Agency Neg
DA Links
Politics
Ocean Policy Controversial
Plan unpopular-causes partisan fights in an election year
Eilperin, Washington Post, 12
(Juliet, October 28, 2012, Washington Post, “National ocean policy sparks partisan fight”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisanfight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html, Accessed 7/13/14, AA)
Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over
environmental issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge.
For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national
ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights.
Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory
reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their
environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use.
The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to
managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers
and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a
National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests
of different agencies and ocean users.
The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise
among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational
fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers
consider them a hazard and want them removed.
Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests
are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the
speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials
denied the petition.
During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panel’s top
Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that “opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic
control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.”
Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was
“like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms.” An environmental
group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him.
The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed
to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay
could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while
allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations.
Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican
governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick.
“The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. What’s
not to love?” Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy
production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination.
Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions
regarding federal waters, which extend from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200
miles from shore.
When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there
could be “a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.”
In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by
Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the
West Coast and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input.
White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give
the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines
implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans.”
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a
national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the administration’s broad definition of
what affects the ocean — including runoff from land — could open the door to regulating all inland
activities, because “all water going downhill goes into the ocean. . . . That potential could be there.”
The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing
the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate.
Two influential groups — anglers and energy firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the
administration’s approach.
In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could prohibit U.S. citizens from
fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.” The article,
which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been
labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later.
“Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down,” said Michael
Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700
members include the nation’s major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard
added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they
will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the election.
The National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well
as mining, farming and chemical interests — has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice
president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work
for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests.
Brent Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the
development of the policy and that his group worries about “the potential economic impacts of the
policy on commercial or recreational activity.”
Sarah Cooksey, who is Delaware’s coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the MidAtlantic’s regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the
books. “No government wants another layer of bureaucracy,” she said.
In Southerland’s reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman “Ocean Enemy #1” and
sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district,
has mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses.
Southerland declined to comment for this article.
Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are region e
partisan. I do not think it will be the last.”al, this is “the first issue I’ve seen that’s become partisan.
I do not think it will be the last.”
Ocean policy sparks partisan fights – plan would spark controversy
Stauffer, Ocean Program Manager, 6/1/14
(PETE, 6/1/14, Surfrider Foundation, “Texas Lawmaker Leads Attack on our National Ocean Policy”,
http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congress-takes-aim-at-our-national-ocean-policy, accessed
7/13/14, AA)
Who is Congressmen Bill Flores and what does he have against the ocean? Last week, the Republican
lawmaker from Bryan, Texas led yet another effort in Congress to undermine the National Ocean
Policy (NOP). By a mostly party line vote, the U.S. House passed his amendment to an
appropriations bill (HR 4660) to defund the National Ocean Policy. The measure will next be
considered by the Senate.
Incredibly, this is Rep. Flores sixth attempt in the past two years to obstruct implementation of the
National Ocean Policy through a legislative amendment. This raises an important question: why is
a lawmaker from a land-locked district taking such a keen interest in ocean policy? The answer, not
surprisingly, is politics.
When the National Ocean Policy was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious
attempt to address the many shortcomings of our nation’s piecemeal approach to ocean
management. Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - a
bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration
across all levels of government to address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable
energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional ocean parterships (ROPs) that
empower states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of
the ocean.
In just three years, important progress has been made, despite a glaring lack of support from
Congress. An Implementation Plan has been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies are
taking to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Collaborative projects are moving forward to
restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And finally, the Northeast, Mid-
Atlantic, and West Coast regions have begun ocean planning to enusure that future development will
mimize impacts to the environment and existing users.
Of course, such success stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where controversy rules
the day and political parties instinctively oppose each other’s proposals. As an initiative of the
Obama Presidency, the policy has suffered from partisan attacks, despite the collaborative
framework it is based upon. Yet, such political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an
important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in states and regions across
the country, even without the meaningful support of Congress.
Funding to ocean agencies empirically been unpopular with Republicans
Helvarg, Blue Frontier Executive Director, 14
[David, 2-14-14, The Hill, “The oceans demand our attention”, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-our-attention, 7-13-14, AAZ]
The latest battle over the future of America’s ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly unrelated
bill in Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National
Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The
Endowment would establish a permanent fund – based on offshore energy revenue – for scientific
research and coastal restoration.
On the House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any
funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administration’s National
Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to control the property of his droughtplagued constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops.
One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean
policy aimed at coordinating federal agencies in ways that could reduce conflict, redundancy and
government waste, “putting urban planning in the water column,” in the words of former Commandant of
the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane
Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a
disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an
ongoing disaster in our public seas.
Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit
from our ocean continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail).
In 2004 ocean conservationists held their first ‘Blue Vision Summit’ in Washington D.C. It was there
Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) called for a “Big Ocean Bill,” to incorporate many of the recommendations of
the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon
panels to examine the state of America’s blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency,
George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal
commission’s recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense
(now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result America’s seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different
federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws.
In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect
Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions’
recommendations that he agreed to do.
By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress had become too polarized to pass
major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century.
Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental
Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama
administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different
parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of
public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean
uses.
Plan Unpopular—Congress already funds NOAA so plan is perceived as a
redundant agency
NOAA, 13
(NOAA, 7/21/13, NOAA, “Ocean Exploration 2020 Outcome”,
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/agenda.html, accessed 7/13/14, AA)
The U.S. National Ocean Exploration Program brings together federal agencies, academia, and the
private sector in an open, inclusive partnership program. It has become the international model for ocean
exploration. The President mentions it in her State of the Union address and Congress has elevated the
level of support for the program to $75 million per year. The appropriation has grown each year for
the past four years.
Spending & Tradeoff
Expensive
OSEA would require massive financial investment
Mustain, Live Science, 11
[Andrea, June 8, Live Science, “Mysteries of the Oceans Remain Vast and Deep,”
http://www.livescience.com/14493-ocean-exploration-deep-sea-diving.html, accessed July 15, 2014, EK]
Exploring these regions deep below the ocean's surface is difficult, time-consuming and expensive.
Which hasn't stopped people from trying — and making incredible discoveries along the way.
Known unknowns
Shallower parts of the ocean, and those closer to coastline, have understandably gotten the lion's share of
investigation.
What's been fairly well explored is about one Washington Monument down into the ocean — about
556 feet (170 meters) — said Mike Vecchione, a veteran scientist with NOAA and the Smithsonian
Institution.
Impressive, perhaps, yet the average depth of the planet's oceans is 13,120 feet (4,000 m), the height of
many peaks in the Rockies and the Alps. [Infographic: Tallest Mountain to Deepest Ocean Trench]
"In the deep ocean we're still exploring, and frankly, that's most of the planet that we live on. And
we're still in the exploratory phase," Vecchione told OurAmazingPlanet.
Ocean exploration is exceedingly expensive; simple surveys cost $50 million
Carlyle, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 13
(Ryan, 1/31/2013, Forbes, “Why Don't We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On
Space Exploration?”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-onexploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/, accessed 7/15/14, AA)
So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What
kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I can tell you that the ocean is
excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren,
featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can
see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of
space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But
in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots.
A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast,
boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother?
OSEA would have to all new infrastructure and all new tech to solve
Drs. McClain, Deep Sea News Editor & Dove, Georgia Aquarium Research Center
Research and Conservation Director, 12
[Craig, National Evolutionary Synthesis Center Assistant Director of Science, & Alistair, Al Dove is an
Australian marine biologist currently serving as Director of Research and Conservation at the Georgia
Aquarium Research Center in Atlanta, 10-16-12, Deep Sea News, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt.1”,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-3/, accessed 6-24-14, AFB]
What Does an OSEA look like? At the core OSEA would need a mission dedicated to basic research
and exploration of the >;90% of the world’s oceans that remain unexplored. High risk with the
potential for high impact would be the norm. Pioneering knows no other way to achieve those truly novel
and impactful gains.
To achieve these goals, OSEA would need substantial infrastructure and fleet including
international and regional class research vessels, a submersible, remotely operated vehicles, and
autonomous underwater vehicles. Funding would need to be secure on decadal cycles to insure both
the longevity and permanence of this mission but allow for oversight to ensure OSEA was meeting
its mission and financial responsibilities. An ocean exploration center would be staffed with a
vibrant community of researchers, engineers, and administrators, postdoctoral fellows, graduate
students, and visiting experts with a strong interacting and supportive community working toward
uncovering the mysteries of the oceans. Research would be funded internally from a broad OSEA
budget, not externally, freeing scientists and engineers to actually do science and engineering as
opposed to the only current option, which is writing grants to other agencies with a less than 10%
chance of funding.
Deep-sea marine research requires expensive technology
Ben-Avraham, Haifa University Professor, 13
(Zvi, 11/19/2013, “THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA RESEARCH CENTER OF ISRAEL AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA”,
http://www.haifauniv.ca/images/Mediterranean%20Sea%20Research%20Center%20of%20Israel.pdf ,
accessed 7-15-14, AKS)
Deep-sea marine research is difficult and complex, even with today’s advanced technologies.
Investigating the deep-sea floor requires expensive infrastructures that can withstand pressure at
great depths and are difficult to finance and maintain. Most of Israel’s marine research infrastructure
is non-existent or antiquated at best. Deep sea marine research is dependent on purchasing expensive
deep sea exploration equipment (such as manned and unmanned submersibles, trawls and towed
camera platforms), upgrading our national marine research infrastructure, securing appropriate
levels of technical support and ensuring ongoing maintenance.
Trade-Off with Other Ocean Science
Implementing ocean policy forces tradeoff with other ocean science resources
Madsen, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council chair, 12
(Stephanie, vice president of the Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Summer 2012, Pacific
Fisheries Review, “National Ocean Policy: A New Bureaucracy That Could Compromise
Regional Fisheries Management”,
http://www.pacificfisheriesreview.com/pfr_june12_story6.php, accessed 6/27/14, GNL)
The Administration’s draft NOP Implementation Plan proposes 53 federal governmental actions
and nearly 300 milestones, with 158 of those milestones to be completed in 2012 or 2013. Congress is
cutting funding for most federal agencies and has not provided new funding for NOP
implementation, so where is the money coming from to fund these new activities? Commercial
fishing interests are concerned that money has been, and will be, diverted from under-funded core
NOAA Fisheries science and management programs to pay for a new bureaucracy and for new
activities not authorized by Congress.
Proponents are well aware of the tenuous authority of the Administration to implement the NOP, yet they
move ahead without apparent concern. These same proponents, however, insisted previously that
Congressional action to create a national ocean policy was necessary. NOP proponents supported bills
introduced in the previous four Congresses that proposed a national ocean policy, as well as many of the
councils and committees subsequently established through Executive Order. None of the bills introduced
in successive Congresses passed. In fact, none passed either body of Congress.
Now, without Congressional authorization or dedicated appropriations, the Administration states that
funding to implement the NOP, including ocean zoning activities, will come from “repurposing”
existing resources. The commercial fishing industry does not support “repurposing” core NOAA
Fisheries science and management programs to establish a new oceans bureaucracy that at the very
least creates duplicative fisheries management authority. It is a hollow argument advanced to date by
the Administration that repurposing funds creates efficiencies when, at least in the case of fisheries
management, it creates confusing, overlapping jurisdictional lines and duplicates existing resource
management processes.
In May, the House of Representatives voted to prohibit certain federal agencies, including NOAA, from
spending taxpayer dollars on the NOP, in large part, because Congress has not authorized many of the
activities contained in the NOP implementation plan. Hopefully, the Senate will act, as well. The
Administration could show good faith by not moving forward with establishing ocean zoning bodies until
either Congress acts to define their scope of authority or the Administration appropriately limits their
mandate.
The Pacific Northwest and Alaska fishing industry are proud of our progressive and innovative approach
to properly managing ocean resources. And we are proud of our collaborative working relationship with
state and federal fishery managers. We do not welcome that relationship being put at risk by
implementation of an NOP that is being rushed forward without regard for constituents’ concerns.
Ocean exploration program trades off with other agencies – funding is mutually
exclusive
McClain, National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, 12
[Craig, 10-16-12, Deep Sea News, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now “,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-3/, 7-15-14, AAZ]
The Ghost of Ocean Science Past 85% of Americans express concerns about stagnant research
funding and 77% feel we are losing our edge in science. So how did we get here? Part of the
answer lies in how ocean science and exploration fit into the US federal science funding
scene. Ocean science is funded by numerous agencies, with few having ocean science and
exploration as a clear directive. Contrast to this to how the US traditionally dealt with
exploration of space. NASA was recognised early on as the vehicle by which the US would
establish and maintain international space supremacy, but the oceans have always had to
compete with other missions. We faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we
rightly looked for areas to adjust our budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or
situations: do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose what appeared to be most practical
and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied science because it was
perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was easier to
justify politically the expenditures involved. In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and
current economic woes, we lacked an understanding of the importance of basic research and
ocean exploration to science, society, and often to applied research. As example, NOAA
shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and exploration but greatly increased
funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate change
research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment
and economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our
country’s capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change
work relies upon?
Mining DA
Mining Link
Exploration includes exploitation of ocean resources
Schubel, Aquarium of the Pacific president and CEO, and McKinnie, NOAA's
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research senior advisor, 13
[Jerry, David, “Accelerating Ocean Exploration”, included in Ocean Exploration 2020 forum, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration & Aquarium of the Pacific, September 2013, “The Report of
Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,”
http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/downloads/oe2020report.pdf, p. 9-10, 6/28/14, GNL]
We’ve only explored five to ten percent of the World Ocean… just imagine what we’d find if we could
explore even more of Earth’s final frontier.
We have an unprecedented opportunity to increase the pace and efficiency of exploring the unknown
ocean in all of its dimensions in space and time. The past 20 years have seen a dramatic increase in
attempts by the U.S. government, academic institutions, private industry and entrepreneurs, and others to
explore unknown ocean areas and phenomena. The results of these expeditions establish a foundation
that inspires others to follow: to build on the discoveries and apply the knowledge gained to address
some of the most pressing challenges we face as a nation and an interconnected world, in addition to the
ultimate challenge—our human survival.
Ocean Exploration: An Opportunity and A Necessity
A strong commitment to ocean exploration and research is an opportunity, an urgent necessity, and an
issue of national security.
Every ocean exploration expedition yields new data and information, often new species, and
sometimes entirely new ecosystems. Scientists from different disciplines, resource managers, and
the public working together, unfettered by preconceived notions or constrained by narrowly
defined hypotheses, are empowered by the exploratory process.
Exploration:
• demands integration of observations, concepts, thoughts, and ideas.
• leads to discovery of new resources—food, medicines, minerals, and new sources of energy.
• leads to new connections among diverse observations that allow us to quickly provide information
critical for establishing or refining marine policy, as well as making important decisions concerning the
conservation and sustained use of marine resources.
• is a critical early phase of research. It guides research to areas and topics of promise and helps generate
and refine research hypotheses, thus increasing the return on the nation’s investment in research. As we
saw with the discovery of hydrothermal vents and chemosynthetic communities in the 1970s, exploration
sometimes requires us to rethink long-held and well-established scientific paradigms, exposing our
ignorance and dramatically expanding our knowledge as a result.
• pushes technology development. As we seek to explore new depths, in new time horizons, and
understand new details of the ocean, new technologies and tools are developed, from sensors to
telecommunications.
• inspires and moves us as humans to action, forever changing our perspectives and daily lives, and leaves
us with a legacy of knowledge and renewed passion to ensure humanity’s survival on the ocean planet—
Earth.
We depend on the ocean more now than ever before—as a nation and as a global community. As
new technologies and new partnerships allow us to explore and exploit more of the ocean, more
quickly, and at a higher resolution and rate than could even be imagined a decade ago, the pressures and
impacts on the ocean systems and resources on which we depend also increase. Nations around the
world understand the political and economic importance of exploring the ocean, whether in the
Arctic or in the South China Sea. Ocean Exploration 2020 is a timely reminder of what we can
achieve if we seize our opportunities to act—and the consequences if we do not.
Seabed Mining Impacts
Deep sea mining destroys unique deep sea species – massive loss of biomass
Levitt, The Ecologist, 10
[Tom, 10-28-10, The Ecology, “How deep-sea mining could destroy the 'cradle of life on earth'”,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/653840/how_deepsea_mining_could_destroy_the_cradl
e_of_life_on_earth.html, accessed 7-13-14, AAZ]
As well as being metal-rich, the volcanogenic hydrothermal deposits which Nautilus plans to mine
are home to a unique ecosystem that is still largely unknown to scientists since being discovered in
the late 1970s. Initially, the deep sea was thought to be full of soft sediment and little else but the
discovery of hydrothermal vents on the seabed, which produce the deposits, revealed a completely
novel ecosystem, unreliant on photosynthesis.
‘It’s the cradle of life on earth,’ explains Dr Rod Fujita from the Environmental Defense Fund and
author of studies looking into deep-sea mining, ‘and the only one that does not depend on sunlight.
There are species there that are found nowhere else on earth. It’s not like any land habitats we are
used to; in fact you have to have your perspective altered to appreciate this deep-sea world,’ he says.
The mining process in PNG will take the top 20-30m off the seabed at a depth of 1,500m and lift it
up to the surface before transferring it by barge to processing sites on land. ‘You will destroy fauna
just by lifting the land,’ says deep-sea ecologist Professor Paul Tyler, from the National Oceanography
Centre at Southampton University. ‘It is possible you might mine at a distance [from the hydrothermal
vents] but by mining close by you will affect the flow and the vents might switch off and then all the
animals die – you lose a huge biomass.’
Deep sea mining will have adverse impact on biodiversity
Samson, Papua New Guinea Institute of Biological Research Conservation Biologist,
12
[Mellie, 12-7-12, Scidev, “Deep sea mining- a dangerous experiment,”
http://www.scidev.net/global/biodiversity/opinion/deep-sea-mining-a-dangerous-experiment.html,
accessed 7-13-14, AKS]
Pacific governments should not approve deep-sea mining until more is known about its likely
impact, says conservation biologist Mellie Samson Jr.
Deep sea mining (DSM) is the new frontier in extractive mining. For the companies involved, as
well as the governments that own the mining rights, it offers substantial profits.
However DSM is still experimental in nature, with potentially vast adverse environmental effects. It
also makes use of new technologies that have yet to be tested.
In January 2011, the government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) granted the world's first deep-sea mining
lease to Nautilus Minerals Inc, a Canadian mining firm, which is about to embark on a seabed mining
project known as the Solwara 1 project.
This experiment, in which the PNG government will have a substantial stake, will take place 1.6
kilometres below the surface of the Bismarck Sea, off the coast of the New Ireland Province of PNG.
In recent months, however, the government has come under increasing pressure from
environmental groups and others to withdraw from the project, on the basis that not enough is yet
known about its potential environmental impact.
