2014 NDI 6WS – Fitzmier, Lundberg,
Abelkop
NG, USE THIS + IMPACTS
1NC Shell
Ocean ecosystems on the brink- 5 year timeframe
MintPress News 6/26/14 (MintPress is an independent online journal, citing a report from The
Global Ocean Commission initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, in partnership with Somerville
College at the University of Oxford, “Report: World’s Oceans On Brink Of Collapse”, MintPress News
6/26/14, http://www.mintpressnews.com/report-worlds-oceans-brink-collapse/193075/)//BLOV
The world’s oceans face irreparable damage from climate change and overfishing, with a five-year window for intervention,
an environmental panel said Tuesday. Neglecting the health of the oceans could have devastating effects on the world’s food supply, clean air,
and climate stability, among other factors. The
Global Oceans Commission, an environmental group formed by the Pew Charitable
Trust, released a report (PDF) addressing the declining marine ecosystems around the world and outlining an
eight-step “rescue package” to restore growth and prevent future damage to the seas. The 18-month study proposes
increased governance of the oceans, including limiting oil and gas exploration, capping subsidies for commercial fishing, and creating marine
protected areas (MPAs) to guard against pollution, particularly from plastics. “A healthy ocean is a key to our well-being,” said Jose Maria
Figueres, co-chair and former president of Costa Rica. “Unless
we turn the tide on ocean decline within five years, the
international community should consider turning the high seas into an off-limits regeneration zone until
its condition is restored.” Government subsidies for high seas fishing total at least $30 billion a year and are carried out by just ten
countries, the report said. About 60 percent of such subsidies encourage unsustainable practices like the fuelhungry “bottom trawling” of ocean floors — funds that could be rerouted to conservation efforts or employment in coastal areas.
Meanwhile, environmental nonprofits and governmental bodies are starting to recognize the insufficient
protections offered by systems like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which aims to regulate portions of the
ocean but cannot actually enforce any laws. The report includes a proposal to ratify the UNCLOS, increasing and extending
its oversight to 64 percent of the ocean which is currently outside of national jurisdiction. “Without proper governance, a minority will continue
to abuse the freedom of the high seas, plunder the riches that lie beneath the waves, take more than a fair share, and benefit at the expense of the
rest of us, especially the poorest,” said Trevor Manuel, co-chair of the commission and former minister of finance of South Africa. Failure
to
reverse the decline of the ocean’s ecosystems would be an “unforgivable betrayal of current and
future generations,” said David Miliband, co-chair and former British foreign secretary.
Spills, Chemicals, sesmic testing, and destroy wetlands and marshes
Southern Environmental Law Center, 2014 (“Defending Our Southern Coasts” 5/16/2014
http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/offshore-oil-drilling)
Risks of Oil Drilling In February 2014, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released its final environmental
impact statement on the plan to open up the Atlantic coast to seismic surveys for oil and gas. The head of the agency anticipates that
applications to conduct seismic testing could be received by the end of the year. Not only are the air gun blasts used in seismic testing
harmful to marine life such as the critically endangered North American right whale, allowing seismic testing opens
the door to risky oil drilling—under the same lax assessments of risks and precautions that led to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the federal regulatory agency and oil companies continue operations based on
their same claims that there is no significant risk of, or thus impacts from, such oil spills. SELC challenged the agency's cursory environmental
review as illegal and irresponsible in light of the BP blowout and oil spill, and its harmful impacts in the Gulf of Mexico. In December 2011, SELC
filed suit challenging the agency’s continued sales of oil and gas leases in the Gulf, which still are conducted without adequate environmental
analysis and without regard for lessons learned from the BP disaster. Coastal Riches for Wildlife and People The beautiful and biologically rich
coastal areas off Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and our Gulf Coast feature some of the most productive estuaries in the
country, including the Chesapeake Bay, the Pamlico Sound, the ACE Basin, and Mobile Bay. Our coasts attract millions of tourists, anglers, and
other visitors each year and provide important breeding and feeding habitat for rare migratory birds, turtles, and whales. Tourism and fishing—
both commercial and recreational—are the economic backbone of hundreds of communities along our coasts. In 2008 alone, the four Atlantic
states yielded $262.8 million in commercial fish landings. Problematic Infrastructure The
environmental impacts of offshore
drilling and its accompanying infrastructure and refineries onshore were well known even before Gulf disaster. Ocean rigs
routinely spill and leak oil—and sometimes blow out. Chemicals used to operate oil and gas wells also pollute the marine
environment. Moreover, oil spills and other contamination from onshore refineries, pipelines, and associated infrastructure
would spoil valuable wetland and marsh ecosystems that provide multiple benefits for Southern communities, including
flood control and protection from storms, clean water, and essential habitat for fisheries that sustain our economies and cultures.
Causes Extinction
Davidson, 2003 (Founder – Turtle House Foundation and Award-Winning Journalist, Fire in the Turtle House, p. 47-51)
But surely the Athenians had it backward; it’s the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian of life on the blue
planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Thalassa’s power. Destroy
all life on land; the ocean creatures will
survive just fine. Given time, they’ll even repopulate the land. But wipe out the organisms that inhabit the oceans and all
life on land is doomed. “Dust to dust,” says the Bible, but “water to water” is more like it, for all life comes from and returns to
the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marine history. The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to seawater. Every
carbon atom in our body has cycled through the ocean many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill slits form and
then fade during our development in the womb. The ocean
is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of
existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles
that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral reefs, often
called the “rain forests of the sea.” Occupying less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the global ocean, coral reefs are home to nearly a third of
all marine fish species and to as many as nine million species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down to the
hydrothermal vents on the seafloor (discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around superheated
plumes of sulfurous gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isn’t surprising given that the sea was, as already mentioned, the crucible
of life on Earth. It is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the “primordial soup” of nucleic acids (which can self-replicate, but are
not alive) and other molecules made the inexplicable and miraculous leap into life, probably as simple bacteria, close to 3.9 billion years ago. A
spectacular burst of new life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago, an evolutionary
experiment that produced countless body forms, the prototypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasn’t until 100 million years later that
the first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed out of the
ocean. After this head start, it’s not surprising that evolution on that newcomer-dry land-has never caught up with the diversity of the sea. Of
the thirty-three higher-level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty-two are found in the oceans and just twelve on land.
OV
DA OW and Turns the case. Their link chain to warming is longer than Koo’s math problems, and
renewables are already solving IN THE SQUO. But drills going into the ocean destroy the seabed
immediately, killing ecosystems in days. When you destroy the ocean warming will increase at a way
faster pace even with renewables, because oceans are huge co2 sinks. Melting ice will also cause a lot of
conflict in the arctic, when the ice melts ppl will be trying to get any last oil they can get, killing the arctic
ecosystem more.
2NC I/L Wall
Spills, Chemicals, sesmic testing, and destroy wetlands and marshes
-
Drilling digs into the environment and wrecks the ecosystem there, plus chemicals and
pollution spill over to the nearby environment and marshes
Southern Environmental Law Center, 2014
Drilling kills the environment – Chemicals, seismic waves, infrastructure, and oil spills
– assumes improves and safety measures
Horton, 2008 (Jennifer, howstuffworks, 8/11/2008 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drillingcontroversy.htm)
Any time oil drilling is mentioned, you know there's going to be talk of its environmental impacts. When
it comes to offshore oil
drilling, that talk is even more heated, since you're not just digging underground but also thousands of feet underwater.
Whenever oil is recovered from the ocean floor, other chemicals and toxic substances come up too -- things like
mercury, lead and arsenic that are often released back into the ocean. In addition, seismic waves used to locate oil can harm
sea mammals and disorient whales. ExxonMobil recently had to suspend exploration efforts near Madagascar
after more than 100 whales beached themselves [source: Nixon]. The infrastructure required to drill wells and
transport offshore oil can be equally devastating. A series of canals built across Louisiana wetlands to transport oil has
led to erosion. Along with the destruction of the state's marshland caused by drilling efforts, the canals have removed an
important storm buffer, possibly contributing to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. The petrochemical plants built
nearby add to the negative effects [source: Jervis]. Not so fast, say supporters of offshore drilling: Improvements in technology and
better government oversight have made drilling inherently safe. In fact, since 1975, offshore drilling has had a 99.999 percent safety record
[source: EIA]. The amount spilled has decreased from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 in the '90s. Believe it or not, more oil
actually spills into U.S. waters from natural sources and municipal and industrial waste than it does than from offshore oil and gas drilling. As far
as the toxic chemicals are concerned, specialists say most of them are at insignificant levels since discharges are regulated by state and federal
laws. The mercury released, for example, isn't enough to be absorbed by fish [source: Jervis]. Despite the improvements, detractors of
oil drilling remain unconvinced. Although offshore operations themselves may not be involved in as many spills as they used to be, marine
transportation of the oil they recover accounts for one-third of oil spills worldwide. The Mineral Management Service
predicts there will be no less than one oil spill a year of 1,000 barrels or more in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. A spill of
10,000 barrels or more can be expected every three to four years [source: Jervis]. And while the 99.999 percent
safety record sounds nice, that 0.001 percent can be pretty horrific for people living in the vicinity. A 1969 accident at
a Santa Barbara, Calif., well spewed oil all over the beaches and into the water, effectively making any chances of future access to that state's
offshore areas highly unlikely. Likewise, the effects of the infamous Exxon Valdez spill back in 1989 are still seen today.
Weak regulation of deepwater oil and gas production is a major risk to overall
ocean health and biodiversity
Hull-LLM University of Florida, 2011 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 ARTICLE: Crude Injustice in the Gulf: Why
Categorical Exclusions for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico Are Inconsistent with U.S. and International Ocean Law and Policy
D. Deepwater Environments-The Last Frontier
Deepwater environments are critically important to the healthy functioning of the world's
oceans. Historically, however, environmental concern over marine resources has focused on the
coastal waters - near shore areas less than 200 meters deep - where most commercially important marine species are found.
49 This area comprises less than 5% of the world's oceans, and its health and productivity
depend on the remaining 95% of the deepwater ocean. 50 In fact, a large fraction of biodiversity
and biomass production in coastal areas is directly linked to and dependent upon deep sea
ecosystems. 51 Although relatively little is known about inhabitants of deep sea environment, those organisms studied to date
show common traits of slow growth, late maturity, slow reproduction, long life (200 years in some cases), and low productivity. 52
These traits have important implications for the sustainable management and use of deep-sea resources. 53 Absent
effective
management strategies, deepwater species and their associated ecosystems can quickly be
depleted below sustainable levels. 54 UNEP recommended that governments incorporate
precautionary approaches to manage deepwater environments that take into account the full
range and cumulative effects of potential human activities and impacts, and added, "the
conservation and sustainable use of the vulnerable ecosystems and biodiversity in deep waters
and high seas are among the most critical ocean issues and environmental challenges today." 55
[*12] As the oil industry moves its activities into deeper water to find oil reserve, the risk of harm
increases. As UNEP noted: As human activities, such as fishing and oil, gas and mineral exploration and
exploitation, move into deeper waters both within and beyond national jurisdiction, the relative lack of data
on deep seabed ecosystems and biodiversity makes it difficult to predict and control their
impacts. 56 The increasing demand for oil continues to push drilling activities into deeper water,
and threatens to fundamentally alter the deep sea environment in the Gulf. Given the industry's
attempts to expand the oil depletion window and sustain profits from a non-renewable resource, the outlook for protecting the Gulf
environment under the current status quo is not promising. The industry must make fundamental changes to ensure that its actions
do not impair the future sustainability of renewable resources in the Gulf.
Offshore exemptions risk mass ocean extinction
Hull-LLM University of Florida, 2011 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 ARTICLE: Crude Injustice in the Gulf: Why Categorical
Exclusions for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico Are Inconsistent with U.S. and International Ocean Law and Policy
Today, the
Gulf oil drilling industry poses many of the same environmental risks that were present prior to
the Ixtoc spill [*4] thirty years ago. 7 However, those risks have increased with the industry's movement of
oil exploration activities into remote, deep ocean sites in the Gulf. 8 The deep, offshore waters of the Gulf contain some
of the largest deposits of oil in the United States, but finding and recovering that oil safely presents unique challenges. 9 Controlling and
managing breaches at deep sea wells is considerably more difficult than at shallow wells due to the high
pressure and low temperature of the deepwater environment, the force of the flowing oil, and the need
to rely on unmanned, remotely operated vehicles to respond to accidents. 10 Indeed, the DWH accident resulted in
the release of more than 170 million gallons of oil into the Gulf because almost every procedure used to stop the blowout failed. 11 Despite
the substantial risk associated with deep sea oil drilling in the Gulf, the Mineral Management Service (MMS) has
routinely elected to categorically exclude certain offshore oil exploration and development activities in
the Gulf from environmental review otherwise required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 12 MMS
categorically excluded British Petroleum's (BP) exploration plan covering the DWH well from environmental review without ever considering
the potential impacts from a well blowout like the one that actually occurred. [*5] This article examines the current practice of categorically
excluding oil exploration and development/production activities in the Gulf from environmental review, and argues that the practice violates
NEPA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and is inconsistent with U.S. and international ocean law and policy. Section I provides
a brief overview of the status of the world's imperiled oceans, with particular emphasis on the Gulf ecosystem. Section II addresses America's
dependence on crude oil and the increasing role played by the Gulf in meeting the nation's energy needs, and examines the projected
environmental impacts of the DWH accident that led to the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Section III provides a brief overview of U.S. ocean law
and policy. Section IV discusses the NEPA review process with particular emphasis on the use of categorical exclusions, and examines some of
the key decisions made during the environmental review process for the BP lease covering the site of the DWH well. Section V provides analysis
of the interaction of laws governing oil exploration and development in the Gulf and concludes that categorically excluding exploration plans in
the Gulf from environmental review violates national and international law. II. Highstakes Prospecting in a Fragile Ocean For centuries, humans
have exploited the resources of the world's oceans with little concern for, or understanding of, how their collective activities caused harm.
Nineteenth century Poet Lord Byron once wrote, "man marks the earth with ruin, but his control stops with the shore." 13 His words reveal a
commonly held, but incorrect assumption that humans are incapable of causing any lasting harm to the vast oceans. The
current
imperiled state of the world's oceans and the particular sensitivity and ecological importance of the
Gulf ecosystem make imperative changes to the current environmental review practices. Despite
exhibiting remarkable resiliency to anthropogenic insult for centuries, the world's oceans are
increasingly showing signs of vulnerability to human influences. Research has unequivocally demonstrated that the
synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overfishing, ocean warming, increased acidification and massive nutrient runoff are fundamentally
altering once complex, vibrant [*6] marine ecosystems. 14 As marine
biodiversity declines, ecosystems with intricate
marine food webs are being degraded to primordial seas dominated by microbes, toxic algal blooms,
jellyfish and disease. 15 Absent fundamental changes in the use and management of ocean resources, human
activities may lead to a massive extinction in the ocean. 16 The Gulf's once pristine waters and productive ecosystems
have been significantly altered as the result of anthropogenic insults. The primary drivers of ocean degradation are overexploitation, pollution,
climate change, and ocean acidification.
2NC Seismic Waves module
Seismic waves devastate whale populations – disorients them and is causing them to
be on the verge of extinction – that’s southern environment law.
Whales are a keystone species
Zimmer et al 2007 (Richard, Ryan Ferrer, Professors of Biology at UCLA, “Neuroecology, Chemical Defense, and the Keystone
Species Concept”, http://www.biolbull.org/content/213/3/208.full)
Consumption of STX-laden zooplankton or their incapacitated predators can have dramatic effects on top pelagic predators. Vertebrates such
as fish (Adams et al., 1968; White, 1980, 1981), seabirds (Nisbet, 1983; Shumway et al., 2003), and marine mammals (Geraci et al., 1989; Reyero
et al., 1999; Doucette et al., 2006) are much more sensitive to STX and its derivatives than are invertebrate grazers. Consequently, after
dinoflagellate blooms, large-scale vertebrate mortality arises from ingestion of STX-laden planktonic organisms. Massive
die-offs of top
pelagic predators such as right whales (Doucette et al., 2006), monk seals (Reyero et al., 1999), and several species of fish (White,
1980, 1981) can lead to dramatic cascading effects throughout entire planktonic communities (Carpenter et al.,
1985; Myers and Worm, 2003; Bruno and O'Connor, 2005).
Spills over to cascading biodiversity loss
McKinney 2003 (Michael, Director of Environmental Studies, University of Texas, PHD from Yale,
http://books.google.com/books?id=NJUanyPkh0AC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=manatees+%22keystone+species%22&source=bl&ots=rB1vju6
y6v&sig=isIAuB81ZM_Hv4PAMp2EKt4lH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kaX7T_GoEYiorQHfrZ2LCQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=manatees%20%22keystone%20speci
es%22&f=false, )
Are All Species Equally Important? With so many species at risk, triage decisions cannot be made on the basis of risk alone.
Conservation biologists therefore often ask whether one species is more important than another. Ethically, perhaps one could argue that all
species are equal; an insect may have as much right to live as a panther. But in other ways, in particular. In ecological and evolutionary
importance, all species are not equal. Ecological
importance reflects the role a species plays in its ecological
community. Keystone species play large roles because they affect so many other species. Large
predators, for example, often control the population dynamics of many herbivores. When the predators,
such as wolves, are removed, the herbivore population may increase rapidly, overgrazing plants and
causing massive ecological disruption. Similarly, certain plants are crucial food for many animal species in some ecosystems.
Extinction of keystone species will often have cascading effects on many species, even causing
secondary extinctions. Many therefore argue that saving keystone species should be a priority.
2NC Spills Impact Module
Offshore exemptions risk catastrophic oil spills
Hartsig-Artic Program Director for Ocean Conservancy, 2011
16 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 269
ARTICLE: SHORTCOMINGS AND SOLUTIONS: REFORMING THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS FRAMEWORK IN THE WAKE OF THE
DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
4. Eliminating the Use of Categorical Exclusions for OCS Drilling Activities Under
NEPA regulations, categorical exclusions are
appropriate only for those actions that "do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment." 272 BOEM, however, created categorical exclusions for actions that can and do
have significant effects on the environment. For example, BOEM created a categorical exclusion for the "[a]pproval of an
offshore lease or unit exploration[,] development/production plan[,] or a Development Operation Coordination Document in the central or
western Gulf of Mexico." 273 The
categorical exclusion was inapplicable to plans or documents that presented
particularly high risks, such as facilities in areas that posed a "high seismic risk" or that used "new or
unusual technology." 274 Nonetheless, BOEM used the categorical exclusion to justify its decision to
approve--without preparing an EA or EIS--BP's plan to use an oil rig floating in nearly 5,000 feet of water
to drill an exploration well that would penetrate roughly two-and-a-half miles below the seabed. 275 The impacts associated with
even normal drilling operations include noise, air, and water pollution, as well as increased vessel and air
traffic. 276 When BP lost control of the Macondo well and the Deepwater Horizon burst into flames on April
20, 2010, it demonstrated graphically something that should have been obvious all along: all OCS drilling
activities carry with them the potential for a catastrophic oil spill. Given [*311] the actual and potential
impacts of OCS drilling operations, it is unreasonable to assume--as BOEM did--that such operations do
not have a significant effect on the human environment. As a result, OCS drilling operations are not
eligible to be categorically excluded from environmental review under NEPA. 277 BOEM should revise its
Department Manual to eliminate categorical exclusions for OCS drilling activities. In the future, all OCS drilling activities should
be subject to some level of site-specific NEPA analysis, either an EA or EIS.
Resiliency does not apply to Gulf Coast ecosystems—another spill will destroy marine
biodiversity.
Craig, 2011 (Robin Kundis Craig, Attorneys’ Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs, Florida State
University College of Law, Tallahassee, Florida, 12/20/11 “Legal Remedies for Deep Marine Oil Spills and Long-Term Ecological Resilience: A
Match Made in Hell” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1906839)
ecosystems can exist in multiple states rather than
stabilizing around a single equilibrium state; as a result, changes anddisturbances can “push” ecosystems
over thresholds from one ecosystem state to another.146 This second sense of resilience “assumes multiple states (or ‘regimes’) and is defined as the
magnitude of a disturbance that triggers a shift between alternative states.” 147 For example, the boreal forests of Canada can exist
in at least two states with respect to spruce budworms: a “no outbreak” state“characterized by low numbers of budworm and young,
fastgrowing trees,” and an “outbreak” state “characterized by high numbers of budworm and old, senescent trees.”148 The shift between
the two appears to relate to an increase in canopy volume, which in turn affects bird populations and the birds’ ability to control
Importantly, however, the second aspect of resilience theory acknowledges that
the pest.149 Regime-shift models can also help to explain outbreaks of some human diseases.150 However, natural resources law and policy generally do not
acknowledge this second sense of resilience, and, as a result, it generally does not incorporate mechanisms for acknowledging, responding to, or even trying to
avoid ecological regime shifts. Finally, resilience theory also acknowledges “the
surprising and discontinuous nature of change, such as
long-time persistence of an
ecosystem (or collection of multiple ecosystems) like the Gulf of Mexico in an apparently stable,
productive ecosystem state is absolutely no guarantee that humans can continue to disturb and abuse
the system and expect only a gradual or linear response. As was true for the second sense of resilience, natural resource law in
the collapse of fish stock or the sudden outbreak of spruce budworms in forests.”151 In other words, t he
general and marine resources law in particular do not deal well with the possibility of sudden and dramatic ecosystem changes. Nevertheless, such regime shifts
have been documented for a number of marine ecosystems. For example, In Jamaica, the effects of overfishing, hurricane damage, and disease have combined to
destroy most corals, whose abundance has declined from more than 50 percent in the late 1970s to less than 5 percent today. A dramatic phase shift has occurred,
producing a system dominated by fleshy macroalgae (more than 90 percent cover). Immediate implementation of management procedures is necessary to avoid
further catastrophic damage.152Similarly, the presence or absence of sea otters can significantly influence the structure and function of Alaskan kelp forests
because the otters, when present, control sea urchin populations, allowing for more extensive coral growth.153 In some locations, moreover, “sea urchin
population changes in response to sea otter predation were rapid and extreme” and could result in “short-term changes in kelp density.”154The current law, policy,
and remedy regime for
offshore oil drilling effectively presumes that marine ecosystems have virtually
unlimited first-sense resilience with respect to oil spills—in crudest terms, that restoration will always be possible, and perhaps even
through entirely natural means.155 Our experience with the last large oil spill in U.S. waters, however, suggests
otherwise. More than twenty years before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, on March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William
Sound, Alaska, spilling approximately eleven million gallons of crude oil.156 Although the oil eventually affected about 1300 miles of Alaskan coastline,157 it is
important to remember that, in the context of the Deepwater Horizon spill, the
Exxon Valdez was a relatively simple—and relatively
small—surface release of oil. Even so, more than twenty years later, according to NOAA, “While the vast
majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations,
and there is evidence that some damage is continuing.”158 More specifically, NOAA reports that, overall, the Prince William Sound
ecosystem has proven resilient in the first sense—it has been able to absorb most changes and persist in
function and relationships.159Nevertheless, NOAA has also cautioned that “impacts from the spill remain”: �
Deeply penetrated oil continues to visibly leach from a few beaches, such as Smith Island. � In some areas, intertidal animals, such as mussels, are still contaminated
by oil, affecting not only the mussels but any animals (including people) that eat them. � Some rocky sites that were stripped of heavy plant cover by high-pressure,
hot-water cleaning remain mostly bare rock. � Rich clam beds that suffered high mortalities from oil and extensive beach cleaning have not re-colonized to their
previous levels.160 Notably,
NOAA concludes that “Prince William Sound has made a remarkable recovery from
a severe injury, but it remains an ecosystem in transition.”161In other words, twenty years after a major surface spill of oil,
Prince William Sound has not fully recovered and, indeed, may never do so. Its first-sense resilience to
oil spills is incomplete,or at least operates over substantial time scales, and we may eventually find (or decide) that ecological
communities within the Sound have in fact experienced resilience in the second sense: an ecological
regime shift. As one possible example, NOAA reports that “[b]eginning in 1990, scientists saw the cover of rockweed increase steadily at oiled sites— until
1994, that is. From 1994 through 1995, there appeared to be a noticeable decline in cover, especially at sites that had been oiled.”162 While scientists are still
searching for an explanation, the three candidates—a disruption in the normal mix of rockweed ages, an explosion in the populations of grazers such as periwinkle
snails, or a longer-term toxic effect of the oil163—all suggest
that the oil spill may have induced (or at least threatened) a
regime shift. These results suggest that we should be very concerned for the Gulf ecosystems affected by the
Macondo well blowout. First, and as this Article has emphasized throughout, unlike the Exxon Valdez spill, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred at great depth,
and the oil behaved unusually compared to oil released on the surface. Second, considerably more toxic dispersants were used in connection with the Gulf oil spill
than the Alaska oil spill.164 Third, humans could intervene almost immediately to begin cleaning the rocky substrate in Prince William Sound, but human
intervention for many of the important affected Gulf ecosystems, especially the deepwater ones (but even for shallower coral reefs), remains impossible. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, the
Prince William Sound was and remains a far less stressed ecosystem than the
Gulf of Mexico. In 2008, for example, NOAA stated that “[d]espite the remaining impacts of the [still then] largest oil spill in U.S. history, Prince William
Sound remains a relatively pristine, productive and biologically rich ecosystem.”165 To be sure, the Sound was not completely unstressed, and “[w]hen the Exxon
Valdez spill occurred in March 1989, the Prince William Sound ecosystem was also responding to at least three notable events in its past: an unusually cold winter in
1988–89; growing populations of reintroduced sea otters; and a 1964 earthquake.”166 Nevertheless, the
Gulf of Mexico is besieged by
environmental stressors at another order of magnitude (or two), reducing its resilience to disasters like the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As the Deepwater Horizon Commission detailed at length, the Gulf faces an array of long-term threats,
from the loss of protective and productive wetlands along the coast to hurricanes to a growing “dead
zone” (hypoxic zone) to sediment starvation to sealevel rise to damaging channeling to continual (if smaller) oil
releases from the thousands of drilling operations.167 In the face of this plethora of stressors, even the Commission championed a kind
of resilience thinking, recognizing that responding to the oil spill alone was not enough. It equated restoration of the Gulf to “restored resilience,” arguing that it
“represents an effort to sustain these diverse, interdependent activities [fisheries, energy, and tourism] and the environment on which they depend for future
generations.”168
2NC Impact Run Generic
Each instance increases the risk of extinction- evaluate linear risk of net benefit
Major David N. Diner, U.S. Army, 94 [“The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review. 143
Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994, LEXIS]
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could
cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to
the abyss.
