaching consequences by causing a plant to loose ground to neighboring plants with whom they compete.
Thus, dramatic shifts in plant populations and in biodiversity may ensue.
Biodiversity loss leads to extinction
Diner 1994 (Major David N. Diner, Judge Advocate General's Corps, “The Army and the
Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangered Now? “143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Winter 1994
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 , n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss .
38
39
Ozone Impact—Bees
Distruption of the ozone will destroy all of the bees
Climate Change Report, 2011, Forest Partners, Global Warming, Pollution and Bees What’s the Buzz?, http://www.centerforabetterlife.com/eng/magazine/article_detail.lasso?id=106
When
birds, bees
, bats and, to a lesser degree, moths and butterflies disappear, so, too, will flowers, trees, vegetables, fruits and forage for livestock. Pollinators are critical for preserving healthy ecosystems, agricultural crops and vegetable gardens.
Indeed, worldwide approximately 80 percent of plants grown for food, beverages (including chocolate and coffee) and medicine need pollinators to transfer pollen between flowers for successful seed and fruit production. Even cotton needs pollination. Honey bees, the most important of these pollinators, are
“responsible for $15 billion in added crop value.
About one mouthful in three in the diet directly or indirectly benefits from honey bee pollination,” explains the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In October 2006 beekeepers started noticing a significant loss in their honey bee hives – up to 60 percent.
In fact, managed honey bee colonies have dropped from 5 million in the 1940s to less than 2.5 million today, according to the USDA.
In addition, honey bee health has been steadily declining because of unknown causes such as Colony
Collapse Disorder
(CCD) and known causes such as new pathogens and pests, new stresses and pesticides. “Despite its apparent lack of marquee appeal, a decline in pollinator populations is one form of global change that actually has credible potential to alter the shape and structure of terrestrial ecosystems,” stated May R. Berenbaum, Ph.D., professor and head of the entomology department at University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences’ report Status of Pollinators in North America. Berenbaum’s research on chemical interactions between insects and the plants they pollinate makes her uniquely qualified to consider pesticide effects on honey bees. “It’s a double-edged sword. From a grower’s perspective, it’s hard to imagine achieving the level of productivity we have achieved without some way to assist plants in fending off their enemies even if you grow organically. The problem we have is prophylactic use; people tend to use a chemical before there’s really a need . . . the American idea that if a little is good, then more is better,” says Berenbaum. Chemical misuse is just one of the stressors causing pollinator disappearance. Another is global climate change. “Global climate change appears to be contributing to a mismatch between pollinators and plants. European data shows there have been shifts in distribution of pollinators, especially bumble bees. And the plants that depend upon them are also undergoing shifts,” says Berenbaum. Evidence suggests that global warming is to blame for modifying plant and animal ranges in the past few decades; that, in turn, is altering migration travel patterns. Migratory pollinators journey along routes where flowers bloom at the appropriate time during their migrations. If the timing doesn’t coincide, plants could suffer less pollination while travelers could face a long flight with no opportunity to replenish their energy along the way. In addition, increased carbon dioxide may change the production of nectar, the
sweet liquid secreted by flowers and gathered by bees for making honey. And these alterations in nectar production can affect foraging pollinator behavior. Another contributing factor is increasing ultraviolet-B radiation caused by ozone depletion, which can delay flowering or reduce flowering production altogether (thus impacting plant and pollinator reproductive success).
The loss of the bee will destroy humanity
Environmental Quality Management 07
(Winter 2007, “The Case of the Disappearing Honeybees: An
Environmental Harbinger?” http://www.entheogen.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-12279.html
“
If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man
.”
This widely cited quote has been attributed to Albert Einstein
—although debunkers of “urban legends” say it is doubtful that he actually authored it.
Regardless of the source, however
, this statement underscores the important role bees play within the ecosystem and in the modern human food web. In order to bear fruit, three-quarters of all flowering plants, including most food crops, rely on pollinators for fertilization. Honeybees are the insects most important to the human food chain. They are the principal pollinators for hundreds of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and flowers. But what if we lost this important source of pollination?
Colony Collapse Disorder Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is a bizarre, recently experienced phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive colony virtually vanish into thin air,
leaving the vacated hive and precious honey supply behind. Beekeepers are watching their hives become bare in a matter of weeks, sometimes days. This makes CCD difficult to study. For example, a beekeeper who recently traveled with two truckloads of bees to California for pollination found nearly all of his bees gone or dead upon arrival.
Commercial beekeepers are reporting losses of 50 to 90 percent, an unprecedented level even for an industry accustomed to die-offs.
Many scientists are becoming increasingly alarmed at this epidemic. Honeybees pollinate onethird of the food eaten by Americans
. Some worry that what’s shaping up to be a honeybee catastrophe could disrupt the national or even global food supply.