Whatever decision is taken, other island nations should reflect on the arguments being made about
the dangers of moving too hastily into DSM, and consider their responsibility to protect marine
biodiversity and the seas within the Pacific region.
Conservation concerns
Interest in seabed mining is growing due to an increase in global demand for metals, and the fact that land
resources are increasingly being mined to the limits of their capacity.
Solwara 1 is the first of a potentially large number of offshore mining projects within the Bismarck Sea
and wider Pacific region. Applications were approved last year from firms registered in both Nauru and
Tonga to explore areas within the jurisdiction of the UN's International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Solwara 1 focuses on mineral deposits laid down over thousands of years around underwater
hydrothermal vents (geysers), known as seafloor massive sulphides. These deposits occur at depths of one
to two kilometres, and can range in mass from several thousand to 100 million tonnes.
However fears have been expressed by critics of the project that not enough research has been
carried out to enable convincing conclusions to be drawn on the likely environmental impacts of
DSM, particularly as there is very little knowledge of biological diversity and ecosystems within the
deposit areas.
The ecosystems surrounding hydrothermal vents combine superheated and highly mineralized vent
fluids with microbes that are capable of using chemicals as a nutritional source. In recent years,
such ecosystems have been found to host over 500 species previously unknown to science.
Conservation strategies need to be developed to mitigate the impact of mining activities and
enhance the recovery of biodiversity in the mining zones, particularly since the project is likely to
have a severe impact on the rarely explored biological ecosystems found at Solwara 1 and
subsequent mining locations.
Seabed mining hurts the environment – 3 reasons
Markussen, Ocean Futures director, 94
(Jan Magne, 1994, GREEN GLOBE YEARBOOK 1994, “Deep Seabed Mining and the Environment:
Consequences, Perceptions, and Regulations”, http://www.fni.no/ybiced/94_02_markussen.pdf, Pg. 33,
accessed 7/1/14, BCG)
Main Environmental Problem Areas
There are three main environmental problem areas to be expected from exploitation of nodule
deposits:9
· The first relates to what happens on the seabed. As the collector unit gathers nodules, it will
seriously destroy the top few centimetres of the seabed, causing major disturbance and disruption to the
flora and fauna in the mining tracks. In addition, the propulsion system of the collector unit will stir up
sediments; as a result, organisms in and around the tracks will be partially or entirely buried. In the
mining tracks, for instance, a mortality rate of 95–100 per cent may be expected for organisms found
there.
· The second relates to the discharge of waste water from the mining ship. After the nodules have
been gathered by the collector unit, they will be washed clean by water jets. The nodules will then be
crushed and brought to the surface as slurry containing both crushed nodules and water. When the slurry
reaches the surface, there will be a partial discharge of waste water containing particulate matter
and trace metals. This discharge may interfere with light penetration and reduce photosynthesis in
the surface layers. Furthermore, the waste water will be considerably colder than the surface water.
· The third relates to onshore processing. This includes waste water, tailings, and slag. Here roughly
the same problems will be encountered as in land-based mining operations.
Russia
Russian Sphere of Influence Links
Russia moving towards hegemonic ocean exploration now
Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020, 2001
(APPROVED by President Vladimir Putin, 27 July 2001, Russian Federation, Pr-1387, “Maritime
Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020”,
http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Russian_Maritime_Policy_2020.pdf, accessed 7/15/14, AA)
The objectives of the National Marine Policy
The objectives of the national marine policy is to implement and protect the interests of the Russian
Federation in the oceans and the strengthening of the position of the Russian Federation among the
leading maritime nations.
The main objectives of the national marine policy are:
• preservation of the sovereignly inland marine waters, territorial sea and airspace above them, on the
bottom and in the subsoil;
• implementation of the jurisdiction and protection of sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone for
exploration, development and conservation of natural resources, both living and non-living at the bottom,
in the subsoil and the superjacent waters, the management of these resources, energy production through
the use of water, currents and wind, the creation and use of artificial islands, installations and structures,
marine scientific research and conservation of the marine environment;
• realization and protection of sovereign rights over the continental shelf of the Russian Federation for the
exploration and exploitation of its resources;
• realization and protection of freedom of the seas, including freedom of navigation, operations,
fisheries, research, freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
• protection of the Russian Federation with the marine areas, protection and the protection of
national borders the Russian Federation, sea and airspace.
Russia using ocean exploration as a means to be a hegemon and for security
purposes
Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020, 2001
(APPROVED by President Vladimir Putin, 27 July 2001, Russian Federation, Pr-1387, “Maritime
Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020”,
http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Russian_Maritime_Policy_2020.pdf, accessed 7/15/14, AA)
I. General Provisions
The development of space and ocean resources - one of the major directions of development of
world civilization in the third millennium. The essence of the national policies of the major maritime
powers and the majority of the world community in the foreseeable future will be an independent action
and cooperation in the development of the oceans, as well as the inevitable competition on the way.
Historically, Russia - the leading maritime power, on the basis of its spatial and geophysical
features, place and role in global and regional international relations. She earned this status because
of geographical location with access to three oceans and sea borders, as well as a tremendous contribution
to the study of the oceans, to the development of shipping, many great discoveries made by famous
Russian navigators and adventurers.
The Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation (hereinafter - Marine doctrine) is the fundamental
document defining the public policy of the Russian Federation in the field of maritime activities -a
national marine policy of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the National Maritime Policy).
Maritime activities - activities of the Russian Federation in the field of research, development and
use of the oceans in the interest of security, sustainable economic and social development of States
(hereinafter - the maritime activity).
The legal basis for maritime doctrine consists of the Constitution of Russian Federation, federal laws and
other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea of 1982, international treaties in the field of maritime activity, the use of space resources and the
oceans.
Marine doctrine developed in relation to maritime activity provisions of the National Security Concept of
Russian Federation, the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation
Military Doctrine, Concept of the shipping policy of the Russian Federation, the Basic Policy of the
Russian Federation in the field of naval activities in 2010 and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian
Federation.
The combination of forces and means of the state and the ability to implement the National Marine
Policy constitute marine potential Russian Federation. The basis of maritime capabilities the
Russian Federation are the Navy, the Maritime Border Guard Federal Border Service, the civilian
maritime fleet (hereinafter - the Russian Navy), as well as infrastructure for their operation and
development, maritime business and naval activities of the state.
Implementation of Marine doctrine should further strengthen the position of Russia as a leading
maritime power, and create an enabling environment for achieving the goals and objectives of
national maritime policy.
Counterplans
NOAA Counterplan
1NC – NOAA CP
Text
The United States federal government should increase sustained, coordinated, and prioritized exploration
of the Earth’s oceans through an endowed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA leadership is key to effective change
Aquarium of the Pacific and NOAA, 13
[Aquarium of the Pacific and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September 2013,
Aquarium of the Pacific, Aquatic Forum, “Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum”,
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf, page 39, accessed 6/29/14 CK]
These characteristics of a national program of ocean exploration imply a network of universities,
nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and government agencies working together in
pursuit of shared goals. Federal-and in particular, NOAA-leadership is essential to help design and
maintain what might be called an “architecture for collaboration” that convenes national and
international ocean exploration stakeholders regularly to review and set priorities, to match
potential expedition partners, to facilitate sharing of assets, and to help test and evaluate new
technologies. The program should facilitate the review and analysis of new and historical data and the
synthesis and transformation of data into a variety of informational products. In this leadership role,
NOAA would promote public engagement, and guide and strengthen the national ocean exploration
enterprise.
A conventional federal government approach won’t work. In describing characteristics of the national
ocean exploration program in 2020, participants used words including: nimble, flexible, creative,
innovative, and responsive. A program with these qualities just might ignite the ocean exploration
movement envisioned by the participants in the first gathering of the community of ocean explorers.
NOAA Solves Coordination
NOAA leadership key to coordination and framework
American Geosciences Institute, 9
[11/4/9, American Geosciences Institute, “The Future of Ocean Governance: Building Our National
Ocean Policy”, http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis111/wateroceans_hearings.html#apr22, accessed 6/28/14
CK]
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee held a hearing on November 4, 2009, in order to discuss
the interim report and direction of the President’s Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force (IOPTF).
Chairwoman Maria Cantwell (D-WA) showed strong support for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in her opening remarks, saying that NOAA plays a pivotal role
in dealing with these issues. She continued that “the administration should acknowledge and
strengthen NOAA’s role, and literally give them a seat at the table of the National Ocean Council.”
She then supported the “enactment of an organic act for NOAA.” Ranking Member Olympia Snowe
(R-ME) then lamented the term “best available science,” typically used in determining resource
management decisions, which she considered sometimes to be inadequate. To that end, she and Cantwell
had authored legislation establishing a budget of $8 billion for NOAA by 2011, and an agreement to
double that budget to 2013, to allow scientists to achieve “indisputable” science. “NOAA must
remain our nation’s leader” in ocean policy, said Snowe, and she criticized the IOPTF’s interim
report for not prescribing the agency a great enough role. Mark Begich (D-AK) pointed out that he
agrees with the interim report’s support for the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Bill Nelson (DFL) finished by thanking NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco for “bringing science to the question of
the oceans,” describing how lonely it has been in his fight to prevent open drilling policies in the waters
around Florida.
Chair of the IOPTF Nancy Sutley then initiated the testimony. She noted that the interim report
contains priorities for the administration in addition to proposals for a national policy, and that
they were now moving towards an integrated marine resource management approach. Jane
Lubchenco explained NOAA’s role as the nation’s primary ocean agency, and suggested that the
agency is well positioned to manage the many aspects of overall ocean policy. According to
Lubchenco, “NOAA’s goal… is to move towards a more robust, holistic management approach that
reduces ocean-human use conflicts and ecosystem impacts, while enabling sustainable use of
oceans.” Lubchenco furthered that NOAA was committed to implementing those recommendations.
“The nation’s oceans are counting on us,” she finished. Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the U.S.
Coast Guard, then commented that “we need to establish a sustainable balance between use and
conservation,” and that one of the tools to help achieve this was marine spatial planning. Spatial
planning would provide a framework upon which ocean use decisions could be made in a clear and
transparent way, and help the Coast Guard to later enforce those policies. He continued by
supporting the U.S. signing on to “Law of the Sea,” arguing that it would be good for relations with the
international maritime community, and commending the Task Force for considering Arctic issues. Lastly,
Associate Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) Laura Davis testified by describing
some of the process the task force has followed, including a series of local meetings around the country
with interested citizens. She noted that the agencies had already elicited a new level of communication for
the “sister agencies” involved with stewardship of the oceans.
The predominant question for the panel revolved around leadership of the ocean policy once it has
been established. Cantwell asked who should be leading this. Sutley responded that the consensus of
the task force was to have a National Ocean Council (NAC) be responsible including representation
from all of the involved parties, and to be chaired jointly by the Council for Environmental Quality and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lubchenco and Allen agreed that one single entity could
not be responsible for administering such vast responsibilities, but that it required strong central
leadership to bring involved parties together. Lubchenco admitted that NOAA has “a key role to
play,” while Allen conferred that the Coast Guard should play a support role. Davis concurred with the
recommendations from the witnesses.
Snow remarked that “it defies, frankly, reason” that NOAA would not have a position on the NAC,
much less leadership of it. Begich questioned why it would not make more sense for two secretary-level
positions to chair the NAC. Sutley responded that it was the consensus that with such broad, inter-agency
jurisdiction of this policy, it made sense to have a higher level of administration responsible. Lubchenco
responded that in this case, the Secretary of Commerce superseded her responsibilities to represent the
Department of Commerce (DOC) on the council. Snowe questioned if then it made more sense for
NOAA to be individually chartered and have an “organic act” like other agencies. For NOAA to
have an organic act, Lubchenco agreed, but to comment on its removal from within the umbrella of the
DOC, Lubchenco said was “beyond my pay grade.”
Cantwell asked then how an actual response to an issue would work within the council system.
Lubchenco responded that NOAA would work to gather the data and answer the underlying
questions behind these problems, but that actually solving them would be an interagency
responsibility. Sutley responded that this was something the IOPTF would still have to work on. Begich
then questioned the resources to be diverted for this effort, pointing out that NOAA had already admitted
it would need to re-prioritize in order to accomplish the tasks assigned it by the new policy. He then
questioned the economic considerations that went into the policy, and where the budget for this would
come from. Sutley responded that they had been conscious of the economics and will continue to be, so
many of the agencies involved are already budgeting in some way for this.
NOAA Funding Solves Exploration
Funding NOAA allows US to lead in undersea exploration through new technology
NOAA 2
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, “NOAA Budget Request”,
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/budget02/oar_oceanexplore.html, accessed 6/27/14, BCG)
NOAA is requesting an increase of $10.0 million for the Ocean Exploration Initiative, established in
2001 to systematically search and investigate the oceans for the purpose of discovery. This initiative
proposes the most ambitious chapter ever in the history of human discovery on Earth: the
exploration of the Earth's oceans. Although Ocean Exploration is a NOAA-wide effort incorporating
the effort of many line offices, budget activity is located in the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research's (OAR) Ocean and Great Lakes Research budget subactivity.
Covering more than 70 percent of the surface of the earth, with an average depth of 3,800 meters, the
oceans are the last, largely unexplored frontier on our planet. In fact, ocean scientists estimate that
only five percent of our oceans have been explored. This initiative seeks to bring a multi-disciplinary
array of the best of our nation's ocean scientists to ocean frontiers to discover new species, ocean
processes, cultural antiquities and artifacts, and biological and mineral resources. The need to extend
U.S. leadership in Ocean Exploration was first articulated by the Stratton Commission which led to
the formation of NOAA. For the past three decades, NOAA has pursued a course of ocean regulation
and management without ever developing a comprehensive exploration program. Thus our science lacks
a fundamental understanding of enormous ocean regions and important ocean systems. In June 2000,
a U.S. panel of ocean scientists, explorers, and educators convened to create history's first National
Strategy for Ocean Exploration. Their report, Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for
Ocean Exploration, is a responsible plan to undertake new activities in ocean exploration.
Recent progress in technology permits us to completely rethink how we conduct exploration and
oceanographic studies. Developments in biotechnology, sensors, telemetry, power sources,
microcomputers and materials science now permit the U.S. to dream of rivaling space exploration in our
ability to go to and study the undersea frontier. We need not be limited by weather and blind sampling
from ships, but like true explorers, can immerse ourselves in new places and events. NOAA proposes to
embark on a national endeavor, to build on our initial efforts in ocean research, partner with
existing public, private, and academic ocean exploration programs outside of NOAA, and to
achieve international leadership in undersea exploration and research.
NOAA Key to Solve Partnerships
Strong NOAA solves private – public partnerships
Conley, CSIS Europe Program director and senior fellow, 13
[Heather, March 2013, Center for Strategic and International Studies, “The New Foreign Policy Frontier
U.S. Interests and Actors In The Arctic”,
http://csis.org/files/publication/130307_Conley_NewForeignPolFrontier_Web_0.pdf, page 13, accessed
6/30/2014 CK]
Conducting environmental scientific research in the Arctic is another major aspect of U.S.
government activity, and a number of governmental institutions and agencies are tasked with
researching the unique Arctic environment. NOAA, which is part of the Department of Commerce,
plays a leading role in this arena, focusing on the science behind environmental conditions, climate
patterns, and the effects of climate change on existing ecosystems. NOAA seeks to “understand and
predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,” which includes a focus on the Arctic. NOAA
also works in close collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
to manage and operate polar-orbiting and geostationary environmental satellite systems. Through
these satellites, NASA provides the necessary technology to observe global climate change patterns
and shifts in the extent of Arctic ice. In FY 2012, NOAA allocated $1.8 billion to the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, including $181 million for operating its satellite
programs and facilities and $1.69 billion for procurement, acquisition, and construction of new
environmental monitoring satellite systems.9 The budget request for FY 2013 was $2.04 billion: $191
million for operations and $1.85 billion for procurement.
The U.S. government is not the only interested consumer of NOAA climatic information. In August
2011, NOAA signed a unique collaborative agreement with three oil companies, Shell Exploration
& Production, ConocoPhillips, and Statoil USA E&P Inc., to share ocean, coastal, and
meteorological data, as well as sea ice and sea floor mapping studies.” This is an important example
of the growing role and intersection of public and private sector interests in the Arctic.
NOAA must coordinate with private and federal agencies
National Research Council 10
[operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, “NOAA’s Education Program: Review and
Critique”, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12867, accessed 6/29/14, BCG)
There is a national need to educate the public about the ocean, coastal resources, atmosphere and
climate. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the agency responsible for
understanding and predicting changes in the Earth’s environment and conserving and managing
coastal and marine resources to meet the nation’s economic, social and environmental needs, has a broad
mandate to engage and coordinate education initiatives on these topics. Since its creation in 1970, the
NOAA has supported a variety of education projects that cover a range of topics related to the agency’s
scientific and stewardship mission.
NOAA uses formal and informal learning environments to enhance understanding of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and to advance environmental education. The
work of this agency overlaps and compliments the missions of other federal agencies, institutions of
higher education, private and nonprofit organizations. Coordination among these agencies and
organizations has been challenging. Limited education resources and the inherently global nature of
NOAA’s mission make strategic partnerships critical in order for the agency to accomplish its
goals. Additionally, clear education goals, planning, and strategic use of resources are critical aspects for
effective partnerships.
Private Contractor Counterplan
1NC – Private Contractor CP
Text –
The United States federal government should increase sustained, coordinated, and prioritized exploration
of the Earth’s oceans through a nonfederal external contractor.
Nonfederal external contractor key to solve exploration, efficacy, and
coordination and best leverages funding
Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National Research Council, 3
[Committee on Exploration of the Seas Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies, 2003,
“Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown”, The National Research Council of the National
Academies, http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/national-research-council-voyage.pdf, pg. 8-9,
accessed 6/29/14, GNL]
In recent years, agencies have increasingly turned to nongovernmental groups to take on the dayto-day operations of large programs. The advantages of this approach are several. First, the process
of competitive bidding for the management of the program leads to creativity in program design,
cost savings, and incentives for excellent performance. Second, as programs build up and close down,
there is no need to accommodate the personnel requirements through agency headcount. NSF chose the
independent contractor route in selecting Joint Oceanographic Institutions to operate ODP, and
has recently proposed a similar plan for management of the Ocean Observing Initiative and the
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (in this case the associated not-for-profit is an international
corporation). Likewise, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be selecting an
independent contractor to manage the International Space Station.