The net benefit accesses the case and not the other way around---environmental
degradation is the root cause of all conflict
Foster, 2000 (Gregory Foster, civilian professor at the National Defense University, September 2000, http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/china-environmental-dragon.pdf)
It has now been more than two decades since the Worldwatch Institute’s Lester Brown first issued a plea to adopt a new and more robust conception of national security attuned to the
threats to security, he argued even then, now may arise less from relations between nations than from
man’s relations with nature—dwindling reserves of critical resources, for example, or the deterioration of earth’s biological systems:
The military threat to national security is only one of many that governments must now address. The numerous new threats derive directly or indirectly from the
rapidly changing relationship between humanity and the earth’s natural systems and resources. The unfolding stresses in this
relationship initially manifest themselves as ecological stresses and resource scarcities. Later they
translate into economic stresses—inflation, unemployment, capital scarcity, and monetary instability. Ultimately, these economic stresses convert
into social unrest and political instability.1 Brown was followed—cautiously at first—by others who recognized the need not only to expand the bounds of
contemporary world. The
national security thinking and discourse, but to take particular account of environmental concerns in such deliberations. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, then affiliated with the World Resources
Institute, argued, for example: “
Global developments now suggest the need for . . . [a] broadening definition of national
security to include resource, environmental and demographic issues.”2 One of the most powerful observations made to date—one that could be judged, in equal measure, as either
visionary or hyperbolic—is that by writer-analyst Milton Viorst, who argues that “population and environment . . . seem the obvious sources of the
next wave of wars, perhaps major wars.”3…CONTINUES…Where Homer-Dixon is especially insightful is in leading us in the direction of the most powerful
counterargument that can be made to resolute critics of environmental causation. He says that whereas, on first analysis, the main causes of civil strife
appear to be social disruptions (e.g., poverty, migrations, ethnic tension, institutional breakdown), in reality scarcities
of renewable resources, including water, fuelwood, cropland and fish, can precipitate these disruptions and thereby powerfully
contribute to strife. By broadening his formulation, we may posit the existence of a more general masking
phenomenon by which ostensibly political and economic causes of unrest, violence, conflict, and destabilization (e.g., political
repression; economic deprivation, exploitation, and dislocation) actually may mask underlying, less visible, less discernible
environmental sources of dissatisfaction, discontent, and alienation (e.g., diminished quality of life; threats to safety and well-being).
Eco collapse causes extinction
Jayawardena, 2009 (Asitha, London South Bank University, “We Are a Threat to All Life on Earth”, Indicator, 7-17, http://www.indicator.org.uk/?p=55)
Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) explain in detail why the natural environment is so important for life on Earth. It is from the environment that the living organisms of all species import the
energy and raw material required for growth, development and reproduction. In almost all ecosystems plants, the most important primary producers, carry out photosynethesis, capturing
sunlight and storing it as chemical energy. They absorb nutrients from their environment. When herbivores (i.e. plant-eating animals or organisms) eat these plants possessing chemical energy,
matter and energy are transferred ‘one-level up.’ The same happens when predators (i.e. animals of a higher level) eat these herbivores or when predators of even higher levels eat these
predators. Therefore, in ecosystems, food webs transfer energy and matter and various organisms play different roles in sustaining these transfers. Such transfers are possible due to the
remarkable similarity in all organisms’ composition and major metabolic pathways. In fact all organisms except plants can potentially use each other as energy and nutrient sources; plants,
however, depend on sunlight for energy. Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) further reveal two key principles governing the biosphere with respect to the transfer of energy and matter in
ecosystems. Firstly, the energy flow in ecosystems from photosynthetic plants (generally speaking, autotrophs) to non-photosynthetic organisms (generally speaking, heterotrophs) is
essentially linear. In each step part of energy is lost to the ecosystem as non-usable heat, limiting the number of transformation steps and thereby the number of levels in a food web.
Secondly, unlike the energy flow, the matter flow in ecosystems is cyclic. For photosynthesis plants need carbon dioxide as well as minerals and sunlight. For the regeneration of carbon dioxide
plants, the primary producers, depend on heterotrophs, who exhale carbon dioxide when breathing. Like carbon, many other elements such as nitrogen and sulphur flow in cyclic manner in
ecosystems. However, it is photosynthesis, and in the final analysis, solar energy that powers the mineral cycles. Ecosystems are under threat and so are we Although it seems that a continued
energy supply from the sun together with the cyclical flow of matter can maintain the biosphere machinery running forever, we should not take things for granted, warn Sloep and Van DamMieras (1995). And they explain why. Since the beginning of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago, organisms have evolved and continue to do so today in response to environmental
changes. However, the overall picture of materials (re)cycling and linear energy transfer has always remained unchanged. We could therefore safely assume that this slowly evolving system
will continue to exist for aeons to come if large scale infringements are not forced upon it, conclude Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995). However, according to them, the present day
infringements are large enough to upset the world’s ecosystems and, worse still, human activity is mainly responsible for these infringements. The rapidity of the human-induced changes is
particularly undesirable. For example, the development of modern technology has taken place in a very short period of time when compared with evolutionary time scales – within decades or
human activity is
capable of making the collapse of web of life on which both humans and non-human life forms depend for their
existence. For Laszlo (1989: 34), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), modern human is ‘a serious threat to the future of humankind’. As Raven
(2002) observes, many life-support systems are deteriorating rapidly and visibly. Elaborating on human-induced large scale
infringements, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) warn that they can significantly alter the current patterns of energy transfer and
materials recycling, posing grave problems to the entire biosphere. And climate change is just one of them! Turning to a key source of
centuries rather than thousands or millions of years. Their observations and concerns are shared by a number of other scholars. Roling (2009) warns that
this crisis, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995: 37) emphasise that, although we humans can mentally afford to step outside the biosphere, we are ‘animals among animals, organisms among
organisms.’ Their perception on the place of humans in nature is resonated by several other scholars. For example, Maiteny (1999) stresses that we humans are part and parcel of the
ecosphere. Hartmann (2001) observes that the modern stories (myths, beliefs and paradigms) that humans are not an integral part of nature but are separate from it are speeding our own
demise. Funtowicz and Ravetz (2002), in Weaver and Jansen (2004: 7), criticise modern science’s model of human-nature relationship based on conquest and control of nature, and highlight a
more desirable alternative of ‘respecting ecological limits, …. expecting surprises and adapting to these.’
AT: Technology Has Changed
We are still using the same flawed tech that caused the BP spill
Banerjee, 2014 (Neela, latimes reporter citing the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, “Flawed drilling gear still in
use after BP oil spill, board says” 6/6 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gulf-spill-20140606-story.html)
Design problems with a blowout prevention system contributed to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig
disaster, and the same equipment is still commonly used in drilling four years after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
according to a report issued by the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The board concluded that the "blowout
preventer" — a five-story-tall series of seals and valves that was supposed to shear the drill pipe and short-circuit the explosion — failed
for reasons the oil industry did not anticipate and has not fully corrected. Despite improved regulation of deep-water drilling since
the disaster, the board found that problems persist in oil and gas companies' offshore safety systems. "This results in potential
safety gaps in U.S. offshore operations and leaves open the possibility of another similar catastrophic accident,"
said Cheryl MacKenzie, lead investigator of the safety board inquiry. The blowout of BP's Macondo well in April 2010 killed 11 men and spewed
nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the worst offshore oil disaster in United States history. Several federal
commissions have investigated the missteps that occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the days and hours leading up to the
explosion, which investigators said had its roots in corporate mismanagement and inadequate government oversight of the oil industry. The
chemical safety board, which examines industrial accidents but lacks regulatory authority, focused its inquiry on the blowout preventer and
safety practices. The blowout preventer, or BOP, sits on the ocean floor below the drilling rig. The drilling pipe from the platform runs through
the blowout preventer into the earth and toward the oil and gas deposits. If
oil or gas, which is under high pressure underground,
accidentally comes up the well bore and pipe, the blowout preventer is supposed to cut off the flow higher up to the platform.
In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, the lower valves in the blowout preventer closed, letting pressure continue to build, which eventually
bent the drill pipe, the safety board study found. The
last line of defense, a "blind shear ram" device inside the blowout preventer,
could not cut the pipe effectively, and "actually punctured the buckled, off-center pipe, sending huge additional volumes of oil and
gas surging toward the surface," the safety board said in the report released Thursday. Since the spill, at least one company, GE Oil and Gas, has
designed a new blowout preventer that can cut a similarly bent pipe, but many rigs continue to use the same equipment found at Deepwater
Horizon, the report said. "The
failed design of the blowout preventer has not been addressed, and many existing rigs
rely on the same design that failed on Deepwater Horizon," said Jackie Savitz, vice president of U.S. oceans at Oceana, an
environmental group. "At the same time, measures that could truly prevent spills, or improve spill response, were passed over." The American
Petroleum Institute and the Interior Department, which oversees offshore drilling, countered the report, asserting that considerable
improvements had been made to offshore safety practices after the gulf oil spill.
AT: Drilling is Safe
Most recent evidence concludes that there is still a risk – even if safety measures are
in place accidents can still occur – that’s southern environment law.
Extinction
-
Destroying the ocean, especially at the seabed is bad because it kills keystone species and
wrecks the water cycle and our atmosphere
Davidson, 2003
New deepwater drilling uniquely risky
Houck-prof law Tulane, 2010 24 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1 Worst Case and the DEEPWATER HORIZON Blowout: There Ought To Be a
Law
The facts are that deepwater drilling is a new and inherently risky operation, pushing the envelope of
technology and engineering. 9 Sea floor responses, when things go wrong, are described as "open heart
[*3] surgery at 5,000 feet in the dark." 10 The risks magnify with ocean depth, not exceeding 10,000 feet, to environments that
human beings cannot even access to see, can manipulate only with probes and robots, and to temperatures that freeze gasses and render the
management of fluids and machinery an order of magnitude more challenging. 11 The
risks also magnify with the number of
times they are taken; and the deepwater business is booming. The offshore Gulf and Alaska, thought to be the last great
oil plays in America, have seen a fifty percent increase in proven discoveries in recent years. 12 Shallow water drilling is declining. 13 Gulf
deepwater production boomed from 17 to 141active wells over the last decade; most
current leases are at 1000 feet or more
and nearly half of the new discoveries push 5000 feet or beyond. 14 This is where the riser from the BP-leased rig met
the ocean floor to begin drilling, yet continued four more miles down through sediments and frozen methane hydrates, a serious hazard in their
own right. 15 One explanation of the BP disaster could simply be called "risk creep," an activity that began more than a century ago on shore
and in low impact conditions. The activity moved gradually into more sensitive Gulf wetlands and then open water, at ever greater depths that,
like the differentiation of species, at no time presented something so radically different that we recognized we had a new animal. We had gone
from technology circa World War I to something more like nuclear power plants, without accepting that it required a more armored approach.
Little in the portfolio of BP, other industry members, or federal regulators puts a premium on exposing
risks and slowing things down. As a former Minerals Management Service (MMS) Gulf Coast director recently explained, apparently
in his own defense, his marching orders were to [*4] "expedite" offshore drilling, which he translated as "let the good times roll" (his words). 16
An evangelist for aggressive production, he dismissed the prospect of catastrophic failure as "impossible" (the evaluation came from the head
of his engineering team, who was later fired for accepting gifts from an oil company and lying on his ethics form). 17 British Petroleum, for its
part, under the transparently deceptive slogan "Beyond Petroleum," had invested $ 39 billion on new oil and gas exploration over just the
previous three years; it had spent only 0.05% of this amount, $ 20 million, on research and development for accident prevention and response.
18
Nothing has changed since DWH---the next spill will be just as catastrophic
Savitz, 2012 (Jacqueline Savitz Vice President, North American Oceans at Oceana “Industry Won't Make Drilling Safe”
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/what-more-can-be-done-to-ensur.php)
The idea that offshore drilling safety and spill response have substantially improved is little more than a
figment of some people’s imagination. In the question above, Michael Bromwich acknowledges that during the Deepwater
Horizon disaster (DWH) safeguards were not effective, preparation was not adequate, and response tools
were little better than they were 20 years ago. But what has really changed in the past two years? Sadly, not enough.
Even the question itself, what the industry (private sector) can do to reduce risks, misses the point because it sidelines the needed government
action to scale back drilling given the lack of sufficient safety and response options. Not to mention the lack of private sector solutions. Let’s
look at the categories on the list: safeguards, preparations and response tools. Safeguards have barely changed. The last line of defense at the
wellhead, the heavily relied upon blowout preventer (BOP), turns out to be flawed by design according to Det Norsk Veritas – not just the one
on the Deepwater Horizon, but possibly the rest. Did the private sector fix that problem? Have BOPs been redesigned to be effective and
replaced? No and no. So, there’s something the
private sector could do, or rather should have done before resuming drilling. But it
hasn’t been required and dangerous deep water drilling is already back in full swing. There are new testing and
maintenance regulations for BOPs, but they don’t fix the underlying design flaw. So that means we need real improvements in the second
category: preparations. Is industry more prepared now? Of course they are, just ask them. Their exploration plans brag about response times in
days now, rather than the months that we are accustomed to. According to BP, if DWH happened again, it could plug a well in 2-3 weeks, much
faster than the 3 months it took them last time. But what changed? Well, this
time we are to assume the capping device will
work -- except we really don’t know that. Just because it eventually worked on DWH doesn’t mean it will
work next time on a different blowout with a differently oriented pipe or even a damaged wellhead. Maybe if the
companies offered to pre-drill relief wells, then they could credibly promise a faster response. But the
private sector isn’t offering that, and again, government hasn’t required it. So be ready for another 3-month ordeal.
That takes us to response. It’s impossible to fully respond to a major spill. The DWH caused tremendous impacts on marine life and coastal
economies. And the response tools are not much better now than they were 2 or even 20 years ago. We still rely on booms that don’t really
work, and surface burns that may remove about 5% of the oil. And then there are always toxic dispersants that can be used to hide the
problem, though they create new problems. As a result, the
next spill will look like 2010 all over again. Response is little
more than damage control. To be clear, Oceana doesn’t agree that safety, preparations or response capabilities have been
measurably improved or that the private sector will take the initiative to make meaningful changes without government mandates. When the
magnitude of risks are as large as those of offshore oil and gas drilling, the investments in safety have to be equally large otherwise drilling will
simply continue to be unsafe. That is why we believe we can’t rely on the goodness of corporations, and that we
need to move away
from offshore drilling and start now to replace its contribution to our energy mix with options that are
safer and offer us a better future.
AT: Incentive to be Safe
And, there is an incentive to spill---they don’t have to pay anything
Greenstone, 2010 (Michael Greenstone Director, The Hamilton Project and Senior Fellow “A Built-In Incentive for Oil Spills”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/06/03-oil-greenstone)
Existing law
creates incentives for spills. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, the 1990 Oil Pollution Act capped
firms' liability for economic damages from oil spills at $75 million, not adjusted for inflation and in addition to
all removal costs. Any economic damages beyond this are covered by a government-funded Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund, which has a per-incident spending cap of $1 billion for expeditious oil removal and uncompensated damages. The rub here is
that the $75 million cap on liabilities for economic damages now protects oil companies from full responsibility for damages. This misalignment
of incentives is a classic case of moral hazard. Firms or people behave differently when they are protected from risk. Consider that oil
companies make decisions about where to drill, and which safety equipment to use, based on benefit-cost analyses of the impact on their
bottom line. For example, in choosing a location, oil companies assess whether the expected value of the oil exceeds the costs. These costs
include equipment used and wages paid employees. But they also include the expected payouts for potential spill damages to shorelines, local
economies and the environment. So the cap inevitably distorts the way companies evaluate their risk. Locations where
damages from a spill may be costly — for example, places near coasts or in sensitive environmental areas — seem more attractive for drilling
with the cap than if firms actually were responsible for all damages. The cap
effectively subsidizes drilling in the very
locations where the damages from spills would be the greatest. Further in all drilling locations, it reduces the
incentives for investing in the best safety equipment or using the safest, but time-consuming,
methods. While an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 gallons of oil are pouring into the Gulf each day, the jury is still out on the spill's total
economic damage. If the "top kill" approach had stopped the spill, one Wall Street analyst estimated that the economic damages would be
approximately $8 billion. This is more than 100 times the cap. Now, with top kill's failure, even this estimate may be too low. Without
the
distortions created by the cap, it is unclear whether BP and its partners would ever have drilled at the
Deepwater Horizon location. It seems possible, though, that they would have been far more careful in
inspecting the blow-out preventers and other emergency units to provide a greater safety net against
their own liability.
AT: Oversight Solves
No oversight---even if there is it is not close to adequate
Abraham, 2010 (David S. Abraham, who oversaw offshore programs at the White House Office of Management and Budget from
2003 to 2005, is an incoming international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “A Disaster Congress Voted For”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/opinion/14abraham.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=david%20abraham&st=cse)
There’s no question that each of these deserves blame. But there’s also no question that the responsibility for developing safe offshore
operations extends much further, to Congress itself. For more than a decade, legislators
have allowed themselves to be lulled
by industry assurances that drilling in deep water posed little danger. One could say that Congress, just
like the companies it has attacked, was obsessed with oil. Before the spill, Congress had not debated regulatory safety on
wells in the gulf since the 1990s, and when it did, lawmakers focused on how to drill for more oil — which, after all, meant more jobs and more
federal revenue for pet projects. In a 1995 attempt to encourage more exploration, Congress agreed to reduce the cut of the proceeds the
government could collect on oil and gas drilling in deep waters. Ten years later, despite higher oil prices and declarations from President
George W. Bush that more incentives were not needed, a Republican-led Congress reduced royalties yet again. And in a sign of how money had
influenced and distorted the debate, throughout the last decade the Louisiana Congressional delegation, for a time including the state’s current
governor, Bobby Jindal, backed expanded offshore drilling so that Congress could use proceeds to pay for coastal damage caused by oil-and-gas
operations. In 2006 the delegation supported legislation giving a share of federal royalties to states that allowed drilling in federal waters off
their coasts, essentially using national revenue to encourage more exploration. At the
same time that Congress called for new
drilling incentives, it also gutted oversight. From 2002 to 2008, legislators approved budgets reducing regulatory staffing levels
by more than 15 percent — despite more complex deep-water operations and Interior Department concerns, voiced in 2000, that industry’s
extensive use of contractors and inexperienced offshore workers posed new risks in deep water. It’s not as if Congress didn’t know the risks. Its
own research arm, which issues frequent spill-response readiness assessments, has repeatedly cited a 2004 Coast Guard study finding that its
“oil spill response personnel did not appear to have even a basic knowledge of the equipment required to support salvage or spill clean-up
operations.” Nevertheless, lawmakers failed to act aggressively to ensure adequate oversight. To be fair, Congress
wasn’t alone. The same criticism could be leveled at many environmental groups, which were far more interested in maintaining the
exploration moratoriums in federal waters than in the safety of ongoing offshore activity. This focus on stopping new drilling — instead of on
keeping the water clean — helped give Interior the space to cater to oil companies. As a result, regulatory proposals often received fewer than
10 public comments, mostly from industry, resulting in rules more favorable to it. It’s also true that the previous administration deserves a good
share of the blame for its myopic focus on production. The 2001 President’s National Energy Policy directed agencies to increase oil supplies
and to remove regulations that were often seen as “excessive and redundant.” Meanwhile, the
Interior Department became an
industry cheerleader. The attention on output was so great that the department’s head of offshore
drilling boasted about how he “oversaw a 50 percent rise in oil production,” a misguided accomplishment for a
regulator. Nor is the Obama White House off the hook: despite requesting a few extra regulators, the current administration also failed to
address underlying organizational dysfunction.
Environment DA
1NC
1NC
Ocean ecosystems on the brink- 5 year timeframe
MintPress News 6/26/14 (MintPress is an independent online journal, citing a report from The
Global Ocean Commission initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, in partnership with Somerville
College at the University of Oxford, “Report: World’s Oceans On Brink Of Collapse”, MintPress News
6/26/14, http://www.mintpressnews.com/report-worlds-oceans-brink-collapse/193075/)//BLOV
The world’s oceans face irreparable damage from climate change and overfishing, with a five-year window for intervention,
an environmental panel said Tuesday. Neglecting the health of the oceans could have devastating effects on the world’s food supply, clean air,
and climate stability, among other factors. The
Global Oceans Commission, an environmental group formed by the Pew Charitable
Trust, released a report (PDF) addressing the declining marine ecosystems around the world and outlining an
eight-step “rescue package” to restore growth and prevent future damage to the seas. The 18-month study proposes
increased governance of the oceans, including limiting oil and gas exploration, capping subsidies for commercial fishing, and creating marine
protected areas (MPAs) to guard against pollution, particularly from plastics. “A healthy ocean is a key to our well-being,” said Jose Maria
Figueres, co-chair and former president of Costa Rica. “Unless
we turn the tide on ocean decline within five years, the
international community should consider turning the high seas into an off-limits regeneration zone until
its condition is restored.” Government subsidies for high seas fishing total at least $30 billion a year and are carried out by just ten
countries, the report said. About 60 percent of such subsidies encourage unsustainable practices like the fuelhungry “bottom trawling” of ocean floors — funds that could be rerouted to conservation efforts or employment in coastal areas.
Meanwhile, environmental nonprofits and governmental bodies are starting to recognize the insufficient
protections offered by systems like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which aims to regulate portions of the
ocean but cannot actually enforce any laws. The report includes a proposal to ratify the UNCLOS, increasing and extending
its oversight to 64 percent of the ocean which is currently outside of national jurisdiction. “Without proper governance, a minority will continue
to abuse the freedom of the high seas, plunder the riches that lie beneath the waves, take more than a fair share, and benefit at the expense of the
rest of us, especially the poorest,” said Trevor Manuel, co-chair of the commission and former minister of finance of South Africa. Failure
to
reverse the decline of the ocean’s ecosystems would be an “unforgivable betrayal of current and
future generations,” said David Miliband, co-chair and former British foreign secretary.
(insert link)
Causes Extinction
Davidson, 2003 (Founder – Turtle House Foundation and Award-Winning Journalist, Fire in the Turtle House, p. 47-51)
But surely the Athenians had it backward; it’s the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian of life on the blue
planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Thalassa’s power. Destroy
all life on land; the ocean creatures will
survive just fine. Given time, they’ll even repopulate the land. But wipe out the organisms that inhabit the oceans and all
life on land is doomed. “Dust to dust,” says the Bible, but “water to water” is more like it, for all life comes from and returns to
the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marine history. The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to seawater. Every
carbon atom in our body has cycled through the ocean many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill slits form and
then fade during our development in the womb. The ocean
is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of
existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles
that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral reefs, often
called the “rain forests of the sea.” Occupying less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the global ocean, coral reefs are home to nearly a third of
all marine fish species and to as many as nine million species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down to the
hydrothermal vents on the seafloor (discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around superheated
plumes of sulfurous gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isn’t surprising given that the sea was, as already mentioned, the crucible
of life on Earth. It is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the “primordial soup” of nucleic acids (which can self-replicate, but are
not alive) and other molecules made the inexplicable and miraculous leap into life, probably as simple bacteria, close to 3.9 billion years ago. A
spectacular burst of new life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago, an evolutionary
experiment that produced countless body forms, the prototypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasn’t until 100 million years later that
the first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed out of the
ocean. After this head start, it’s not surprising that evolution on that newcomer-dry land-has never caught up with the diversity of the sea. Of
the thirty-three higher-level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty-two are found in the oceans and just twelve on land.
2NC
2NC Uniqueness
Coral reefs are recovering- reefs are moving to undisturbed depths
CNN 12 (Cable News Network, “Great Barrier Reef found to have thriving deep water coral” CNN,
10/26/12 http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/australia-deep-water-coral-reef/)//BLOV
(CNN) -- A
recent survey of the Coral Sea and Great Barrier Reef has found coral flourishing in deep waters,
a stark contrast to the shallower reefs that have seen a drastic decline over the last few decades. The healthy coral populations were discovered
to be below 30 meters -- beyond the usual reach of most scuba divers -- and even found at depths of 80 meters,
according to the Catlin Seaview Survey. "The Holmes and Flinders Reefs in the Coral Sea are renowned for having been badly damaged, said Pim Bongaerts,
of the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute, who was leading the deep reef survey. "Yet we have found their deep reef
zone is hardly disturbed at all. In fact the most striking thing is the abundance of coral on the deep reef. What has blown me
away is to see that even 70 to 80 meters down, there are significant coral populations." Earlier this month a report, by the Australian Institute of Marine Science
(AIMS)
and the University of Wollongong, revealed that the Great Barrier Reef had lost half its coral cover
in the last 27 years. Researchers say most of the damage to the shallower coral was wrought in recent years by a succession of powerful cyclones. Other
threats that are hindering its ability to recover include the crown-of-thorns starfish, or COTS, a native species which feeds on coral, and coral bleaching that occurs
when water becomes too warm. The
deep reef survey team used remote operated vehicles able to reach depths of 100
meters, giving scientists a new view of hitherto unexplored reefs. "It is surprising in this day and age, that below some of the most well-known reefs, which are so
popular with divers, there is an almost entirely unexplored world and as a result an enormous amount of science to be done," said Bongaerts. So far the team
has completed four of its ten planned surveys at areas along the length of the 2,300 kilometer-long reef
system and outlying atolls. Bongaerts believes that the deep-water reefs might be able to help the shallower ones
recover, as they have been seen to live in both depths of water. "At the moment we know little about the
extent of larval movements between the shallow and deep reef, but we are seeing species that exist in
both zones," he said. "There are clear differences we're observing. Corals are much flatter, more plate-like than the branching and domed shapes seen nearer the
surface. This is the corals responding to the reduced light conditions and spreading out to maximize their exposure to light. So far below the surface, the light is blue
because all other parts of the spectrum have been filtered out. It is a monochrome world until you turn on strong lights to reveal amazing, beautiful, fantastic colors."
Australia is cleaning – 200 Million Dollar investments
Whiteman 12, (Hilary , Senior digital news producer for CNN, “Australia vows to reverse Great
Barrier Reef's coral decline”, CNN World, 10/3/12, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/world/asia/australiagreat-barrier-reef-coral/)
Five years ago, the
federal government introduced its Reef Rescue Plan, $200 million program to reduce runoff from cattle grazing and sugarcane farms, which the environment minister said had a "huge impact."
"We've been upgrading their equipment and upgrading their technology and having a massive difference to the impact of how much chemical is going into the ground,
and how much runoff as a result, is then going into the reef," Burke told the ABC. The World Wildlife Fund ( WWF)
is urging the Australian
government to commit even more money -- half a billion dollars over seven years -- to allow the
government to meet its own targets of completely eliminating fertilizer run-off by 2020. "While these
findings are deeply disturbing, with the right political will we can stop the march of crown-of-thorns starfish in its tracks and save the reef," said WWF-Australia
spokesperson Nick Heath in a statement. "Sixty
thousand jobs in the tourism industry depend on us acting with
urgency over the next few years," he added. The government has said that it's already started work on many
of the recommendations contained in the report, and that its findings reinforce the need for action. "Just as
the economics of it are real, it's also true that even if the economics weren't there, we have in the Great
Barrier Reef one of the standout assets for the planet and there's massive economic consequences
associated with it," Burke said. "But before you even get to that there's a responsibility that we have in managing it well and this report is a wake up call to
anybody who thought we could just let things go as they were," he added.
Oman increasing conservation now
BE 13 (Biosphere Expeditions, “BIOSPHERE EXPEDITIONS WELCOMES PROTECTION FOR
UNIQUE MARINE ECOSYSTEM IN MUSANDAM, OMAN”, Reef Check News, 12/18/2013,
http://reefcheck.org/news/news_detail.php?id=995)
In two secluded bays in
the coral-rich waters of the Musandam peninsula in Oman, all fishing except local
handline fishing has been banned by a new ministerial decree. This significant step forward in the
conservation of the beauty and resources of this relatively untouched marine area has been welcomed by
the research organization and Reef Check EcoExpedition partner that has spearheaded the underwater
research effort and campaign towards greater protection, Biosphere Expeditions. Dr. Matthias Hammer, founder and
executive director of the organization, talked about the work Biosphere Expeditions has been doing in the area since 2008: “This area has
a high coral coverage at nearly 60 percent of the seabed. This is greater than that of most reefs
around the world, and the Musandam reefs are certainly the best in the region. The Ministry of Agriculture
and Fisheries’ (MoAF) decision prohibits the use of all kinds of nets and cages, and any other fishing equipment, except handlines. This is a
wise and important step in ensuring the survival of this unique marine ecosystem and natural jewel
in Oman’s crown.” A senior official at the Marine Sciences and Fisheries Centre, on whose recommendations such decisions are taken,
said that both the Khor Najd and Khor Hablain bay areas are rich in corals, and fishing would end up destroying them. “The destruction
of corals means severe damage to the marine life in the area. So this measure not only protects
reefs, but also helps in sustainability of marine resources.” "We could not agree more", says Hammer, “and we are
delighted that our voice has been heard, that our reports have been read and our recommendations have been heeded.” But he also added a note of
caution, saying that without further intervention, the low numbers of fish and invertebrate populations in the area could mean that any additional
stress may lead to coral die-off. "The general fishing ban announced by MoAF is certainly a progressive and welcome step in the right direction”,
says Hammer. "Moving
forward we recommend that a Marine Protected Area (MPA), or a network of MPAs,
is created in north Musandam. We also urge rapid action before what is at the moment still a unique
natural treasure for Oman is degraded and lost. If more habitat is lost or degraded before full MPA
protection is implemented, there is a good chance that fish and invertebrate populations will not be able to
recover from their current very low numbers and that the current high coral coverage will be lost. As a result,
the decrease in some fish and invertebrate families is likely to have future negative impacts on substrate composition and the reef ecosystem as a
whole. This in turn will threaten livelihoods and treasured lifestyles around Musandam”, warns Dr. Hammer. The
next stage, said Dr.