The United States House of Representatives’ Committee on Agriculture has held hearings on the “missing bee” phenomenon.
40
41
**AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS**
Aff—Debris Inevitable
Space debris inevitable- Even if launches ceased space junk would continue to expand.
Schimd ‘6. AP Science Writer
More than 9,000 pieces of space debris are orbiting the Earth, a hazard that can only be expected to get worse in the next few years. And currently there's no workable and economic way to clean up the mess. The pieces of space junk measuring 4 inches or more total some
5,500 tons, according to a report by NASA scientists J.-C. Liou and N. L. Johnson in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Even if space launches were halted now — which will not happen — the collection of debris would continue growing as items already in orbit collide and break into more pieces, "On the other hand, we are not claiming the sky is falling," he said, "We just need to understand what the risks are." Liou said in a telephone interview. The most debris-crowded area is between 550 miles and 625 miles above the Earth, Liou said, meaning the risk is less for manned spaceflight. The International Space Station operates at about 250 miles altitude, and Space Shuttle flights tend to range between 250 miles and 375 miles, he said. But the junk can pose a risk to commercial and research flights and other space activities. Much of the debris results from explosions of satellites, especially old upper stages left in orbit with leftover fuel and high pressure fluids. A 2004 NASA report identified Russia as the source of the largest number of debris items, closely followed by the United States.
Other sources were France, China, India, Japan and the European Space Agency. Even without any launches adding to the junk, the creation of new debris from collisions of material already there will exceed the amount of material removed as orbits decay and items fall back to Earth, the researchers estimated. Only removal of existing large objects from orbit "can prevent future problems for research in and commercialization of space," they wrote. "As of now there is no viable solution, technically and economically, to remove objects from space,"
Liou said. He said he hopes the report will encourage researchers to think about better ways to do this. Tethers to slow down orbiting materials and cause them to fall back to Earth sooner could work, but attaching tethers to the space junk would be excessively expensive for the benefit gained, the researchers said. Newly launched satellites and boosters could include engines that would direct them back to Earth, but that would require costly and complex power and control systems. And use of ground-based lasers to disturb the orbits of satellites isn't practical because of the mass of the satellites and the amount of energy that would be needed. "The bottom line is very simple." Liou said. "Although the risk is small, we need to pay attention to this environmental problem."
42
Aff—Debris Inevitable
Experts Agree- China’s Makes Space Debris Inevitable.
Broad 7 – Pulitzer Prize winning science writer
William Broad, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat,” 2-2007, NYT, Proquest
Now, experts say, China’s test on Jan. 11 of an antisatellite rocket that shattered an old satellite into hundreds of large fragments means the chain reaction will most likely start sooner. If their predictions are right, the cascade could put billions of dollars’ worth of advanced satellites at risk and eventually threaten to limit humanity’s reach for the stars. Federal and private experts say that early estimates of 800 pieces of detectable debris from the shattering of the satellite will grow to nearly 1,000 as observations continue by tracking radars and space cameras. At either number, it is the worst such episode in space history. Today, next year or next decade, some piece of whirling debris will start the cascade, experts say. “It’s inevitable,” said Nicholas L.
Johnson, chief scientist for orbital debris at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
“A significant piece of debris will run into an old rocket body, and that will create more debris.
It’s a bad situation.”
Inevitable—large objects in crowded orbits
Bombardelli et. al. 11
(Claudio Bombardelli, and Jesus Peláez,Technical University of Madrid, “
Ion Beam Shepherd for Contactless Space Debris Removal”, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1289v1.pdf)
According to a study by Liou and Johnson even assuming no new satellites were launched, the increase rate of trackable objects generated by accidental collisions would exceed the decrease rate due to atmospheric drag decay starting from about the year 2055. This trend is mostly due to large and massive objects placed in crowded orbits , that is, at altitudes between 800 and 1000 km and near-polar inclination.
43
Aff—Alt Causes
Multiple Alt causes—Russia, china, and US ASAT missions
Imburgia 11
(Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, (B.S., United States Air Force Academy (1994); J.D., University of Tennessee
College of Law (2002); “ Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the
Junk”, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjourna l-of-transnationallaw%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D6574&rct=j&q=Joseph%20S.%20Imburgia%20is%20usaf%20University%20of%20Tennessee%20College%2
0of%20Law&ei=m9wITqmzFsfV0QHt4KnbCw&usg=AFQjCNEglOEqH_3OfmcbgE6HXwiHKrBz8g&sig2=NRXHp8brVZYLKQSpoUqqFA
&cad=rja)
Although China drastically increased the space debris population through its 2007 ASAT mission, it is certainly not the only originator of space debris. As evidenced by the February
2009 satellite collision, Russia and the United States are also responsible.108 With its January
2007 ASAT mission, China is the number one space polluter per satellite in terms of the ratio of space debris created to satellites launched.109 However, the United States and Russia rank second and third respectively .
44