The advantages of an external contractor are potentially even greater for an ocean exploration
program. For example, if NOPP were to lead the effort, management by an independent contractor
would provide a neutral third party to balance the interests of the various agency partners and
accept contributions from a variety of public and private sources. If NOAA were to lead the
program, management by an external group could mitigate some of the perceived inadequacies in
the present, internal-NOAA program. For example, the program would be an “arm’s length” away
from the pressures of the agency mission and subjected to regular external review. Depending on
the choice of the external managing organization, grant processing, priority-setting, connection to
the external community, and transparency of decision making could be improved. If NSF were
asked to lead the program, the agency would almost surely choose this route rather than build
internally the infrastructure to manage the exploration-specific assets and data system.
Management of large-scale ocean research programs can be effective and efficient through the use
of independent contractors. Nonfederal operators can receive support from multiple government
agencies and receive financial support from private sponsors. Independent audits of program
performance can be used to ensure the program is achieving the desired outcomes.
Recommendation: A nonfederal contractor should be used to operate the proposed U.S. ocean
exploration program. The original contract should be awarded following a competitive bidding
process. The program should be reviewed periodically and should seek to leverage federal
resources for additional private contributions.
Solves Exploration
Nonfederal organizations solves exploration
National Research Council Division on Earth and Life Studies Ocean Studies Board,
3
[National Research Council Division on Earth and Life Studies Ocean Studies Board, 11/4/2003, The
National Academies, “Major Ocean Exploration Effort Would Reveal Secrets of the Deep”,
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10844, accessed 6/29/14 CK]
WASHINGTON -- A new large-scale, multidisciplinary ocean exploration program would increase
the pace of discovery of new species, ecosystems, energy sources, seafloor features, pharmaceutical
products, and artifacts, as well as improve understanding of the role oceans play in climate change,
says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies' National Research
Council. Such a program should be run by a nonfederal organization and should encourage
international participation, added the committee that wrote the report.
Congress, interested in the possibility of an international ocean exploration program, asked the
Research Council to examine the feasibility of such an effort. The committee concluded, however,
that given the limited resources in many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S.
program that would include foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries. Once
programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then collaborate on research and pool their
resources under international agreements. "The United States should lead by example," said
committee chair John Orcutt, professor of geophysics and deputy director, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.
Funding Solvency
Private investors are willing to increase ocean exploration – solves aff’s advantages
Gonzalez, io9 senior editor, 12
(Robert, senior editor at io9, “James Cameron says today's ocean exploration is ‘piss poor.’ He's right,”
http://io9.com/5894566/james-cameron-says-the-current-state-of-ocean-exploration-is-piss-poor-hesright, accessed 6/27/14, BCG)
James Cameron is unhappy with the present state of ocean exploration. He's so unhappy that he's
taken it upon himself to spearhead an effort to return to Challenger Deep, the deepest known point in all
the world's oceans. In fact, he's making the trip this week — and he's making it alone.
To clarify, Cameron will be making the dive alone, but plenty of others will be assisting the mission in
other ways — after all, Cameron isn't the only one unhappy with the current state of ocean exploration;
he's drummed up experts from all over the world to make this excursion a reality.
Cameron's descent will be made in a custom-built submersible that he had specially designed for the
almost 11,000-meter dive into the most cavernous reaches of the Marianas Trench. Conditions permitting,
Cameron hopes to be on the bottom of Challenger Deep by this Wednesday.
Should he succeed, Cameron will become the third person in history to visit the deepest point on
Earth. Go ahead and let that figure sink in for a moment. More people have walked on the surface of
the Moon than have visited the bottom of the Marianas Trench. We've even been to the Moon more
recently than we have the very bottom of the sea — the last (and only) time somebody visited Challenger
Deep in person was in 1960. The overwhelming majority of our planet is covered in oceans, and yet
we still know so few of their deepest, darkest secrets.
With this in mind, Cameron is working with researchers from around the world to make the dive a
scientifically meaningful one. His seven-meter-tall submersible (named the DeepSea Challenger, featured
up top and in this video) is equipped with a water sampler, a sediment collector, a "slurp gun" for nabbing
animals, a robotic manipulator arm, cameras, and — of course — lots and lots of lights. He'll be
accompanied by a trio of unmanned "landers," equipped with even more gadgets, samplers, and baited
animal traps.
What is most remarkable about Cameron's expedition is how much potential is has for expanding our
limited knowledge of the oceans' depths. Consider, for example, that if the DeepSea Challenger (or one
of the three landers) returns to the surface with even a single fish from below 4,000 meters, it will be an
unprecedented scientific achievement.
The lack of knowledge surrounding the oceans' depths isn't particularly surprising when you
realize that funding for deep sea research has been dwindling for years. And according to Craig
McClain — chief editor at Deep Sea News, and a deep sea researcher, himself — more cuts to deep
sea funding are imminent. McClain says that John R. Smith, the Science Director at the Hawai'i
Undersea Research Laboratory, recently sent out an email notifying the community that
NOAA has zeroed out funding for the Undersea Research Program (NURP) for FY13 beginning Oct 1,
2012, and put all the centers on life support funding (or less) for the current year. Many other NOAA
programs, mostly extramural ones, have been cut to some level, though it appears only NURP and another
have had their funding zeroed out completely.
James Cameron says today's ocean exploration is “piss poor.” He's right.
McClain says that what's especially striking about this "is that within the FY13 NOAA Budget, the
Office of Ocean Exploration [the division that contains NURP] took the second biggest cut of all
programs (-16.5%). Sadly, the biggest cut came to education programs (-55.1%)."
With any luck, Cameron's efforts will go a long way in piquing public interest in deep sea research.
(We know, for example, that Pandora's oceans will feature prominently in the Avatar sequel, and that
Cameron has even toyed with the idea of filming parts of the movie in the Marianas Trench.) Doug
Bartlett, a marine microbiologist at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and Cameron's chief scientist
for the dive, thinks that the mission will help get kids "dreaming of the possibility of going into
engineering and oceanography and all sorts of science fields." But Cameron says that reversing the
decline of deep sea research will take more than his expedition, alone.
"I think we've got to do better," he told Nature News. "If it means getting private individuals together
with institutions and bypassing the whole government paradigm, that's fine. Maybe that's what we
need to do."
Private funding necessary for tech start ups
Aquarium of the Pacific and NOAA, 13
[Aquarium of the Pacific and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September 2013,
Aquarium of the Pacific, Aquatic Forum, “Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum”,
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf, page27 accessed 6/29/14 CK]
By 2020, private sector investments in exploration technology development, specifically for the
dedicated national program of exploration, exceed the federal investment, but federal partners play
a key role in testing and refining new technologies. Forum participants agreed that a top priority for a
national ocean exploration program of distinction is the development of mechanisms to fund
emerging and creatively disruptive technologies to enhance and expand exploration capabilities. In
addition to significant federal government investment in ocean exploration technology over timewhether by the U.S. Navy, NASA, NOAA, or other civilian agencies involved in ocean explorationmany felt strongly that to shorten the time from development to unrestricted adoption, more of the
required investment would come from the private sector.
These emerging technologies will likely include the next generations of ships remotely operated
vehicles; autonomous underwater vehicles; telepresence capabilities; and new sensors. Most
participants felt that continuing to develop human occupied vehicles should be a much lower priority
for a national program than focusing on autonomous vehicles, sensors, observatories, and
communications systems.
Participants also felt that federal partners in the national program of exploration should play a key
role in testing and refining these technologies as well as working to adapt existing and proven
technologies for exploration.
Overall, some of the most important technologies to cultivate are those that collect physical and
chemical oceanographic data, biological data, and seafloor mapping data.
Wealthy investors solve for ocean exploration – NOAA and NSF are too limited
Schrope, Schmidt Ocean Institute outreach coordinator, 13 (Mark, Outreach coordinator
at Schmidt Ocean Institute, The Washington Post, “Wealthy backers support scientific efforts to explore
deep seas”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wealthy-backers-support-scientificefforts-to-explore-deep-seas/2013/05/24/486c6430-b716-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html, accessed
6/27/14, BCG)
A small but growing number of wealthy patrons, enamored of the possibilities of undersea
exploration, are donating the use of ships, submersibles and other resources to support missions
that might otherwise be unaffordable.
Funding pure ocean exploration - going where no person has gone before - has always been hard
for researchers. Federal agencies do support exploratory work, but they generally award grants to
pursue answers to well-formed questions. This can create a Catch-22, in which scientists don't
know which questions to ask until they get into unexplored areas.
Beginning in 2001, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had an Ocean
Exploration program that provided grants for open-ended work, but the program's priorities have
shifted toward more limited work aboard the agency's exploration vessel Okeanos Explorer.
Most oceanographers rely on support from the National Science Foundation, but its budget, level at
best for several years, has had to deal with rising fuel prices and other costs required to maintain its
fleet of research vessels, leaving less available for grants.
Politics Net Benefit
Republicans love giving federal projects to the private sector—Ex-Im bank
proves
Schouten, USA Today, 14
[Fredreka, 6/22/14, USA Today, “New House leader opposes U.S. Export-Import Bank,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/22/kevin-mccarthy-opposes-exportimport-bank/11235809/, accessed 7/15/14, AC]
WASHINGTON —- The House's next majority leader said Sunday that he does not support
renewing the charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States when it expires in September
— a move that puts the key Republican at odds with some of the country's largest business interests.
Asked whether he could allow the bank's charter to expire, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said: "Yes,
because it's something that the private sector can be able to do." McCarthy spoke on Fox News
Sunday.
"One of the problems with government is they take hard-earned money so others do things that the
private sector can do," he said.
His position is a dramatic departure from that of the man he will replace, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who
negotiated in 2012 to save the bank as conservatives clamored to kill it. (House Republicans on
Thursday elected McCarthy to succeed Cantor as majority leader. Cantor, who lost his primary election
June 10, will resign his No. 2 leadership post at the end of July.)
The bank helps U.S. companies — ranging from big companies such as Boeing and General Electric
to small firms — by subsidizing loans to foreign customers to help them buy U.S. products. The
agency says it supported 200,000 Americans jobs by financing or guaranteeing $37.4 billion of U.S.
exports last year.
Its reauthorization is backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Manufacturers, and both groups planned a joint news conference Monday afternoon as part of a publicrelations drive to urge Congress to save the program. Proponents say dismantling the bank, created in
1934, would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage with foreign firms that are aided by
similar programs in their own countries.
But Tea Party-aligned groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the Koch-backed Americans
for Prosperity, have denounced the bank as an example of "crony capitalism" and have vowed to
lobby hard to end it. Bolstering their cause: Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican chairman of the
committee with jurisdiction over the bank, has emerged as a vocal advocate in Congress for killing it. The
White House backs the bank. However, its charter will expire without congressional action and
prevent the bank from financing new loans.
Other Counterplans
National Ocean Council CP Solvency
National Oceans Council solves and is most efficient for coordination
Sutley & Holdren, National Ocean Council co-chairs, 13
[Nancy H. Chair: Council on Environmental Quality, John P. Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, National Ocean Council, April 2013, “NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN”, pg. ii, http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf,
accessed 6/26/14, CK]
We are pleased to deliver the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (Plan), a document that
translates the National Ocean Policy into on-the-ground actions that will benefit Americans. The
Plan presents specific actions Federal agencies will take to bolster our ocean economy, improve
ocean health, support local communities, strengthen our security, and provide better science and
information to improve decision-making.
The National Ocean Policy, created by Executive Order 13547 on July 19, 2010, established the
National Ocean Council, which consists of 27 Federal agencies, departments, and offices working
together to share information and streamline decision-making. The Council developed the Plan over a
two-year period with extensive public input from a wide range of stakeholders.
The National Ocean Policy and accompanying Plan will help spur economic growth, empower states
and communities, and save taxpayer dollars through better coordination that avoids conflicts. They
are examples of common-sense good government that will help Americans sustain and enjoy our ocean
resources.
National Ocean Council’s plan solves bureaucratic problems at all levels
Sutley & Holdren, National Ocean Council co-chairs, 13
[Nancy H. Chair: Council on Environmental Quality, John P. Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, National Ocean Council, April 2013, “NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN”, pg. 3, http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf,
accessed 6/26/14, CK]
Importantly, this Plan was informed by thoughtful input from national, regional, and local
stakeholders from all marine sectors; tribal, State, and local governments; private sector partners,
academic scientists, and the general public. It reflects careful consideration of extensive public
comments, particularly those that relate to the importance of incremental change, pilot projects, support
for local and regional capacity and self-determination, and the fundamental need for more and better
information.
The Implementation Plan better aligns multiple agency priorities and activities to promote greater
synergies and efficiencies in Federal spending. Given today's constrained fiscal climate and recognizing
uncertainty in the budget and appropriations processes, completion of every action within the identified
timeframes will depend upon the availability of funds and resources.
In that vein, this Plan is intended to be a living document. It is designed to be adaptive to new
information or changing conditions, and will be updated periodically as progress is made, lessons
are learned, new activities are planned, and as the Nation continually strives to improve the
stewardship of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes for the benefit of current and future generations.
National Ocean Policy Recommendation CP Solvency
National Ocean Policy creates non-binding change or directives
Migliaccio, Vermont Supreme Court Legal Extern, 14
[Emily, Vermont Law JD, 2014, “THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE
POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?” Issue 3, Volume:15,
http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/publications/national-ocean-policy-can-reduce-marine-pollution-streamlineocean-bureaucracy/, Pages 647-8, accessed 6/26/14, CK]
Whether or not Executive Order 13,547 runs afoul of the separation of powers doctrine is a matter of
time. Nevertheless, there is a distinction in the language of the Policy that opponents may be overlooking.
The Executive Order calls for a national policy. 137 A policy, keep in mind, is no more than guidance to
agencies and decision-makers.138 The language of the Implementation Plan for the Policy dismisses any
hint of binding authority; it reads:
The Policy does not create new regulations, supersede current regulations, or modify any agency’s
established mission, jurisdiction, or authority. Rather, it helps coordinate the implementation of existing
regulations and authorities by all Federal agencies in the interest of more efficient decision-making. The
Policy does not redirect congressionally-appropriated funds, or direct agencies to divert funds from
existing programs. Instead, it improves interagency collaboration and prioritization to help focus limited
resources and use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.139
The Final Implementation Plan for the NOP is by no means a binding body of laws; again, it is merely
guidance for federal and state agencies, stakeholders, and communities to begin prioritizing ocean and
coastal issues. The Plan recommends the types of actions agencies will take to address such priorities, and
provides the tools required for taking such action. Ultimately, the NOP is a perfectly appropriate use of
presidential authority to bring desirable national priorities to the fore.
National Ocean Policy doesn’t make anything new
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 13*
[Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, *last date referenced was 4/16/13, US Dept of the Interior,
“National Ocean Policy” http://www.boem.gov/National-Ocean-Policy/, accessed 6/26/14,CK]
The National Ocean Policy sets forth a vision of an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean,
our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood and
treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations. In
order to better meet our Nation’s stewardship responsibilities for the ocean, our coasts, and the Great
Lakes, President Obama established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (Task Force) and charged
the Task Force with developing recommendations to enhance our ability to maintain healthy, resilient,
and sustainable ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes resources. The Department of the Interior was part of the
Task Force and BOEM will have a substantive role in meeting goals in the National Ocean Policy
Implementation Plan, which was released on April 16, 2013 by the Obama Administration:
Designed to be a living document, the Implementation Plan translates the National Ocean Policy into onthe-ground actions to benefit the American people. With significant public input from a wide spectrum of
individuals and interests, the final Implementation Plan focuses on improving coordination to increase
administrative efficiencies in the Federal permitting process; better manage the ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes resources that drive so much of our economy; develop and disseminate sound scientific information
that local communities, industries, and decision-makers can use; and collaborate more effectively with
State, Tribal, and local partners, marine industries, and other stakeholders. Without creating any new
regulations or authorities, the plan will ensure the many Federal agencies involved in ocean management
work together to reduce duplication and red tape and use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.
Regional Planning CP Solvency
Regional partnerships allows flexible implementation based on local priorities
Migliaccio, Vermont Supreme Court Legal Extern, 14
[Emily, JD Doctor of Law, 2014, “THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE
POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?”
http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/publications/national-ocean-policy-can-reduce-marine-pollution-streamlineocean-bureaucracy/, Issue 3, Volume:15, Page 653, accessed 6/26/14, CK]
One of the NOP’s more notable accomplishments thus far is its effect on the regional, state, and local
leadership and implementation efforts. The JOC gave this category an “A-,” noting “regional ocean
partnerships continue to make progress but need more support from states and federal agencies.” 168
States and regions across the nation are showing greater understanding and management of ocean
resources through a variety of collaborative tools and strategies. Many regions have created regional
planning bodies, which are encouraged to implement the NOP in creative and sensible ways. The NOC is
supposed to provide flexibility for these regions, allowing each to focus on their own priorities and needs.
For instance, some regional planning bodies collect data, develop stakeholders’ involvement initiatives,
and develop regional marine protected areas.169
Case Neg
Leadership Answers
Status Quo Solves Science Diplomacy
Science diplomacy strong now—no need for plan—science envoy programs prove
Koenig, American Association for the Advancement of Science Energy Journalist, 9
[Robert, 5 June 2009, American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Fuzzy Spots in
Obama's Science Diplomacy,” http://news.sciencemag.org/2009/06/fuzzy-spots-obamas-sciencediplomacy, accessed 7-15-14, J.J.]
Administration officials are scrambling to add substance to President Barack Obama’s new Middle
Eastern science diplomacy initiatives, mentioned Thursday in his speech in Cairo. The President
promised new “science envoys,” centers of excellence, and a “technological development” fund for
the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. The State Department and White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) were working today to bring those words into focus.
“Details of these initiatives will be crafted in discussion with officials in the nations where they will be
based,” said OSTP spokesman Rick Weiss. Nina V. Fedoroff, science adviser to the Secretary of State
and the Agency for International Development, said that proposals for centers of excellence “have
been bubbling up from several different directions” with emphasis on issues such as agriculture
and public health.
A State Department fact sheet explained that the United States “will work with educational institutions,
NGOs and foreign governments” to decide the focus and location of such centers.
The new “science envoys” program could follow the lines of a bill sponsored by Sen. Lugar (R–IN)
and approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that would deploy prominent scientists
on missions of goodwill and collaboration. Fedoroff said such efforts would dovetail with evolving
State Department science diplomacy programs.
Obama also announced a new regional fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority
countries. The fact sheet said the fund would help pay for “S&T collaboration, capacity
development” and innovations with commercial potential.
Effective status quo scientific engagement from the US solves
Dehgan, Science and Technology Adviser of U.S. Agency for International
Development, & Colglazier, Science and Technology Adviser to U.S. Secretary of
State, 12
[Alex & E. William, 12.07.2012, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
“Development Science and Science Diplomacy,”
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/development-science-and-sciencediplomacy, accessed 7-15-14, J.J.]
Cooperation on science, technology, and engineering around development challenges provides U.S.
diplomats with a significant opportunity to leverage science as a tool of smart power. U.S. scientific
expertise is highly regarded around the world, even in areas where U.S. popularity may be low.