Hammer, is to obtain formal support to extend protection from fishing bans to a full MPA. Biosphere
Expeditions will continue its research, now including studying the effects of the fishing ban. Ultimately, given funding and
government support, Biosphere Expeditions plans to extend its efforts to comprehensive surveys (including
for example, fisheries landings, stakeholder consultations, etc) and a roadmap towards an MPA.
The world is increasing conservation – MPAs and NTAs
UNEP 08 (United Nations Environment Program, “National and Regional Networks of Marine
Protected Areas: A Review of Progress”, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, p. i-ii,
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/publications/otherpubs/pdfs/MPA_Network_report.pdf)
Most national ecological MPA networks being planned comprise a range of different types of MPAs
including both NTAs and multiple use sites. In several countries, such as Belize, Cuba, and Mexico,
MPAs are part of a broad conservation planning process to develop a national protected area
system plan. In other countries and territories, such as South Africa, Tanzania, Rodrigues (Mauritius),
USA and Canada, MPA networks are being developed separately from, although sometimes in
coordination with, the process being used to establish terrestrial protected area systems. Where MPA management is
devolved to state or local-level governments, MPA networks are generally being planned using a hierarchical approach,
with small networks nested within larger national networks, as in Mexico, Indonesia, Australia, and the
USA. This approach can however lead to a lack of harmonisation, as seen in Australia, where the state of Victoria is establishing a system of NTAs only, whereas
other states and the Commonwealth are including multiple use MPAs in their networks. Increasingly, NTA networks are being developed as part of the zonation of
multiple use MPAs, particularly large ones such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia, the SeaFlower MPA in the San Andrés Archipelago, Colombia,
The Southeast region MPA System Plan in Australia demonstrates how an MPA network can be integrated into a
range of broader measures, such as recovery plans for listed species, fishery management closures and
regulations for oil and gas activities. Belize demonstrates how a national MPA network can be part of not only a national integrated coastal
the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary in California, or as an integral part of a broader coastal management plan as on Socotra Island in Yemen.
management plan but also a regional MPA network (the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef), which incorporates international protected area designations, such as World
Heritage Site (WHS).
UK conservation now – MCZs
Wells 14 (Sue, Senior Marine Advisor at Natural England, the UK Government's advisory body on
England's natural environment, “Perspective: Designating Marine Conservation Zones in England – a
phased approach”, Open Channels, 2/27/14, http://openchannels.org/news/mpa-news/perspectivedesignating-marine-conservation-zones-england-%E2%80%93-phased-approach)
As described in MPA News November-December 2013, 27 new MPAs were designated in England in
November 2013. Called Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), these are a new type of MPA for the UK,
designed to complement the existing MPA designations and to contribute to the developing UK MPA
network. As described by Jen Ashworth in MPA News January-February 2011, recommendations for
MCZs were developed by four regional stakeholder projects working concurrently so that the planning for
this new network involved an "all-at-once" approach. The four projects recommended that, in order to
meet ecological coherence as described in the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) Bodies (Natural
England and JNCC, 2010), it was necessary to protect 173 sites in 127 locations, including 65 reference
areas (in some cases proposals for reference areas are within the less highly protected MCZs) (Defra,
2012).* The reference areas were planned to be highly protected, where no extractive, depositional,
or damaging activities would be allowed
2NC Brink
Oceans on the brink- overfishing, pollution and energy exploration
Eastern Tribune 6/26/14 (The Eastern Tribune is a global online newspaper published from
Chicago“Oceans to collapse as overfishing and pollution increase” Eastern Tribune, 6/26/14,
http://www.theeasterntribune.com/story/6251/collapse-of-ocean-nearing-as-overfishing-and-pollutionincreases/#sthash.7rrRfcp2.dpuf)//BLOV
NEW YORK: Oceans
were facing the biggest threat in the world and requires immediate action. According to
the reports of the Global Ocean Commission (GOC), the Ocean needs to be saved from the overfishing and
pollution. However, the committee also mentioned that the action required should be immediate and should be
implemented within five years. The committee said that Oceans are in heave of danger due to the high seas fishing and pollution.
The committee that is comprised of many politicians said the energy exploration in the high seas is also
a dangerous practice and can cause collapse of the ocean. United States, European Union, China and Japan and other six
countries are responsible for unregulated and illegal fishing in the high seas. The high seas is the area which is outside the area of National
Coastal Zone, and according to the GOC, it covers almost half of the globe. If reports are to be believed then every year, some 10 million fishes
are caught, worth around $16 million. David Miliband,
former British Foreign Secretary said, “The oceans are a failed
state. A previously virgin area has been turned into a plundered part of the planet.” He also co-chairs the GOC.
President Barack Obama recently had taken some sincere steps to create the largest water sanctuary of the world .
Jose Maria Figueres, who also co-chairs the commission, said, “The Ocean provides 50 percent of our oxygen and fixes 25 percent of global
carbon emissions. Our food chain begins in that 70 percent of the planet.” Sensing the importance of the issue,
the committee is going to
take all the measures so that the collapse of the Ocean can be restricted.
Decline needs to stop- anything else pushes it past the brink
IPSO 13 (The International Programme on the State of the Ocean in conjunction with IUCN: The
International Union for Conservation of Nature, “Press Release Greater , Faster, Closer Latest Review Of
Science Reveals Ocean In Critical State From Cumulative Impacts” 10/3/13
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-PR-2013-FINAL.pdf)//BLOV
Professor Alex
Rogers of Somerville College, Oxford, and Scientific Director of IPSO said : “The health of
the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought . We are seeing greater change,
happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest
concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.” The findings ,
published in the peer review journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, are part of an ongoing assessment process
overseen by IPSO, which bring s together scientists from a range of marine disciplines. The body’s previous 2011 report, which warned of
the threat of ‘globally significant’ extinctions of marine specie s, received global media attention an d has been cited in hearings at the United
Nations , US Senate and European Parliament as well as the UK Parliament ,
Among the latest assessments of factors affecting
ocean health , the panel identified the following areas as of greatest cause for concern:De - oxygenation :
the evidence is accumulating that the oxygen inventory of the ocean is progressively declining. Predictions for ocean
oxygen content suggest a decline of between 1% and 7% by 2100. This is occurring in two way s: the broad trend of
decreasing oxygen levels in tropical oceans and areas of the North Pacific over the last 50 years; and the dramatic increase in coastal hypoxia
(low oxygen) associated with eutrophication. The former is caused by global
warming, the second by increased nutrient runoff
from agriculture and sewage. • Acidification : If current levels of CO 2 release continue we can expect
extremely serious consequences for ocean life , and in turn food and coastal protection ; at CO 2
concentrations of 450 - 500 ppm (projected in 2030 - 2050) erosion will exceed calcification in the coral reef
building process, resulting in the extinction of some species and decline in biodiversity overall . •
Warming : As made clear by the IPCC, the ocean is taking the brunt of warming in the climate system, with direct
and well - documented physical and biogeochemical consequences. The impacts which continued warming is projected to have in
the decades to 2050 include: reduced
seasonal ice zones, including th e disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice by ca. 2037;
increasing stratification of ocean layers, leading to oxygen depletion; increased venting of the GHG
methane from the Arctic seabed (a factor not considered by the IPCC) ; and increased incidence of anox ic and hypoxic (low
oxygen) even t s . • The ‘ deadly trio’ of the above three stressors - acidification, warming and deoxygenation - is seriously
effecting how productive and efficient the ocean is, as temperatures, chemistry, surface stratification, nutrient and oxygen
supply are all implicated, meaning that many organisms will find themselves in unsuitable environments. These impa cts will have
cascading consequences for marine biology, including altered food web dynamics and the expansion of
pathogens. • Continued overfishing is serving to further undermine the resilience of ocean systems, and contrary
to some claims, despite some i mprovements largely in developed regions, fisheries management is still failing to halt
the decline of key species and damage to the ecosystems on which marine life depends. In 2012 the UN FAO determined
that 70% of world fish populations are unsustainably exploited, of which 30% have biomass collapsed to less than 10% of unfished levels. A
recent global assessment of compliance with Article 7 (fishery management) of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,
awarded 60% of countries a “fail” g rade, and saw no country identified as being overall “good
Absent changes extinctions cascade
Black 11 (Richard Black is the Environment Correspondent for BBC news, “World's oceans in
'shocking' decline” BBC, June 20, 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment13796479)//BLOV
Fast changes "The rate of change is vastly exceeding what we were expecting even a couple of years ago," said
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a coral specialist from the University of Queensland in Australia. "So if you look at
almost everything, whether it's fisheries in temperate zones or coral reefs or Arctic sea ice, all of this is undergoing
changes, but at a much faster rate than we had thought." But more worrying than this, the team noted, are the ways
in which different issues act synergistically to increase threats to marine life. Some pollutants, for
example, stick to the surfaces of tiny plastic particles that are now found in the ocean bed. This increases the amounts
of these pollutants that are consumed by bottom-feeding fish. Plastic particles also assist the transport of algae from
place to place, increasing the occurrence of toxic algal blooms - which are also caused by the influx of nutrient-rich pollution
from agricultural land. In a wider sense, ocean acidification, warming, local pollution and overfishing are acting together to increase the threat to
coral reefs - so much so that three-quarters
of the world's reefs are at risk of severe decline. Carbon deposits Life on
Earth has gone through five "mass extinction events" caused by events such as asteroid impacts; and it is often said that
humanity's combined impact is causing a sixth such event. The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say
definitively. But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say - and far faster than any of the previous five.
"What we're seeing at the moment is unprecedented in the fossil record - the environmental changes are much more rapid," Professor Rogers told
BBC News. "We've
still got most of the world's biodiversity, but the actual rate of extinction is much
higher [than in past events] - and what we face is certainly a globally significant extinction event." The report also notes that previous
mass extinction events have been associated with trends being observed now - disturbances of the carbon
cycle, and acidification and hypoxia (depletion of oxygen) of seawater. Levels of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans
are already far greater than during the great extinction of marine species 55 million years ago (during the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), it concludes. Blue planet The report's conclusions will be presented at UN headquarters in New York this
week, when government delegates begin discussions on reforming governance of the oceans. 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." Another of the report's authors, Dan Laffoley, marine chair of the World
Commission on Protected Areas and an adviser to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), admitted the challenges were
vast. "But unlike previous
of our planet is now."
generations, we know what now needs to happen," he said. "The time to protect the blue heart
Now is key- Ocean oxygen levels, acidification, and overfishing are worsening at
unprecedented rates
Huffington Post 13 (Christian Cotroneo “Ocean Acidification: State Of Seas In 'Fast Decline'
According To Report “ Huffington Post, 10/4/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/04/oceanacidification-state_n_4044759.html)//BLOV
UN-sponsored panel expressed "extreme confidence" that the world is in
the throes of climate change — a situation that sees oceans bear much of the brunt. And now, a review from an
international team of the world's leading scientists suggests emerging dead zones may be stirring up
mass extinctions in the world's oceans. “We have been taking the ocean for granted," a study from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean
(IPSO) claims. "It has been shielding us from the worst effects of accelerating climate change by absorbing excess CO2 from the atmosphere . “Whilst terrestrial
temperature increases may be experiencing a pause, the ocean continues to warm regardless." The alleged
culprit? A global phenomenon whose existence is still too widely denied — despite a raft of reports indicating otherwise. Climate change. More specifically, the report's authors —
a non-governmental group of scientists — suggest the burning of fossil fuels has ramped up carbon dioxide emissions. By heating
the atmosphere, these greenhouse gases have continued to heat the oceans, while boosting acidity to
unprecedented levels. In doing so, the IPSO report suggests, commercial fish stocks are being pushed to the Earth's poles, while
other marine species face extinction. “The health of the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought," Alex Rogers, a professor in the UK
and IPSO's scientific director said. "We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent
The sea is singing a sad song these days. Last month, a
than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth." As reported
heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees
Celsius over the past century — a rate that oceans have not kept pace with. Instead, the world's seas have heated by 0.1 degrees
Celsius — a change mostly affecting areas from the surface to a depth of some 700 metres. In other words, where marine life typically
flourishes. In its review, IPSO pointed out several areas of imminent concern: The oceans are running out of
air. By 2100, researchers predict oxygen content will dwindle by anywhere from 1 per cent to seven percent — a deadly combination
of global warming and runoff from sewage and agriculture. In fact, Scientific American points out dead zones -- stretches of water that don't have enough oxygen to support fish -- is
likely caused by surges in chemical nutrients (read: agricultural run-offs). These added nutrients spike algae blooms, which in turn
soak up all the oxygen. Acid levels are surging. Carbon dioxide concentrations are expected to rise over the next 30 to 50 years with grave consequences
for ocean life. In fact, the IPSO report states ocean acidity has reached a 300-million-year high. Ocean warming will
abide. In fact, it shoulders much of the burden that is global warming. And that spells ebbing ice levels, even less oxygen and increasingly unlivable
conditions for sea life. Oh, and thanks for all the over-fishing. Really. The report stressed that the world governments have severely mismanaged this issue to the point where species
that are vital to the ocean's food chain may be in irreversible decline "What these latest reports make absolutely clear is that deferring action will increase
costs in the future and lead to even greater, perhaps irreversible, losses," Dan Laffoley, a professor and
member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the worldest largest and oldest environmental organization. "The UN climate
report confirmed that the ocean is bearing the brunt of human-induced changes to our planet. These findings give us more cause for alarm — but
also a roadmap for action. We must use it."
in National Geographic,
Oceans dying now – causes extinction
TOJ, 05/05/2014 (The Old Speak Journal citing Captain Paul Watson (a Canadian environmental activist, who founded the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society, a direct action group focused on marine conservation), “The Pacific Ocean Has Become Acidic Enough to
Dissolve Sea Snails’ Shells: Acidification Is Happening Sooner & On A Larger Scale Than Scientists Predicted; Coastal Biomes Under Threat”,
The Oldspeak Journal, 05/05/2014, http://theoldspeakjournal.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/the-pacific-ocean-has-become-acidic-enough-todissolve-sea-snails-shells-acidification-is-happening-sooner-on-a-larger-scale-than-scientists-predicted-coastal-biomes-under/)
“It’s happening now. I’m not speculating about the distant future. The
first crack in our global life support system is
widening now and we are about to experience our first major systems failure….We are on the threshold
of the first major eco-system collapse of the Homocene…What the great majority of people do not understand is this:
unless we stop the degradation of our oceans, marine ecological systems will begin collapsing and
when enough of them fail, the oceans will die… And if the oceans die, then civilization collapses and we all
die… It’s as simple as that.” -Captain Paul Watson “It really is that simple. The degradation of our oceans is not stopping, it
is in fact accelerating. The Pacific Ocean will continue to be transformed into a radioactive acid bath. Marine ecological systems will
continue to collapse, and that will be that. We’re fucked. There is no fixing this. There is no avoiding extinction.” -OSJ
It’s an invisible threshold—the oceans are on the brink now—passing the tip means
extinction
Butler, 2013 (Simon Butler, Australian ecosocialist & co-author of Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental
Crisis, “Oceans on the brink of ecological collapse”, Climate & Capitalism, 10/14/2013,
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/10/14/oceans-brink-ecological-collapse/)
But another major scientific study, released a week later and including even graver warnings
of a global environmental
catastrophe, was mostly ignored altogether. The marine scientists that released the State of the Ocean 2013 report on October 3 gave
the starkest of possible warnings about the impact of carbon pollution on the oceans: “We are entering an unknown territory of
marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction
event may have already begun. Developed, industrialised human society is living above the carrying capacity of the
Earth, and the implications for the ocean, and thus for all humans, are huge.” Report co-author, Professor Alex Rogers of
SomervilleCollege, Oxford, said on October 3: “The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we
had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously
anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected
by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.” The ocean is by far the Earth’s largest carbon
sink and has absorbed most of the excess carbon pollution put into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
The State of the Ocean 2013 report warned that this is making decisive changes to the ocean itself, causing a “deadly trio of impacts”
– acidification, ocean warming and deoxygenation (a fall in ocean oxygen levels). The report said: “Most, if not all, of the
Earth’s five past mass extinction events have involved at least one of these three main symptoms of global
carbon perturbations [or disruptions], all of which are present in the ocean today.” Fossil records indicate five mass
extinction events have taken place in the Earth’s history. The biggest of these – the end Permian mass extinction – wiped out as much as 95% of
marine life about 250 million years ago. Another, far better known mass extinction event wiped out the dinosaurs about 66 million years ago and
is thought to have been caused by a huge meteor strike. A further big species extinction took place 55 million years ago. Known as the
Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), it was a period of rapid global warming associated with a huge release of greenhouse gases.
“Today’s rate of carbon release,” said the State of the Ocean 2013, “is at least 10 times faster than that which preceded the [PETM].”[1] Ocean
acidification is a sign that the increase in CO2 is surpassing the ocean’s capacity to absorb it. The more
acid the ocean becomes, the bigger threat it poses to marine life – especially sea creatures that form their skeletons or
shells from calcium carbonate such as crustaceans, molluscs, corals and plankton. The report predicts “extremely serious consequences for
ocean life” if the release of CO2 does not fall, including “the extinction of some species and decline in biodiversity overall.”
Acidification is taking place fastest at higher latitudes, but overall the report says “geological records indicate that the current acidification is
unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years”. Ocean warming is the second element in the deadly trio. Average ocean temperatures have
risen by 0.6°C in the past 100 years. As the ocean gets warmer still, it will help trigger critical climate tipping points that will warm the entire
planet even faster, hurtling it far beyond the climate in which today’s life has evolved. Ocean warming will accelerate the death spiral of polar sea
Ongoing ocean warming
will also wreak havoc on marine life. The report projects the “loss of 60% of present biodiversity of exploited marine life and
ice and risks the “increased venting of the greenhouse gas methane from the Arctic seabed”, the report says.
invertebrates, including numerous local extinctions.” Each decade, fish are expected to migrate between 30 kilometres to 130 kilometres towards
the poles, and live 3.5 metres deeper underwater, leading to a 40% fall in fish catch potential in tropical regions. The report says: “All
these
changes will have massive economic and food security consequences, not least for the fishing industry and those who
depend on it.” The combined effects of acidification and ocean warming will also seal the fate of the world’s coral reefs, leading to their
“terminal and rapid decline” by 2050. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and Caribbean Sea reefs will likely “shift from coral domination to algal
domination.” The report says the global target to limit the average temperature rise to 2°C, which was adopted at the Copenhagen UN climate
conference in 2009, “is not sufficient for coral reefs to survive. Lower targets should be urgently pursued.” Deoxygenation – the third component
of the deadly trio – is related to ocean warming and to high levels of nutrient run-off into the ocean from sewerage and agriculture. The report
says overall ocean oxygen levels, which have declined consistently for the past five decades, could fall by 1% to 7% by 2100. But this figure does
not indicate the big rise in the number of low oxygen “dead zones,” which has doubled every decade since the 1960s. Whereas acidification most
impacts upon smaller marine life, deoxygenation hits larger animals, such as Marlin and Tuna, hardest. The report cautions that the
combined
impact of this deadly trio will “have cascading consequences for marine biology, including altered food
webs dynamics and the expansion of pathogens [causing disease].” It also warns that it adds to other big problems affecting the
ocean, such as chemical pollution and overfishing (up to 70% of the world’s fish stock is overfished). “We
may already have entered into
an extinction period and not yet realised it. What is certain is that the current carbon perturbations will have huge implications for
humans, and may well be the most important challenge faced since the hominids evolved. The urgent need to reduce the
pressure of all ocean stressors, especially CO2 emissions, is well signposted.”
The oceans are on the brink—turns resource wars and instability
Prupis, 06/24/2014 (Nadia Prupis, Staff writer at Common Dreams, “Report: World’s Oceans On Brink of
Collapse”, Intellihub, 06/24/2014, http://www.intellihub.com/report-worlds-oceans-brink-collapse/)
The world’s oceans face irreparable damage from climate change and overfishing, with a five-year window for intervention, an
environmental panel said Tuesday. Neglecting the health of the oceans could have devastating effects on the
world’s food supply, clean air, and climate stability, among other factors. The Global Oceans Commission, an environmental
group formed by the Pew Charitable Trust, released a report (PDF) addressing the declining marine ecosystems around the world and outlining an
eight-step “rescue package” to restore growth and prevent future damage to the seas. The 18-month study proposes increased governance of the
oceans, including limiting oil and gas exploration, capping subsidies for commercial fishing, and creating marine protected areas (MPAs) to
guard against pollution, particularly from plastics. “A
healthy ocean is a key to our well-being,” said Jose Maria Figueres, cowe turn the tide on ocean decline within five years, the
international community should consider turning the high seas into an off-limits regeneration zone until its
chair and former president of Costa Rica. “Unless
condition is restored.” Government subsidies for high seas fishing total at least $30 billion a year and are carried out by just ten countries, the
report said. About 60 percent of such subsidies encourage unsustainable practices like the fuel-hungry “bottom trawling” of ocean floors — funds
that could be rerouted to conservation efforts or employment in coastal areas. Meanwhile, environmental nonprofits and governmental bodies are
starting to recognize the insufficient protections offered by systems like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which aims to
regulate portions of the ocean but cannot actually enforce any laws. The report includes a proposal to ratify the UNCLOS, increasing and
extending its oversight to 64 percent of the ocean which is currently outside of national jurisdiction. “Without proper governance, a minority will
continue to abuse the freedom of the high seas, plunder the riches that lie beneath the waves, take more than a fair share, and benefit at the
expense of the rest of us, especially the poorest,” said Trevor Manuel, co-chair of the commission and former minister of finance of South Africa.
Failure to reverse the decline of the ocean’s ecosystems would be an “unforgivable betrayal of current and
future generations,” said David Miliband, co-chair and former British foreign secretary
Links
*Generic Exploration
Oceans are dying because of human activity
Wilber 11 (Jennifer M, Environmental Engineer at USMC, “Humans are Destroying the Oceans, Mass
Extinction is Imminent”, Sustainable Freedom, 6/20/2011,
http://www.sustainablefreedom.net/2011/06/humans-are-destroying-oceans-mass.html)
In a report compiled in an April meeting in Oxford of 27 of the world's top ocean experts which was
sponsored by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), dying coral reefs,
biodiversity ravaged by invasive species, expanding open-water "dead zones," toxic algae blooms,
and the massive depletion of big fish stocks are all accelerating. The scientists have found that the
health of the oceans have declined much faster than previous reports claimed only a few years ago.
The three main factors that are destroying our planet's oceans are global warming, acidification, and
hypoxia (dwindling oxygen levels). These
factors are all the direct result of
human activity. All five of the previous mass extinction events that took place on our planet for
over 500 million years were preceded by similar conditions to what now plague our oceans. According to
scientists, we have underestimated the risks of our activities and their effects on marine ecosystems.
The degradation of our oceans and marine environments is happening much faster than anyone had
previously predicted.
Exploration activities harm marine species
Waage and Chase 09 (Melissa and Alison, Environmental experts and campaign directors for
NRDC, “Protecting Our Ocean and Coastal Economies: Avoid Unnecessary Risks from Offshore
Drilling”, National Resources Defense Council, Sep. 2009,
http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/offshore/files/offshore.pdf)
Healthy oceans are critically important to marine life and to coastal communities whose economies rely
on tourism and fishing. Opening up new offshore areas to drilling risks permanent damage to our oceans and beaches without reducing
our dependence on oil. When oil spills occur they can bring catastrophic harm to marine life and devastating losses for local businesses. Even
routine exploration and drilling activities bring harm to many marine species. The Administration and
Congress must work together to assess the environmental impacts of offshore drilling before making key decisions about offshore oil and gas
activities in new areas or Alaska.
*Generic Development
Ocean Development destroys the marine environment
Underwood 92 (Peter C., a member of the Transactional & Securities Practice Group, HE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT AND OCEAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN, A New Law of
the Sea for the Caribbean: Chapter 5, Vol.27, p.138-9, 1992
http://www.agu.org/books/ln/v027/LN027p0112/LN027p0112.pdf)
Despite the potential importance of marine resources and the threat of pollution, particularly oil, on these
resources, adequate managerial and custodial policies are greatly lacking. The major reasons given for this
situation are that: a) national economic problems often overshadow environment considerations, b)
marine pollution has not been identified as a major problem; and c) there is a lack of awareness of
the potential carnage to marine ecosystems by coastal development activities. In the Eastern Caribbean, where the
people are turning more and more to marine resources for their economic well being, there is real reason to be concerned over potential 1 40
ecological damage.
Ocean development increases marine destruction
Mouat et al 07 (Mouat, William G. Kepner, Judith M. Lancaster, Associate Research Professors,
Research Ecologist for the EPA, undergraduate qualifications in law and nursing and postgraduate
qualifications in bioethics, “Environmental Change and Human Security”, NATO Science for Peace and
Security Series, Section 2, p. 111-112, 2007, http://books.google.com/books?id=4_DL3AKjyIC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=consequences+extinction+human+%22ocean+development
%22&source=bl&ots=ZEuLkWZ5MF&sig=iPO9cDVtbCHMZ7I3ixTfZXDvwxo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sV
G0U5fBI82PqAa0iIHwCQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=consequences%20extinction%20hu
man%20%22ocean%20development%22&f=false)
The characteristics and resources that the ocean possesses have been utilized and developed by humans
since ancient times. But in recent times with the increasing reliance on marine resources and increases in
all types of pollution that occur with human activities, conservation of the marine environment has
become an important issue. Since regional ocean surveys tend to be conducted in seas near developed
countries, the overall picture of the state of global marine pollution is not necessarily clear. Nevertheless,
in closed seas such as the North Sea, Baltic Sea. Black Sea, and Mediterranean Sea, the occurrence of red
tide is increasing, along with pollution from hazardous substances such as heavy metals (Vadineanu.
2000). Moreover, because the threat of major marine pollution exists from supertanker navigation and the
development of sea bottom oil fields, and because damage incurred from the occurrence of a single
accident can spread over large areas for a long period of time, conservation of the marine environment has
received global attention. In particular, a succession of major oil spills in recent years caused by
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND CONSERVATION supertanker accidents, and large-scale oil
spills that occurred during the Gulf War at the end of the twentieth century, have had serious effects on
the marine environment. Again reminding international opinion of the importance of marine
environment conservation.
**Drilling
*1NC
Spills, Chemicals, sesmic testing, and destroy wetlands and marshes
Southern Environmental Law Center, 2014 (“Defending Our Southern Coasts” 5/16/2014
http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/offshore-oil-drilling)
Risks of Oil Drilling In February 2014, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released its final environmental
impact statement on the plan to open up the Atlantic coast to seismic surveys for oil and gas. The head of the agency anticipates that
applications to conduct seismic testing could be received by the end of the year. Not only are the air gun blasts used in seismic testing
harmful to marine life such as the critically endangered North American right whale, allowing seismic testing opens
the door to risky oil drilling—under the same lax assessments of risks and precautions that led to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the federal regulatory agency and oil companies continue operations based on
their same claims that there is no significant risk of, or thus impacts from, such oil spills. SELC challenged the agency's cursory environmental
review as illegal and irresponsible in light of the BP blowout and oil spill, and its harmful impacts in the Gulf of Mexico. In December 2011, SELC
filed suit challenging the agency’s continued sales of oil and gas leases in the Gulf, which still are conducted without adequate environmental
analysis and without regard for lessons learned from the BP disaster. Coastal Riches for Wildlife and People The beautiful and biologically rich
coastal areas off Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and our Gulf Coast feature some of the most productive estuaries in the
country, including the Chesapeake Bay, the Pamlico Sound, the ACE Basin, and Mobile Bay. Our coasts attract millions of tourists, anglers, and
other visitors each year and provide important breeding and feeding habitat for rare migratory birds, turtles, and whales. Tourism and fishing—
both commercial and recreational—are the economic backbone of hundreds of communities along our coasts. In 2008 alone, the four Atlantic
states yielded $262.8 million in commercial fish landings. Problematic Infrastructure The
environmental impacts of offshore
drilling and its accompanying infrastructure and refineries onshore were well known even before Gulf disaster. Ocean rigs
routinely spill and leak oil—and sometimes blow out. Chemicals used to operate oil and gas wells also pollute the marine
environment. Moreover, oil spills and other contamination from onshore refineries, pipelines, and associated infrastructure
would spoil valuable wetland and marsh ecosystems that provide multiple benefits for Southern communities, including
flood control and protection from storms, clean water, and essential habitat for fisheries that sustain our economies and cultures.
Drilling puts oceans at risk – spills
PE 14 (Pacific Environment, “Fossil Fuels”, Pacific Environemnt: Protecting the Living Environment of
the Pacific Rim, 2/20/2014, 7/3/14, http://pacificenvironment.org/energy-fossil-fuels)
The most obvious environmental impact from the oil and gas industry is the burning of oil, which releases
several smog- causing pollutants and greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. However, the
act of exploration and drilling for oil and gas also poses a major threat to fragile ecosystems
throughout the world. In recent years, we have seen oil spills destroy communities, soil beaches, and
kill countless numbers of birds, marine mammals, fish, and other wildlife. Though it happened over two
decades ago, the Exxon Valdez spill continues to affect the ecology of Alaska. Worse yet, we still do not
know the full extent of the damage from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite these disasters, as our energy demands continue to grow, we continue seeking oil and gas
offshore, putting coastal communities, wildlife, and ecosystems at great risk.
**2NC
-
Drilling digs into the environment and wrecks the ecosystem there, plus chemicals and
pollution spill over to the nearby environment and marshes
Southern Environmental Law Center, 2014
Offshore Drilling pollutes the oceans
Oceana 12 (the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, “Impacts of Offshore
Drilling”, OCEANA.ORG, 2012 http://oceana.org/en/our-work/stop-ocean-pollution/oil-pollution/learn-act/impactsof-offshore-drilling)
Offshore drilling operations create various forms of pollution that have considerable negative
effects on marine and other wildlife. These include drilling muds, brine wastes, deck runoff water and
flowline and pipeline leaks. Catastrophic spills and blowouts are also a threat from offshore drilling
operations. These operations also pose a threat to human health, especially to oil platform workers
themselves. Drilling muds and produced water are disposed of daily by offshore rigs. Offshore rigs can
dump tons of drilling fluid, metal cuttings, including toxic metals, such as lead chromium and mercury, as
well as carcinogens, such as benzene, into the ocean. Effects of Drilling Muds Drilling muds are used for
the lubrication and cooling of the drill bit and pipe. The muds also remove the cuttings that come from
the bottom of the oil well and help prevent blowouts by acting as a sealant. There are different
types of drilling muds used in oil drilling operations, but all release toxic chemicals that can affect
marine life. One drilling platform normally drills between seventy and one hundred wells and discharges
more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids and metal cuttings into the ocean. Effects of Produced
Water Produced water is fluid trapped underground and brought up with oil and gas. It makes up about 20
percent of the waste associated with offshore drilling. Produced waters usually have an oil content of 30
to 40 parts per million. As a result, the nearly 2 billion gallons of produced water released into the Cook
Inlet in Alaska each year contain about 70,000 gallons of oil. Effects of Exploration 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. Effects of Offshore Oil Rigs Offshore oil rigs may also attract seabirds at night due to their
lighting and flaring and because fish aggregate near them. Bird mortality has been associated with
physical collisions with the rigs, as well as incineration by the flare and oil from leaks. This process of
flaring involves the burning off of fossil fuels which produces black carbon. Black carbon contributes to
climate change as it is a potent warmer both in the atmosphere and when deposited on snow and ice.
Drilling activity around oil rigs is suspected of contributing to elevated levels of mercury in Gulf of
Mexico fish.
Transporting after fracking contaminates everything
CBD No Date (Center for Biological Diversity, “Fracking Threatens California’s Wildlife”, Center for
Biological Diversity, No date,
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/wildlife.html)
Fracking in California poses serious risks to the state’s wildlife. Endangered species like California
condors, San Joaquin kit foxes and blunt-nosed leopard lizards live in places where fracking is likely to
expand, and these animals face direct and indirect harm. Fracking comes with intense industrial
development, including multi-well pads and massive truck traffic. That’s because, unlike a pool of oil that
can be accessed by a single well, shale formations are typically fractured in many places to extract fossil
fuels, requiring multiple routes for trucks, adding habitat disturbance for wildlife and more pollution.
Fracking is already common in other parts of the country. Research and reports from those areas suggest
links between fracking and a wide range of threats to wildlife and domestic animals like horses, cats and
dogs. Among the most serious: Fish kills in Pennsylvania have been associated with the
contamination of streams, creeks and wetlands by fracking fluid. Farmers, pet owners and
veterinarians in five states — Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas — have reported
deaths, serious illnesses and reproductive problems among wildlife, as well as horses, cattle, cats and
dogs exposed to fracking infrastructure or wastewater. Withdrawing water from streams and rivers for
fracking can threaten fisheries. Birds and other wildlife have been poisoned by chemical-laced water in
wastewater ponds and tanks used to dispose of fracking fluids. Equipment used to withdraw water for
fracking activity has been implicated in the introduction of invasive species into creeks and rivers,
causing fish kills. Sensitive bird species and other wildlife can be affected by drilling noise, truck trips
and other effects from gas drilling pads — one study found that a single drilling station can affect 30
acres of forest. Effects on wildlife include degradation of habitat and interference with migration and
reproduction. The diversity of species in streams close to fracking activity in Pennsylvania was found to
be reduced, even though drilling was done in accordance with all current state rules. Wastewater ponds
resulting from gas extraction provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes that can transmit diseases such as
the deadly West Nile Virus to wild birds. In California, oil and gas companies are fracking in several
counties with West Nile virus activity, including Kern County, which has had a human case. The six
California counties in which fracking is likely to expand are home to about 100 plants and animals on the
endangered species list. These species are already struggling against extinction — fracking would only
compound their troubles.
Oil Drilling risks spills- Coating, ingestion, and toxicity kill marine life
Galil and Herut 11 (Bella S. Galil Senior Scientist@ National Institute of Oceanography Ph.D. 1983,
Tel Aviv University, Israel ANDBarak Herut Senior Scientist@ National Institute of Oceanography
Ph.D. 1992, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel At IOLR since 1991 “Marine environmental issues
of deep-sea oil and gas exploration and exploitation activities off the coast of Israel“ . IOLR (Israel
Oceanographic and Limnological Research) Report H15/2011
http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/SeaAndShore/MonitoringandResearch/
SeaResearchMedEilat/Documents/IOL_deep_sea_drilling_Israel2011_1.pdf)//BLOV
Oil Oil
is released from a variety of sources during exploration and production activities. Most oil
water, but deck and machinery space drainage may also
contain small quantities of oil. Dropout of oil when flaring during well te sting and well work-overs is another potential source of oil from
offshore activities, but is generally considered insignificant. Another potential source of o il is accidental release during
drilling, the operation of offshore installations and from shipping. Oil does not affect all components of
marine ecosystems equally; some are more vulnerable to physical impacts, others to chemical
toxicity and some are relatively resilient to both. The key effects of oil are: • Coating : Oil in large quantities may
coat the fe athers of seabirds and fur of some marine mammals. This reduces their ability to provide buoyancy and
insulation, leading to increased mortality. • Ingesting : Mammals and turtles may ingest oil with food and
thereby be exposed to potential toxic effects. When preening oiled feathers, birds may also ingest oil with
attendant toxic effects. There is evidence to suggest that some tissue hydrocarbons may reduce breeding success in
entering the marine environmental from such activities is in produced
birds and mammals. • Toxicity : Fish eggs and larvae are more susceptible to toxic effects of oil than are
adults. Adult fish may accumulate hydrocarbons in their tissues that may affect their health and also taint their flesh.
Toxic components in crude oil include Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrenes. PAHs
can also be mutagenic and carcinogenic. Invertebrates vary greatly in their sensitivity to oil. Corals are among the
most sensitive. Shellfish may accumulate oil residues with attendant secondary effects, particularly relating to health. Though individual
planktonic organisms can experien ce toxic effects from oil in water, the very high turnover of plankton populations means that the plankton is
relatively unaffected by oil.
Drilling kills polar bears
ESC, no date (Endangered Species Coalition, “Polar Bear”, Endangered Species Coalition, No date,
http://fuelingextinction.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82)
The Arctic’s most iconic species, the polar bear has become the poster child for the melting Arctic ice
cap. This apex predator of the Arctic is in a fight it cannot win on its own. So uniquely adapted to the
Arctic that only its breath is detectable by infrared photography, the polar bear evolved to exploit the
Arctic sea ice and is completely dependent upon sea ice for survival. Threats Faced By Fossil Fuel
Development The polar bear was the first mammal listed as threatened based solely on climate
change threats. Reducing greenhouse gases that lead to global warming, which in turn are melting the
polar ice caps, is one of the most important problem facing the governments of the world today. Scientists
have noted an increase in drowning and starvation in polar bears as the sea ice melts. Potential oil spills
are also a severe threat to polar bears. A polar bear cannot regulate its body temperature when its
coat is covered in oil. And, if the bear ingests the oil while grooming, it could die. Furthermore,
ice seals, polar bears’ primary prey, are vulnerable to oiling and could pass contaminants to bears. Recent
years have brought immense political pressure for offshore oil drilling in polar bear habitat. As industrial
so does the risk of a catastrophic oil spill.
activity increases,
Shell Oil is
asking the federal government for permission to drill in the Arctic Ocean as soon as summer 2012. There
is no way to clean up an oil spill in icy Arctic waters, and during certain times of the year, any response
may be impossible. Therefore, a large-scale oil spill could continue over many months, if not years. If a
large spill reached polar bears along the coasts or on land waiting for sea ice to return, it could harm them
in large numbers. In considering a small-scale spill, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimates
up to eight percent of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears could be oiled. Given more realistic spill
scenarios, a larger number of bears could be immediately impacted. And, the inability to quickly contain
or clean up a spill would magnify the long-term impact, potentially killing large numbers of bears. Even
in the absence of an oil spill, daily oil and gas activities negatively impact polar bears. Seismic
testing, icebreaking activities, aircraft flights, and ship activity disturb polar bears, and their ice
seal prey. Proposed Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations for oil and gas activities in the Beaufort
Sea demonstrate these impacts: as many as 150 polar bears per year may experience distress from oil and
gas activities in the Beaufort Sea alone, and as much as 20 percent of the Southern Beaufort Sea
population of polar bears could be impacted by industry operations in the next two years. Given that we
already see starving and drowning polar bears, this additional stressor is gravely dangerous for polar
bears. In addition, Congress continues to push legislation to open the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. The Coastal Plain is the most significant onland denning site for
polar bears in the United States. The oil industry has not proven it can develop in the Arctic responsibly.
The Prudhoe Bay area, just west of the Arctic Refuge, is currently our nation’s largest industrial site and
experiences an average of an oil spill per day.
Chemicals Critical to Oil and Gas production disrupt biological systems across the
foodchain
Galil and Herut 11 (Bella S. Galil Senior Scientist@ National Institute of Oceanography Ph.D. 1983,
Tel Aviv University, Israel ANDBarak Herut Senior Scientist@ National Institute of Oceanography
Ph.D. 1992, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel At IOLR since 1991 “Marine environmental issues
of deep-sea oil and gas exploration and exploitation activities off the coast of Israel“ . IOLR (Israel
Oceanographic and Limnological Research) Report H15/2011
http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/SeaAndShore/MonitoringandResearch/
SeaResearchMedEilat/Documents/IOL_deep_sea_drilling_Israel2011_1.pdf)//BLOV
Chemicals The main discharges of chemicals arise from drilling activities and discharges of chemicals in
produced water. The use of ch emicals is critical for the production of oil and gas. The main use of
chemicals is for drilling and production operations and includes: rig and turbine washes; pipe dopes used
to lubricate drill pipe joints; hydraulic fluids used to control wellheads, blow-out preventers and subsea
valves; chemicals used in the actual production and processing of hydrocarbons; water-based and organic
phase drilling fluids; cementing chemicals; work-over chemicals; stimulation chemicals; completion
chemical s; water injection chemicals; water and gas tracers; chemicals used in “closed systems” where
periodic refill is required; jacking grease. Chemicals are also used to maintain pipelines and ensure
pipeline integrity; these include biocides and oxygen scavengers. Impacts from chemicals discharged
into the marine environment can include acute or long term toxic effect to marine organisms. Among
the long term effects especially hormone interfering, mutagenic and reprotoxic e ffects give rise to
concern. Persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals can magnify in the food chain and result in high
exposure levels for top predators like seabirds and marine mammals and for human seafood consumers.
Low concentrations of some substances are sufficient to interfere with the hormone and immune system
and reproduction processes. Biological effects can extend beyond individual marine organisms to a
whole population with adverse consequences for species composition and ecosystem structures.
Biofouling and Ballast water at project sites introduces invasive species to native
ecosystems
Galil and Herut 11 (Bella S. Galil Senior Scientist@ National Institute of Oceanography Ph.D. 1983,
Tel Aviv University, Israel ANDBarak Herut Senior Scientist@ National Institute of Oceanography
Ph.D. 1992, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel At IOLR since 1991 “Marine environmental issues
of deep-sea oil and gas exploration and exploitation activities off the coast of Israel“ . IOLR (Israel
Oceanographic and Limnological Research) Report H15/2011
http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/SeaAndShore/MonitoringandResearch/
SeaResearchMedEilat/Documents/IOL_deep_sea_drilling_Israel2011_1.pdf)//BLOV
Alien Invasive Species (AIS) Offshore pathways There are two main pathways for the introduction of
AIS into new environments associated with offshore projects and ope rations: biofouling and ballast
(water or sediment). Biofouling Recently, there has been a growing recognition that biofouling is a major
pathway in the introduction of alien species (Galil, 2006). The transmission of biofouling communities
has been documented on several occasions in the oil and gas industry. The oil drilling platform ‘Southern
Cross’ originating in Australia was brought to Ha ifa Bay, Israel, in 2003 for maintenance work including
in-water scraping of its extensive fouling. The local divers employed described unfamiliar fish and
crustaceans among the dense fauna, and from the shells that had been collected by the divers twelve
species of molluscs were identified as new records for the Mediterranean (Mienis 2004). In the oil and
gas industry, many vessels are involved throughout project and operational activities, such as tankers, s
upply ships, drill-ships, underwater vessels, floating cranes, survey vessels and suppl y vessels. Untreated
hulls will rapidly develop complex communities. The long term presence of hard structures into the sea
also results in the creation of hard substratum, which is available for easy colonization by species that
may not otherwise have settled in the local habitat. This process can encourage local development (and
thence introduction) of alien species, and also offer a stepping-stone for longer-distance relocation of
alien species, this latter is especially of concern in the Levantine basin because of the Erytrean invasion
(Galil, 2009). Offshore rigs develop fouling communities that could not otherwise survive owing to the
depth of water at which the equivalent natural habitat is found. Equally, laying structures on the seabed
(rather than burying them) in a soft-sediment habitat introduces new local habitat. Ballast Vessels that are
designed to carry a heavy cargo, such as crude oil or LNG in tankers, are potentially unstable at sea once
they have offloaded the cargo at the destination port. Therefore, after offloading they ta ke on seawater
and frequently sediment as ‘ballast’ to weigh down and correctly balance the vessel. These waters
including theie entrained biota are pumped out on arrival at the port where cargo is to be loaded. The
impacts of AIS resulting from ballast water transmission have been some of the most severely
damaging, far-reaching, large-scale and costly so far recorded. Upstream and midstream oil & gas
activities can create direct and indirect pathways for AIS ( IPIECA, 2010)
.
**OTEC
*1NC
OTEC leads to the marine destruction
Howell 10 (Katie, freelance writer and editor for the New York Times, USA Today, Scientific
American, National Geographic Traveler, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, Greenwire,
Nationalgeographic.com, “Wave Technologies Could Harm Marine Resources -- DOE Study”, The New
York Times, 2/24/10, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/24/24greenwire-wave-technologies-couldharm-marine-resources-95837.html)
Energy technologies that tap waves and tides could disrupt marine resources, the Energy Department
found in a recent study. More News From Greenwire Soul-Searching Follows U.S. CAP Defections
Enviro Group Returns Oil and Gas Industry's Fire Over Access to Public Lands EPA Budget Hearings to
Serve as Battleground for Climate Policies Supreme Court Denies 3 High-Profile Environmental Cases
New White House Guidance 'Straightforward, Common Sense' -- CEQ Chief green inc. Green Inc. A blog
about energy, the environment and the bottom line. Go to Blog » Marine and hydrokinetic technologies
that capture energy from waves, tides and currents are poised to make a significant contribution to U.S.
power supplies, but there is little known about their environmental impacts, the study (pdf) says. "There
are well over 100 conceptual designs for converting the energy of waves, river and tidal currents and
ocean temperature differences into electricity," the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
report says. "However, because the concepts are new, few devices have been deployed and tested in rivers
and oceans. Even fewer environmental studies of these technologies have been carried out, and thus
potential environmental effects remain mostly speculative." But those effects could be significant. The
report suggests projects could displace bottom-dwelling plants and animals or change their habitats
by altering water flows and waves. And noise generated during installation and operation of energy
conversion devices could interfere with communications of marine animals. Ocean thermal energy
conversion, a technology that uses the temperature differences between warm surface waters and cold
deep waters to generate electricity, could have additional impacts stemming from the intake and discharge
of large volumes of water. Such operations could change water temperature and capture fish in
intake and discharge plumes.
*2NC
Extend Howell, OTEC destroys ecosystems by changing the temperature and flow of
water in the environment, this disrupts things like the food chain
To many risks for effective OTEC
NOAA NO date (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “ Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion (OTEC) Environmental Impacts”, NOAA’s Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource
Management, No date, http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/otec/docs/environmentalfactsheet.pdf)
The environmental impact studies from the 1980s concluded that the risks of OTEC would likely be
acceptable, however; further environmental assessments and research are needed to address the following
potential issues: Potential Impacts: 1. Withdrawal and Discharge Water: A 100 MW facility would use
10-20 billion gallons per day of warm surface water and cold water from a depth of approximately 3300
feet (1000 meters). The impacts of discharging this large volume of water in the ocean needs to be better
studied. The water discharged from OTEC facilities will be cooler, denser and more nutrient rich due to
the composition of the deep cold water being different from the receiving waters. Nutrient rich water
(with nitrogen and phosphorus) would likely be discharged at a depth where the ambient water is warmer
and oligotrophic (nutrient poor). The resulting indirect and cumulative impacts to marine biota and the
dynamics of the marine ecosystem from these displacements are not fully understood. 2. Impingement
and Entrainment: Screens are needed for both the warm and cold water intake systems to prevent debris
and larger species from entering an OTEC facility. Impingement may occur where organisms become
trapped against the intake screen. Smaller organisms which pass through the intake screen may be
entrained through the system. Both could be lethal to the organisms. 3. Biocide Treatments: The warm
water that is used in the OTEC facility would need to be treated with a biocide (e.g., chlorine) to maintain
the efficiency of the heat exchangers in the OTEC facility. The amount of biocide needed will likely be
less than the maximum discharge allowed under the Clean Water Act. 4. Other Potential Impacts:
The electromagnetic field of the cable bringing the electricity to the shore may impact navigation
and other behaviors of marine organisms. The platform presence may cause organism attraction or
avoidance, and its mooring lines may cause entanglements. The noise generated from an OTEC
facility may also impact marine mammals.
*Methane Hydrates
1NC
Methane Hydrates cause underwater blowouts and climate change
Chatti et al 04 (Imen Chatti Anthony Delahaye Laurence Fournaison Cemagref-GPAN, Parc de
Tourvoie, B.P. 44, 92163 Antony Cedex, France AND Jean-Pierre Petitet LIMHP-CNRS, Institut Galile´
e, Av. J.B. Cle´ment, 93430 Villetaneuse, France “Benefits and drawbacks of clathrate hydrates: a review
of their areas of interest” Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005)
www.researchgate.net/publication/222576185_Benefits_and_ drawbacks_of_clathrate_
hydrates_a_review _of_their_areas_of_interest/file /79e4150ddf350b6ce2.pdf)//BLOV
In order to anticipate future needs, however, some prospective plans are being studied to develop viable
extraction schemes from hydrate sediments; one such project is the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Research
Well Program concerning permafrost deposits exploitation in the Canadian Arctic region [33]. Gas
recovery is generally based on in situ hydrate dissociation by either heating or depressurization [34]. The
thermal approach generates huge heat losses and, therefore, seems less exploitable than [35]
depressurization that requires high porosity hydrate deposits [36]. Moreover, the transport stage can be
problematical, since extracted gas and water may re-crystallize into gas hydrates inside the transmission
lines and then provoke pipe plugging. Even though they are considered as the main hydrocarbon source
for the future, gas hydrate deposits might represent a real threat to the environment. Indeed, when
considering offshore hydrates as a global methane reservoir, exploitation of these sediments in
unfavorable circumstances could drastically modify the marine ecosystem and even generate
underwater gas blowouts [37]. Moreover, destabilizing hydrate sediments plays an undeniable role in
climate change. According to Brewer [38], a slight global warming would raise the hydrate
temperature above the equilibrium point, involving dissociation and the release of a great quantity of
methane. Given that a mole of methane is about 24 times more effective at absorbing infrared radiation
and affecting the climate than a mole of carbon dioxide [39], such discharge would cause a chain reaction
mechanism. However, methane hydrate sediments may be reinforced by injecting chemical promoters
and, thus, limiting the predictable safety risks
Aqua-Culture
*1NC
Aquaculture decimates the environment
DSF 10 (David Suziki Foundation, “Aquaculture”, David Suziki Foundation, 2010,
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/sustainable-fisheries-and-aquaculture/what-isaquaculture/)
Like any form of industrial production, aquaculture has environmental impacts. The major impacts for the
aquaculture industry include: using more fish than they produce, disease and parasite transfer, the
introduction and spread of exotic species, chemical pollution, habitat destruction for farm siting or
due to farm activities, and the killing of predators that prey on the farmed species. For aquaculture,
impact is dictated by three main factors which include: 1) Species in production The higher the trophic
level or food web position of the species being cultured the more inputs of feed will be required and thus
more waste outputs will be released. 2) Location of production The more ecologically sensitive the
location of the farm such as mangroves, coastal estuaries, salmon migration routes, etc. the more likely
there will be an impact on the environment due to farm outputs such as waste, amplified disease or
parasites, escapes of cultured stock, or killing of predators. 3) System of production. The more open the
production system (e.g. open net pens) the more likely it is to have an impact on the environment. For
example, open net pens are completely open and in anything that happens in the farm can be transferred
to outside of the farm whereas closed containment systems contain all inputs and outputs. To illustrate
this with some examples, an example of an aquaculture system that has a high impact is salmon farming.
It farms a high trophic level species in open net pens that are located on wild salmon migrations in BC's
coastal ecosystems.
2NC Mangrove forests
Aquaculture destroys natural ecosystems- Mangrove forest conversions to farms
Porchas and Martinez-Cordova 11 (Marcel Martinez-Porchas Department of Food Technology
of Animal Research Centre in Food and Development, Km 0.7 Carretera La Victoria, Hermosillo, SON,
Mexico AND Luis R.Martinez-Cordova Department of Scientific and Technological Research of the
University of Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio Boulevard s / n, 83000, Hermosillo, SON, Mexico “World
Aquaculture: Environmental Impacts and Troubleshooting Alternatives” The ScientificWorld Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 389623 10/08/11
downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/389623.pdf)//BLOV
With or without valid arguments, aquaculture
has been accused to be the cause of many environmental, social,
economic, and inclusively esthetic problems. Ecosystems are not always as fragile as could be considered, instead, they have
remarkable capacity of resiliency, and as long as basic processes are not irretrievably upset, ecosystems will continue to recycle and distribute
energy [9]. However, irreversible
damages have been already caused due to inadequate management of the
activity. The main negative impacts attributed to the activity are as follows. (1) Destruction of Natural Ecosystems, In
Particular Mangrove Forests to Construct Aquaculture Farms [4, 10, 11]. The mangrove forests are important ecosystems
considered as the main source of organic matter to the coastal zone [12, 13]; they are also nursery areas for many aquatic
species ecologically and/or economically important, as well as refuge or nesting areas for bird, reptiles, crustaceans, and other taxonomic groups
[14]. Mangroves
are additionally accumulation sites for sediments, contaminants, nitrogen, carbon and
offer protection against coastal erosion [15]. According to environmentalists [16], mangroves support diverse local fisheries and
also provide critical nursery habitat and marine productivity which support wider commercial fisheries. These forests also provide
valuable ecosystem services that benefit coastal communities, including coastal land stabilization and
storm protection. The cover of mangrove forest has decreased worldwide from 19.8 million hectares in 1980 to less than 15 millions in
2000. The annual deforestation rate was 1.7% from 1980 to 1990 and 1.0% from 1990 to 2000 [17], and the problem continues up today. Some
authors have documented that aquaculture has been responsible for the deforestation of millions hectares
of mangrove forest in Thailand, Indonesia, Ecuador, Madagascar, and other countries [18, 19]. From 1975 to
1993, the construction of shrimp farms in Thailand diminished the mangrove cover from 312,700 to 168,683 ha [20]. Philippines has
reconverted 205,523 ha of mangrove and wetlands into aquaculture farms, Indonesia 211,000 ha, Vietnam 102,000
ha, Bangladesh 65,000 ha, and Ecuador 21,600 ha [21].
AquaCulture destroys mangroves - key to prevent soil erosion
Emerson 99 (Craig, Supervising Editor, Aquatic Sciences ASFA, Oceanic, “Aquaculture Impacts on
the Environment”, ProQuest, Dec. 1999, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php)
Nowhere are the negative impacts on the natural environment more apparent than with shrimp farming
and the associated destruction of mangrove forests22. In Asia, over 400,000 hectares of mangroves have
been converted into brackishwater aquaculture for the rearing of shrimp. Farmed shrimp boost a
developing country's foreign exchange earnings, but the loss of sensitive habitat is difficult to reconcile.