Despite fierce competition and rapidly increasing parity in science, technology, and engineering
assets among nations, the United States remains predominant in most fields and is a world leader in
education, research, and innovation. Scientific engagement serves U.S. interests to promote stability
by empowering a traditional source of moderate leadership. Scientists frequently are the
intelligentsia of society and play important roles as leaders in many developing countries. The
values inherent in science—honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, transparency and openness, meritocracy,
accountability, tolerance, and hunger for opposing points of view—are values that Americans cherish.
They are also values that achieve political goals, such as improving governance, transparency, and
the rule of law. Scientific engagement can also build long-term frameworks that reinforce and
support official relationships between the United States and other countries. Science diplomacy is
not the relationship itself, but provides the scaffolding essential for the relationship to thrive
AT – Science Diplomacy Solvency
Science diplomacy is hyped up
Copeland, Senior Fellow Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute, 11
[Daryl, Nov. 2011, Center for International Policy Studies, “Science Diplomacy: What’s It All
About?”, http://cips.uottawa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Copeland-Policy-Brief-Nov-11-5.pdf,
accessed 7-15-14, J.J.]
However, there exists an even more fundamental difficulty: S&T issues are largely alien to, and almost
invisible within, most international policy (IP) 'Institutions. S&T and IP are effectively two solitudes,
existing in separate floating worlds that rarely intersect. When diplomats or politicians talk about
IP, you rarely hear anything about S&T. Similarly, when scientists get together to discuss their
work, it is rarely in the context of diplomacy or international policy. Indeed, scientists, besides being
notoriously poor communicators, tend to cherish their independence from politics aid government.
The skill sets, activity time frames and orientations of the two groups differ markedly. It must be asked:
How many diplomats are scientists? How many scientists are diplomats? How often do scientists
and diplomats mix? Foreign ministries, development agencies, and indeed most multilateral
organizations are without the scientific expertise, technological savvy, cultural or RED network
access and crosscutting linkages required to understand and manage S&T issues effectively.
Add up all of this, and a rather disturbing picture emerges. It is something akin to a “triple whammy”. In
mainstream popular culture, (a) diplomacy is seen as irrelevant and ineffective; (b) international policy
is viewed as esoteric and exotic; and (c) science is perceived as complex and impenetrable. Raise any
one of these subjects on its own and most people’s eyes glaze over. Put all three together, and you have a
combination capable of stopping just about any dinner party conversation in its tracks.
Laundry list of alt reasons why science diplomacy fails
Newman, Expert in Experimental High Energy Physics, 11
[Harvey, September 2011, APS Forum on International Physics, “Session Y5 at the April
meeting,” http://www.aps.org/units/fip/newsletters/201109/y5.cfm, accessed 7-15-14, J.J.]
After commenting on the varied forms of partnership in the projects mentioned, Barish returned to his
central themes: "Developing and supporting such large facilities must be an important part of U.S.
Science Policy, in order to keep U.S. science at the forefront", and "the U.S. must be part of the most
important science to be most competitive and to have the biggest impact on society." He used the
progress of the ILC Global Design Effort as a success example, while highlighting the key role of
governments in establishing global projects that can move forward to successful completion over a period
of one or more decades. He highlighted the challenges of integrating the U.S. system, with its one-year
funding cycle and particular ways of governance, project management and accountability with those of
other countries and/or international organizations. Looking to the future, if the U.S. aspires to host a
major international project to do frontier science, Barish said: "we must solve problems of
governance, visas, in-kind contributions, accountability, contingency and [the way we handle] cost
overruns" to work effectively with our international partners.¶
No private sector incorporation cuts effectiveness
National Research Council, Private & Nonprofit institutions, 11
[National Research Council, U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and
Science, pg. 34, J.J.]
Workshop presentations and discussions on barriers to progress and best practices for advancing
science in the global context and for science diplomacy were very similar. Participants suggested several
barriers to progress that are also encountered in science diplomacy. The U.S. government has been
actively undertaking science diplomacy efforts in the last few years. Some participants stated that
these efforts are most important when there are difficult governmental relationships, which can
lead to sensitivity as to the motivation behind these efforts. They noted that the limitations on U.S.
use of science in diplomacy are often long-standing policies and laws that were motivated originally
and primarily by a concern for control of technology, whereas now what seems most needed is
engagement and the embrace of competition. This is particularly salient in unnecessarily cumbersome
mobility controls, that is, visas and travel restrictions. Foreign professionals were described as often being
of two minds: They value collaborating with U.S. counterparts, yet many are also apprehensive about
attending conferences within the United States because of visa uncertainties and difficulties, and security
controls. Science envoy Gebisa Ejeta noted that implementation of controls in the United States since
September 11, 2001 has been very discouraging and has stifled its global engagement capacities.
Several workshop participants also noted that U.S. policies ought to recognize that effective competition
raises the bar for everyone and serves as a major source of future opportunities. Many participants
emphasized the importance of the private sector in global science and technology engagement. As
Eric Bone of the U.S. Department of State observed, partnerships with the private sector are
essential, and science diplomacy should not be restricted to a government-to-government exercise.
Unfortunately, capacity for this type of partnership is weak in the developing world, noted Gebisa
Ejeta. A related impediment, he said, is that existing policy and regulatory frameworks have been
perceived by some as biased towards the developed world. This is particularly relevant to intellectual
property rights, such as the ones generated by the 1985 Utility Patent Act for biological agents and
products. This act encouraged the heavy infusion of financial resources to to private-sector research in the
field of molecular biology. It also resulted inadvertently in a significant reduction in public research
spending in both developed and developing countries. These new investments in the private sector
triggered a rush of patenting, in some cases fueling misunderstandings among poor and rich nations. Ejeta
added that the public-private partnerships in the developed world also need to be revisited. For example,
increases of private investments in agricultural biotechnology are associated generally with decreased
public spending, thus creating an unhealthy imbalance.
Relations are an alt cause
David, SciDev founding director, 9
[Dickson, 4/6/9, SciDev, “The limits of science diplomacy,”
http://www.scidev.net/global/capacity-building/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html,
accessed 7-15-14, J.J.]
Perhaps the most contentious area discussed at the meeting was how science diplomacy can frame
developed countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing world.
There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for
partnership. Indeed, partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the
new buzzword in the "science for development" community.
But true partnership requires transparent relations between partners who are prepared to meet as
equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote and defend their own countries'
interests.
John Beddington, the British government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he
told the meeting that a diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he
touched a raw nerve.
Ocean Collapse/Biodiversity Answers
Status Quo Solves Exploration
Status quo solves – NOAA and NSF are investing expanding submersible fleet and
exploration now
Terdiman, CNET News Senior Writer, 10
[Daniel, 4/15/10, CNET News “Oceans’ Salvation may lie in exploration”,
http://www.cnet.com/news/oceans-salvation-may-lie-in-exploration/, accessed 6/29/14, BCG)
The urgent goal, Hammond said, is to make a dent in the 90 percent of the world's oceans that humans
know nothing about. And that's where NOAA is putting its money where its mouth is: by taking a
former Department of Defense acoustic surveillance vessel that it acquired in 2005 and retrofitting
it as a world-class "global range ship of discovery."
Christened the Okeanos Explorer--okeanos is Greek for ocean--the ship, which is undergoing field trials
in Hawaii right now and should embark on its first major expedition in June, is a testament to scientists
applying technology to solve some significant problems.
Among its innovations, the Okeanos Explorer is outfitted with what is called a remotely operated
vehicle (ROV), essentially an unmanned submersible, that can descend to 6,000 meters below the
surface. Like many of its cousins, it is tethered to its mothership with fiber-optic cable that can transmit
data from a host of sensors and cameras.
But what makes the Okeanos unique is that it features telepresence technology that will allow it to
beam any kind of data gathered from the ROV, be it high-definition video or high-resolution
photographs, to anywhere in the world via a super-high-speed satellite Internet connection in realtime. And that means, Hammonds explained, that scientists in command centers anywhere in the
world can participate in the exploration as it's happening, a major leap forward given the
economics of putting people on board ships that might be anywhere on Earth at any time.
The National Science Foundation, too, is investing in ROVs and seeing them as a way to expand the
reach of its research. For some time, it has operated an ROV known as Jason, which has a 6,000meter depth range. But over the last year, the NSF has been putting much of its ocean exploration
energy into a new ROV developed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute known as Nereus,
which, according to Brian Midson, a technology operations specialist in the NSF's submersible support
program, is today the world's only vehicle proven to be able to reaching the bottom of the Mariana
Trench.
NOAA is sufficient now – it is constantly being innovated and has plans for
exploration
Lubchenco, former NOAA administrator, 13
[Dr. Jane, 2013, NOAA, “All Hands on Deck NOAA’s Accomplishments: 2009-2012”,
http://www.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_Accomplishments_2009-2012.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, GNL]
Day in and day out, NOAA’s work impacts the lives of every American. From life-saving and
commerce-enabling weather forecasts to research on how our planet is changing to protecting natural
resources and sharing information broadly, NOAA personnel are developing solutions for some of our
planet’s most pressing challenges. NOAA enriches lives through science, services and stewardship.
With roots dating back to 1807, our agency has evolved to meet the needs of a changing nation and
changing environment.
During my nearly four years at NOAA, through daily interactions and challenging disasters, I’ve had
occasion to get to know many of our nearly 13,000 employees and hundreds of contractors upon which
we rely. One thing that has impressed me immensely is the passion they feel for our mission. I’ve also
been astounded at NOAA’s breadth—our mission takes us from the surface of the sun to the depths of the
ocean floor. And I’ve seen NOAA adapt to changing circumstances and embrace new opportunities and
challenges, while staying true to its core values. An example of this adaptation is NOAA’s embrace of
innovative ways to be more efficient or effective, whether it’s cloud IT solutions or social media.
Beginning with Facebook and Twitter in 2009, NOAA has developed a strong social media presence,
tweeting and posting to hundreds of thousands of followers around the nation and the world.
Because of the dedication and hard work of NOAA employees, and thanks to great partnerships, we’ve
been able to tackle some big issues. I’ve often said that the diversity of our mission is one of NOAA’s
greatest challenges, but it’s also a great strength: It enables timely integration across research, weather,
climate, oceans, coasts, satellites, ships, and planes to deliver useful services and stewardship. Through
an emphasis on transparency, integrity, innovation, team work and communication, we have made
significant progress on multiple fronts during the last four years.
So, what have we accomplished? During the past four years, NOAA employees have worked with our
partners to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish stocks; helped create the first National Ocean
Policy that highlights the importance of healthy oceans; issued life-saving weather, water, and
tsunami warnings and worked toward a Weather Ready Nation; invested in coastal communities
and strived to make them more resilient through integrated conservation and restoration;
strengthened science through our first Scientific Integrity Policy; and created a new generation of
climate services to enable smart planning, adaption, and mitigation. This is just a small sample of
NOAA’s efforts to fulfill its overall mission.
The following stories flesh out these and other successes. Far from an exhaustive list, this compilation
provides highlights from NOAA’s impressive portfolio.
I am tremendously proud to have been part of the NOAA family and am confident that it will continue to
provide the services, science, and stewardship on which so much and so many depend. Enjoy reading
these stories and feel proud.
AT – Ocean Collapse Solvency
Alternate causality – Interior pollution causes ocean pollution
Migliaccio, Vermont Supreme Court Legal Extern, 14
[Emily, JD Doctor of Law, 2014, “THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE
POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?” Issue 3, Volume: 15, Pages
652-653 CK]
These recommendations are particularly pertinent in the context of marine pollution because an
ocean pollution problem is a national problem. Even landlocked regions contribute pollution to the
ocean, rivers, streams, and coastal waterways. For example, crop and soil fertilizers deposited in
agricultural regions travel through runoff or groundwater into rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes,
and ultimately, if not directly, into the ocean. If the NOC can effectively communicate this “land-tosea” connection across all states and the Federal Government, then perhaps local and regional
bodies will adjust their existing codes and ordinances to reflect the uniform goal of protecting
coastal and ocean ecosystems. In particular, these policies should focus on reducing the water quality
impacts of land uses and development—a priority that both interior and coastal regions can afford to
improve upon.
Alt causes to ocean ecosystem decline – dumping, overfishing, ice caps
Brown, Council on Foreign Relations Program on International Institutions and
Global Governance Deputy Director, & Faisal Thaler, Council on Foreign Relations
Associate Director, 13
[Kaysie Brown and Farah Faisal Thaler, 6/19/2013, Council on Foreign Relations, “The Global Oceans
Regime”, http://www.cfr.org/oceans/global-oceans-regime/p21035, accessed 6/30/2014 CK]
And the oceans themselves are in danger of environmental catastrophe. They have become the
world's garbage dump—if you travel to the heart of the Pacific Ocean, you'll find the North Pacific
Gyre, where particles of plastic outweigh plankton six to one. Eighty percent of the world's fish
stocks are depleted or on the verge of extinction, and when carbon dioxide is released into the
atmosphere, much of it is absorbed by the world's oceans. The water, in response, warms and
acidifies, destroying habitats like wetlands and coral reefs. Glacial melting in the polar regions
raises global sea levels, which threatens not only marine ecosystems but also humans who live on or
near a coast. Meanwhile, port-based megacities dump pollution in the ocean, exacerbating the
degradation of the marine environment and the effects of climate change.
Threats to the ocean are inherently transnational, touching the shores of every part of the world. So
far, the most comprehensive attempt to govern international waters produced the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But U.S. refusal to join the convention, despite
widespread bipartisan support, continues to limit its strength, creating a leadership vacuum in the
maritime regime. Other states that have joined the treaty often ignore its guidelines or fail to coordinate
policies across sovereign jurisdictions. Even if it were perfectly implemented, UNCLOS is now thirty
years old and increasingly outdated.
Three things necessary to stop ocean collapse –exploration alone isn’t sufficient
Black, BBC environment correspondent, 11
[Richard, 6/20/11, BBC News, “World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline”,
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13796479, accessed 6/28/14, BCG)
IPSO's immediate recommendations include:
stopping exploitative fishing now , with special emphasis on the high seas where currently there is little
effective regulation
mapping and then reducing the input of pollutants including plastics, agricultural fertilisers and
human waste
making sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon dioxide levels are now so high, it says, that ways of pulling the gas out of the atmosphere
need to be researched urgently - but not using techniques, such as iron fertilisation, that lead to
more CO2 entering the oceans.
"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg
told BBC News.
"If we don't do that, we're going to see steady acidification of the seas, heat events that are wiping
out things like kelp forests and coral reefs, and we'll see a very different ocean."
[NOTE – IPSO = International Programme on the State of the Ocean, Hoegh-Guldberg = coral specialist
at the University of Queensland, Australia]
Exploration Bad
Exploration is a death sentence for marine mammals
Wines, New York Times, 14
[Michael, 2/27/14, The New York Times, “U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate
Over Sea Life”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-explorationstirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?_r=0, accessed 6/30/14, GNL]
The Interior Department opened the door on Thursday to the first searches in decades for oil and gas off
the Atlantic coast, recommending that undersea seismic surveys proceed, though with a host of safeguards
to shield marine life from much of their impact.
The recommendation is likely to be adopted after a period of public comment and over objections by
environmental activists who say it will be ruinous for the climate and sea life alike.
The American Petroleum Institute called the recommendation a critical step toward bolstering the nation’s
energy security, predicting that oil and gas production in the region could create 280,000 new jobs and
generate $195 billion in private investment.
Activists were livid. Allowing exploration “could be a death sentence for many marine mammals,
and is needlessly turning the Atlantic Ocean into a blast zone,” Jacqueline Savitz, a vice president
at the conservation group Oceana, said in a statement on Thursday.
Oceana and other groups have campaigned for months against the Atlantic survey plans, citing
Interior Department calculations that the intense noise of seismic exploration could kill and injure
thousands of dolphins and whales.
But while the assessment released on Thursday repeats those estimates, it also largely dismisses them,
stating that they employ multiple worst-case scenarios and ignore measures by humans and the mammals
themselves to avoid harm.
Many marine scientists say the estimates of death and injury are at best seriously inflated. “There’s no
argument that some of these sounds can harm animals, but it’s blown out of proportion,” Arthur N.
Popper, who heads the University of Maryland’s laboratory of aquatic bioacoustics, said in an interview.
“It’s the Flipper syndrome, or ‘Free Willy.’ ”
How the noise affects sea mammals’ behavior in the long term — an issue about which little is known —
is a much greater concern, he said.
A formal decision to proceed with surveys would reopen a swath off the East Coast stretching from
Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Fla., that has been closed to petroleum exploration since the early 1980s.
Actual drilling of test wells could not begin until a White House ban on production in the Atlantic expires
in 2017, and even then, only after the government agrees to lease ocean tracts to oil companies, an issue
officials have barely begun to study.
The petroleum industry has sunk 51 wells off the East Coast — none of them successful enough to begin
production — in decades past. But the Interior Department said in 2011 that 3.3 billion barrels of
recoverable oil and 312 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could lie in the exploration area, and nine
companies have already applied for permits to begin surveys.
President Obama committed in 2010 to allowing oil and gas surveys along the same stretch of the
Atlantic, and the government had planned to lease tracts off the Virginia coast for exploration in 2011.
But those plans collapsed after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in April 2010, and the government
later banned activity in the area until 2017.
Thirty-four species of whales and dolphins, including six endangered whales, live in the survey
area. Environmental activists say seismic exploration could deeply imperil blue and humpback
whales as well as the North American right whale, which numbers in the hundreds.
Surveys generally use compressed-air guns that produce repeated bursts of sound as loud as a howitzer,
often for weeks or months on end. The Interior Department’s estimate said that up to 27,000 dolphins
and 4,600 whales could die or be injured annually during exploration periods, and that three
million more would suffer various behavioral changes.
But many scientists say death and injury are not a major concern. Decades of seismic exploration
worldwide have yet to yield a confirmed whale death, the government says.
“It is quite unlikely that most sounds, in realistic scenarios, will directly cause injury or mortality to
marine mammals,” Brandon Southall, perhaps the best-known expert on the issue, wrote in an email
exchange. “Most of the issues now really have to do with what are the sublethal effects — what are the
changes in behavior that may happen.” Dr. Southall is president of SEA Incorporated, an environmental
consultancy in Santa Cruz, Calif.
Loud sounds like seismic blasts appear to cause stress to marine mammals, just as they do to humans.
Experts say seismic exploration could alter feeding and mating habits, for example, or simply
drown out whales’ and dolphins’ efforts to communicate or find one another. But the true impact
has yet to be measured; there is no easy way to gauge the long-term effect of sound on animals that
are constantly moving.
“These animals are living for decades, if not centuries,” said Aaron Rice, the director of Cornell
University’s bioacoustics research program. “The responses you see are not going to manifest themselves
in hours or days or weeks. We’re largely speculating as to what the consequences will be. But in my
mind, the absence of data doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.”
Exploration techniques are harmful to organisms in the ocean
Oceana, non-profit organization committed to protecting oceans, No Date
[Oceana, No Date, “Impacts of Offshore Drilling”, http://oceana.org/en/our-work/stop-oceanpollution/oil-pollution/learn-act/impacts-of-offshore-drilling, accessed 6/30/14, GNL]
Factors other than pollutants can affect marine wildlife as well. Exploration for offshore oil involves
firing air guns which send a strong shock across the seabed that can decrease fish catch, damage the
hearing capacity of various marine species and may lead to marine mammal strandings.
More drilling muds and fluids are discharged into the ocean during exploratory drilling than in
developmental drilling because exploratory wells are generally deeper, drilled slower and are larger in
diameter. The drilling waste, including metal cuttings, from exploratory drilling are generally dumped in
the ocean, rather than being brought back up to the platform.
STEM Answers
Status Quo Solves STEM
STEM workers available
Sherter, Business Journalist, 7/11/14
[Alain, 7/11/14, MONEYWATCH, “A shortage of scientists and techies? Think again”,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-shortage-of-scientists-and-techies-think-again/, accessed 7/15/14 CK]
But new federal data suggest that idea is largely a myth, and it raises questions for students who are
planning their careers. Roughly three-quarters of people who have a bachelor's degree in science,
technology, engineering and math -- or so-called STEM fields -- aren't working in those professions,
the U.S. Census Bureau said Thursday.
Citing statistics from its most recent American Community Survey, the bureau found that only about
half of engineering, computer, math and statistics majors in the U.S. had jobs in their chosen field.
Science grads fared even worse: Just 26 percent of physical science majors and 15 percent of those
with a diploma in biology, environmental studies or agriculture were in a STEM-related
occupation.
It's worth noting that unemployment among people with STEM degrees is considerably lower than
for the general population of workers. As of 2012 (the latest year with available data), only 3.6
percent of college graduates between the ages of 25 and 64 were without a job, according to the
Census Bureau, compared with 6.1 percent for the broader U.S. workforce.
Yet those grads aren't necessarily working in a STEM job, notes Liana Christin Landivar, a
sociologist in the Census Bureau's industry and occupation statistics branch.
Hal Salzman, a professor of planning and public policy at Rutgers University, has calculated that
twice as many STEM students graduate every year as are able to find jobs in their field. Some half
a million grads with these degrees emerge from U.S. colleges and universities annually, and they
must compete for roughly 180,000 job openings, he said in a 2013 article.
"Engineering has the highest rate at which graduates move into STEM occupations, but even here
the supply is over 50 percent higher than the demand," he wrote. "[Information technology], the
industry most vocal about its inability to find enough workers, hires only two-thirds of each year's
graduating class of bachelor's degree computer scientists."
Immigrants solve STEM crisis
Lee, Breitbard News, 7/12/25
[Tony, 7/12/14, Breitbard News, “CBS: CENSUS DATA SHOW U.S. DOESN'T HAVE SHORTAGE
OF STEM WORKERS”, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/12/CBS-Census-DataShow-US-Doesn-t-Have-Shortage-of-STEM-Workers, accessed 7/15/14 CK]
After the Census Bureau reported on Thursday that "74% of those with a bachelor's degree in these
subjects don't work in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) jobs," CBS News concluded
that the new data suggest that notion "is largely a myth."
Census sociologist Christin Landivar noted that though "STEM graduates have relatively low
unemployment," they are "not employed in STEM occupations."
The high-tech industry, like Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us, has received largely a free pass on the
issue in pushing for drastic increases in the number of guest-worker visas in amnesty legislation.
That has puzzled some of the top scholars, especially in light of reports from liberal, nonpartisan,
and conservative organizations that have all shown that the country has a surplus--and not a
shortage--of American high-tech workers.
As Breitbart News has reported, a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report found that, from
2007-2012, "the number of new immigrants with STEM degrees admitted each year [was] by itself
higher than the total growth in STEM employment." That report was "consistent with research from
Georgetown University, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the Rand Corporation, the Urban Institute,
and the National Research Council, which have also found no evidence that America has a shortage of
high-tech workers."
In addition, four nonpartisan scholars have also debunked the notion that there is a shortage of
STEM workers. Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, "said
there are 50% more graduates than job openings in the STEM fields." He has also repeatedly
emphasized that the IT sector has been "an area of social mobility," and increasing the number of visas
without questions takes jobs away from American workers and lowers the wages of those who do find
STEM jobs.
AT – STEM Solvency
The ocean doesn’t spark interest the interest required for STEM
Carlyle, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 13
[Ryan, 1/31/13, Forbes, “Why Don't We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space
Exploration?”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploringthe-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/, accessed 7/15/14 CK]
Despite the difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a
pretty good public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009 Pacific Northwest
Expedition
To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’s a blog entry from that team where they talk
about how boring the sea floor is: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition
What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life. You see some crazy animals that are
often not well-known to science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what
the hell was that?” and no one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but occasionally we
find giant* isopods:
Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface. Their bodies are acclimated to
the high pressures (hundreds of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to
understand these animals is very limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is
through a few food chain connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths.
We’re fundamentally quite disconnected from deep ocean life.
Also, there is no hope of ever establishing human habitation more than about 1000 ft deep. The
pressures are too great, and no engineering or materials conceivable today would allow us to build
livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor. The two times humans have reached the deepest part of the
ocean, it required a foot-thick flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far
as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a habitable moon base would be vastly easier to
engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space Station: Given the actual space
station ISS, would it be cheaper to build the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why?
To recap: we don’t spend more time/money exploring the ocean because it’s expensive, difficult, and
uninspiring. We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching them, but few people look off the side
of a boat and wish they could go down there.
STEM training doesn’t guarantee STEM workers
Wagstaff, NBC news, 7/11/14
[Keith, 7/11/14, NBC news, “Does Not Compute: Most STEM Grads Don't Get STEM Jobs”,
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/does-not-compute-most-stem-grads-dont-get-stem-jobsn153881, accessed 7/15/14 CK]
It's no surprise that a college student getting a degree in civil engineering has better job prospects than
someone majoring in, say, medieval literature. But not every STEM (science, technology, engineering
and math) graduate ends up in the field that they have a degree in. In fact, according to a new
report from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly three out of every four people with STEM degrees have
jobs in other fields. That does not mean physics majors are all becoming poets. The STEM label can
be kind of misleading — doctors are not technically considered STEM professionals, which
excludes a lot of science majors who end up in the medical field. But it does point to the desirability
of STEM majors to employers of all kinds. The report also found that many STEM fields are not very
female-friendly, with men making up 86 percent of engineers and 74 percent of computer professionals.
No solvency – education has to be nation-wide and interconnective
Migliaccio, Vermont Supreme Court Legal Extern, 14
[Emily, JD Doctor of Law, 2014, “THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE
POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?”
http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/publications/national-ocean-policy-can-reduce-marine-pollution-streamlineocean-bureaucracy/, Issue 3, Volume:15, Pages 653-654, accessed 6/26/14, CK]
Arguably one of the most important areas of the NOP is in the promotion and support for research
and education on marine issues. The JOC gave this category a “C” because although some progress
had been made, there had been “funding and program cuts, as well as delayed implementation of
critical tools, weakened ocean science, research, and education.” 170 One of the greatest
improvements in this area was the installation of the data portal, ocean.data.gov, which “serves as a
clearinghouse for access to non-confidential federal ocean data and planning tools.” 171 There have also
been “strong regional efforts to coordinate on regional ocean and coastal research, observing, mapping,
and restoration priorities.” 172
However, more is needed in terms of funding and support for further education. Investments in
research, science, and education on ocean and coastal issues are crucial, particularly in the context
of marine pollution, because it will “produce a more informed citizenry; create better stewards of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources; and increase awareness of business opportunities related to these
resources.” 173 With a greater knowledge base, people can participate in activities that address the issues
facing our oceans and coasts. Furthermore, an educational system that incorporates ocean and coastal
science is crucial to ensuring that the next generation of ocean scientists and engineers are
sufficiently trained “to continue to lead an innovation-based global economy.”174 Country-wide
education would also bring more awareness to the pervasive interconnectivity of land and marine
pollution, and hopefully illuminate the need for efforts across the nation, rather than just on the
coasts.
Interest is not key to STEM education – People are already interested in science
studies prove
Atkinson, Innovation Foundation president, 12
[Robert D., President of IT and Innovation Foundation in Washington DC, Spring2012, Issues in Science
& Technology, “Why the Current Education Reform Strategy Won’t Work” Vol. 28 Issue 3, p29-36,
Ebsco, accessed 7-10-14, AFB]
The third myth is that more students would become STEM graduates if they knew how important
or “cool” STEM is. In other words, solving the pipeline problem is a marketing challenge. The
National Science Board’s (NSB’s) National Action Plan 2007 reflected this view when it called for the
National Science Foundation (NSF) to “continue to develop and fund programs that increase public
appreciation for and understanding of STEM.”
This view, however, ignores the fact that U.S. culture is already enthusiastic about science. For
example, one survey reported by the NSB in Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 found that
80% of respondents stated that they were “very” or “moderately” interested in new scientific
discoveries. Most people hold scientists in very high regard, ranking them second (behind military
leaders) in terms of public confidence. Overall, the public’s enthusiasm for science rivals (if not
exceeds) that of people in China and South Korea, while far outstripping that of Europeans,
Russians, and the Japanese.
But that does not deter the “make science cool” effort, even though it has not been shown to work.
In 1994, a survey by the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) found that
only 6% of disadvantaged minorities were graduating from high school with the math needed for an
engineering or related degree. The survey also found that students did not recognize the importance of
math as a foundation for later achievement. To reverse these trends, NACME launched the public
service campaign Math is Power, which included targeted television advertisements emphasizing
the importance of math to jobs with higher wages. Four years later, NACME found in a follow-up
survey that “Half of all students surveyed are aware of the campaign, with a majority of them familiar
with at least one of its key messages and that overall students had more favorable attitudes towards math.”
However, its impact on behavior was negligible. In fact, students were “less likely to think that the
decision to take math and science classes is an important one. They are also less likely to view math
as important for their careers than they were six years ago.” The results suggest that using mass media to
reshape student attitudes may in fact work, but the changed attitudes do not necessarily translate to
changed behaviors.
AT – Economy Internal Link
STEM doesn’t solve the economy – studies prove no shortage and STEM emphasis
won’t change numbers involved
Atkinson, Innovation Foundation president, 12
[Robert D., President of IT and Innovation Foundation in Washington DC, Spring2012, Issues in Science
& Technology, “Why the Current Education Reform Strategy Won’t Work” Vol. 28 Issue 3, p29-36,
Ebsco, accessed 7-10-14, AFB]
The first myth is that in a globalized, technology-driven world, all students needs to learn STEM. In
this view—so widely held that it is virtually never questioned—the economy will be so innovationbased that everyone, even those who will never become Ph.D. scientists, will need to learn as much
STEM as possible. The reality is quite different. Only about 5% of jobs are STEM jobs, and that
share is not expected to grow significantly. This is one of the findings that my colleague Merrilea Mayo
and I reported in Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education, issued in December 2010 by the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation. Very few workers actually need advanced STEM education, and surveys of
employers reinforce that. One survey noted in our report found that although 70% of employers rated
oral communication skills as very important for high-school graduates, only 9% rated science skills as
very important. The rate was higher for four-year college graduates, but still only 33% of employers rated
science skills as very important, compared with 90% who rated writing skills as very important.
Saying that the nation should pour resources into K-12 because everyone needs to know STEM is
akin to saying that because music is important to society, every K-12 student should have access to
a Steinway piano and a Juilliard-trained music teacher. In fact, because very few students become
professional musicians, doing this would be a waste of societal resources. It would be far better to
find students interested in music and give them the focused educational opportunities they need.
STEM is no different.
The second myth is that focusing on K-12 will ensure that enough students graduate from college
with STEM degrees. The Some STEM for All view holds that the best way to increase college STEM
graduates is to boost STEM skills in the early years, as argued by many observers and reports, including
the National Academies’ 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future. In this view, it is too late to focus on college, or even high
school, for promoting STEM.
This can be described as the “leaky pipeline” model, in which kids enter the educational flow but
drop out through leaks along the way. Norman R. Augustine, who chaired the committee that produced
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, described this leakage in another 2007 Academies’ report, Is America
Falling Off the Flat Earth? “As one might suspect,” he wrote, “there is a great deal of leakage along that
extended educational highway. To begin with, about one-third of U.S. eighth-graders do not receive a
high school diploma. And of those who do, about 40 percent do not go on to college. About half who do
begin college do not receive a bachelor’s degree. Of those who do receive such a degree, two-thirds will
not be in science or engineering. And of those who are U.S. citizens and do receive degrees in either
science or engineering, only about 1 in 10 will become candidates for a doctoral degree in those fields.
And over half the doctoral candidates drop out before being awarded a Ph.D.”
If the goal is to have every high-school graduate be able and ready to major in a STEM field in
college, then ensuring that the pipeline is completely full by the end of the eighth grade is critical.
That is why the Gathering Storm report so strongly declared that “the U.S. system of public education
must lay the foundation for developing a workforce that is literate in mathematics and science.” As the
report continued, “The point is that it takes a lot of third-graders to produce one contributing research
scientist or engineer and a very long time to do it.” In other words, if everyone has an equal probability of
taking the next step to become STEM-educated, then the best way to get more at the end of the pipeline is
to put a lot of students in at the beginning.
There are two problems with this logic, however. First, not everyone has an equal probability of
getting a graduate STEM degree. At the risk of violating political correctness, the fact is that being
a scientist or engineer requires above-average intelligence. But the nation is not a huge Lake
Wobegon, the fictional community where all the children are above average. Moreover, it is not just
intelligence that determines a student’s likelihood to go into STEM; it is also personality. There is a
long tradition of research exploring the link between personality characteristics and choice of
occupation, including STEM occupations. A new study, reported by Scott Andrew Shane in his 2010
book Born Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders: How Your Genes Affect Your Work Life, has found that the
choice of careers in physical science and engineering was about 70% more influenced by a person’s
genetic makeup than were choices in such areas as finance and sales. Assuming that exposing every
student to a lot of high-quality STEM education will make them want and be able to become a
scientist or engineer is simply wishful thinking, just as it would be to assume that every student
exposed to high-quality music education and a requirement to take four years of music in high school
will want and be able to become a professional musician.
The second problem, as noted above, is that the nation does not need everyone to gain a STEM
degree. In fact, the current pipeline produces enough high-school students able to get the needed
number of STEM college degrees. But society currently does a poor job in high school and college of
helping those students get all the way to a STEM degree. To use the pipeline analogy, replacing a
malfunctioning valve is likely to be a more effective, and much cheaper, strategy than increasing
the size of a five-mile-long pipe.
Empirically proven – government funding of science has no effect on economy and
might actually hinder economic growth
Kealey, University of Buckingham vice chancellor, 97
[Terence, April 11, 1997, Cato Institute, “End Government Science Funding,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/end-government-science-funding, Accessed: 7-15-14,
KMM]
Consequently, the quality of industrial science is remarkable. “Current Contents” magazine recently
reviewed the institutions that produced the largest number of cited papers in biology, and two of the
top seven were private companies: Genentech and Chiron. The others were charitable foundations.
One, the Howard Hughes Foundation, is totally private, while the others three (the Salk and Whitehead
Institutes and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) do accept some government money.
That destroys another myth: that only governments will fund scholarship. The rich, as Nietzsche
wrote, have a need to give. Only last year David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, left $4 billion to his
research foundation. His thousands of philanthropic predecessors include Howard Hughes (whose
foundation spent $332 million on research in 1991); W. M. Keck ($95 million); John D. Rockefeller
(whose foundation funded both the discovery of DNA as the genetic messenger and the development of
penicillin); and Andrew Carnegie.
Ordinary people, too, will fund academic research. Witness the great charities such as the American Heart
Association ($105 million in 1991) and the American Cancer Society ($94 million).
Without government funding of science, the United States overtook Britain around 1890 as the
richest country in the world. So strenuously did Congress disapprove of federal involvement in
research that it refused James Smithson’s bequest in 1829 and only grudgingly accepted it in 1846.
(His gift helped establish the Smithsonian Institution.)
War changed everything. The National Academy of Sciences was created in 1863, at the height of
the Civil War, to help build ironclads to beat the South. The Office of Scientific Research and
Development, which ultimately spawned the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes
of Health, was created in 1941.
Then the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957. The Soviets were going to
destroy us from space! So in 1958 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created,
and the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to pour money into higher
education and science. Yet, remarkably, U.S. economic growth was unaffected. The U.S. per capita
gross domestic product has grown at around 2 percent a year since 1820, and the government
largesse of the last 50 years has not altered that. Why not?
Other Advantage Answers
AT – Arctic
No Arctic war – tensions de-escalate
Jones et al, Brookings Institution senior fellow, 14
[Bruce, Stanford University international studies professor, Thomas Wright, Brookings senior fellow and
University of Chicago public policy professor, Jeremy Shapiro, Brookings visiting fellow and MIT
political science PhD candidate, and Robert Keane, Brookings research assistant, University of Chicago
political science MA, Policy Paper number 33, Feb 2014, “The State of the International Order”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/02/state%20of%20the%20international
%20order/intlorder_report.pdf, p.23, accessed 7-3-14, TAP]
Developments on the Arctic have been much more encouraging. Despite the Arctic’s dangerous mix
of great power competition, unresolved territorial disputes, and increasingly accessible oil and gas
reserves, there has to date been little actual discord. Unlike in the South China Sea, which faces a
similar mix of uncharted energy resources and contested boundaries, Arctic states have pledged to solve
disputes in an orderly process, managed the peaceful resolution of a major territorial conflict, and
concluded a binding agreement to cooperate on search and rescue. More important still, the Arctic
states have agreed to use the dispute resolution mechanisms established by the Law of the Sea—
despite the fact the United States, has not ratified that treaty.
Arctic cooperation is inevitable—Russia proves
Arctic Journal, 14
[Kevin McGwin, Journalist, 3/6/14, “Arktik Politik,” http://arcticjournal.com/politics/arktikpolitik, accessed 7/15/14, PAC]
But, perhaps befitting Russia’s importance to the Arctic, what the region's leaders are being less
open-mouthed about is whether the invasion will have an effect on relations within their neighbor
in the east.
Even though the other Arctic states, all members of Nato or the EU or both, have sided against Russia
in the conflict in Ukraine, they appear – at least for the time being – to have prevented their
disagreements from spreading north.
One reason may be Russia’s military power: like in Crimea, Russia has the military upper hand,
and no Arctic power would be able to stand up to it, should it begin flexing its muscle.