Tropical mangroves are analogous to temperate salt marshes, a habitat critical to erosion prevention,
coastal water quality, and the reproductive success of many marine organisms. Mangrove forests
have also provided a sustainable and renewable resource of firewood, timber, pulp, and charcoal for local
communities. To construct dyked ponds for shrimp farming, these habitats are razed and restoration is
extremely difficult. Unfortunately, shrimp ponds are often profitable only temporarily as they are subject
to disease and to downward shifts in the shrimp market. Growing political pressure in western countries
may restrict the shrimp market in response to consumers' avoidance of environmentally-unfriendly
products. More significantly, Japan's economy is experiencing difficulty at present, and Japan is the
world's largest market for shrimp; when the market falls, ponds are abandoned. A return to traditional
fishing is not always possible because the lost mangroves no longer serve as nursery areas which are
critical for the recruitment of many wild fish stocks. Unemployment prospects cannot always balance
short-term gains. It is clear that socio-economic effects are as important as pollution and ecological
damage when evaluating the sustainability of aquaculture.
Mangroves on the brink now
InpaperMagazine 13 (“Vanishing Mangroves”, DAWN.com, 5/26/2013,
http://www.dawn.com/news/1013754)
A sight of Sindh’s coast has the tendency to inspire the human spirit, with its abundant mangroves,
sprouting out from the Indus delta, a magical juncture of river and sea, where birds unwind comfortably
sitting on mangrove trees and fish swim five feet beneath them. It is a place of grand beauty and its
mysticism is only exceeded by its aesthetics. For many living species, including humans, these forests
provide a home and a source of sustenance, and are integral to the survival of biodiversity and
communities which have existed here for a long time. These forests, unfortunately, are on the brink of
extinction, and so is the habitat upon which many species depend. Receding of Sindh’s mangrove forests
is a direct consequence of withholding water supply by dams which has changed the salinity levels within
the mangrove-covered region. Now, human-induced climate change has also become a leading cause of
the onslaught against mangrove forests, and the communities and species which depend on it.
2nc Soil Acidifcation
Aquaculture destroys the soil- prevents future use
Porchas and Martinez-Cordova 11 (Marcel Martinez-Porchas Department of Food Technology
of Animal Research Centre in Food and Development, Km 0.7 Carretera La Victoria, Hermosillo, SON,
Mexico AND Luis R.Martinez-Cordova Department of Scientific and Technological Research of the
University of Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio Boulevard s / n, 83000, Hermosillo, SON, Mexico “World
Aquaculture: Environmental Impacts and Troubleshooting Alternatives” The ScientificWorld Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 389623 10/08/11
downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/389623.pdf)//BLOV
(2) Salinization/Acidification
of Soils. Aquaculture farms are sometimes abandoned by multiple problems
the soil from those former farms remain hypersaline, acid and eroded
[22]. Therefore, those soils cannot be used for agricultural purposes and are unusable for long periods. In
addition, the application of lime and other chemicals used in aquaculture to treat the soil can also modify its
physicochemical characteristics, which could aggravate the problem [23].
(operative, economic, sanitary, and etc.), and
2nc Waste Discharge
Aquaculture causes Eutrophication and Nitrification- creates HAB’s and toxic
discharge wastes
Porchas and Martinez-Cordova 11 (Marcel Martinez-Porchas Department of Food Technology
of Animal Research Centre in Food and Development, Km 0.7 Carretera La Victoria, Hermosillo, SON,
Mexico AND Luis R.Martinez-Cordova Department of Scientific and Technological Research of the
University of Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio Boulevard s / n, 83000, Hermosillo, SON, Mexico “World
Aquaculture: Environmental Impacts and Troubleshooting Alternatives” The ScientificWorld Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 389623 10/08/11
downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/389623.pdf)//BLOV
(4) Eutrophication and Nitrification of Effluent Receiving Ecosystems. The eutrophication or organic
enrichment of water column is mainly produced by nonconsumed feed (especially due to overfeeding), lixiviation
of aquaculture feedstuffs [25, 26], decomposition of died organisms, and overfertilization [27–30]. It is well documented that from
the total nitrogen supplemented to the cultured organisms, only 20 to 50% is retained as biomass by the farmed
organisms, while the rest is incorporated into the water column or sediment [31, 32], and eventually discharged in the effluents toward
the receiving ecosystems, causing diverse impacts such as phytoplankton blooms (sometimes of toxic microalgaes, such as red
tides) [33], burring, and death of benthic organisms, as well as undesirable odors and the presence of pathogens in
the discharge sites [34]. The impact may be more or less severe depending on some factors such as the intensification of the system
(density of organisms), which is directly related to the amount of feed supplied [26, 35]. The feed conversion ratio (FCR) is a well indicator of the
effectiveness of feeding and, consequently, of the retention of nitrogen and carbon as biomass of the farmed organisms. For instance, farms
culturing the tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon usually report FCRs ranging from 1 to more than 2.5; such huge
difference is later reflected in the amount of organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorous discharged in the effluents, which may range from 500 to
1625 kg, 26 to 117 kg, and 13 to 38 kg, respectively, for each ton of shrimp harvested [28]. The estimated mean FCR worldwide for shrimp
aquaculture is 1.8, which means that, for a world annual shrimp production around 5 million tons, 5.5 million tons of organic matter, 360,000 tons
of nitrogen, and 125,000 tons of phosphorous are annually discharged to the environment. Unfortunately, these
data considers only
shrimp production, which represents around 8% of the total aquaculture production; if we assume that the
FCRs are similar for the other farmed organisms and the diet formulations have some similitude [36], the total discharge of
wastes may be multiplied by 12.5 from a very preliminary perspective. The nutrification is considered as the
nutrient (N, P, C) enrichment of water column, mainly due to fertilization, mineralization of organic matter, resuspension of sediments, and
excretion of organisms into the ponds. The
greatest concern in this aspect is the increasing production of nitrogenous
metabolites especially ammonia, which is highly toxic in its unionized form (NH3) for many aquatic
organisms [37].
2nc Invasive Species
Aquaculture introduces invasive species and medicines that disrupt native
ecosystems
Porchas and Martinez-Cordova 11 (Marcel Martinez-Porchas Department of Food Technology
of Animal Research Centre in Food and Development, Km 0.7 Carretera La Victoria, Hermosillo, SON,
Mexico AND Luis R.Martinez-Cordova Department of Scientific and Technological Research of the
University of Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio Boulevard s / n, 83000, Hermosillo, SON, Mexico “World
Aquaculture: Environmental Impacts and Troubleshooting Alternatives” The ScientificWorld Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 389623 10/08/11
downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/389623.pdf)//BLOV
(5) Ecological Impacts in Natural Ecosystems because of the Introduction of Exotic Species. The negative impacts of
the “biological contamination” for the introduction of exotic aquacultural species on the native populations have
been well documented [18, 38, 39]. The main reported problems are the displacement of native species,
competition for space and food, and pathogens spread. To cite an example, recent reports have revealed a parasite
transmission of sea lice from captive to wild salmon [40]. The authors of such study have hypothesized that “if outbreaks
continue, then local extinction is certain, and a 99% collapse in pink salmon abundance is expected in four
salmon generations.” (6) Ecological Impacts Caused by Inadequate Medication Practices. Farmers usually expose their
cultured organisms to medication regimes, for different purposes such as avoiding disease outbreaks and improving growth
performance.However, monitoring studies have
detected low or high levels of a wide range of pharmaceuticals,
including hormones, steroids, antibiotics, and parasiticides, in soils, surface waters, and groundwaters [41].
These chemicals have caused imbalances in the different ecosystems. In particular, the use of hormones in aquaculture
and its environmental implications have been scarcely studied.
2nc Fishery Contamination
Aquaculture destroys surrounding organisms- trapping and fishery contamination
Porchas and Martinez-Cordova 11 (Marcel Martinez-Porchas Department of Food Technology
of Animal Research Centre in Food and Development, Km 0.7 Carretera La Victoria, Hermosillo, SON,
Mexico AND Luis R.Martinez-Cordova Department of Scientific and Technological Research of the
University of Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio Boulevard s / n, 83000, Hermosillo, SON, Mexico “World
Aquaculture: Environmental Impacts and Troubleshooting Alternatives” The ScientificWorld Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 389623 10/08/11
downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/389623.pdf)//BLOV
(8) Trapping
and Killing of Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults of Diverse Organisms. It has been estimated that, for each
million of shrimp postlarvae farmed, four to seven millions of other organisms are killed by trapping in
the nets of farms inlet [18, 43]. (9) Negative Effect on Fisheries. Although aquaculture has been proclaimed as a
solution to avoid overfishing, it has contributed in more or less proportion to the fisheries collapse.
Fishermen who work in places near to aquaculture farms argue that the contamination produced by farms has decreased
the population of aquatic organisms and in consequence their volume captures. Additionally, another
problem of similar magnitude is the extremely high aquaculture’s dependence of fishmeal and fish oil, which could be
another nonsustainable practice in aquaculture. The proportion of fishmeal supplies used for fish production have increased
from 10% in 1988 to more than 30% in the last years, which classifies aquaculture as a potential promoter of the collapse of fisheries stocks
worldwide [24].
Fishing
1NC
New Tech makes increases Fishing impacts- misuse, and increased bycatch and
discard rates
Cheung and Pitcher 13 (William W.L Cheung PhD in Resource Management and Environmental
Studies Assistant Professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre AND Tony J. Pitcher founding director of the
Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, where he is currently a professor of fisherie
“Fisheries: Hope or despair?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013 Bulletin
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Pitcher-Cheung.pdf)//BLOV
7. Bycatch and discard issues The
direct negative impacts of fishing on targeted fish popula- tions are
compounded by fishing’s effects on non-targeted species in the form of bycatch (i.e., incidental catch and
discards). A com- prehensive worldwide preliminary review in 1994 of 800 papers covering the period 1980–1990 resulted in an estimate of
about 17.9–39.5 (average of 27) million tonnes of by-catch fish being dis- carded by commercial fisheries each year ( Alverson et al., 1994 ). The
fishing gears that generated most bycatch are shrimp trawls, followed by bottom trawls, long lines, pots, Japanese high-seas drift nets, Danish
seines, purse seine targeting capelins, pelagic trawls, small pelagic purse seines, and high-seas drift nets. Species
severely impacted as
bycatch included marine mammals (e.g., the now endangered vaquita of the Gulf of California, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins,
bottlenose dolphins off the coast of South Africa, harbor porpoise in the Northwest Atlantic, striped dolphins in the Mediterranean), sea birds
(e.g., 2–9% of gannet populations, 12% of razorbill populations, and 16% of the common guillemot are estimated to be discarded by the gillnets
off Newfoundland annu- ally, based on 1980s data), and
turtles (e.g., about 50,000 logger- heads and 5000 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles were
drowned annually by the southeastern US and Gulf of Mexico trawl fishery, based on 1980s data ). It is generally agreed that
bycatch and discards are important factors affecting biodiversity conservation and fisheries management, although the magnitude of the problems are debated. A sub- sequent FAO estimate, presented in The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2006, suggested a lower total bycatch estimate of 20 million tonnes per year and 8% of the total world catch (about occurs in
artisanal fishing ( Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010 ). Species
with certain life history characteristics, such as large body size and late
sexual maturity, are particularly vulnerable to over exploi- tation ( Cheung et al., 2005 ). This includes many
commercially exploited species as well as species that are well represented in by- catch, such as groupers,
wrasses, sharks and rays. Moreover, spe- cies that live in certain habitats, such as the deep sea, are also particularly vulnerable to overfishing.
Deep-sea fishes have a significantly higher index of intrinsic vulnerability to fishing ( sensu Cheung et al., 2005 )
and lower estimated intrinsic population growth rate than other fishes in general ( Norse et al., 2012 , Fig. 6
). The intensification of deep-sea fisheries in recent decades ( Morato et al., 2006 ), the challenges in managing many parts of the
deep sea that are outside of national jurisdiction, and the low economic incentive to sustainably exploit these low productivity
deep-sea resources render conservation of these resources difficult ( Norse et al., 2012 ). The use of destructive fishing practices further amplifies
the im- pacts of unsustainable fishing on marine biodiversity and habitats. Destructive
fishing practices can include: (1) the use
of fishing gears on the wrong habitat (e.g., bottom trawls on seagrass, macro algal, or coral beds); and (2) the fishing methods that
are univer- sally considered ‘‘destructive and indiscriminate’’ in whatever cir- cumstances, and therefore should be systematically banned (e.g.,
dynamite fishing). The maintenance of critical habitat or structural features for marine biodiversity should underlie the main consid- erations in
assessing the destructiveness of fishing gears when ap- plied to a particular marine ecosystem. Technology
can play a significant
role in making fishing practices less destructive (e.g., development of devices and fishing strategies to reduce bycatch), but it
can also enhance the intensity and range of human impacts on marine biodiversity (e.g., the use of
sophisticated bottom sounders, satellite navigation, and the widespread use of synthetic fishing net/line fibers). 7.3 million tonnes instead of the
previously reported 27 million tonnes) were discarded ( Kelleher, 2005 ). The
highest quantities of discards were noted in the
Northeast Atlantic and Northwest Pa- cific, jointly accounting for 40% of the world discards. The study
confirmed the large contribution of trawls, particularly tropical shrimp trawls, to the discard problem. Indeed, in India over a mil- lion tonnes of
discards from trawlers have been identified, previ- ously reported as zero (Pramod Ganapathiraju, pers. comm.). Small-scale fisheries generally
showed lower discard rates than industrial ones, as expected, with an estimated discard rate of 3.7%. Besides the difference in the methodology
used by Alverson et al. (1994) and Kelleher (2005) , other studies also suggested that the apparent decline in discard between the 1990s and
2000s might be an indicator of more rapid decline in the availability of fish in the ocean ( Zeller and Pauly, 2005 ). Subsequently, Davies et al.
(2009) estimated the quantity of unmanaged and discarded bycatch at similar levels (>38.5 million tonnes) to the upper values by Alverson et al.
(1994) and point out that such figures were likely to be an underestimate of actual values for various reasons. Gilman et al. (2013) document a
lamentable performance of most Regional Fisheries Management organizations (RFMOs) in dealing with dis- cards and bycatch. In addition, as
mentioned earlier, abandoned and lost fishing gears (e.g., pots, traps, gill nets, set nets, and tram- mel nets) are having negative ecological
consequences on marine biodiversity (termed as ‘ghost fishing’), and
although its large-scale impacts have yet to be
quantified, overall over 85% of countries failed to deal adequately with this issue under the FAO Code of Conduct and in the
majority of case there was little or no mention of the topic of ghost fishing in any of the available
literature ( Pitcher et al., 2008a , p. 18).
Impacts
Ext Davidson, the oceans hold a huge amount of biodiversity and
are key to sustaining our world’s climate cycles
General
Ocean decline will cause mass extinction absent action- CO2 emmisions, fisheries
and chemical run-offs are creating deadzones
Harrabin 13 (Roger Harrabin is BBC’s Environment analyst, Visiting Fellow at Green Templeton
College, Oxford and an Associate Press Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge, “Health of oceans
'declining fast'” BBC, 10/3/13,http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24369244)//BLOV
A review from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), warns
that the oceans are facing multiple
threats. They are being heated by climate change, turned slowly less alkaline by absorbing CO2, and suffering from
overfishing and pollution. The report warns that dead zones formed by fertiliser run-off are a problem. It says conditions
are ripe for the sort of mass extinction event that has afflicted the oceans in the past. It says: “We have been
taking the ocean for granted. It has been shielding us from the worst effects of accelerating climate change by absorbing excess CO2 from the
atmosphere. “Whilst terrestrial temperature increases may be experiencing a pause, the ocean continues to warm regardless. For the most part,
however, the public and policymakers are failing to recognise - or choosing to ignore - the severity of the situation.” It says the cocktail of threats
facing the ocean is more powerful than the individual problems themselves. Coral
reefs, for instance, are suffering from the higher
temperatures and the effects of acidification whilst also being weakened by bad fishing practices,
pollution, siltation and toxic algal blooms. Atmospheric threshold IPSO, funded by charitable foundations, is publishing a
set of five papers based on workshops in 2011 and 2012 in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN’s) World Commission on Protected Areas. The reports call for world governments to halt CO2
increase at 450ppm. Any higher, they say, will cause massive acidification later in the century as the CO2 is absorbed into the sea. It
urges much more focused fisheries management, and a priority list for tackling the key groups of chemicals
that cause most harm. It wants the governments to negotiate a new agreement for the sustainable fishing in the high oceans to be policed
by a new global high seas enforcement agency. The IUCN’s Prof Dan Laffoley said: "What these latest reports make absolutely clear is that
deferring action will increase costs in the future and lead to even greater, perhaps irreversible, losses. " The
UN climate report
confirmed that the ocean is bearing the brunt of human-induced changes to our planet. These findings give us
more cause for alarm – but also a roadmap for action. We must use it." 'Extinction risk' The co-coordinator, Prof Alex Rogers from
Oxford University has been asked to advise the UN's own oceans assessment but he told BBC News he had led the
IPSO initiative because: "It’s important to have something which is completely independent in any way
from state influence and to say things which experts in the field felt was really needed to be said." He
said concern had grown over the past year thanks to papers signalling that past extinctions had involved warming seas, acidification and low
oxygen levels. All are on the rise today. He agreed there was debate on whether fisheries are recovering by better management following
examples in the US and Europe, but said it seemed clear that globally they were not. He also admitted a debate about whether overall climate
change would increase the amount of fish produced in the sea. Melting
sea ice would increase fisheries near the poles
whilst stratification of warmer waters in the tropics would reduce mixing of nutrients and lead to lower
production, he said. He said dead zones globally appeared to be increasing although this may reflect increased reporting. "On ocean
acidification, we are seeing effects that no-one predicted like the inability of fish to detect their environments properly. It’s clear that it will affect
many species. We really do have to get a grip on what’s going on in the oceans," he said.
Ocean decline causes extinction- synergistic effects create rapid transformation of
ecosystems
Jackson 08( Jeremy B. C. Jackson Postdoctoral Fellowship in Biology , McGill University, Ph.D. in
Medical Genetics (2005), University of British Columbia, Marine ecologist, paleontologist and a
professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Senior Scientist Emeritus at the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in the Republic of Panama. “Ecological extinction and evolution
in the brave new ocean” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) vol. 105 Supplement
1, 8/12/08, http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11458.full?tab=author-info)//BLOV
The great mass extinctions of the fossil record were a major creative force that provided entirely new
kinds of opportunities for the subsequent explosive evolution and diversification of surviving clades.
Today, the synergistic effects of human impacts are laying the groundwork for a comparably great
Anthropocene mass extinction in the oceans with unknown ecological and evolutionary
consequences. Synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overfishing, introduced species, warming,
acidification, toxins, and massive runoff of nutrients are transforming once complex ecosystems like coral
reefs and kelp forests into monotonous level bottoms, transforming clear and productive coastal seas into
anoxic dead zones, and transforming complex food webs topped by big animals into simplified,
microbially dominated ecosystems with boom and bust cycles of toxic dinoflagellate blooms, jellyfish,
and disease. Rates of change are increasingly fast and nonlinear with sudden phase shifts to novel
alternative community states. We can only guess at the kinds of organisms that will benefit from this
mayhem that is radically altering the selective seascape far beyond the consequences of fishing or
warming alone. The prospects are especially bleak for animals and plants compared with metabolically
flexible microbes and algae. Halting and ultimately reversing these trends will require rapid and
fundamental changes in fisheries, agricultural practice, and the emissions of greenhouse gases on a global
scale.
Oceans are important- food, economy, bioprospecting and cultural heritage
UNESCO 10 (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization “Healthy Ocean,
Healthy People” UNESCO 2010 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002166/216651e.pdf)//BLOV
Covering more than two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, the
ocean is at the origins of life on Earth and makes the Earth
habitable for people. It also provides us with a vital source of nourishment, especially to people in the
world’s poorest nations. Many depend on fish for their primary source of protein; fisheries and aquaculture support the
livelihoods of about 540 million people (8% of the world’s population) directly or indirectly. Marine and
coastal resources and industries also represent more than 5% of global GDP. The ocean provides benefits to economic
sectors such as fisheries, energy, tourism, and transport/ shipping, as well as ‘non-market’ benefits such as climate regulation, carbon
sequestration, habitat and biodiversity, among many others. The
ocean also offers exciting opportunities for the
development of new drugs to treat all sorts of human ailments. Products based on marine organisms have
already found their way onto the market and are now being prescribed for patients that have asthma,
tuberculosis and cancer. Other industries, such as those that produce oil or paper, are also “bioprospecting” the deep
sea with promising results. While there is no consensus on the financial benefits derived from worldwide sales of biotechnology-related
products taken from all types of marine environments, these are estimated to represent a multi-billion dollar market. The ocean also holds
great promise for developing new types of renewable energy, particularly marine renewable energies. Considering that
the ocean and seas cover 70% of the earth, this could potentially be a considerable source of renewable energy. The ocean and its
resources are also a part of our common heritage and an important part of many cultures, whose beliefs
and practices are closely associated with the marine and coastal environment. The protection and valorization of
these natural and cultural marine heritage sites can foster sustainable development, especially for developing countries and Small Island
Developing States (SIDS).
Oceans are important
Allen 11 (J. Icarus Allen , Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH,
UK“Marine Environment and Human Health: An Overview” Issues in Environmental Science and
Technology, 33 Marine Pollution and Human Health, Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/9781849732871-00001)//BLOV
Marine ecosystems and biodiversity are already under pressure from pollu- tion and overfishing. The
marine dimensions of global climate change, such as ocean warming, sea-level rise and changes to ocean chemistry driven in part
by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, will influence the marine envir- onment and its impacts on human
health. Warmer temperatures and acid- ification will lead to changes in species reproduction, feeding
and, with associated changes in distributions of marine organisms, more frequent algae blooms and shifts
in plankton communities. Phytoplankton is a key component of the marine ecosystem, fixing atmospheric carbon and providing the
primary food source for the zooplankton, and together they form the base of the oceanic food chain. Larger invertebrates, fish and mammals
depend on plankton for their survival. Changing
conditions can lead to shifts in the traditional ranges of marine
species, 4 resulting in latitudinal shifts in fisheries. 5 In addition, coastal and offshore waters and a range of
sensitive marine habitats, such as coral reefs, are likely to be vulnerable to changes in sea-level rise and ocean acidification.
Increasing temperature may also influence pollution impacts. For example, it has been shown that warming around the Faroe Islands will
facilitate the methylation of mercury, resulting in an estimated 3–5% increase in the mercury content of cod for a 1 1 C rise in seawater
temperature. 6 Combinations of such changes will impact on fisheries and aquaculture and will require adaptive measures in order to exploit
opportunities and to minimise negative impacts.
The World Health Organisation estimated that over the last 30 years
150 000 lives per year are lost due to anthropogenic climate change impacts on tem- perature and
precipitation. Climatic variations and extreme weather events have profound impacts on infectious disease. 7 The impact of climate
change on water quality and quantity is also expected to increase the risk of contamina- tion of public
water supplies. Both extreme rainfall and droughts can increase the total microbial loads in freshwater and have implications for disease
out- breaks and water quality in estuaries and coastal seas. In particular, infectious agents such as viruses, bacteria and
protozoa do not have thermostatic mechanisms, and reproduction and survival rates are strongly affected
by fluctuations in temperature. For example, cholera has been shown to vary with climatic fluctuations and sea surface temperatures
associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation 8 and many foodborne infectious diseases are sensitive to higher than average temperatures. 7
Finally, coastal
tourism will also be affected as a consequence of accelerated coastal erosion and changes in
the marine environment and marine water quality, with less fish and more frequent jellyfish and algae
blooms.
Overfishing->BioD loss
Overfishing is the largest internal link to marine biodiversity loss- current models
are underestimates because of insufficient species data
Cheung and Pitcher 13 (William W.L Cheung PhD in Resource Management and Environmental
Studies Assistant Professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre AND Tony J. Pitcher founding director of the
Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, where he is currently a professor of fisherie
“Fisheries: Hope or despair?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013
Bulletinhttp://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Pitcher-Cheung.pdf)//BLOV
6. Biodiversity issues Overfishing
is considered the primary driver of biodiversity loss in marine
ecosystems ( Dulvy et al., 2003; Baillie et al., 2010; Hoff- mann et al., 2010 ). Of the 133 local, regional, and global extinctions of
marine species documented worldwide, mainly in the last two centuries, with a few dating as far back as the 11th
century, 55% were caused by unsustainable exploitation, with the remainder driven by habitat loss and other threats ( Dulvy
et al., 2003 ). In areas where fisheries are well-managed, other human impacts such as habitat degradation,
pollution and invasive species, pose great threats to biodiversity ( Kearney, 2013 ). Currently, over 550 species of
marine fishes and invertebrates are listed as threatened (Critically endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable) in the IUCN
Red List ( Fig. 5 ). Of these species, the majority (80%) is threatened by ‘‘fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources’’ .
This is an under- estimate because only a small proportion of marine organisms have been assessed for
their conservation status and many species do not have sufficient data (categorized as ‘‘data deficient’’) to be
classified under any threatened status. For example, recently, all the 163 species of extant groupers (Serranidae) were assessed by
the IUCN, of which 20 species (12%) are considered to be at risk of extinction, while 22 species (13%) are considered near threa- tened and 30%
are listed as data deficient ( Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2013 ). These groupers are listed as threatened primarily be- cause of overfishing.
Overall, commercial fisheries pose the princi- ple threat to biodiversity, but unsustainable exploitation also
Keystone Species
Marine Mammals are essential to the ocean ecosystem
Bohle 8 (Robert Bohle, 25 years of experience writing for professional publications specializing in
Oceanography, “The Effects of Ocean Pollution on Marine Mammals”, Blue Voice Organization, March
2008, http://www.bluevoice.org/news_issueseffects.php)
What the study didn’t cover directly may be even more disturbing: marine
mammals are suffering dramatic rises in
devastating illnesses, such as nervous and digestive system problems, liver disease, contaminantinduced immunosuppression, endocrine system damage, reproductive malformations, and growth
and development issues. Worse yet is the alarming growth in cancer cases. Many scientists around the world believe
these illnesses are being caused by contamination of the ocean with man-made toxic chemicals. Because
marine mammals are at the top of their food chain, the toxins in their food sources accumulates in
their bodies, especially in their fatty tissues and breast milk. Toxins in plankton are consumed by small fish, which are
in turn eaten by larger fish, which are eaten by even larger fish. Eventually marine mammals and humans, each higher up the food chain, eat the
now-toxic fish, further concentrating the toxins. This
bio-concentration is what causes high levels of toxins in dolphins,
whales, and other marine mammals. Nine of the 10 species with the highest polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) levels are marine mammals. The Toxic Top Ten: bottlenose dolphin, orca. Risso’s dolphin, harbor seal,
beluga, Mediterranean monk seal, common dolphin, gray seal, polar bear. The 10th is the Steller’s sea eagle. The
declining health of ocean-going mammals, especially the increase in various cancers, sends an undeniable
message to humans. Thus dolphins and other marine mammals are showing us our future – unless we change our ways. Marine
mammals are sending an unambiguous message to humankind: clean up the toxic soup we live next to,
swim in, and draw fish from, or pay a very high price in human lives.
Beluga whales pushed towards extinction
Bohle 8 (Robert Bohle, 25 years of experience writing for professional publications specializing in
Oceanography, “The Effects of Ocean Pollution on Marine Mammals”, Blue Voice Organization, March
2008, http://www.bluevoice.org/news_issueseffects.php)
The beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Estuary have had the dubious honor of being
the "most toxic mammal" in the western hemisphere. Beluga carcasses are so saturated with
agricultural runoff-delivered chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and phosphorus, that their
carcasses must be handled like toxic waste. The SLE belugas also suffer from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
which are involved with the etiology of cancer. Among several kinds of cancer observed in these belugas is cancer
of the proximal intestine, a rare form in all species, including humans. But it is frequently seen in species exposed
to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic, commonly known as 2,4-D, an herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds. According to researcher Daniel
Martineau, the rate of cancer among these belugas is higher than in any population of wild terrestrial or aquatic animals. As a comparison, a study
of 50 belugas examined in the Canadian Arctic found no cancers.
Killer whales vulnerable to extinction
Bohle 8 (Robert Bohle, 25 years of experience writing for professional publications specializing in
Oceanography, “The Effects of Ocean Pollution on Marine Mammals”, Blue Voice Organization, March
2008, http://www.bluevoice.org/news_issueseffects.php)
A 22-year-old female orca (Orcinus orca), or killer whale, was found dead on Washington's Olympic
peninsula, and her PCB level was so high, technically the carcass was toxic waste. The PCBs probably came from
an earlier dredging in the late 1990s of the harbor in Seattle, which sent out a plume of PCB-laced sediment. Two years prior to this disturbing
discovery, PCB levels averaged 58 parts of PCB per million of fat in dead orcas found by scientists. This particular orca had roughly 1,000 ppm.
High toxin levels throughout its habitat have dropped the average life expectancy for a male orca
more than in half, according to Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, WA. Some orca calfs don’t
even make it at all: typically, the first calf born to a female dies, because the mother passes on much of
her accumulated contaminants to that first calf through her breast milk. Subsequent calfs, however, fare better because
the mother’s toxin levels have been lowered. A 2007 study found that the effects of PCB contamination in Pacific Northwest orcas will last to at
least 2030 for the northern population of 230 animals. The southern population of 85 may face risks until 2063. PCBs make whales more
vulnerable to infectious diseases, and impede normal growth and development. Also, POPs impair reproduction because they are estrogen
imitators and cause low sperm counts. Because of the “persistent” nature of the contaminants known collectively as POPs, we need to take action
immediately. The
toxins that have quickly and quietly impacted the health of marine mammals, our
sentinels, are in all of us.
Whales keep ecosystems running - keystone
Zimmer and Ferrer 07 (Richard and Ryan, professors of Biology at UCLA, “Neuroecology,
Chemical Defense, and the Keystone Species Concept”, The Biological Bulletin, Dec. 2007,
http://www.biolbull.org/content/213/3/208.full)
Consumption of STX-laden zooplankton or their incapacitated predators can have dramatic effects on top pelagic predators. Vertebrates such as
fish (Adams et al., 1968; White, 1980, 1981), seabirds (Nisbet, 1983; Shumway et al., 2003), and marine mammals (Geraci et al., 1989; Reyero et
al., 1999; Doucette et al., 2006) are much more sensitive to STX and its derivatives than are invertebrate grazers. Consequently, after
dinoflagellate blooms, large-scale vertebrate mortality arises from ingestion of STX-laden planktonic organisms. Massive
die-offs of
top pelagic predators such as right whales (Doucette et al., 2006), monk seals (Reyero et al., 1999), and several species of fish
(White, 1980, 1981) can lead to dramatic cascading effects throughout entire planktonic communities
(Carpenter et al., 1985; Myers and Worm, 2003; Bruno and O'Connor, 2005).
Keystone loss spills over to cascading biodiversity loss
McKinney 03 (Michael, Director of Environmental Studies, University of Texas, PHD from Yale,
http://books.google.com/books?id=NJUanyPkh0AC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=manatees+%22keysto
ne+species%22&source=bl&ots=rB1vju6y6v&sig=isIAuB81ZM_Hv4PAMp2EKt4lH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kaX7T_GoEYiorQHfrZ2LCQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=
onepage&q=manatees%20%22keystone%20species%22&f=false, )
Are All Species Equally Important? With so many species at risk, triage decisions cannot be made on the basis of risk alone.
Conservation biologists therefore often ask whether one species is more important than another. Ethically, perhaps one could argue that all
species are equal; an insect may have as much right to live as a panther. But in other ways, in particular. In ecological and evolutionary
importance, all species are not equal. Ecological
importance reflects the role a species plays in its ecological
community. Keystone species play large roles because they affect so many other species. Large predators,
for example, often control the population dynamics of many herbivores. When the predators, such as
wolves, are removed, the herbivore population may increase rapidly, overgrazing plants and causing
massive ecological disruption. Similarly, certain plants are crucial food for many animal species in some ecosystems. Extinction
of keystone species will often have cascading effects on many species, even causing secondary
extinctions. Many therefore argue that saving keystone species should be a priority.
Keystone species loss risks entire ecosystems
Poland 13 (Anastasia, Managing editor for MSN News at Microsoft, “Keystone species' loss could
cause ecosystem to collapse”, MSN News, 4/22/13, http://news.msn.com/science-technology/keystonespecies-loss-could-cause-ecosystem-to-collapse)
The theory is that like the wedge-shaped keystone (or headstone) that locks together all the pieces used in
an architectural arch, there are species that keep certain ecosystems in together. Removal of the
species can cause the eventual collapse of the ecosystem.
Ecosystems rely on keystone species
Tripathi and Law 06 (R.S. and P., Plant ecology Professors at University of Gorakhpur, “Keystone
Species: The Concept, their Ecological Significance and Determining their Keystone Status”,
EnviroNews, July 2006, http://isebindia.com/05_08/06-07-2.html)
The keystone species play a central and critical role in maintenance of community structure and
ecosystem functioning. If an ecosystem can be returned to a state in which the keystone species
flourish, then all the other species, which depend on them, will also flourish. The importance of biodiversity in
environmental management beside socioeconomic development and well being of human society, has led to the development of various
techniques for conservation of floristic and ecological diversity. Some simple ways of managing the natural systems should be evolved so as to
retain and conserve the identity of a landscape or region for a better tomorrow.
One of the simplest ways of doing so is by
identifying species, which play the key role of holding together the entire biological community or
ecosystem. These species are known as 'keystone species' in ecological term. The central core of keystone
concept is that only a few species have uniquely important effect on the community or ecosystem by
virtue of their uniquely important traits and attributes. Only those species can be considered as keystone species that had a
significant effect on 'time window' of other species. For example, changes in climate may differentially affect the growth rate of emergent species
in a forest, which in turn could affect other species. In most of the cases, it is indeed groups of species rather than individual species that assume
importance and these species groups could be referred to as the 'keystone groups' or 'functional groups'. Keystone species or 'keystone species
groups' play a vital role in maintaining ecosystem and regulating the biodiversity. Loss
of vital function, and changes within the
ecosystem or community would follow if such species groups are removed from the system. These
species are 'responsible' for the existence of an ecosystem of certain type and create possibilities for
the development of other types of communities. Biodiversity within an area can be characterized by measures of species
richness, species diversity, taxic diversity, and functional diversity, each highlighting different perspectives. Functional diversity refers to the
varieties of functions carried out by different species and groups of species known as functional groups. According to Smirnova (1998), there is a
correlation between structural and taxonomic diversity. The maximum taxonomic diversity could be expected in a climax landscape, which
develops due to the structural diversity of population mosaic produced by all key species of the biota and the spatial and temporal heterogeneity
of these mosaics. The population dynamics of keystone species define the pattern of succession of vegetation. Turnover cycles of matter and
energy flows in an ecosystem are dominated by the life activity of keystone species, and these activities determine the major shifts in ecosystem
structure at the spatial and temporal scales. Population mosaics of keystone species have largest spatial-temporal dimensions, and population
mosaics of subordinate species are thereby determined by the keystone species. Keystone species are responsible for the existence of the
ecosystem and maintenance of its species diversity. So
the biodiversity in any ecosystem can be manipulated by
perturbations in such uniquely important species.
Soil Impact
Soil erosion causes extinction
Allemang 07 (John, writer for The Globe and Mail, “Planet Earth has a dirty little secret,” Journal:
Globe and Mail, 5/12/07, p. 4)
Dirt is disappearing, and when it goes, we go. It's a simple fact that we're using up our finite supply of good soil
faster than it can be made, and whatever our eyes choose to tell us, a crisis is looming. Of course, like so much else about dirt,
even its do-or-die crisis manages to be barely perceptible. In a world prepared to welcome the inconvenient truths of environmental degradation,
and even make them the markers of intellectual fashion, poor old untrendy dirt somehow falls to the bottom of the global to-do list. Air pollution,
water contamination, the limited lifespan of fossil fuels, the urgent need to confront climate change no matter how far away its worst threats may
be - we get it, whatever don't-worry governments and vested interests like to pretend to the contrary. But erosion as the ultimate catastrophe, the
dusty death blow? Somehow it's hard to feel apocalyptic about something you buy at a garden centre, scrape off your boots before walking
through the door or scrub off your lettuce before the salad can be made. "We take it for granted," agrees David R. Montgomery - which is a pretty
hard admission for a man who has made it his goal to alert a distracted world to the crisis of lost soil. To his practised eyes, at least, the best part
of the Earth is eroding and the
danger signs are everywhere: bare plowed soil carried off by wind or rain, rivers
choked by sediment from clear-cut forests, over-irrigated fields turned into salt-contaminated deserts,
huge unprotected tracts of wheat or corn dependent on chemical fertilizer to replace the nutrients
corporate agriculture discards, the constant stripping of topsoil to create new suburbias. Our complacency is so
instinctive, our wastefulness so extreme, that Dr. Montgomery has come up with a disturbing new name for modern agriculture: soil mining.
"We only have a fixed amount of soil - and we're digging it up," he says. Dr. Montgomery is a geomorphologist at the
University of Washington in Seattle, a well-travelled and well-read monitor of Earth's thin skin who knows that a civilization's lifespan depends
on how it treats - or mistreats - its dirt. As a student of the Earth's eons of slow but certain transformations, he is trained to spot the big-picture
inevitabilities the rest of us miss, and of this he is certain: "We're
on track to lose most of our agricultural soils. And even
if we solve the water crisis and the climate crisis, if we don't conserve soil, then that will do us in." You hear
that, and you look around at the lushness of life in the spring, and the doomsday scenario seems unconvincing. Dirt is everywhere, the fields are
full of crops, the supermarket shelves have their usual cornucopia look of gross overabundance and, if
there's a famine in a far-off
place, as there always is, can it really all come down to a few inches of topsoil that has gone missing? Yes is
the short answer, according to Dr. Montgomery's wide-ranging new book, Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, which is to be published this week
and has been deemed "a compelling manifesto" by New Scientist magazine. He
takes pains to demonstrate the key role played
by soil degradation in almost every civilization that once claimed to dominate the Earth - a useful antidote
to the Golden Age nostalgia for a more harmonious past that afflicts many in the environmental
movement. Wrecking soil, he implies, is something humans do, given the opportunity, because we're programmed to think of immediate
issues such as personal survival rather than forgoing our inheritance to benefit the farmers of the future. And one reason we can do this with a
clear conscience is our belief that soil is everywhere. "People just don't realize that not all soils are good agricultural soils," Dr. Montgomery
says. "And even with good soils, the pace at which it's being lost is slow by human standards even if it's quite rapid by geologic standards." You
don't have to be a geologist to spot the problem. At least since the Dust Bowl crisis of the Depression era,
when much of North America was blanketed by thick clouds of soil eroded off the drought-ridden prairie,
soil specialists have put forward strong arguments for conservation - arguments that are all the more
crucial since the western plains, as Dr. Montgomery observes, "are one of the few places on the planet that can
produce agricultural surpluses and feed the world."
Soil Erosion causes extinction
Ikerd 99 (John, Professor of Agricultural Economics at University of Missouri, “Foundational
Principles: Soils, Stewardship, and Sustainability”, 9/22/1999,
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/NCSOILS.html)
A foundation is "the basis upon which something stands or is supported" (Webster). The basic premises of this discourse on "foundational
principles" is that soil
is the foundation for all of life, including humanity, that stewardship of soil is the
foundation for agricultural sustainability, and that sustainability is the conceptual foundation for wise soil
management. All living things require food of one kind or another to keep them alive. Life also requires
air and water, but nothing lives from air and water alone. Things that are not directly rooted in the soil --
that live in the sea, on rocks, or on trees, for example -- still require minerals that come from the earth.
They must have soil from somewhere. Living things other than plants get their food from plants, or from other living things that feed on plants,
and plants feed on the soil. All life may not seem to have roots in the soil, but soil is still at the root of all life. First, I am not a soil scientist. I
took a class in soils as an undergraduate and have learned a good bit about soils from reading and listening to other people over the years. But, I
make no claim to being an expert. So I will try to stick to the things that almost anyone might know or at least understand about soil. As I was
doing some reading on the subject, I ran across a delightful little book called, "The Great World’s Farm," written by an English author, Selina
Gaye, somewhere around the turn of the century. The copyrights apparently had run out, since the book didn’t have a copyright date. Back then
people didn’t know so much about everything, so they could get more of what they knew about a lot more things in a little book. The book starts
off explaining how soil is formed from rock, proceeds through growth and reproduction of plants and animals, and concludes with cycles of life
and the balance of nature. But, it stresses that all life is rooted in the soil. Initially molten lava covered all of the earth’s crust. So, all soil started
out as rock. Most plants have to wait until rock is pulverized into small particles before they can feed on the minerals contained in the rock.
Chemical reaction with oxygen and carbon dioxide, wearing away by wind and water, expansion and contraction from heating and cooling, and
rock slides and glaciers have all played important roles in transforming the earth’s crust from rock into soil. However, living things also help
create soil for other living things. Lichens are a unique sort of plant that can grow directly on rock. Their spores settle on rock and begin to grow.
They extract their food by secreting acids, which dissolve the minerals contained in the rock. As lichens grow and die, minerals are left in their
remains to provide food for other types of plants. Some plants which feed on dead lichens put down roots, which penetrate crevices in rocks
previously caused by mechanical weathering. Growth or roots can split and crumble rock further, exposing more surfaces to weathering and
accelerating the process of soil making. Specific types of rock contain limited varieties of minerals and will feed limited varieties of plants – even
when pulverized into dust. Many plants require more complex combinations of minerals than are available from any single type of rock. So the
soils made from various types of rocks had to be mixed with other types before they would support the variety and complexity of plant life that
we have come to associate with nature. Sand and dust can be carried from one place to another by wind and water, mixing with sand and dust
from other rocks along the way. Glaciers have also been important actors in mixing soil. Some of the richest soils in the world are fertile
bottomlands along flooding streams and rivers, loess hills that were blown and dropped by the wind, and soil deposits left behind by retreating
glaciers. Quoting from the "Great World’s Farm," "No soil is really fertile, whatever the mineral matter composing it, unless it also contains some
amount of organic matter – matter derived from organized, living things, whether animal or vegetable. Organic matter alone is not enough to
make a fertile soil; but with less than one-half percent of organic matter, no soil can be cultivated to much purpose." After the mixed soil minerals
are bound in place by plants, and successions of plants and animals added organic matter and tilth, the mixtures became what we generally refer
to as soils. The first stages of soil formation are distinguished from the latter stages by at least one important characteristic. The dissolving,
grinding, and mixing required millions of years, whereas, soil binding and adding organic matter can be accomplished in a matter of decades.
Thus, the mineral fraction of soil is a "non-renewable" resource – it cannot be recreated or renewed within any realistic future timeframe.
Whereas, the organic fraction is a renewable or regenerative resource that can be recreated or renewed over decades, or at least over a few
generations. Misuse can displace, degrade, or destroyed the productivity of both fractions of soils within a matter of years. And, once the mineral
fraction of soil is lost, its productivity is lost forever. If there are to be productive soils in the future, we must conserve and make wise use of the
soils we have today. The soil that washes down our rivers to the sea is no more renewable than are the fossil fuels that we are mining from
ancient deposit within the earth. In spite of our best efforts, some quantity of soil will be lost – at least lost to our use. Thus, our only hope for
sustaining soil productivity is to conserve as much soil as we can and to build up soil organic matter and enhance the productivity of the soil that
remains. In times not too long past, the connection between soil and human life was clear and ever present.
Little more than a century ago, most people were farmers and those who were not lived close enough to a farm to know that the food that gave
them life came from the soil. They knew that when the soil was rich, the rains came, and the temperature was hospitable to plants and animals,
food was bountiful and there was plenty to eat. They knew that when droughts came, plants dried out and died, and the soil was bare, there was
little to eat. They knew when the floods came, plants were covered with water and died, and the soil was bare; there was little to eat. They knew
very well that their physical well being, if not their lives, depended on the things that lived from the soil. William Albrecht, a well known soil
scientist at the University of Missouri during the middle of this century, hypothesized that people from different parts of the country had
distinctive physical characteristics linked to the soils of the area where they grew up. He attributed those physical distinctions to differences in
nutrient values of the foods they eat, which in turn depended on the make-up of the soils on which their foodstuffs were grown. Albrecht’s
hypothesis was never fully tested. As people began to move from one place to another throughout their lives, and as more and more foodstuffs
were shipped from one region of production to another for consumption, people no longer ate food from any one region or soil type. But it’s quite
possible that when people lived most of their lives in one place, and ate mostly food produced locally, their physical makeup was significantly
linked to the make up of local soils. Today, we eat from many soils, from all around the world. Even today there is a common saying that "we are
what we eat." If so, "we actually are the soil from which we eat." The
connection between soil and life is no longer so
direct or so clear, but it is still there. Most urban dwellers also have lost all sense of personal connection to the farm or the soil.
During most of this century many people living in cities either had lived on a farm at one time or knew someone, usually a close relative, who
still lived on a farm -- which gave them some tangible connection with the soil. At least they knew that "land" meant something more than just a
place to play or space to be filled with some form of "development." But these personal connections have been lost with the aging of
urbanization. One of the most common laments among farmers today is that "people no longer know where their food comes from." For most,
any real understanding of the direct connection between soil and life has been lost. It ‘s sad but true. What’s even sadder is that many farmers
don’t realize the dependence of their own farming operation on the health and natural productivity of their soil. They have been told by the
experts that soil is little more than a medium for propping up the plants so they can be fed with commercial fertilizers and protected by
commercial pesticides until they produce a bountiful harvest. In the short run, this illusion of production without natural soil fertility appears real.
As long as the soil has a residue of minerals and organic matter from times past, annual amendments of a few basic nutrients – nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potash, being the most common – crop yields can be maintained. Over time, however, as organic matter becomes depleted,
production problems appear and it becomes increasingly expensive to maintain productivity. As additional "trace elements" are depleted, soil
management problems become more complex. Eventually, it will become apparent that it would have been far easier and less costly in the long
run to have maintained the natural fertility of the soil. But, by then much of the natural productivity will be gone -- forever. In the meantime,
many farmers will have little sense of their ultimate dependence on the soil. Still, all
of life depends upon soil. All life requires
food and there is simply no other source of food except living things that depend directly or indirectly on
the soil. This is a foundational principle of natural science, of human health, and of social studies that should
be taught at every level in every school in the world -- beginning in kindergarten and continuing through college. That we must have
soil to live is as fundamental as the fact that we must have air to breath, water to drink, and food to
eat. It’s just less obvious.
2NC Generic Productivity Turn
Loss of Marine Biodiversity turns case- decreases productivity of oceans
Worm et al 06 (Boris Worm and Heike K. Lotze, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Canada AND Edward B. Barbier,
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Nicola BeaumontPlymouth Marine Laboratory UK AND J. Emmett Duffy,
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, AND Carl Folke, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Beijer International Institute of
Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden AND Benjamin S. Halpern and Kimberley A. Selkoe National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA AND Jeremy B. C. Jackson, Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conserva- tion, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, Smithsonian Tropical R esearch Institute Republic of Panama AND Fiorenza Micheli, and Stephen R.
Palumbi, Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University AND Enric Sala, Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conserva- tion, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, La Jolla, CA AND John J. Stachowicz, Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of CaliforniaAND Reg Watson Fisheries
Centre, University of British Columbia Canada “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services” Science 314, 787, 2006
http://web.stanford.edu/group/Palumbi/manuscripts/impacts%20of%20biodiversity%20loss%20on%20ocean%20ecosystem%20services.pdf)//BL
OV
Conclusions. Positive relationships between diversity and ecosystem functions and services were found
using experimental (Fig. 1) and correlative approaches along trajectories of diversity loss (Figs. 2 and 3)
and recovery (Fig. 4). Our data highlight the societal consequences of an ongoing erosion of diversity that
appears to be accelerating on a global scale (Fig. 3A). This trend is of serious concern because it
projects the global collapse of all taxa currently fished by the mid – 21st century (based on the
extrapolation of regression in Fig. 3A to 100% in the year 2048). Our findings further suggest that the
elimination of locally adapted populations and species not only impairs the ability of marine ecosystems
to feed a growing human population but also sabotages their stability and recovery potential in a
rapidly changing marine environment. We recognize limitations in each of our data sources, particularly
the inherent problem of inferring causality from c orrelation in the larger- scale studies. The strength of
these results rests on the consistent agreement of theory, exper- iments, and observations across widely
different scales and ecosystems. Our analysis may provide a wider context for the interpretation of local
biodiversity experiments that produced diverging and controversial outcomes ( 1 , 3 , 24 ). It suggests that
very general patterns emerge on progressive- ly larger scales. High-diversity systems consist- ently
provided more services with less variability, which has economic and p olicy implications. First, there
is no dichotomy between biodiversity conservation and long-term economic develop- ment; they must be
viewed as interdependent societal goals. Second, there was no evidence for redundancy at high levels of
diversity; the improvement of services was continuous on a log-linear scale (Fig. 3). Third, the buffering
impact of species diversity on the resistance and recovery of ecosystem services generates insur- ance
value that must be incorporated into future economic valuations and management deci- sions. By
restoring marine biodiversity through sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of
essential habitats, and the creation of marine reserves, we can invest in the productivity and reliability of
the goods and services that the ocean provides to humanity. Our analyses suggest that business as usual
would foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability,
affecting current and future generations.
***2NC AT: Resiliency, Sedjko
Resiliency is flawed- fails to take into account multiple pressures
Hughes et al 05 (Terrence P. Hughes and David R. Bellwood Centre for Coral Reef Biodiversity, School of Marine Biology &
Aquaculture, James Cook University, Australia AND Carl Folke Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, and Beijer International
Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden AND Robert S. Steneck School of Marine
Sciences, University of Maine, Darling Marine Center, AND James Wilson School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, “New paradigms for
supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems” TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.20 No.7 July 2005
http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/csums/papers/Ecostability/hughesparadigms.pdf) //BLOV
The importance of scale Developing
marine policy and managing natural resources requires multi-scale
ecological and social infor- mation. Traditionally, most ecological studies are brief and localized. However, the need for advice on
how to cope with the impacts of environmental degradation, climate change and widespread overfishing is a major driver of an accelerating trend
for the scaling-up of marine ecological studies. For example, the
history of ecosystems (i.e. how they got to be in their current
condition) is an important aspect of temporal scale that has far-reaching conse- quences for research and resource
management [1,8,46–49] . If we ignore history and are unaware of trajectories of change, then a system is more likely to
be falsely perceived as being stable and pristine [40] . In recent years, ecologists have focused increasingly on the cumulative
and interactive effects of sequences of events, rather than concentrating solely on the most recent insult that leads to ecosystem collapse
[1,15,16,20] . Nonetheless, most
researchers still view resilience in terms of recovery from the most recent single
disturbances, such as a storm or hurricane, to a single equilibrium. By contrast, social– ecological resilience focuses on
absorbing recurrent per- turbations, and on coping with uncertainty and risk, recognizing that
disturbance and change are an integral component of complex SESs [21,22,50] . Consequently, the timeframe for
understanding and managing SES resi- lience is often much longer than the conventional one– three years of
most ecological studies. For example, it is sobering to consider that, in the timeframe required for comprehensive
regeneration of fish stocks in coral reef NTAs ( O 20 years), the human population size of develop- ing
countries is likely to double [51] .
Species Snowball- small degradations push us closer to threshold of collapse
Hughes et al 05 (Terrence P. Hughes and David R. Bellwood Centre for Coral Reef Biodiversity, School of Marine Biology &
Aquaculture, James Cook University, Australia AND Carl Folke Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, and Beijer International
Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden AND Robert S. Steneck School of Marine
Sciences, University of Maine, Darling Marine Center, AND James Wilson School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, “New paradigms for
supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems” TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.20 No.7 July 2005
http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/csums/papers/Ecostability/hughesparadigms.pdf) //BLOV
The spatial scale of dispersal of larvae, pollutants and exotic species is crucial for our understanding of the dynamics of marine systems and for
sustaining SES resilience ( Figure 2 ). Traditionally,
marine ecologists have assumed that local populations are open
and that the production and supply of larvae, although often highly variable, is effectively inexhaustible. A
corollary of this expectation is that damaged ecosystems will recover to equilibrium conditions given sufficient time ( Box 1 ). However, larval
dispersal is surprisingly limited for many coastal species [55] and, consequently, the
local loss of reproductive adults (e.g. through
disrupt stock–recruitment relationships [56] . Self-seeding populations
on remote islands or reefs are particularly vulnerable [57] . Con- versely, species with long-distance dispersal should be more
resistant to habitat fragmentation, leading to a filtering effect that selectively impacts on species with limited dispersal abilities ( Figure 2 ).
Even where local populations are highly interconnected by multiple sources of larvae, if too many
patches of habitat degrade, the remaining healthy ones can cata- strophically collapse, once a critical
threshold is passed [58] . From a complex-systems perspective, the small- scale degradation of each patch represents a
phase shift (e.g. when algae replace corals on a single reef). Further- more, the dynamics of individual patches can
propagate through larval dispersal to much larger scales, potentially leading to a phase shift of the entire
system [41,58,59] .We speculate that a system-wide collapse is currently unfold- ing in the Caribbean, where the last few relatively intact coral
overfishing, disease or climate change) can
reefs are increasingly vulnerable to degradation [3,7,60] . Importantly, because system-wide collapse is an emergent property of small-scale
dynamics, even the most rigorous management of remnant areas could be too little, too late. The important lesson for conservation is that multiscale dynamics requires multi-scale management, not just small-scale meddling
Zoonotic Disease Module
Maintaining ocean health is key to prevent proliferation of microbial pathogenscoastal ecosystems are our first line of defense from disaster
Stewart et al 08 (Jill R Stewart* 1 , Rebecca J Gast 2 , Roger S Fujioka 3 , Helena M Solo-Gabriele 4 , J Scott Meschke 5 , Linda A
Amaral-Zettler 6 , Erika del Castillo 6 , Martin F Polz 7 , Tracy K Collier 8 , Mark S Strom 8 , Christopher D Sinigalliano 9,10 , Peter DR
Moeller 1 and A Fredrick Holland 1 Address: 1 Hollings Marine Laboratory, NOAA National Ocean Service, Charleston, SC 29412, USA, 2
Woods Hole Oceanogr aphic Institution, Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Hu man Health, Woods Ho le, MA 02543, USA, 3 Water Resources
Research Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA, 4 Rosenstiel School for Marine and At mospheric Sciences, University of
Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, USA, 5 Department of Environmental and Occupa tional Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98105-6099, USA, 6 The Josephine Bay Paul Center for Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution, Mari ne Biological Laboratory, Woods
Hole Center for Oceans and Hum an Health, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA, 7 Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT, Woods Hole Center
for Oceans and Human Health, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, 8 Northwest Fisheries Scienc e Center, NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, WA 98112, USA,
9 Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmo spheric Research, Miami, FL 33149, USA and 10
Cooperative Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Studies, University of Mi ami, Miami, FL 33149, USA“The coastal environment and human
health: microbial indicators, pathogens, sentinels and reservoirs” enters for Oceans and Human Health Investigators Meeting
11/08http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1476-069X-7-S2-S3.pdf)//BLOV
Bodies of water, particularly the coastal oceans and the Great Lakes, provide a source of food,
employment, recre- ation and residence, and are the first defense from various natural and man-made
hazards and disasters. Maintain- ing these as functional and healthy ecosystems is essential for our
future well-being. Currently 50% of the world population lives in towns and cities within 100 km of the
coast [1]. These coastal areas are impacted through pollu- tion inputs due to changes in land use and
hydrology, with vast amounts of our wastes entering on a daily basis. Ocean and estuarine ecosystems can
therefore impact the extent to which humans are exposed to microbial patho- gens, which include both
marine-indigenous pathogens and externally introduced microbial contaminants. These pathogens can be
found in association with marine ani- mals, phytoplankton, zooplankton, sediments and detri- tus.