More likely though, is the realisation of Russia’s dominance in the region. “They’re just so
important,” Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, an Arctic expert with the Danish Institute for International Studies,
said. “Without them, you can’t do anything.”
One of the most widely mentioned moves suggested to punish Russia would be to kick it out of the G8
club of major economies. Russia also sits on the Arctic Council, a policy co-ordination group for the
region. Officially there has been no suggestion that it should be excluded from the group, but, even if it
came to that, throwing them out would be all but impossible, given the organisation’s more formal
structure. It would also be undesirable, Rahbek-Clemmensen said.
“These countries have too much of an interest in keeping Russia in. What you have to keep in mind is
that there will be a time after Ukraine. In three months the conflict will be forgotten and then it is back to
normal.”
While Russia frequently finds itself at odds with the West over things like gay rights, Syria and Iran, in
the Arctic the tone has been more conciliatory. Still, being on opposite sides in the Ukraine conflict
will have an inevitable impact on Arctic relations, according to Martin Breum, a journalist with Danish
public broadcaster DR and author of several books about the region.
“Security is a critically important part of Arctic relations,” he said. “The situation in the Ukraine is a
serious crisis and that is going to have an effect on the overall confidence level between the West and
Russia.”
Unlike trans-Atlantic relations, multi-lateral Arctic relations have a short history. The Arctic
Council only came into existence in 1996, and its permanent secretariat wasn’t established until 2012.
Those “nascent relations”, Breum said, were going to be severely tested by the situation in the Ukraine.
“This is likely to show that relations in the Arctic are not as simple as people had been hoping.”
Even though Breum expected the pace of Arctic diplomacy to be slowed because of the situation in
Ukraine, Russia’s interests in the Arctic – and its interests in maintaining peaceful relations – were
so great that it would most likely work to avoid any long-lasting threats to peace in the region.
“Russia needs the Arctic much more than the US or Canada or even Norway. It needs its oil and it
needs the Northern Sea Route and it needs both badly.”
AT – AUVs
AUVS fail - Can’t replace staffed exploration – they lack the technology to replace
human exploration
Mustain, Live Science, 11
[Andrea, June 8, Live Science, “Mysteries of the Oceans Remain Vast and Deep,”
http://www.livescience.com/14493-ocean-exploration-deep-sea-diving.html, accessed July 15, 2014, EK]
Seafaring robots are fueling some of that discovery. Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), which
are tethered to ships, and more recently, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), which roam
freely, collecting visuals and samples during jaunts dictated by computer programs, have made
exploration more efficient, O'Dor said.
However, O'Dor told OurAmazingPlanet, even the best robots can't totally replace humans.
Pictures on computer screens are great, "but that's still not the same as having somebody come back
from the deep sea and having them describe it to you," O'Dor said.
Humans in the depths
Vechionne can do just that. In 2003, he was one of the first humans to descend into one of the deepest
spots on Earth, the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone, a gash in the mid-Atlantic seafloor that is 14,760 feet
(4,500 meters) at its deepest.
During the dive he spied something out of the corner of his eye — a dumbo octopus.
"I was able to tell the pilot to turn around, and we got some really great video," Vechionne said,
something that wouldn't have happened without humans aboard.
Although he witnessed the wonders of the deep sea firsthand, Vechionne said it's important to use all the
tools available for exploration, because much is lurking out of sight in the darkness. A new species of
squid, for example.
Vechhione pointed to the discovery of the bigfin squid about 10 years ago, a pale, leggy creature that can
reach up to 21 feet (7 meters) in length and would look right at home in a 1960's B-movie.
"It was exciting when we first discovered them," Vechionne said. "I was jumping up and down in my
office."
The squid were caught on film, thanks to ROVs. And if such huge creatures eluded discovery until
recently, both Vechhione and O'Dor said, what else is out there?
Yet sending anything to the ocean depths, human or machine, is expensive, and both scientists said
funding is a constant issue.
Sea floor mapping is a prerequisite and the AUV link is non-unique
Meade, RAND Corporation, et al, 1
[Charles, Robert J. Lempert, Fred Timson, James Kadtke, 2001, RAND Corporation, “Assessing the
Benefits and Costs of a Science Submarine, Appendix D: Developments in AUV/ROV Technology”,
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1369z0/MR1369.0.appd.pdf,
accessed 7/13/14 CK]
Currently available autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) and remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs) have important capabilities but can only operate in the vicinity of a host platform such as a
surface ship, submarine, or ice camp. Thus, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, currently available
AUV and ROV technology is an important complement to a dedicated science submarine and such
vehicles do not compete with any of the submarine’s unique capabilities. However, AUV technology
is an area of rapid development and the capabilities of these vehicles may increase significantly within a
time horizon relevant to decisionmakers involved with a dedicated science submarine. The decision
problem posed by these potentially rapid AUV developments and a scenario-based structure for assessing
them is sketched briefly at the end of Chapter 3. Here we provide a brief review of these ongoing
technological activities.
The number of researchers, institutes, and private companies developing AUVs and ROVs has
grown quickly this decade, and they have begun to establish organizations to coordinate activities.1
For example, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), the U.S. Navy,
the IEEE Ocean Engineering Society, and the Marine Technology Society coordinate many efforts
and are extensive sources of information and contacts, and an Autonomous Undersea Systems
Consortium is in development. In addition, many western European countries, particularly the UK
and France, as well as a number of other countries worldwide, have ongoing AUV and ROV
research programs. Many university, governmental, and private research institutes exist in the United
States, and many have developed prototypes of vehicles or related systems.
The development of technical systems pertaining to AUVs can be divided into three broad
categories: platforms, communications, and sensors.2 Current platforms are already relatively robust,
with a developed engineering background. Typical lengths of various AUVs are on the order of one to
two meters, with bulk weights in the range of a few hundred pounds. Operational ranges are at least 1,000
km, and this is improving rapidly, and cruising speeds are on the order of a few knots. Depth ranges
extend to 6,000 m, making most of the ocean depths accessible worldwide. Currently, the two principal
technical challenges are power supply and navigation. The majority of existing platforms utilize various
battery technologies, such as high-efficiency lithium sources, although fuel cells and even solar power
sources3 are in development. Autonomous navigation capabilities appear to be more problematic,
since conventional methods such as dead reckoning, inertial guidance, and acoustic triangulation all
have accuracy or miniaturization constraints. Terrain-based navigation has potential and is being
explored, although this may be hindered by the lack of accurate topographic maps for most of the
Earth’s seafloor. However, even modest improvements in autonomous navigation capabilities could
yield significant improvements in AUV capabilities.
AT – Climate
Warming is inevitable- no cooperation, and interest groups
Publius, AMERICAblog, 14
[Gaius, 4/2/14, AMERICAblog News, “IPCC accidentally proves that “international cooperation” on
climate change is dead”, http://americablog.com/2014/04/ipcc-accidentally-proves-internationalcooperation-climate-change-dead.html, accessed 7/13/14 CK]
International cooperation will never exist; the rich will never pay even U.S. costs
Your three take-aways from this material should be:
1. There will never be international cooperation, because the rich will never pay a dime to offset
anyone’s cost to deal with this crisis. Believe it. Anyone who goes down that path — bless their
heart — is chasing a dream that human souls live inside the monsters who are keeping this crisis
going.
If the rich wanted to fix this, it would be fixed years ago. They will never want to fix this.
2. Any nation can embark on a Zero Carbon energy economy the minute it wants to. It doesn’t need
permission (or help) from any other uncooperating nation. Denmark can do it alone. France can do it
alone. The U.S. can do it — yes, alone. Abandoning the hunt for the unicorn of international cooperation
is freedom from the veto of other nation’s rich people.
In fact, any nation that does embark on a radical Zero Carbon economy — carbon-free in five
years or less, with energy rationing and wealth confiscation — will be hailed as a hero among
nations and people that care, and held as a light and a beacon. That’s true leadership in (and by)
action.
3. The rich will have to be moved aside to solve the climate crisis. And by that I mean forcefully.
They will never surrender, never meet us halfway. They will only delay us while they cash their
next checks and sell more carbon.
As I wrote elsewhere regarding the current fetish for “carbon neutral” solutions — Carbon-neutral is the
same as “Keep Koch in walking change” and will lead to the worst outcome. It hands us the
nightmare, since the hard and constant pushback against any restriction always comes from Money
— people who own trillions in unmonetized carbon assets, plus all of their enablers.
These people don’t do “incremental” or surrender. They do victory dances on the graves of their
enemies.
Barring some kind of general panic, the only “incremental solution” we’re going to get will have the
paper-thin illusory force of a politician’s (or carbon industry’s) PR campaign. We’re seeing that
now, in the “carbon-neutral” admin dithering around Keystone, and in the industry’s current
messaging from the woman I’ve been calling “lying pantsuit lady.”
AT – Diseases
No unique advantage – funding for deep sea pharmaceuticals now – and plan
doesn’t resolve lack of profit incentive
Paddock, Scientific journalist for forty years, 13
(Catharine, 2/15/13, Medical News Today, “Hunt for new antibiotics turn to Deep Sea Trenches”,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/256416.php, accessed 7/1/14, BCG)
"There hasn't been a completely new antibiotic registered since 2003," Marcel Jaspars, professor of
Chemistry at the University of Aberdeen, says in a statement to the press released on Thursday.
Jaspars is leader of PharmaSea, a project that will involve scientists from across Europe and other
parts of the world plunging up to 8km below sea level to retrieve samples from previously untapped
depths of the Arctic and Antarctic oceans.
The project is backed by £8m of European Union funding, and the 24 partners comprise academic,
industrial, and not-for-profit concerns in Belgium, Britain, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland.
No New Antibiotics In Pipeline Since penicillin, the first commercially available bug-busting drug that
Alexander Flemming discovered in 1929, antibiotics have saved million and millions of lives.
If nothing's done to combat the global shortage of effective new antibiotics, then we will be "going
to be back to a 'pre-antibiotic-era' in around 10 or 20 years, where bugs and infections that are
currently quite simple to treat could be fatal", says Jaspars.
Most experts agree that the global antibiotics crisis has come about because of overuse and misuse of
antibiotics, which has led to a rapid increase in drug-resistance in disease-causing microbes.
Plus, there are no new drugs in the pipeline.
"This is partially because of a lack of interest by drugs companies as antibiotics are not particularly
profitable," says Jaspars.
"The average person uses an antibiotic for only for a few weeks and the drug itself only has around
a five to ten year lifespan - so the firms don't see much return on their investment," he adds.
Cold, Deep Sea Trenches Home to Previously Undiscovered Bacteria The project scientists will be
collecting and screening samples of mud and sediment from deep sea trenches in a bid to uncover new
bacteria to produce novel antibiotics.
Disease can be solved for quickly and for little cost
Global Health Policy Blog, 6
[Global Health Policy Blog, 3/20/06, Center for global Development, “Should we try to eradicate
diseases?”, http://www.cgdev.org/blog/should-we-try-eradicate-diseases, accessed 7/13/14 CK]
Today's New York Times (free registration required) discusses whether the lesson of the campaign to
eradicate polio is that it is more effective to control than to try to eradicate diseases:
Today the struggling drive against polio has raised new questions about whether eradication of any
disease is achievable, and, if so, whether the cost in terms of effort and dollars would be worth it, given
all the other diseases that need attention.
The latest push began in 1993, when the International Task Force for Disease Eradication, a panel
of experts, was convened in Atlanta by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Emory
University and the Carter Center. The experts reviewed 95 diseases and identified a handful they
believed could be wiped out in a generation or less. Ancient scourges largely forgotten in rich
countries, many of these diseases continue to cause misery and drain resources in the developing
world, despite the existence of cures and vaccines.
Yet none have been driven into extinction, inflaming the debate over whether simple control was a
more reasonable goal that would allow donors and health professionals to spread their resources to greater
benefit for greater numbers.
Owen comments The eradication of smallpox cost a few hundred million dollars. The US recovers its
contribution - in vaccinations that it no longer has to give, health care it no longer has to provide every 26 days. If it is scientifically possible, there is clearly both political and economic attraction to
seeking eradication.
The basic reproduction ratio (R0) for measles is much higher than for smallpox or polio, which is a way
of saying that it spreads easily. so you would need to reach many more children in the population with
vaccination to have a high chance of eradicating the disease. Given that the donor community has had the
utmost difficulty finding either the resources or the political will to eradicate polio, it seems unlikely that
we could summon what it takes to eradicate measles.
The measles vaccination campaign has been a huge success, reducing deaths by a half over six
years. It may be better to continue the important, but less politically sexy, work of expanding the
coverage of measles vaccines to continue to bring down these avoidable deaths, and register a
success for international cooperation in global health, than to set ourselves a target that we may
well fail to achieve, and so chalk up a failure.
Multiple barriers to effective use of marine resources—the aff’s unsustainable
extraction turns the case
National Academies Reports, 1AC Author, 7
[National non-profit organization for science, engineering, and medicine, “Oceans and Human Health”,
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/Oceans-Human-Health.pdf, p. 9-10, accessed
7/15/14, BCG)
The ocean is the most promising source of new drugs, yet there are multiple challenges in marine
exploration. At the heart of the challenges to ocean science lies the problem of the rights of a
country to its genetic resources, in general, and the intellectual property rights of commercially
promising discoveries, in particular. Complex legal and political issues involved with collecting
marine resources in the territorial waters of other countries can present a major obstacle for
researchers.
Another challenge that researchers face is obtaining a sufficient quantity of new marine-derived
chemicals. On one hand, scientists need a sufficient quantity to determine whether a new chemical
has medical potential. On the other hand, protecting marine natural resources is essential.
Exploitation of marine plants, animals, and microorganisms must be avoided to ensure that marine
ecosystems and populations are not adversely impacted. The National Research Council report From
Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Ocean’s Role in Human Health (1999) recommends that
scientists pursue new ways to produce marine chemicals in a sustainable manner, such as
aquaculture, cell culture, and recombinant (molecular) techniques, to avoid depleting natural
populations of marine organisms.
Status quo solves anti-bacterial research
Pharmaceutical Technology 13
[Procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers
within the global pharmaceutical and biochemistry industry, 2-15-13, “Scientists will explore Arctic
seabed to research new antibiotics”, http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/newsscientistswill-explore-arctic-seabed-to-research-new-antibiotics, accessed 7-15-14, PAC]
In a bid to discover much-needed new antibiotics, scientists from across Europe plan to search for
new bacteria in deep sea trenches around the Arctic, Antarctic and Pacific Ocean.
Led by the University of Aberdeen, the PharmaSea project will see scientists collect and screen
samples of mud and sediment from up to 8km below sea level, in a bid to find new bacteria that can
produce novel antibiotics.
It is hoped that if all goes to plan their findings could provide new treatments within a decade.
Marine organisms that live at such great depths are considered to be an interesting source of study as they
survive under extreme conditions.
The search to find new antibiotics is of increasing concern. Over-reliance and inappropriate prescribing
have led to rapid increase in drug-resistant bugs, causing experts to fear that effective antibiotics may
soon disappear, risking millions of lives.
University of Aberdeen chemistry professor and project leader Professor Marcel Jaspars said; "If
nothing's done to combat this problem we're going to be back to a 'pre-antibiotic-era' in around 10 or 20
years, where bugs and infections that are currently quite simple to treat could be fatal".
Jaspars adds that there hasn't been a completely new antibiotic registered since 2003, which he
believes is partially because they are not particularly profitable for drug companies.
The average person uses an antibiotic for only for a few weeks and the drug itself only has around a five
to ten year lifespan.
University of Leuven Laboratory for Molecular Biodiscovery lecturer, industrial research fellow and
project co-ordinator Dr Camila Esguerra said; "PharmaSea will not only be exploring new territory at
the bottom of the oceans, but also new areas in "chemical space".
This four-year project is said to be groundbreaking as only a handful of samples have ever been
taken from deep trenches in the sea.
Backed by £8m of funding from the EU, divers will use specialist equipment that costs upwards of
£25,000 a day to use.
Once they have collected sediment, scientists will then attempt to grow unique bacteria and fungi from
the sediment that can be extracted and refined to discover new antibiotics.
The projects will bring together 24 partners in industry, academia and not-for-profit organisations
from 14 countries.
AT – Exploration
USFG shouldn’t be focused on ocean exploration – Space exploration would have
net benefits not solved by OSEA
Zubrin, astronautical engineer, 12
(Robert, 4/23/12, “Why we shouldn’t wait to go to Mars”, CNN,
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/23/why-we-shouldnt-wait-to-go-to-mars/, accessed 7/14/14,
BCG)
The idea that we need to suspend space exploration in order to provide the necessary resources to probe
the oceans is categorically absurd. So let’s call it like it is: The argument that we should explore the
oceans instead of space is not a call to search the seas, but simply a disingenuous way to give up our
effort to reach the Red Planet.
But why should we try? There are three reasons.
Reason # 1: For the knowledge. We now know that Mars once possessed oceans in which life could
have developed from chemistry. But did it? If we could discover fossils on the Martian surface, or extant
life surviving in subsurface water today, it would show that the origin of life is not unique to the Earth,
and thus by implication reveal a universe that is filled with life and probably intelligence as well. From
the point of view of humanity learning its true place in the universe, this would be the most
important scientific enlightenment since Copernicus.
Robotic probes can help out in such a search – and should be aggressively pursued – but by themselves
are completely insufficient. Fossil hunting requires the ability to travel long distances through
unimproved terrain, to climb steep slopes, to do heavy work and delicate work, and to exercise very subtle
forms of perception and on-the-spot intuition. Astrobiological investigations require the ability to drill,
sample, culture and study life drawn from Martian groundwater. All of these skills are far beyond the
abilities of robotic rovers. Field paleontology and astrobiology require human explorers, real live
scientists on the scene.
Reason # 2: For the challenge. Nations, like people, thrive on challenge and decay without it. The
space program itself needs challenge. Consider: Between 1961 and 1973, under the impetus of the
moon race, NASA produced a rate of technological innovation several orders of magnitude greater than
that it has shown since, for an average budget in real dollars only about 10% more than today ($20 billion
per year in 2012 dollars then, compared with $18 billion now). Why? Because it had a goal that made its
reach exceed its grasp. It is not necessary to develop anything new if you are not doing anything new. The
Apollo program also strongly stimulated the economy as a whole to rates of economic growth that have
not been seen since. Far from being a waste of money, forcing NASA to take on the challenge of
Mars is the key to giving the nation a real technological return – and much needed economic stimulus
– from its space dollar.