Environmental factors, including salinity, temperature, nutrients and light, influence the survival and
sometimes the proliferation of pathogens. Recent research relating oceans and human health is
addressing a range of issues in environmental health microbiology (Figure 1), including examinations of
the sources and sinks of pathogens, human exposures, effects of development and management practices,
and the expression of disease. New detection methods have been developed and tested, which represent
not only a compar- ison of different approaches but take into account idio- syncrasies of different
geographical areas (e.g. tropical vs. temperate regions), as well as the standardization of sam- ple
collection and processing methods. This work has broadened our perspectives on the types of microbial
pathogens present in the ocean and the importance of non-point sources of contamination in the
environment. In this manuscript we present several of the current chal- lenges to understanding the
impacts of microbes of public health concern in the coastal environment, including (1) indicator
organisms, and their relationship to water qual- ity, (2) non-point sources of contamination, (3) direct
pathogen detection, (4) virulence, (5) non-enteric dis- eases resulting from recreational water use, (6)
animals and environments as sentinels of water quality, and (7) zoonotic and emerging diseases
Specifically Zoonotic disease strains will be transferred
Stewart et al 08 (Jill R Stewart* 1 , Rebecca J Gast 2 , Roger S Fujioka 3 , Helena M Solo-Gabriele 4 , J Scott Meschke 5 , Linda A
Amaral-Zettler 6 , Erika del Castillo 6 , Martin F Polz 7 , Tracy K Collier 8 , Mark S Strom 8 , Christopher D Sinigalliano 9,10 , Peter DR
Moeller 1 and A Fredrick Holland 1 Address: 1 Hollings Marine Laboratory, NOAA National Ocean Service, Charleston, SC 29412, USA, 2
Woods Hole Oceanogr aphic Institution, Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Hu man Health, Woods Ho le, MA 02543, USA, 3 Water Resources
Research Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA, 4 Rosenstiel School for Marine and At mospheric Sciences, University of
Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, USA, 5 Department of Environmental and Occupa tional Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98105-6099, USA, 6 The Josephine Bay Paul Center for Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution, Mari ne Biological Laboratory, Woods
Hole Center for Oceans and Hum an Health, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA, 7 Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT, Woods Hole Center
for Oceans and Human Health, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, 8 Northwest Fisheries Scienc e Center, NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, WA 98112, USA,
9 Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmo spheric Research, Miami, FL 33149, USA and 10
Cooperative Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Studies, University of Mi ami, Miami, FL 33149, USA“The coastal environment and human
health: microbial indicators, pathogens, sentinels and reservoirs” enters for Oceans and Human Health Investigators Meeting
11/08http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1476-069X-7-S2-S3.pdf)//BLOV
Zoonotic and emerging diseases An
estimated 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic [109], and
anthropogenic influence on ecosys- tems appears to be a common factor in the emergence and
reemergence of zoonotic pathogens [110]. In the marine environment proper, bacterial, viral, fungal and protozoal
pathogens that can infect humans have been detected in a range of marine animals, including pinnipeds,
dolphins, cetaceans and otters (Figure 9). Bacteria such as Brucella , Leptospira and Mycobacterium have been shown to
infect humans handling marine mammals [112,113], while oth- ers such as Clostridium , Burkholderia (formerly Pseudomonas ), Salmonella and Staphylococcus have the potential to be transmitted to humans. Calicivirus and influenza A have
been documented to occur in pinnipeds [114,115], and Blastomyces have been detected in dolphins [116]. California sea lions and ringed seals
have been found to harbor G. lamblia and Cryptosporidium spp. [117,118] and Giardia cysts have been found in fecal material from harp seals (
Phoca groenlandica ), grey seals ( Halichoerus grypus ), and harbour seals ( Phoca vitulina ) from the St. Lawrence estuary in eastern Canada
[119,120]. Pinnipeds have also been shown to harbor Salmonella and Campylobacter spe- cies, including
strains that are resistant
to multiple antibi- otics [121,122]. Shorebirds are also potentially able to transmit parasites to humans.
Canada geese carry several enteric human pathogens including G. lamblia , Camplyo- bacter jejuni and C. parvum [123,124]. Therefore, it seems
possible that shorebirds feeding in an area that is contam- inated by a sewer outfall may be yet another source of con- centrated pathogen input to
either shellfishing areas or recreational areas. Analysis of the interaction between host animals (domes- ticated or wildlife) and the coastal
watershed, the
natural reservoirs in marine habitats, and the survival, prevalence and proliferation of the
pathogens are a rational area of concern for disease emergence. New methods for direct or indirect detection of
microorganisms are contributing to the detection of zoonoses [125,126], but there is still a lack of understanding regarding the public health
signifi- cance.
Polar bears
Loss of polar bears decimates ecosystems - Arctic
Poland 13 (Anastasia, Managing editor for MSN News at Microsoft, “Keystone species' loss could
cause ecosystem to collapse”, MSN News, 4/22/13, http://news.msn.com/science-technology/keystonespecies-loss-could-cause-ecosystem-to-collapse)
The theory is that like the wedge-shaped keystone (or headstone) that locks together all the pieces used in
an architectural arch, there are species that keep certain ecosystems in together. Removal
of the
species can cause the eventual collapse of the ecosystem. Just a drop in the bucket of
the keystone species affected by global warming are reviewed below. POLAR BEAR AND
WALRUS The polar bear, long the most-often touted of threatened species, indeed is in trouble
with reduction of ice pack in the Arctic. As the apex predator, the bears keep their food source
population — mainly seals, but also walruses and whales — in balance. What is not commonly known is
that polar bears also are good scavengers in scarcity and will move into other animals' food source if
necessary. Polar bears will happily consume fish, reindeer, birds, rodents, eggs, kelp, berries and
trash left by humans — putting them in competition with arctic foxes and seagulls, instead of
providing a symbiotic relationship by leaving leftover prey.
Impact Calc
2NC Time Frame
Extend mintpress, 5 years before irreparable
Positive feedbacks accelerate trends towards ecological extinction- it’s a question of
how fast we can respond
Jackson 10 ( Jeremy B. C. Jackson Postdoctoral Fellowship in Biology , McGill University, Ph.D. in
Medical Genetics (2005), University of British Columbia, Marine ecologist, paleontologist and a
professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Senior Scientist Emeritus at the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in the Republic of Panama. “The future of the oceans past”
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Nov 27, 2010; 365(1558): 3765–3778. 2010
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC2982006/)//BLOV
Humans have caused and continue to hasten the
ecological extinction of desirable species and ocean ecosystems. In their place, we are witnessing population
explosions of formerly uncommon species and novel ecosystems with concomitant losses in biodiversity
and productivity for human use. Many of the newly abundant species, such as jellyfish in the place of fish and toxic
dinoflagellates in the place of formerly dominant phytoplankton, are undesirable equivalents to rats, cockroaches and
pathogens on the land. Moreover, there are good theoretical reasons and considerable empirical evidence to suggest that, once established,
such newly established communities become stabilized owing to positive feedbacks among newly
dominant organisms and their highly altered environments—which raises questions about whether unfavourable changes can be
undone if we put our minds to it (Scheffer et al. 2001; Knowlton 2004; Jackson 2008; Hughes et al. 2010). (a) Projected trends Several trends
for life in the oceans are clearly apparent if we do not act quickly to reduce overfishing, pollution and the rise of CO2. Most
commercial wild fisheries will be lost and many prized species such as bluefin tuna may even go extinct. Surface waters will become
increasingly warmer and more acidic, resulting in the further decline and possible extinction of most reef corals
and other calcifying organisms. Warmer and lighter surface waters will strongly inhibit vertical mixing
of nutrients to the surface and oxygen to deeper waters, resulting in the collapse in productivity in pelagic ecosystems
and widespread hypoxia or anoxia below the increasingly stable thermocline, as occurred decades ago in the Black Sea (Rabalais et al. 2002). Widening dead
zones around continents and other forms of pollution will make coastal waters too toxic for aquaculture
and outbreaks of diseases will increase. Accelerated melting of polar ice sheets will release vast amounts of
fresh water that will float along the ocean surface, further inhibiting vertical mixing and raising sea level. Sea
level will rise and the intensity of storms will increase, threatening human populations and coastal ecosystems. Global biogeochemical cycles
will be altered in increasingly uncertain ways. Predictions are always risky, but it is difficult to imagine how all of these projected
changes would not occur barring decisive action to reverse the trends or some global catastrophe to humanity. All of the trends are already in
progress and continue to be measured by routine oceanographic observations. The oceans are becoming measurably
We can summarize the extent of human impacts on the oceans in stark terms.
warmer and more acidic and polar sea ice is measurably melting faster than expected from global climate models (Rahmstorf et al. 2007; Stroeve et al. 2007).
Eutrophication, hypoxia and the numbers of dead zones are measurably increasing in quantity and size (Rabalais et al. 2002, 2007; Diaz & Rosenberg 2008). Vertical
mixing of the oceans is measurably decreasing with measurably great decreases in pelagic productivity (Roemmich & McGowan 1995; Polovina et al. 2008). More
and more fisheries have measurably collapsed with the concomitant ecological extinction of large fishery species (Jackson et al. 2001; Pauly et al. 2002; Jackson 2006,
the question is not whether these
trends will happen, but how fast they will happen, and what will be the consequences for the oceans and
humanity. All of the predicted changes in oceanographic conditions exceed those associated with the ecological reorganization and extinctions of Caribbean
2008; NRC 2006). Sea level is measurably rising at increasing rates and hurricanes are intensifying. Thus,
species following the uplift of the Isthmus of Panama, and the rates and amounts of warming approach those associated with the PETM and other early Cenozoic and
Previous episodes of deep-sea anoxia in the
geological past were associated with mass extinctions of deep-sea marine species and reef corals (Thomas &
Shackleton 1996; Thomas 2007; Scheiber & Speijer 2008; Zachos et al. 2008), and the global deep-sea anoxia at the end of the Permian was associated with the
mass extinction of 95 per cent of the animal species on the planet (Erwin 2006; Knoll et al. 2007). Moreover, none of
these past biological apocalypses was associated with a single dominant species that increasingly
dominates the renewable resources, nutrient cycling and biogeochemical cycles of the planet (Vitousek et al.
Mesozoic hyperthermal events (Wilson & Norris 2001; Zachos et al. 2008; Kump et al. 2009).
1997; Wackernagel et al. 2002; Howarth et al. 2004). In light of everything we
know about upheavals in the geological past,
another great mass extinction appears inevitable.
Marine and Terrestrial conservation are distinct
Marine conservation is distinct from terrestrial- distribution of species, data
deficiency and international norms
McClenachan et al 11 (Loren McClenachan and Nicholas K. Dulvy Earth to Ocean Research Group,
Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University AND Andrew B. Cooper School of Resource &
Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University AND Kent E. Carpenter IUCN (International
Union for Conservation of Nature) Species Programme Species Survival Commission (SSC) and
Conservation International (CI) Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion
University“Extinction risk and bottlenecks in the conservation of charismatic marine species.”
Conservation Letters, 5: 73–80. 12/13/11 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755263X.2011.00206.x/full)//BLOV
Extinction risk: differences between land and sea Comparison
to assessments of extinction risk on land underscores the
high degree of threat in the sea. The most severely threatened terrestrial taxon, amphibians, has 41% of its
species in danger of extinction (Hoffmann et al. 2010). Several marine families in our analysis have a higher
percentage of species at risk, including marine turtles (100% threatened), mackerel sharks (80% threatened), hammerhead sharks (57%
threatened), eagle rays (50% threatened), and seahorses (43% threatened). These charismatic marine species also lag behind
terrestrial species in the number of assessments completed; 50% of vertebrates have been assessed by the IUCN globally
(Hoffmann et al. 2010), but only 29% of the marine vertebrates in our analysis had completed assessments. Further, high levels of data
deficiency among marine species inhibit successful conservation. On average 14% of global vertebrate species lack
data for assessments (Hoffmann et al. 2010), but 22% of the marine vertebrates in this study are DD, and as many as 31% of
elasmobranchs and 66% of seahorses lack sufficient data for assessment (Table 3). The high degree of risk among wide-ranging taxa combined
with widespread lack of knowledge suggests a fundamentally different conservation scale and focus is required for the seas .
Many
terrestrial species with high extinction risk are endemic to islands, mountains, and peninsulas and thus have small ranges
that often fall within the borders of one nation (Mace et al. 2005). By comparison, the most threatened marine species, turtles
and sharks, have vast geographic ranges, underscoring the fundamental need for binding multilateral
treaties in the conservation of marine species. Further, the paucity of knowledge means that species-by-species
protection will inevitably lag behind conservation need. The marine invertebrates analyzed here, for example, were the
subject of few scientific papers and no IUCN Red List Assessments. Terrestrial invertebrates are similarly understudied (Clark & May 2002), but
at least their conservation is supported by dedicated journals, newsletters, and societies (e.g., Insect Conservation and Diversity). Further, data
deficiency in the sea is not limited to invertebrates. Regional and national assessments of risk for sawfishes, arguably the most threatened group
of marine fishes globally, are hindered by a lack of information on current distribution, impacts, and trends in abundance (Simpfendorfer 2005).
Together with the large scale of the most prevalent threatening processes, exploitation and climate change, this
lack of data suggest that precautionary measures, including protection of representative habitats and restriction of trade
under CITES Appendix II's “look alike” clause, are essential for marine conservation. Such restrictions currently exist for stony
corals (Scleractinia) and seahorses in the genus Hippocampus for which data are difficult to collect on a species-by-species basis. Similar
CITES protection could be used to streamline customs enforcement and regulate trade in shark fins, fish swim
bladders, manta gillrakers, and other difficult-to-identify body parts subject to international trade. The paradox of conserving exploited species
Many marine species are targeted for trade in high-value markets, including the $800 million live reef fish and the $400
million shark fin industries (Sadovy et al. 2003; Clarke et al. 2007), suggesting a need to recognize, monitor, and regulate
international trade. However, marine species represent <10% of the 34,000 species protected under CITES
(CITES 2008; Doukakis et al. 2008). Here we show that compared to all other taxonomic groups, sharks and rays are severely underprotected
relative to their threat status. Attempts to CITES-list threatened exploited elasmobranchs, with few notable exceptions, have largely failed (Dulvy
et al. 2008; Lack & Sant 2011), demonstrating the challenge of conserving exploited species. Exploited
species often have more
information relative to unexploited taxa, but experience more resistance to conservation initiatives
(Sky 2010). An underlisting bias resulting from short-term economic interest has been shown at the national level: the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada listed 93% of at-risk marine fish and mammals that were nonharvested, but only 17% of those that were subject
to exploitation (Mooers et al. 2007). Our results
provide a parallel international example and underscore the
imperative to increase efforts to list commercially valuable species, and to engage with regional fishery
management in the monitoring and protection of marine species threatened by commercial exploitation
(e.g., Collette et al. 2011).
***Oceans solve laundry list
Lots of reasons why we need the oceans – turns food scarcity, medicine, economy
Fears 13 (M. “Nikki”, Environmental News Examiner, “10 Reasons why we must save the ocean”,
Examiner, 11/1/2013, http://www.examiner.com/article/10-reasons-why-we-must-save-the-ocean)
So why are our oceans so important? Here is a quick list of the top 10 reasons why we need healthy oceans. 10.
For TransportationThe import and export of goods is a major factor in most of the economies around the world, and most of
the goods are transported via the ocean. Ocean debris and changing weather patterns can disturb shipping routes and make travel
for commercial and passenger vessels alike more dangerous. 9. For Tourism- Many local villages and cities all over the
world depend upon the beach and ocean centered tourism that fuels their local economies. Both in the US
and abroad, without healthy oceans and clean beaches, these tourist spots would completely collapse
leaving families and even entire villages with no way to support themselves. 8. For Recreation- Although not
a life or death imperative, water sports including snorkeling, sailing, diving, surfing, and others provide exercise and recreation for millions of
people every year. 7.
For Our Homes- More than a tenth of the world's population live in coastal zones. This means that things
that effect the coastal areas, such as agriculture run off and other pollution, are in close proximity to
human population centers and as a result are exposing those people to various toxins and chemical
compounds which can negatively impact their health. 6. For Weather- Oceans play a large role in
stabilizing weather patterns and absorbing the harmful rays of the ocean, an unhealthy ocean is not able to
play this role as effectively and as such, we see more erratic and unpredictable weather which can
threaten the lives, homes, and businesses of millions of people. 5. For Biodiversity- The seas and oceans
of the world represent the largest source of biodiversity on the entire planet. Ranging from exotic sea life,
mammals, and plant life from the largest blue whale to the smallest algae, and many of the creatures are
in peril and facing extinction. Further, marine life often tend to act as the canaries of the mine, alerting us to potentially catastrophic
trends, toxin levels, and other things that can threaten the planet as a whole. Whatever we see killing off parts of the ocean are likely to have
global effects. So
we are not only loosing this valuable source of biodiversity, but in doing so we are
endangering the health and stability of the entire planet. 4. For Water- The ocean of the world also play a
major role in the water cycle that contributes to rain fall that help to replenish some freshwater supplies. 3.
For Food- Healthy oceans supply a major food source for billions of people around the world, many
of whom depend upon seafood as a major part of their intake. Over 100 million tons of fish are
consumed each year and in many places, seafood accounts for a majority of the diet for communities that
have very few choices for other food sources and diets consisting of healthy fish and sea vegetables have
time and time again proven to be the healthiest diets in the world. When our diet is incorporating various species of fish,
shell fish, sea vegetables, and sea salt, the health of the oceans have a direct impact on our health. Not only does a declining ocean environment
mean less food, it also means that our food may not longer be safe when it become contaminated with mercury and other poisons. 2.
For
Health and Medicine- Not only does the ocean provide some of the healthiest food in the world, such a
fish rich in essential omega 3 fatty acids, but it is also a major source of valuable nutrients and medicines.
Kelp, for example, is rich in iodine and has long been used as a natural treatment to help stabilize thyroid
functions. There is a growing body of research showing that various types of seaweed have anti-cancer
properties than can even kill cancer cells such as a remarkable variety of edible red seaweed known as
Eucheuma Cottoni L which was shown to reduce the size of breast tumors better than some traditional
chemo-therapies in rats without the severity of side effects. Many of the medicines available from the
ocean can not be found anywhere else. And the number one reason why we must save our oceans? 1. For Oxygen!While trees and forests are of vital importance for us and our planet, it is actually the ocean that
provides the majority of the oxygen that we require to survive. As the oceans become threatened, over polluted, and
changed by rising sea temperatures and increasing acidification that supply of oxygen that sustains most of the life on Earth is being threatened.
Simply put, life as we know it..including human life, simply cannot survive without healthy oceans.
**Oceans solve growth
Oceans are essential to growth
Grames 12 (Panos, Communications specialist for the David Suzuki Foundation, “Two trillion dollars
= massive market failure”, David Suzuki Foundation, 4/4/2012,
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/healthy-oceans-blog/2012/04/two-trillion-dollars-massive-marketfailure/)
Two trillion dollars is an astounding amount of money. Imagine this: The day Julius Caesar is born you
are given $2 trillion. Then, you manage to spend $2 million every single day. After this tiring experience,
you'd still have several hundred billion dollars in your pocket. Besides having really big pockets and a
long lifespan, you might be one of the few people on the planet who understands the crisis our
oceans face. Two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000) is the amount that the global economy stands
to lose by 2100 if we continue our current use and abuse of the ocean environment. That's the news,
according to a 300-page report called "Valuing the Ocean". Coordinated by the Swedish-based Stockholm
Environment Institute, the report concludes that human activities such as oil spills, fertilizer use, carbon
emissions and other pollution will have a devastating impact on the economic benefits the ocean provides.
Most of us think immediately of the value of fish and shellfish stocks. But the costs of degrading the
environment include rising sea levels, storms, loss of tourism and the ocean as a carbon sink. The
executive summary of the report says it best, "The ocean is the cornerstone of our life-support system. It
covers over 70 percent of our planet and generates the oxygen in every second breath we take; it has
cushioned the blow of climate change by absorbing 25-30 percent of all anthropogenic carbon emissions
and 80 percent of the heat added to the global system; it regulates our weather and provides food for
billions of people. The ocean is priceless." But that's not the end of it. Because of these collective
impacts, $600 million of services provided by the ocean will be lost every year. We humans like to use
the ocean, but we don't seem to be considering the impacts we have, especially taken collectively.
Governments and decision-makers are not properly considering the links between human activities
and loss of productive ecosystems. Burning fossil fuels is putting carbon in the atmosphere and
acidifying our oceans. Industrial fishing practices and lack of management have depleted 90 per cent of
the world's large fish, such as tuna, cod and halibut. The co-author of the report, University of British
Columbia fisheries economist Rashid Sumaila, hopes that the report will help us make better decisions.
"By stressing the links between multiple marine stressors and the huge value of the vital services that the
ocean provides to humankind we [the report authors] hope to help kick-start decisive, integrated action to
strengthen ocean governance and management across all scales, from local to global." The report states,
"the ocean is the victim of a massive market failure." It really should say, "The market is a victim of a
massive market failure." The ocean doesn't need any money. It's the market that is losing the $2
trillion because it has failed to properly account for its own impacts—actively writing the benefits
on the ledger sheet while ignoring the deficits.
Environment key to econ
Everett et al 10 (Tim, Senior Policy Advisor for Defra, “Economic Growth and the Environment”,
Defra Evidence and Analysis Series, March 2010,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69195/pb13390-economicgrowth-100305.pdf)
The natural environment plays an important role in supporting economic activity. It contributes: •
directly, by providing resources and raw materials such as water, timber and minerals that are required as
inputs for the production of goods and services; and • indirectly, through services provided by ecosystems
including carbon sequestration, water purification, managing flood risks, and nutrient cycling. Natural
resources are, therefore, vital for securing economic growth and development, not just today but for
future generations. The relationship between economic growth and the environment is complex. Several different drivers come into play,
including the scale and composition of the economy – particularly the share of services in GDP as opposed to primary industries and
manufacturing – and changes in technology that have the potential to reduce the environmental impacts of production and consumption decisions
whilst also driving economic growth. With
many key natural resources and ecosystems services scarce or under
pressure, achieving sustained economic growth will require absolute decoupling of the production of
goods and services from their environmental impacts1. This means consuming environmental resources in a sustainable
manner – whether by improving the efficiency of resource consumption or by adopting new production techniques and product designs. It also
means avoiding breaches in critical thresholds beyond which natural assets cannot be replaced and can no longer support the desired level of
economic activity. Existing commitments to avoid dangerous climate change exemplify the need for absolute decoupling, requiring a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, even in the face of an expanding global economy.
Oceans are key to global growth
SSF 12 (Small State Forum, “SESSION I: LEVERAGING THE BLUE ECONOMY FOR INCLUSIVE
AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH”, SSF 2012, 10/13/12,
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SSF-Seesion-1-Blue-Economy-IssuesNote.pdf)
The oceans provide an essential endowment of goods and services to small coastal and island states that can
expand substantially their economic productive zones. However, globally the health of the oceans is
declining, thereby jeopardizing the wealth of goods and services they can provide. Restoring the health of
the world’s oceans is a global challenge that can be solved by coordinated action to increase investment and cooperation around proven solutions
to unlock the oceans’ tremendous potential to increase economic growth and reduce poverty. For this reason, investing
in the health of
the oceans has emerged as a “new” frontier of opportunity for green growth – i.e. the Blue Economy.
IMPORTANCE OF OCEANS – PARTICULARLY TO SMALL COASTAL AND ISLAND STATES An estimated 61 percent of the
world’s total gross national product comes from areas within 100 kilometers of the coastline . Healthy
oceans are essential for global food security, livelihoods and economic growth. More specifically, healthy
population, with demand expected to double
. Technology is
an US$190 billion
annually from seafood, and some US$161 billion annually from marine and coastal tourism
beginning to tap new sources of energy from ocean.
that are responsible for billions in revenues to pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors and that have improved many millions of lives; and
Exclusive Economic Zones in the Pacific October 13, 2012 2012 SMALL STATES FORUM October 13, 2012 smallstatesforum@worldbank.org
storage of carbon.
Oceans turn warming
Oceans solve warming – atmospheric heat
Wanucha 14 (Genevieve, science writer for Oceans at MIT, “How the ocean reins in global warming”,
MIT News, 3/21/14, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/how-the-ocean-reins-in-global-warming)
The ocean plays a critical role in climate change, especially in setting the climate's response to increasing anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases. As excess heat accumulates in various parts of the Earth system, most of that
thermal energy goes into the ocean instead of into the lower atmosphere and land. “We can compare the ocean to a
cold compress that a parent applies to the forehead of a child with a fever,” says Yavor Kostov, a graduate student in the Program in
Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate (PAOC) within MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “In that this wet
towel can absorb some of the heat, giving partial relief until the towel itself becomes saturated with heat.” Similarly, the ocean’s
enormous
capacity to store heat temporarily slows down global warming. In recent years, a hot topic in climate science has arisen
over the fact that climate models vary widely in their representation of ocean heat uptake. The oceans in some
models absorb more or less heat in high-latitude regions such as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean; some store heat at different depths.
According to two new papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, those details matter a great deal to the predictions of global warming
over the coming centuries. One of these papers focuses on the
deep overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean,
better known as AMOC, which transports and buries atmospheric heat in the ocean. Kostov, working with Kyle
Armour, an EAPS postdoc, and John Marshall, MIT professor of oceanography, investigated how the various assumptions about this major ocean
feature affect model predictions. To do so, he compared a set of new-generation models that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) uses in their projections. Kostov found that models
featuring a deeper and stronger AMOC have a greater
capacity to store heat and delay long-term global warming due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. In
other words, a stronger overturning circulation in a model tends to promise a cooler world in one hundred
years. There are other even greater sources for the differences in climate predictions across models, such as cloud responses to greenhouse
gases, Kostov notes, “but all aspects of the climate system are important, and we have to take into account the
role of the ocean in order to improve our predictions for future warming.” These results led the MIT group to conclude
that models must better represent the AMOC and its future changes, based on real-world measurements
that extend over time and geographical location. Unfortunately, there is not a long record of observations in the AMOC, thanks
to the enormous technical difficulty of probing the ocean’s deep layers. However, Kostov notes his excitement that a few large-scale
oceanographic projects, including U.K. RAPID and U.S. CLIVAR, have started to continuously monitor how the circulation varies with depth in
an effort to fill this scientific void.