A humans-to-Mars program would also be an adventure challenge to every child in the country:
“Learn your science, and you can become part of pioneering a new world.” In its day, the Apollo
program caused a doubling of the number of American science and engineering graduates. That
intellectual capital continues to benefit the nation. There will be more than 100 million kids in our
nation's schools over the next 10 years. If a Mars program were to inspire just an extra 1% of them to
scientific educations, the net result would be 1 million more scientists, engineers, inventors, medical
researchers and doctors, making innovations that create new industries, finding new medical cures,
strengthening national defense and increasing national income for decades to an extent that utterly
dwarfs the expenditures of the Mars program.
Reason # 3: For the future: Mars is not just a scientific curiosity, it is a world with a surface area
equal to all the continents of Earth combined, possessing all the elements that are needed to support
not only life, but technological civilization. As hostile as it may seem, the only thing standing between
Mars and habitability is the need to develop a certain amount of Red Planet know-how. This can and will
be done by those who go there first to explore.
Mars is the New World. Someday, millions of people will live there. What language will they speak?
What values and traditions will they cherish, to spread from there as humanity continues to move out into
the solar system and beyond? When they look back on our time, will any of our other actions compare in
value to what we do today to bring their society into being?
Today, we have the opportunity to be the founders, the parents and shapers of a new and dynamic
branch of the human family, and by so doing, put our stamp upon the future. It is a privilege not to
be disdained lightly.
AT – Marine Archaeology
Underwater archaeology is destructive to the environment, doesn’t engage the
public, and is not cost effective
Meide, underwater and maritime archaeologist and currently the Director of
LAMP, 13
[Chuck, 11/7/13, The Keepers Blog, “Prominent investor blasts treasure hunting as a worthless
investment—UPDATED”,
http://www.blogstaugustinelighthouse.org/blog/lamposts/prominent_investor_blasts_trea.php, accessed
7/15/14 CK]
This morning we saw an article in Bloomberg Businessweek highlighting a report released by a
Wall Street short seller and investment activist. This report is a damning indictment of the treasure
hunting industry, and in particular Odyssey Marine, the well-known treasure hunting company
based out of Tampa:
Exploring shipwrecks may provide fun and adventure, but whether it’s a good business is a
different question. Perhaps the most well-known treasure hunter, Odyssey Marine Exploration
(OMEX), has made headlines for years, including last year when, as my colleague Susan Berfield
reported at the time, Odyssey’s brash chief executive officer led the money-losing company in an
(ultimately unsuccessful) battle to claim profit from coins found in a Spanish shipwreck. The
company’s now in the limelight again, and not in a flattering way. Late last week, a young activist
investor published a 66-page report (pdf) outlining an argument for why Odyssey’s stock “is worth
$Zero.” The investor, Ryan Morris, alleged the company used offshore entities to obscure its true value,
and the company let executives “live a life of glamor hunting the ocean while disappointed investors foot
the bill.”
As a team of maritime archaeologists, the treasure hunting industry is of interest to us, and it is
antithetical to our goal of preserving and studying shipwrecks for scientific knowledge. We have written
about treasure hunting many times before on our blog, including a reaction to the aforementioned incident
whereby Odyssey recovered tons of silver from a Spanish wreck (code-named "Black Swan"), and then
was forced by the courts to return all of the recovered material to Spain. You can read more of our
blogging on treasure hunting here, here, here, and here. The short version of the archaeologists'
argument is this: 1. the methods that treasure hunters use to work a site are destructive and not
scientific, systematic, and meticulous like those archaeologists use, and thus result in a significant
loss of knowledge that could otherwise be gained by proper excavation techniques; 2. Treasure
hunters sell recovered objects, making them inaccessible to both the public and scholars, which
results in further loss of knowledge that might otherwise be gained by future research. It has long
been known to archaeologists that treasure hunting results in a loss of information about the past;
now it seems that stockholders are learning that it can also result in the loss of a financial
investment.
Agency Solvency Answers
Status Quo Solves
NOAA is able to solve effectively – best at data management
Konkel, Business of Federal Technology, 3/17/14
[Frank Konkel, 3/17/14, The Business of Federal Technology, “NOAA budget boost focused on data”,
http://fcw.com/articles/2014/03/17/noaa-budget-breakdown.aspx, accessed 7/15/14, GNL]
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2015 budget request emphasizes
environmental intelligence, and includes increases for its data-intensive next-generation satellite
programs and IT infrastructure upgrades to fully utilize the raw data the agency produces.
Overall, NOAA's budget request totals $5.5 billion, a 3.2 percent over its 2014 enacted budget.
The largest request for NOAA's five offices is the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information
Service, which manages the procurement, launch and operation of all civilian environmental satellite.
NESDIS would receive $2.2 billion under the budget request, an increase of about $165 million over last
year's totals, with the lion's share going to the development of its two next-generation satellites. The Joint
Polar Satellite System satellite is set for launch in early 2017, and the first Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite is on course to launch in early 2016. Combined, the next-gen satellite systems
will cost about $22 billion. The first GOES-R satellite alone will produce 40 megabytes of data per
second.
"NOAA is one of the most valuable service agencies in the U.S. government," said Kathryn Sullivan,
undersecretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
The National Weather Service, NOAA's second-largest office, would receive $1.06 billion, a $3.9 million
decrease from fiscal 2014. The decrease in funding will hinder some expected advancements in the
NWS' predictive capabilities, including an $8 million hit to its Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project,
"which will delay advancements in hurricane forecast track and intensity," according to budget
documents.
Yet NWS will receive $6 million in additional funding for its Ground Readiness Project, which is
designed to improve the NWS IT infrastructure. As it exists today, NOAA produces more data – and
that data volume will grow significantly in the coming years – than NWS systems can process.
NWS will also get an extra $5 million to re-architect its telecommunications gateway, which distributes
weather products to thousands of customers across the world. NOAA's transition to a new IT service
delivery model for forecast offices in fiscal 2014 realized the agency $10 million in efficiency savings,
according to the 2015 budget request.
NOAA is sufficient now – it is constantly being innovated and has plans for
exploration
Lubchenco, former NOAA administrator, 13
[Dr. Jane, 2013, NOAA, “All Hands on Deck NOAA’s Accomplishments: 2009-2012”,
http://www.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_Accomplishments_2009-2012.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, GNL]
Day in and day out, NOAA’s work impacts the lives of every American. From life-saving and
commerce-enabling weather forecasts to research on how our planet is changing to protecting natural
resources and sharing information broadly, NOAA personnel are developing solutions for some of our
planet’s most pressing challenges. NOAA enriches lives through science, services and stewardship.
With roots dating back to 1807, our agency has evolved to meet the needs of a changing nation and
changing environment.
During my nearly four years at NOAA, through daily interactions and challenging disasters, I’ve had
occasion to get to know many of our nearly 13,000 employees and hundreds of contractors upon which
we rely. One thing that has impressed me immensely is the passion they feel for our mission. I’ve also
been astounded at NOAA’s breadth—our mission takes us from the surface of the sun to the depths of the
ocean floor. And I’ve seen NOAA adapt to changing circumstances and embrace new opportunities and
challenges, while staying true to its core values. An example of this adaptation is NOAA’s embrace of
innovative ways to be more efficient or effective, whether it’s cloud IT solutions or social media.
Beginning with Facebook and Twitter in 2009, NOAA has developed a strong social media presence,
tweeting and posting to hundreds of thousands of followers around the nation and the world.
Because of the dedication and hard work of NOAA employees, and thanks to great partnerships, we’ve
been able to tackle some big issues. I’ve often said that the diversity of our mission is one of NOAA’s
greatest challenges, but it’s also a great strength: It enables timely integration across research, weather,
climate, oceans, coasts, satellites, ships, and planes to deliver useful services and stewardship. Through
an emphasis on transparency, integrity, innovation, team work and communication, we have made
significant progress on multiple fronts during the last four years.
So, what have we accomplished? During the past four years, NOAA employees have worked with our
partners to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish stocks; helped create the first National Ocean
Policy that highlights the importance of healthy oceans; issued life-saving weather, water, and
tsunami warnings and worked toward a Weather Ready Nation; invested in coastal communities
and strived to make them more resilient through integrated conservation and restoration;
strengthened science through our first Scientific Integrity Policy; and created a new generation of
climate services to enable smart planning, adaption, and mitigation. This is just a small sample of
NOAA’s efforts to fulfill its overall mission.
The following stories flesh out these and other successes. Far from an exhaustive list, this compilation
provides highlights from NOAA’s impressive portfolio.
I am tremendously proud to have been part of the NOAA family and am confident that it will continue to
provide the services, science, and stewardship on which so much and so many depend. Enjoy reading
these stories and feel proud.
Efficacy
No solvency – the plan functionally adds massive new layer of bureaucracy, as a
Trojan horse for costly regulation
Rep. Hastings, House Natural Resources Committee chair, 12
[Doc, R-WA, 6-19-12, Fox News, “Obama's national ocean policy threatens jobs and economic activities
onshore and off”, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/19/obama-national-ocean-policy-threatensjobs-and-economic-activites-onshore-and/, accessed 7-10-14]
In the famous poem “Paul Revere’s Ride,” Revere instructs his fellow patriots to use lanterns to signal
whether there’s an attack coming by land or sea. While we may no longer have to fear the British,
Americans should be warned of a new threat coming by sea in the form of President Obama’s
National Ocean Policy and ocean zoning initiative.
President Obama is using the ocean as his latest regulatory weapon to impose new bureaucratic
restrictions on nearly every sector of our economy. While marketed as a common sense plan for the
development and protection of our oceans, it is instead being used to create a massive new
bureaucracy that would harm our economy.
Established through Executive Order, Mr. Obama with a simple stroke of a pen took unilateral action
to impose a massive top-down federal bureaucracy with broad regulatory control over our oceans,
Great Lakes, rivers, tributaries and watersheds.
The Executive Order creates a tangled web of regulatory layers that includes: 10 National Policies;
a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; and 9
Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to an additional: 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic
Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for
Coastal Marine Spatial Planning.
Imposing mandatory ocean zoning could place huge portions of our oceans and coasts off-limits,
seriously curtailing recreational activities, commercial fishing, and all types of energy development
– including renewable energy such as offshore wind farms.
What’s even more alarming is that the impact of this Executive Order is not limited to just our oceans. It
establishes regional planning bodies with the authority to regulate as far inland as necessary. All rivers
eventually drain into the ocean, which gives this policy the justification it needs to reach far inland.
For example, the Gulf of Mexico Regional Planning Body will make decisions to regulate activities
throughout the entire Mississippi River watershed if those activities have the potential to affect the Gulf
of Mexico. This means a policy billed as protecting our oceans will have the ability to regulate inland
activities that occur as far north as Minnesota. If farmers and ranchers thought having the EPA in their
backyard was bad, wait until the National Ocean Council comes sailing upstream for a visit too.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has raised serious concerns, stating that “it could extend to the
regulation of every farm and ranch in the United States.”
To make matters worse, taxpayers will be stuck with the considerable financial costs of
implementing this Executive Order and the vague and undefined objectives will no doubt be used as
fuel for costly frivolous lawsuits to stop or delay federally-permitted activities. Adding to these costs
is the lost economic activity and stifled job creation that will result from new restrictions and
regulatory uncertainly brought on by the policy.
Over the past year, the Natural Resources Committee has held multiple oversight hearings to
investigate the policy, its implementation and potential impacts. However, the Obama
administration has refused to answer important questions. That’s why I recently supported
bipartisan efforts in the House to pause funding for this policy until the true job and economic
impacts are known. This pause in funding was supported by over 80 organizations, including the
US Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Homebuilders,
American Forest & Paper Association, and the National Fisheries Institute.
Millions of Americans depend on the ocean for their livelihoods and there needs to be a balanced, multiuse policy that recognizes both the importance of environmental stewardship and the responsible use of
our oceans.
Executive Branch agencies with jurisdiction over our ocean policy can, and should, work in a more
coordinated manner, to share information, and reduce duplication of their work. This would save
money and could be supported by all. Unfortunately, President Obama’s Executive Order pushes
far beyond this common ground and uses the ocean as a regulatory tool to limit job-creating
activities on both land and sea.
Vagueness of the plan guts solvency – adding more bureaucracy creates
inefficiencies and inhibits success
Marine Conservation Alliance 9
[Marine Conservation Alliance, August 18, 2009, “COMMENTS TO THE INTERAGENCY OCEAN
POLICY TASK FORCE REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE
OCEAN, COASTS, AND THE GREAT LAKES.” http://www.marineconservationalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/MCA_Comments_to_the_Interagency_Ocean_Policy_Task_Force_20090818.p
df, page 2-3 accessed 6/27/14 CK]
There are significant difficulties with translating the goal of ecosystem based management into
practical reality. Issues of geographic scope, questions about the level of scientific information
required to design and implement such a management regime, and fiscal reality have all come into
play. Many of the proposals include elaborate new “top down” bureaucracies, with attendant costs,
increased regulatory burden, and significant economic impacts while at the same time providing
questionable ecosystem benefits. We have not supported such proposals in the past because we see
them as interfering with development of workable solutions to real world conservation needs.
As a general matter we would urge the Task Force to avoid developing a national policy that further
complicates an already daunting array of laws, regulations and policies that currently govern ocean
uses. Requiring agencies to define and implement a requirement to “protect, maintain, and restore
the health of marine ecosystems” will be a daunting task. Introducing new and ill defined terms for
application, such as the “precautionary approach”, “marine ecosystem resilience” and “marine
ecosystem health” compounds the problem due to their lack of precision and clear definition. Using
such terms to define U.S. oceans policy, and as a regulatory standard to gauge performance, introduces
a level of ambiguity that, in our opinion, will result in confusion, further gridlock, and eventually
litigation. From the perspective of a region that is interested in making real, “on the water” progress this
approach has a basic bottom line flaw. It sounds good, but is so ambiguous that it will make the
practical and real world work of managers virtually impossible.
No solvency – additional layers of bureaucracy
De Allesi, Reason Foundation natural resource policy director, 4
[Michael, 4-26-4, Reason, “Oceans Need Innovation, Not Bureaucracy”,
http://reason.org/news/show/oceans-need-innovation-not-bur, accessed 7-10-14, AFB]
The 16-member U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy just released a nearly 500-hundred page preliminary
report, 2 1/2 years in the making, which is supposed to nurse our oceans back to health. Unfortunately,
apart from making a timely acknowledgement of the environmental, commercial and recreational
importance of the oceans, the report leaves much to be desired.
Instead of applying a comprehensive framework to oceans policy, the commission focuses on
creating more administrative offices such as the National Ocean Council and Presidential Council of
Advisers on Ocean Policy. Think Department of Homeland Security for our oceans. We're on orange
alert, or is it yellow today? As most taxpayers, especially fresh off tax day will attest, bureaucracy
does not equal "coordination," no matter how high it reaches or how small the minutiae it
addresses.
In addition to layers and layers of added bureaucracy, the report recommends increasing federal research
dollars and security for shipping and oil and gas activities (hardly surprising proposals considering the
commission consists primarily of academics, federal agency representatives, and the oil and gas industry
— all groups that would benefit).
At all levels, the heart of the problem is what is referred to in environmental circles as the "tragedy of the
commons" — resources are depleted or damaged because they are free for the taking, whether fish, clean
water or habitat.
The commission still doesn't seem to realize that more regulation and more government agencies
won't beat man's ingenuity and the tragedy of commons. Consider Alaska: the state thought its
halibut stock was being overfished, so it slashed the halibut fishing season from almost 10 months to
just 72 hours. The result? There was no significant decrease in the number of halibut caught
because fishermen and companies packed 10 months worth of fishing into three days.
The key to rehabilitating and sustaining our oceans is stewardship and property rights. The
Alaskan halibut fishery is now a success story, not because of new regulations, but because it is one
of the few fisheries in the United States managed on a property rights model. Fishermen have
Individual Fishing Quotas, which allocate the right to catch a specific percentage of the scientifically
determined total allowable catch. The quotas give fishermen both the incentive and the means to care
more about the health of our seas. Fishermen in New Zealand using this system have actually voluntarily
reduced their catch levels because they know the long-term health of the oceans is in their best interests.
Traditional societies in the Pacific Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands used these concepts to protect
marine resources. Native Americans often had complex arrangements within and between tribes to allow
salmon to move up and downstream in order to maintain the spawning runs and ensure a future supply of
fish. Native Hawaiians recognized triangular strips of property running from mountaintop out to sea and
respected the boundaries. According to a Hawaii Sea Grant study, this system was set up "to sustain the
pattern of Hawaiian life," and included strict limits on harvests of "species, types, sizes and portions of
fish."
In the eyes of the commission, property rights are valuable tools for solving specific problems, but not as
an overall framework for oceans policy. This is a mistake. Of course there is more to managing ocean
resources than fishing, but the fishery dynamic applies to every facet of oceans management. After
all, most Americans are far more concerned with the price and quality the fish at their local supermarket
or the health of their favorite fishing holes than they are about deep-sea topography or federal agency
hierarchies.
The health of our oceans deserves bold, forward-thinking policies that have proven highly
successful across the world, not another government agency promising more research.
Ocean agencies fail – NOPP proves
Pomponi, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution vice president and director of
research, 4
[Shirley, director of research and vice president of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution which is a
nonprofit research institution, 5/5/04, “U.S. COMMISSION OCEAN POLICY PRELIMINARY
REPORT”, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg93362/html/CHRG-108hhrg93362.htm,
accessed 7/15/14, GNL]
Q1. In your testimony you expressed support for the Commission's recommendation to establish a
National Ocean Council. Why do you think this is a better approach to coordination than the existing (or
strengthened) National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP)?
A1. Agencies tend to look out for their own, wholly-owned priorities first, leaving promising,
cooperative programs such as NOPP to languish. NOPP's National Ocean Research Leadership
Council (NORLC) was intended as a forum that would bring together the leaders of the participating
agencies to discuss the great challenges and opportunities that faced the ocean science community.
This has not happened because NORLC meetings are rarely attended by agency leaders, thus
making NORLC a forum that can only present and discuss ideas and programs, but cannot make
decisions. Moreover, agencies do not budget major project funds to NOPP, because to do so would
be relinquish those funds to collective use rather than perhaps better defined, more urgent
programs that indeed are congressionally-mandated.
Ocean Policy Solvency Answers
Status Quo Solves
Status quo solves – 1.8 billion dollars in funding and Obama pledging to change
oceans
Hogan, ARKive, 6/19/14
[Ben, Environmental News Network, ARKive, 6/19/14, “In the News: $1.8 billion pledged to protect
marine habitats”, http://blog.arkive.org/2014/06/in-the-news-1-8-billion-pledged-to-protect-marinehabitats/, accessed 7/15/14, GNL]
Over $1.8 billion has been pledged by various parties at the ‘Our Ocean’ 2014 summit, and
proposals have been made to double the amount of protected marine habitats around the world.
‘Our Ocean’ 2014 brought together leaders from business, government and academic institutions, and
NGOs from over 80 countries to discuss how economic development and ocean conservation can be
reconciled. The oceans are extremely important for humans, generating more than 50 percent of the
oxygen we breathe, absorbing excess carbon dioxide, and providing a source of food and income for
millions of people worldwide.
The summit concentrated on several key themes in ocean conservation including sustainable fishing,
marine pollution, and ocean acidification. Perhaps one of the most significant announcements at Our
Ocean was President Obama’s intention to expand and create new marine reserves in the Pacific Ocean,
while Kiribati announced it will expand its already vast Phoenix Islands Protected Area. If implemented,
these proposals will more than double the total area of legally protected oceans.
President Obama said in a video to participants at Our Ocean, “I’m going to use my authority to
protect some of our nation’s most precious marine landscapes.”
Many of the world’s fish stocks are being fished at unsustainable levels, and it is thought that around 30
percent of the world’s fisheries are overexploited. The Our Ocean summit aimed to examine the steps
fishery management authorities need to take to reduce, and ultimately end, overfishing and to mitigate
adverse impacts on the broader marine environment. Initiatives proposed at the summit aim to end all
overfishing on marine fish stocks by 2020, through a series of measures including increased transparency
in allocating fishing rights, tougher enforcement of legislation and penalties for illegal fisheries,
elimination of excess capacity in fishing fleets and minimising bycatch.
To this end, President Obama has announced a comprehensive new national programme on seafood
traceability and openness which will allow customers in the United States to ensure that their
seafood has been harvested legally and sustainably. Additionally, the United States launched the
‘mFish’ partnership, which will provide mobile devices to small-scale fisheries in developing nations
with apps designed to access market and weather information and ensure accurate and easy catch
reporting. Norway also pledged more than $150 million to promote fishery management and development
abroad, including a new research vessel to train fisheries experts and managers around the world.
Significant advances have been made in addressing marine pollution from land- and ocean-based
sources, by individuals and local communities at the regional and global scale, although much more
needs to be done. Our Ocean 2014 has facilitated the development of initiatives to reduce total nutrient
pollution in the ocean by 20 percent and to significantly reduce the input of debris into the marine
environment by 2025. To help achieve this, Norway will allocate up to $1 million for a study on measures
to combat marine plastic waste and microplastics. Additionally, the United States announced the Trash
Free Waters programme, which aims to stop waste and debris from entering the ocean though sustainable
product design, increased material recovery and recycling, and a new nationwide waste prevention ethic.
Due to ocean acidification, our oceans are approximately 30 percent more acidic than before the
industrial revolution, and the ocean’s chemistry is currently changing 10 times faster than at any
other time in the past 50 million years. Many organisms will not be able to adapt to the changes within
their habitat, which will negatively impact both biodiversity and the crucial services that the oceans
provide us. Initiatives to prevent further increases in ocean acidification were developed at the Our
Oceans summit, which aim to reduce carbon emissions and monitor ocean acidification on a global scale.
Norway announced that it will allocate over $1 billion to climate change mitigation and adaptation
assistance in 2015. The United States presented new projects to meet the challenges of ocean acidification
and marine pollution in Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean, as well as contributing $640,000 to
support the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Center in Monaco.
Stakeholders
No solvency – competing stakeholders – users, agencies, industries,
environmentalists
Eilperin, Washington Post, 9
[Juliet, May 4, 2009, The Washington Post, “Finding Space for All in Our Crowded Seas”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/03/AR2009050301930.html, accessed
6-25-14, CK]
The ocean is getting crowded: Fishermen are competing with offshore wind projects, oil rigs along
with sand miners, recreational boaters, liquefied gas tankers and fish farmers. So a growing number
of groups -- including policymakers, academics, activists and industry officials -- now say it's time to
divvy up space in the sea.
"We've got competition for space in the ocean, just like we have competition for space on land," said
Andrew Rosenberg, a natural resources and environment professor at the University of New
Hampshire who has advised Massachusetts on the issue. "How are you going to manage it? Is it the
people with the most power win? Is it whoever got there first? Is it a free-for-all?"
To resolve these conflicts, a handful of states -- including Massachusetts, California and Rhode
Island -- have begun essentially zoning the ocean, drawing up rules and procedures to determine
which activities can take place and where. The federal government is considering adopting a similar
approach, though any coherent effort would involve sorting out the role of 20 agencies that
administer roughly 140 ocean-related laws.
"It's really an idea whose time has come, and it's one of my top priorities," said Jane Lubchenco, who
chairs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "By focusing on different sectors, nobody
is paying attention to the whole -- in particular, the health of the system."
But conducting what experts call "marine spatial planning" presents scientific and political
challenges, since so little of the ocean has been mapped in detail, and so many interest groups want
to use it. The federal government has mapped only 20 percent of the "exclusive economic zone"
that stretches from the U.S. coast out 200 nautical miles, and that's just its geophysical bottom, not
the habitats and species that exist at varying levels.
Charlie Wahle, a senior scientist in NOAA's National Marine Protected Area Center, said the agency is
convening experts in California to chart how groups including kayakers, the Coast Guard and fishermen
use waters off the state's coast. "People have been surprisingly willing to engage and share their
information and knowledge of the way it really is, as opposed to how it may look on maps," he said.
"We're on the right path, but it's not a simple thing."
Marine ecologist Larry Crowder, one of several scientists at Duke University who have compiled data for
such plans, said the approach makes sense because ocean resources are not "equally distributed, whether
it's oil and gas, or fish, or corals." But he added that the sea has so many overlapping activities that "when
you begin putting these maps together, as we've done, it quickly becomes a train wreck."
The states pioneering this approach have charted different paths. California is establishing marine
protected areas along its 1,100-mile coastline under its 1999 Marine Life Protection Act, dividing it into
five regions and brokering agreements with interest groups. Massachusetts, which enacted its Ocean Act
only last year, is to finalize a comprehensive ocean management plan by Jan. 1 that exempts fisheries but
covers all other major activities.
Ian Bowles, Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said the state is working to
determine "what are the areas of particular ecological value that we should be protecting from other uses"
and what parts of the ocean can accommodate such diverse concerns as liquefied natural gas offloading
terminals, wind projects and sand mining for restoring eroding beaches.
While a few states are leading the way in the United States, the Europeans and Australians have done this
for years. Charles Ehler, a Paris-based consultant who is drafting a manual on the subject for UNESCO,
the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said the demand for offshore wind farms and
other activities has spurred countries such as Belgium, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands to establish
specific marine boundaries.
"There's a much greater intensity of demand for offshore space in Europe than in most of the United
States," said Ehler, noting Belgium's demand exceeds its available space by 200 to 300 percent.
Even though they have a head start, policymakers overseas are struggling with many of the same
questions Americans are contemplating, including how to reconcile new and traditional ocean uses,
and how climate change will affect where marine species live. With the exception of Norway, few
nations have been willing to subject fisheries to the same management regime as such activities as
renewable energy and gravel mining.
"The traditional users of the sea have been the most resistant to marine spatial planning, because
they've pretty much been free to go where they want to go and do what they want to do," Ehler said.
While California includes the fishing industry in its planning process, Massachusetts fishermen
held up passage of the state's Ocean Act until they were reassured they would be exempt. "We
don't want to be told, 'Oh, and this place -- you can't go here anymore,' because we were there all
along," said Bill Adler, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association. He added
that the fishing industry is already regulated separately by the state.
Some U.S. oil and gas executives have adopted a similar stance, arguing that any offshore drilling
projects must undergo a federal environmental assessment. "I don't think the overall process is
broken," said Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co., adding that when he hears of calls for
additional ecological reviews, "From where I sit, some of it can just look like delay tactics."
But as the country appears poised for a new push in offshore oil drilling, advocates such as the
Ocean Conservancy's Vikki Spruill argue it needs to take a more serious look at how it coordinates
activities off its coasts. "We wouldn't put a coal plant in a national park," Spruill said. Philippe
Cousteau, president of the nonprofit EarthEcho International, said policymakers should put
environmental considerations "first and foremost" when deciding where to locate new drilling
activities.
Mary Gleason, the Nature Conservancy's senior scientist and lead planner for marine protected areas in
California's central and north central coastal regions, said "there's a lot of drama" when the universe of
users is included in ocean planning. "There's been a negotiated solution in all of these cases, where
there's been a lot of give-and-take," she said.
[NOTE: Ehler = Charles Ehler, Ocean Visions Consulting president and marine spatial
planning consultant for UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission]
Exploration Solvency Answers
Status Quo Solves
Status quo solves – new plan for ocean exploration now
Bidwell, US News, 13
(Allie, Sept. 25, 2013, US News, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration Program”,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientists-release-first-plan-for-national-oceanexploration-program?page=2, accessed 7/15/14, AA)
More than three-quarters of what lies beneath the surface of the ocean is unknown, even to trained
scientists and researchers. Taking steps toward discovering what resources and information the seas hold,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Aquarium of the Pacific released on
Wednesday a report that details plans to create the nation's first ocean exploration program by the
year 2020.
The report stems from a national convening of more than 100 federal agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, nonprofit organizations and private companies to discuss what components should make up
a national ocean exploration program and what will be needed to create it.
"This is the first time the explorers themselves came together and said, 'this is the kind of program
we want and this is what it's going to take,'" says Jerry Schubel, president and CEO of the Aquarium
of the Pacific, located in Long Beach, Calif. "That's very important, particularly when you put it in
the context that the world ocean is the largest single component of Earth's living infrastructure ...
and less than 10 percent of it has ever been explored."
Time Frame
Research gathered from exploration takes decades to use
Avery, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution president and director, 13
[Dr. Susan K., 6/11/2013, “DEEP SEA CHALLENGE: INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS IN OCEAN
OBSERVATION”, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87852/html/CHRG113shrg87852.htm, ACCESSED 7/15/14, GNL]
In reality science is a continuum from basic through applied research and the integration of this
information into modeling and decision-making processes as well as technology development. This
is readily apparent in ongoing efforts to improve the translation of research to operations, or ``R20.'' A
key element to extracting the greatest value from investments in basic and applied research is
ensuring the continuity of data, implicit in which is funding support for the collection, synthesis,
analysis and delivery of this data in a useable form. The benefits of discovery driven research and
databases supporting this work often take years, or decades to be fully recognized and exploited for
the benefit of society. Maintaining the infrastructure responsible for the collection of scientific data
has proven to be a huge challenge, particularly in the ocean sciences where infrastructure
construction and operation and maintenance costs are high due to the harsh working environment
and cost of accessing the ocean.
Obstacles
Plan can’t solve – requires massive overhauls in resource expenditure, funding
method, research method, international scope and coop, multiple agencies,
integration across fields and industries
National Research Council, Committee on the Exploration of the Seas, 2003
[2003, Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National Research Council, “Exploration of the Seas:
Interim Report,” page 5-6, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10630, accessed 6/26/14, GNL]
An ocean exploration program should emphasize observation and description of living and nonliving resources, rates, and processes (Step 1). Independent verification (Step 4) should not be
included in an exploration program, although it is an important role of more traditional ocean research
programs. In Steps 2 and 3, ocean exploration and research overlap; such an overlap is highly
desirable and demonstrates the value of exploration for fueling the next generation of hypothesis
testing. Ocean exploration should be an integral component of a continuum to ocean research and
technology development.
The success of U.S. ocean research programs is due in large part to longstanding support from the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Naval Research (ONR), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other government and private sources. Most research
grants are funded on a competitive basis, and proposals are evaluated based on a number of
factors, including the significance of the hypotheses to be tested and the methods proposed to test
the hypotheses. Commonly, ocean research proposals target well-defined, previously studied areas
or sites, in an effort to increase our knowledge and understanding of a particular habitat, biological
community, or process. Over the long term, this leads to extensive data sets and detailed theories in a
certain scientific discipline or geographic region. While the high quality of ocean research in the
United States is indisputable, the funding process does not generally encourage exploration.
Proposals without sufficient data to develop testable hypotheses, to drive specific investigations, and
to predict specific outcomes from the work are not easily funded (National Science Foundation,
2002). A successful ocean exploration program will use a similarly stringent proposal process, within the
framework of a large scale, mission-driven program.
A coordinated, high quality, well-managed ocean exploration program would provide a unique framework
for discovery of new species, resources, historical artifacts, habitats, and processes. The review process
could allow for and encourage multidisciplinary efforts, and seek to capitalize on the synergy of
diverse researchers and techniques. It would provide initial observations and insights into the habitats,
geological structure, water column processes, air-sea interaction, biological communities, and evidence of
past human activities that can then be used to develop testable hypotheses for ocean research.
Ocean exploration should be global in scope. Vast regions of the ocean remain unknown with respect to
high-resolution bathymetry, biologic and genetic diversity, chemistry, and geophysics. These poorly
studied areas extend beyond territorial waters.
Exploration should receive international support. Nearly half of the people on Earth live within 100
km of the ocean (World Resources Institute, 2001) and demands on the ocean for resources and waste
disposal are increasing. Exploration in the coastal ocean requires the active participation of the coastal
nations that control the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Moreover, given the considerable economic
investment and effort needed for global ocean exploration, the United States alone cannot explore the
vast regions of the ocean yet unexplored and beyond the control of any single nation.
Within the United States, existing and new mechanisms for interagency support should be exploited.
Exploration requires a breadth of approaches and integration of the interests and missions of several
government agencies, academia, and industry. While the variety of involved agencies fosters a robust
ocean research program, the lack of coordination among agencies can be problematic. A strong,
sustainable, effective ocean exploration program will require several government agencies to invest
in the program.
Ocean exploration should consider all three spatial dimensions, as well as the dimension of time.
Explorations of time dependent or times series data over time have typically not received sufficient
attention in the study of the ocean. Expeditions to new areas for short periods of time are not
adequate for understanding processes, changes, small signals in the presence of high noise, or transient
events.
No solvency – Research fleet needs massive overhaul
National Research Council, 9
[Operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, “Science at Sea: Meeting Future Oceanographic
Goals with a Robust Academic Research Fleet”, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/osb/miscellaneous/Biennial-Report-2009-2010.pdf, pg.28, accessed 6/29/14, BCG)
Oceanographic research vessels are a critical component of ocean research infrastructure. Ship
demand for research needs is likely to increase in the future, but the nation’s fleet suffers from
insufficient capacity, as well as old and outdated vessels. Many academic research ships are nearing
the end of their service lives or are in need of refitting and upgrades. The University-National
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is a consortium of 61 academic institutions and
national laboratories involved in oceanographic research that coordinate the scheduling and
operation of 22 academic research vessels owned by federal agencies or research institutions. In
2001, the interagency Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee issued a plan that “addresses
renewals, retirements, and technology upgrades for those vessels within the fleet that are over 40 m
long.” Despite broad support for the plan, the last decade has seen little progress on implementation
and funding.
The committee was asked to review the scientific and technological issues that may affect the
evolution of UNOLS academic fleet over the next 25 years. Their overarching conclusion was that the
U.S. academic research fleet provides an essential, enabling resource for the nation, and that aging
ships and evolving technology require fleet modernization and recapitalization to maintain the
nation’s leadership in ocean research. They recommended that one comprehensive, long-term
research fleet renewal plan to retain access to the sea be implemented, and that both highly
adaptable general purpose ships and specialized vessels will be needed. A future fleet will need to
support increasingly complex, multidisciplinary, multi-investigator research projects, including
those in support of autonomous technologies, ocean observing systems, process studies, remote
sensing, and modeling. The committee recommended that all future UNOLS ship acquisitions,
beginning with the ONR-funded Ocean class vessels that were in the design stage during the writing
of this report, should involve the scientific user community from the preconstruction phase through
post-delivery of the ship. They also concluded that the UNOLS consortium management structure is
sound and is of benefit to research institutions, federal agencies, and state and private interests. The
federal agency partnerships that capitalize and support the academic research fleet, particularly
between the Navy and NSF, have a proven record of cost savings and asset sharing. However, there
are many assets that are not integrated with UNOLS, leading to suboptimal use of the full U.S.
research fleet. This project was funded by the Office of Naval Research.
No solvency – Public engagement and support key to sustainable and effective
program
Ocean Exploration 2020 forum, 13
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration & Aquarium of the Pacific, September 2013,
“The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,”
http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/downloads/oe2020report.pdf, p. 37, 6/28/14, GNL]
In 2020, ocean explorers are part of a coordinated communication network and have the tools they
need to engage the public.
The public clearly has a stake in federally funded ocean exploration, and their support is required
to create a sustained, successful, and comprehensive national program of ocean exploration. Forum
participants felt that we are falling short of effectively engaging the broader public in the excitement
and importance of ocean exploration and that this needs to change.
Participants were in strong agreement that we must enhance and expand existing efforts and find new
ways to communicate with the public about ocean exploration. We must provide better interaction
with scientists during expeditions, especially by taking telepresence beyond passive viewing and into
active participation.
Ocean Exploration 2020 participants agreed that we need a shared strategy to communicate effectively
and engage with the public about ocean exploration. Many ocean exploration scientists need more
experience and better resources, tools, and partnerships to implement this communication strategy
and to build public support for the national program.
Partnerships of ocean explorers with professional science communicators and with informal science
institutions, including aquariums—which specialize in this domain—have the potential to expand the size
of the audience and to broaden it to include a larger cross section of society.
No sustainable funding – private partnerships and resources key
Bidwell, World Report and US News Education Reporter, 13
[Allie, 9/25/13, US News, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration
Program,” http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientists-release-first-plan-fornational-ocean-exploration-program, 6/25/14, GNL]
More than three-quarters of what lies beneath the surface of the ocean is unknown, even to trained
scientists and researchers. Taking steps toward discovering what resources and information the
seas hold, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Aquarium of the Pacific
released on Wednesday a report that details plans to create the nation's first ocean exploration
program by the year 2020.
The report stems from a national convening of more than 100 federal agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, nonprofit organizations and private companies to discuss what components should
make up a national ocean exploration program and what will be needed to create it.
"This is the first time the explorers themselves came together and said, 'this is the kind of
program we want and this is what it's going to take,'" says Jerry Schubel, president and CEO of
the Aquarium of the Pacific, located in Long Beach, Calif. "That's very important, particularly
when you put it in the context that the world ocean is the largest single component of Earth's
living infrastructure ... and less than 10 percent of it has ever been explored."
In order to create a comprehensive exploration program, Schubel says it will become increasingly
important that federal and state agencies form partnerships with other organizations, as it is
unlikely that government funding for ocean exploration will increase in the next few years.
Additionally, Schubel says there was a consensus among those explorers and stakeholders who
gathered in July that participating organizations need to take advantage of technologies that are
available and place a greater emphasis on public engagement and citizen exploration – utilizing the
data that naturalists and nonscientists collect on their own.
"In coastal areas at least, given some of these new low-cost robots that are available, they could
actually produce data that would help us understand the nation's coastal environment," Schubel
says.