*Environment turns War
Environmental destruction increases the chances of war
UN 4 (United Nations News Center, “Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability”, UN
News Centre, 11/5/2004,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment)
"These scars, threatening water supplies, the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes
for instability between communities and neighbouring countries," he added. Citing a new UNEP report
produced in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Mr. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation
could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within
and between societies." The study finds that a decrepit and declining environment can depress economic
activity and diminish the authority of the state in the eyes of its citizens. It also points out that the
addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring
countries. "Joint projects to clean up sites, agreements and treaties to better share resources such as rivers
and forests, and strengthening cooperation between the different countries' ministries and institutions may
hold the key to building trust, understanding and more stable relations," said the UNEP chief.
Environment solves war - resources
Keil 13 (Kathrin, writer for the Artic Institute from Freir Universitat Berlin, “Opening Oil and Gas
Development in te Artic – A Conflict and Risk Assessment”, Artic Institute, 1/31/13,
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2013/01/opening-oil-and-gas-development-in.html)
The picture looks different for environmental consequences of Arctic oil and gas development. The
institutions setting up rules for
the development of oil and gas resources to minimise the risks of environmental degradation must be very
robust, given that they are usually directed against the short-term interests of the affected actors. Relevant
institutions for Arctic oil and gas development are often not entirely adequate for various reasons. While the United Nations Convention on the
Law of The Sea (UNCLOS) provides binding rules for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (Part XII), it does not
sufficiently provide for Arctic-specific rules and dispute-settlement competencies. The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness,
Response and Co-operation (OPRC), while providing binding provisions, only calls for minimum standards for national systems for preparedness
and response. ¶ The Arctic Council Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines provide highly precise but no binding rules for marine environmental
protection. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) in contrast provides binding and
highly precise rules together with strong monitoring and verification competencies. However, the regional scope of the Convention is limited to
the Northeast Atlantic and of the A5 only Denmark and Norway are members. In sum, it
is not the extraction of the resources
themselves that contain a high conflict potential but rather their side effects, first and foremost the
environmental dangers they entail.¶ In addition to the absence of adequate institutional arrangements for
the development of Arctic oil and gas resources, an additional challenge is the linkage between various
Arctic economic activities as well as the linkage with the broader social and ecological circumstances of
the specific region in which they occur. In other words, institutions for the sustainable development of the Arctic have to take
account of the complexity of the Arctic region as a system of various dynamic internal and external relationships that change over time.
Importantly, such institutions would take account of the fact that many
potential victims of extraction-induced pollution do
not have their interests adequately represented in the existing institutions. These are especially residents with no, or
only weak, representation options and especially the flora and fauna of Arctic lands and waters. The appropriate institutional device could be an
ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach, which leaves out none of the links in the ecosystem and which is flexible enough to take into
account new knowledge about affected actors and their concerns and
interestshttp://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2556253771192506081. These
are the actual challenges ahead and not the
often-stated likelihood of possibly violent conflicts over Arctic resources.
Environmental degradation makes war inevitable
Dinar 11 (Shlomi, Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at
Florida International University, “Beyond Resource Wars”, The MIT Press, 2011,
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/beyond-resource-wars)
Common
wisdom holds that the earth's dwindling natural resources and increasing environmental
degradation will inevitably lead to inter-state conflict, and possibly even set off "resource wars."
Many scholars and policymakers have considered the environmental roots of violent conflict and
instability, but little attention has been paid to the idea that scarcity and degradation may actually play a
role in fostering inter-state cooperation. Beyond Resource Wars fills this gap, offering a different perspective on the links between
environmental problems and inter-state conflict. Although the contributors do not deny that resource scarcity and environmental degradation may
become sources of contention, they argue that these conditions also provide the impetus for cooperation, coordination, and negotiation between
states. The book examines aspects of environmental conflict and cooperation in detail, across a number of natural resources and issues including
oil, water, climate change, ocean pollution, and biodiversity conservation. The
contributors argue that increasing scarcity and
degradation generally induce cooperation across states, but when conditions worsen (and a problem
becomes too costly or a resource becomes too scarce), cooperation becomes more difficult. Similarly, low
levels of scarcity may discourage cooperation because problems seem less urgent. With contributions from scholars in international relations,
economics, and political science, Beyond Resource Wars offers a comprehensive and robust investigation of the links among scarcity,
environmental degradation, cooperation, and conflict.
Environmental collapse turns war - snowball
CIC 2013 (Collapse of Industrial Civilization, “The Threat of Nuclear War in an Age of Eco-Collapse
and Peak Everything”, CIC, 03/20/2013, http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2013/03/20/the-threatof-nuclear-war-in-an-age-of-eco-collapse-and-peak-everything/)
Now we get to the
age of resource scarcity and climate destabilization, both of which have proven to be conflict
multipliers. The grotesquely named Operation Iraqi Freedom was about nothing more than freeing up
that country’s oil resources. Ten years later the country is in ruins, but Big Oil is benefitting (I’m surprised CNN ran this story): …Oil
was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years
following the invasion. “Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and
Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is
politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck
Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.” For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil
companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S.
has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq’s economy
or society. These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then
CEO of Chevron, said, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” Today it does… …Iraq’s oil
production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by
Iraq’s state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption
needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq’s other oil-rich
neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty… …a leading coalition of
Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have “taken the place
of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty” and should “set a timetable for withdrawal.”… In
an age of mass delusion,
inverted totalitarianism, and scapegoating, will the logic of MAD (mutually assured destruction) be enough to
prevent a nuclear war? The energy skeptic sums up the failure of such thinking in the following quote: ...We’re all potentially crazy...
Consider the high level of tension between nuclear nations now, and add the fear, chaos, and madness
societies will feel as ecological collapse from energy shortages cuts off access to water, energy, food, and
recovery from natural disasters. Many nation(s) might be driven to threaten or actually drop the first
nuclear bomb. All nations are vulnerable to unpredictable social and political movements generated by a
terrified populace past the carrying capacity of their natural resources. The only nuclear power within carrying-capacity after peak oil is
Russia. The USA has a carrying capacity of 100-250 million without fossil fuels (Pimentel, Smil)... And what of the odds even in a world not
facing peak everything and climate chaos?
*Oceans prevent resource wars
Ocean resources solve resource wars
King 10 (David, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of
Oxford, “Food for Nine Billion”, Peak Food, 2/3/2010, http://peakfood.co.uk/tag/resource-war/)
Those numbers will have a knock-on effect on other aspects of life on this planet. Climate change, Sir
David thought, is influenced by human activity. We are using a set of resources much faster than they can
be replaced or new ones found. Food production would be under severe pressure and water would be in
short supply. He said that if the forests were the left lung of the world, then the oceans were the right lung
and we are in danger of losing some of that capacity to absorb CO2 and release oxygen. If present trends
continue, by mid century the oceans will be bereft of large fish. He suggested that resource shortages
could cause conflict and terrorism and even speculated that the Iraq War might one day be identified as
the first resource war of the 21st century.
**Oceans solve warming
Marine life essential to mitigate climate change – carbon sinks
WI 09 (Word Watch Institute, “Oceans Absorb Less Carbon Dioxide as Marine Systems Change”,
World Watch Institute: Vision for a sustainable world, No date given but cites an article written in 2009,
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6323)
The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored
in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide
released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a
smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000. The study, published in the
current issue of Nature, is the first to quantify the perceived trend that oceans are becoming less efficient
carbon sinks. The study team, led by Columbia University oceanographer Samar Khatiwala, measured the
amount of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions pumped into the oceans since 1765. "Our method
takes as input the relatively well-known atmospheric CO2 concentration history. Given this history, we
calculate the ocean absorption of industrial CO2 consistent with this history," Khatiwala said. Industrial
carbon dioxide emissions have increased dramatically since the 1950s, and oceans have until recently
been able to absorb the greater amounts of emissions. Sometime after 2000, however, the rise in
emissions and the oceans' carbon uptake decoupled. Oceans continue to absorb more carbon, but the pace
appears to have slowed. The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of
carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide
dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the
ocean becomes more acidic. The study revealed that the Southern Ocean, near Antarctica, absorbs about
40 percent of the carbon in oceans. "There are several factors that may be responsible for what's going
on," Khatiwala said. "Increasing acidity is only one of them. Faster emission growth rate is another,
perhaps more important, cause, as could be changes in ocean temperature and circulation." Previous
studies have attempted to quantify the carbon-storage potential of oceans by assessing the amount of
natural carbon in the sea. Khatiwala's team chose not to measure natural carbon sinks, which he said are
more difficult to assess globally. The role of oceans, particularly coastal marine ecosystems, could
become instrumental in mitigating climate change. These habitats have been overlooked by the
policymakers who will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month to develop a successor agreement to
the Kyoto Protocol, according to two reports released this fall. The carbon sequestration potential of
tidal salt marshes, mangroves, seagrass meadows, and kelp forests combined "compares favorably
with and, in some respects, may exceed the potential of carbon sinks on land," according to the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in a report released on Tuesday. "If you look
at the quality of carbon, compared to forests, you will find these habitats are 15 times more effective per
unit area," said Dan Laffoley, vice chair of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas and an author
of the report. "This has been a big wake-up call." The United Nations estimated in a report released in
October that 3-7 percent of current fossil-fuel emissions could be offset in two decades if more action is
taken to prevent marine vegetation loss and degradation worldwide. Currently, between 2 and 7 percent of
coastal ecosystems are lost each year, due largely to runoff pollution and coastal development. In
addition, fishing activities that trawl and dredge the seafloor often damage seagrass meadows, and
aquaculture operations and timber extraction frequently lead to the destruction of mangrove ecosystems.
"We know that marine protected areas are beneficial for biodiversity," Laffoley said. "High levels of
protection have carbon mitigation benefits as well.
Marine vegetation prevent climate change – Carbon sinks
IUCN 09 (International Union for Conservation of Nature, “Ocean carbon central to climate challenge”,
IUCN, 11/7/2009, http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/marine/?4216/Ocean-Carbon-Central-toClimate-Challenge)
That’s the advice of a ground-breaking IUCN partnership report, The Management of Natural Coastal
Carbon Sinks, launched today at the climate change and protected area summit in Granada, Spain. The
first in-depth study revealing the latest science of marine ecosystems, such as seagrass meadows,
mangroves and salt marshes, shows that they have a much greater capacity to progressively trap carbon
than land carbon sinks, such as forests. “The current loss of two-thirds of seagrass meadows and 50
percent of mangrove forests due to human activities, has severely threatened their carbon storage
capacity and is comparable to that of the annual decline in the Amazon forests,” says Dan Laffoley,
Marine Vice-Chair of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas and lead author of the report.
“Urgent international action is needed to ensure that coastal marine ecosystems are fully
recognized as critical carbon sinks and properly managed and protected.” The IUCN report,
supported by Natural England, The Lighthouse Foundation and UNEP, and compiled by leading scientists
in this field, provides the latest evidence of the ocean’s ability to store carbon and the role each of these
marine ecosystems play in reducing the negative effects of climate change. It offers specific policy
guidelines about how to include management of marine carbon sinks in international and national
reduction strategies. “While there have been a lot of discussions about major carbon sinks on land such as
forests, we have not heard much about the missing sinks of carbon in the oceans. The marine world not
only regulates our climate, supplies essential goods and services, but also helps us tackle climate
change,” says Carl Gustaf Lundin, Head of IUCN Global Marine Programme. “Decision-makers at
national and international level will have to look at policies and financing mechanisms for protection and
management of our oceans, and this report is the best starting point.” The potential of mangroves, salt
marshes and sea grass meadows to store carbon can be ensured through a number of management
approaches such as Marine Protected Areas, Marine Spatial Planning, area-based fisheries management
techniques, regulated coastal development and ecosystem restoration, according to the report.
*No War
No war - rational
Perkovich 09 (George Perkovich served as a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser to Senator Joe
Biden from 1989 to 1990. Perkovich is an adviser to the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations' Task Force on U.S.
Nuclear Policy. “EXTENDED DETERRENCE ON THE WAY TO A NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD”
http://icnnd.org/Documents/Perkovich_Deterrence.pdf)
The reality
today is that the taboo against using nuclear weapons has become so strong, especially in
democracies, that the only threat against which it is justifiable and therefore credible to use these weapons is one where the survival of the
U.S. or an ally is clearly jeopardized. Yet, with the possible exception of North Korea whose leadership could be imagined to use nuclear
weapons against Japan or South Korea if its own survival were threatened, no
other state poses a realistic threat to the national
survival of U.S. allies in Europe or East Asia. Russia does not have the intention or capability to sustain
an invasion of the new NATO states, let alone threaten their survival. Russia could destroy any state with its nuclear
weapons, but because this, more than any other action, would practically guarantee nuclear retaliation, Russia would not run
the risk. There is simply nothing important enough that Russia would want in any of the NATO states to merit such risk taking. China has
no interest and inadequate capabilities to take mainland Japanese territory or otherwise threaten it
militarily. It might pose military threats to Japanese positions regarding southern islands, but the U.S. and China are not going to
wage nuclear war over such islands, and Japanese officials and public cannot realistically expect nuclear deterrence to operate here.
Beijing does continue to increase its capabilities to deter Taiwan from declaring independence and the U.S. from defending Taiwan in such a
scenario, but the surety of U.S. security assurances to Taiwan would be greater, not less, if neither China nor the U.S. possessed nuclear weapons.
For the foreseeable future China
would be highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons on Taiwanese targets, as the
Chinese goal is to integrate Taiwanese into China, not to kill them. China would wish to deter U.S. intervention by
threatening the American fleet, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and then deterring U.S. escalation against the Chinese homeland, by holding U.S.
cities at risk. But the trigger of nuclear use in these scenarios would be a move by Taiwan to achieve independence. The U.S.
has no
obligation to fight for Taiwanese independence if China has not committed aggression against Taiwan first.
No war - alliances, international forums, and economic costs all solve
Robb 2012 (Doug, Lieutenant in the US Navy, “Now Hear This - Why the Age of Great-Power War Is
Over” http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/now-hear-why-age-great-power-war-over)
In Proceedings’ April “Now Hear This,” Navy Lieutenant Commander Rachel Gosnell and Marine Second Lieutenant Michael Orzetti argue that
“the possibility of great-power war [between the United States and China] cannot be ruled out.” However, despite China’s rise, which potentially
threatens to alter international polarity, a preponderance of evidence suggests that the
era of conventional large-scale war may
be behind us. For the purposes of my argument, the United States and China are defined as “great powers” because they have stable
governments and large populations; influential economies and access to raw materials; professional militaries and a nuclear arsenal. Prussian war
theorist Carl von Clausewitz’s “trinity,” which characterizes the interrelationship between the government (politics), people (society and the
economy), and the military (in modern terms, deterrence and security), is useful to frame this debate. The 20th century brought seismic shifts as
the global political system transitioned from being multipolar during the first 40 years to bipolar during the Cold War before emerging as the
American-led, unipolar international order we know today. These changes notwithstanding, major
world powers have been at
peace for nearly seven decades—the longest such period since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia codified the sovereign nation-state.
Whereas in years past, when nations allied with their neighbors in ephemeral bonds of convenience,
today’s global politics are tempered by permanent international organizations, regional military alliances,
and formal economic partnerships. Thanks in large part to the prevalence of liberal democracies, these groups are able to
moderate international disputes and provide forums for nations to air grievances, assuage security
concerns, and negotiate settlements—thereby making war a distant (and distasteful) option. As a result, China (and
any other global power) has much to lose by flouting international opinion, as evidenced by its advocacy of the
recent Syrian uprising, which has drawn widespread condemnation. In addition to geopolitical and
diplomacy issues, globalization continues to transform the world. This interdependence has blurred the
lines between economic security and physical security. Increasingly, great-power interests demand
cooperation rather than conflict. To that end, maritime nations such as the United States and China desire open
sea lines of communication and protected trade routes, a common security challenge that could bring
these powers together, rather than drive them apart (witness China’s response to the issue of piracy in its backyard). Facing
these security tasks cooperatively is both mutually advantageous and common sense. Democratic Peace Theory—
championed by Thomas Paine and international relations theorists such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman—presumes that
great-power war will likely occur between a democratic and non-democratic state. However, as information
flows freely and people find outlets for and access to new ideas, authoritarian leaders will find it harder to
cultivate popular support for total war—an argument advanced by philosopher Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace.”
Consider, for example, China’s unceasing attempts to control Internet access. The 2011 Arab Spring demonstrated that
organized opposition to unpopular despotic rule has begun to reshape the political order, a change
galvanized largely by social media. Moreover, few would argue that China today is not socially more liberal,
economically more capitalistic, and governmentally more inclusive than during Mao Tse-tung’s regime. As
these trends continue, nations will find large-scale conflict increasingly disagreeable. In terms of the military,
ongoing fiscal constraints and socio-economic problems likely will marginalize defense issues. All the
more reason why great powers will find it mutually beneficial to work together to find solutions to
common security problems, such as countering drug smuggling, piracy, climate change, human trafficking, and terrorism—missions
that Admiral Robert F. Willard, former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, called “deterrence and reassurance.” As the Cold War demonstrated,
nuclear weapons are a formidable deterrent against unlimited war. They make conflict irrational; in other
words, the concept of mutually assured destruction—however unpalatable—actually had a stabilizing effect on both national
behaviors and nuclear policies for decades. These tools thus render great-power war infinitely less likely
by guaranteeing catastrophic results for both sides. As Bob Dylan warned, “When you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing
to lose.” Great-power war is not an end in itself, but rather a way for nations to achieve their strategic aims.
In the current security environment, such a war is equal parts costly, counterproductive, archaic, and improbable.
If it does escalate, war is survivable
Martin 90 (Brian, PhD in theoretical physics Science professor at the University of Wollongong,
“Politics After a Nuclear Crisis,” Journal of Libertarian Studies,
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90jls.html)
My argument here is simple. Whatever the likelihood that a major nuclear confrontation will result in total annihilation of the earth's population,
a significant possibility remains that nuclear crisis or war will leave major portions of the world's
population alive and, for the most part, unaffected physically. If this is the case, then it is worth considering post-crisis and post-war
politics. Three types of scenarios are worth noting: nuclear crisis, limited nuclear war, and global nuclear war. First, nuclear
crisis: It is possible to imagine the development of a major nuclear confrontation short of nuclear war . This might be an
extended nuclear emergency, like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, yet more serious and prolonged. It could lead to declarations of
martial law and changes in political structures, as described below, that might well persist beyond the nuclear crisis itself.
Second, limited nuclear war: A nuclear war does not have to be global in extent. Such a war might be limited geographically
- for example, to the Middle East - or restricted to the exchange of a few tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. Many analysts argue
that it would be difficult to keep a nuclear exchange limited, but these arguments remain to be tested: There is no evidence of actual
nuclear wars to prove or disprove them. It is worth remembering that expert predictions concerning wars
(for example, that World War I would be over quickly) have often been quite wrong. It is also possible to imagine a
"successful" first strike, for example, using a few high-altitude explosions over a country to disable
electronics through the electromagnetic pulse, thereby putting the enemy's command and control systems out of commission.
However unlikely the success of such a tactic, it cannot be ruled out a priori. Third, global nuclear war: If a nuclear war does
escalate to major exchanges, does that mean that near or actual human extinction is certain? The available
evidence is by no means conclusive. Although since the 1950s many people have believed that nuclear war will inevitably lead to
the death of most or all the people on earth, the
scientific evidence to support this belief has been skimpy and
uncertain. The only mechanism currently considered to create a potential threat to the survival of the human species is the global climatic
effects of smoke and dust from nuclear explosions, commonly called nuclear winter.[2] Even here, some scientists believe the
effects will be much more moderate than initially proclaimed.[3] My assessment is that global nuclear war, while
containing the potential for exterminating much of the world's population, might kill "only" some hundreds of millions of
people - an unprecedented disaster to be sure, but far short of global annihilation.
Launches DA
1NC
1NC
Ozone is recovering now- Montreal protocol and meridonal circulation keep
recovery rates positive
Godin-Beekmann 13 (Vice President International Ozone Commission, “Past changes, current state
and future evolution of the ozone layer” American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting
2013,http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUSM.A41A..03G)//BLOV
The ozone layer has been under scrutiny since the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the mideighties (Farman et al., 1985). The rapid disclosure of the main processes involved in polar ozone
destruction lead to the signature of the Montreal Protocol that regulates the emission of ozone depleting
substances (ODS). The objective of this presentation is to review the current understanding of past
changes and current state of the ozone layer, the evolution of ODS concentration in the atmosphere and
assess the projections of ozone recovery. Satellite measurements revealed a peak of ODS concentration in
the mid and end of the nineties and ODS concentrations have started to decrease, albeit at a slower pace
than during the increase period due to the atmospheric lifetimes of these compounds. The total ozone
content has stabilized at global scale since the beginning of the 21st century. In 2009, integrated ozone
content was about 3.5 % smaller in the 60°S-60°N region compared to values prior to 1980 (WMO,
2011). Climate change will influence the recovery of stratospheric. Both ozone depletion and increase of
carbon dioxide induce a cooling of the stratosphere. In the winter polar stratosphere, this cooling
enhances the formation of polar stratospheric clouds involved in the formation of the ozone hole. In the
high stratosphere, it slows the chemical reactions destroying ozone and accelerates its reformation
(WMO, 2011). Besides, most chemistry-climate models predict an acceleration of the stratospheric
meridional circulation, which would speed up the ozone recovery (Eyring et al., 2010). This recovery is
forecasted in periods ranging between 2015 and 2030 and between 2030 and 2040 in the northern
and southern hemispheres, respectively. The Antarctic ozone hole will not disappear before 2050.
Because of the acceleration of the meridional circulation, models simulate a super-recovery of ozone in
the high latitude regions and an under recovery in the tropics. At present time, atmospheric variability can
still hinder the detection of ozone recovery as shown by the unprecedented destruction of ozone during
the Arctic winter 2010/2011 (Manney et al., 2011). Whilst several studies already point out the recovery
of ozone (Salby et al., 2011, Angell and Free, 2009), an increase of ozone unambiguously due to the
decrease of ODS still needs to be established at global scale.
Rockets Used for launch Destroy the Ozone- They’re direct injections of reactive
gases into the startosphere
Ross et al 09 (Martin Ross The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles AND Darin Toohey University
Of Colorado AND Manfred Peinemann The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles AND Patrick Ross
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University“Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric
Ozone Depletion” Astropolitics, 3/11/09
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14777620902768867)
If rockets are a minuscule contributor to the problem of climate change, they do have
a significant potential to become a
significant contributor to the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion. This follows from three unique characteristics
of rocket emissions: 1. Rocket combustion products are the only human-produced source of ozone-destroying
compounds injected directly into the middle and upper stratosphere. The stratosphere is relatively isolated from the
troposphere so that emissions from individual launches accumulate in the stratosphere. 8 Ozone loss caused by rockets should be considered as
the cumulative effect of several years of all launches, from all space organizations across the planet. 2. Stratospheric
ozone levels are
controlled by catalytic chemical reactions driven by only trace amounts of reactive gases and particles.9 Stratospheric
concentrations of these reactive compounds are typically about one-thousandth that of ozone. Deposition
of relatively small
absolute amounts of these reactive compounds can significantly modify ozone levels.3. Rocket engines
are known to emit many of the reactive gases and particles that drive ozone destroying catalytic
reactions.10 This is true for all propellant types. Even water vapor emissions, widely considered inert, contribute to ozone depletion. Rocket
engines cause more or less ozone loss according to propellant type, but every type of rocket engine causes some loss; no
rocket engine is perfectly ‘‘green’’ in this sense.
Ozone depletion causes increased UVB radiation
EPA 11 (Environmental Protection Agency “Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer
Depletion”1/13/11, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/index.html)//BLOV
The Connection Between Ozone Layer Depletion and UVB Radiation Reductions in stratospheric ozone
levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather,
less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB
measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between
reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years. Effects on Human Health Laboratory and
epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in
malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts -- a clouding of the eye’s lens. All sunlight
contains some UVB, even with normal stratospheric ozone levels. It is always important to protect your skin and eyes from the sun. Ozone
layer depletion increases the amount of UVB and the risk of health effects. EPA uses the Atmospheric and
Health Effects Framework (AHEF) model, developed in the mid 1980s, to estimate the health benefits of stronger ozone layer protection policies
under the Montreal Protocol. EPA estimates avoided skin cancer cases, skin cancer deaths, and cataract cases in the United States. Protecting the
Ozone Layer Protects Eyesight – A Report on Cataract Incidence in the United States Using the Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework
Model (68 pp, 1.52 MB, About PDF) This 2010 peer-reviewed EPA report shows the AHEF model’s capability to estimate avoided cataract
incidence, due to improved spatial resolution and information on the biological effects of UV radiation. A one page fact sheet summarizes the
background, key findings, and future research topics for the AHEF model on UV radiation and cataracts. Human Health Benefits of Stratospheric
Ozone Protection (PDF) (83 pp, 1.2 MB, About PDF) This 2006 peer-reviewed report describes the analytical and empirical methodologies used
by the AHEF model. Effects on Plants Physiological and developmental processes of plants are affected by UVB radiation, even by the amount of
UVB in present-day sunlight. Despite
mechanisms to reduce or repair these effects and a limited ability to adapt
to increased levels of UVB, plant growth can be directly affected by UVB radiation. Indirect changes caused
by UVB (such as changes in plant form, how nutrients are distributed within the plant, timing of developmental phases and secondary
metabolism) may be equally, or sometimes more, important than damaging effects of UVB. These
changes can have important
implications for plant competitive balance, herbivory, plant diseases, and biogeochemical cycles . Effects on
Marine Ecosystems Phytoplankton form the foundation of aquatic food webs. Phytoplankton productivity is limited to the euphotic zone,
the upper layer of the water column in which there is sufficient sunlight to support net productivity. The
position of the organisms in the euphotic zone is influenced by the action of wind and waves. In addition,
many phytoplankton are capable of active movements that enhance their productivity and, therefore, their survival. Exposure to solar
UVB radiation has been shown to affect both orientation mechanisms and motility in phytoplankton,
resulting in reduced survival rates for these organisms. Scientists have demonstrated a direct reduction in phytoplankton
production due to ozone depletion-related increases in UVB. One study has indicated a 6-12% reduction in the marginal ice zone. Solar UVB
radiation has been found to cause damage to early developmental stages of fish, shrimp, crab, amphibians and other animals. The
most
severe effects are decreased reproductive capacity and impaired larval development. Even at current levels, solar
UVB radiation is a limiting factor, and small increases in UVB exposure could result in significant reduction in
the size of the population of animals that eat these smaller creatures. Effects on Biogeochemical Cycles Increases
in solar UV radiation could affect terrestrial and aquatic biogeochemical cycles, thus altering both sources
and sinks of greenhouse and chemically-important trace gases e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbonyl sulfide (COS) and possibly other gases, including ozone. These potential changes would
contribute to biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks that attenuate or reinforce the atmospheric buildup of these gases. Effects on Materials Synthetic
polymers, naturally occurring biopolymers, as well as some other materials of commercial interest are adversely affected by solar UV radiation.
Today's materials are somewhat protected from UVB by special additives. Therefore, any increase in solar UVB levels will therefore accelerate
their breakdown, limiting the length of time for which they are useful outdoors.
2NC
2NC Ozone Recovering
Ozone recovery now- 2070
Reuters 13 (Irene Klotz “Scientists still waiting for clear signs of ozone hole healing” Reuters 12/16/13
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/us-science-ozone-idUSBRE9BF1BN20131216)//BLOV
(Reuters) - - Earth's
upper atmosphere is still so saturated with ozone-eating chlorine that it will take about
another decade for evidence that a nearly 25-year-old ban on such destructive chemicals is working,
scientists said. Full recovery of the ozone layer, which shields Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, should occur
around 2070, atmospheric scientist Natalya Kramarova, with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, told
reporters at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco last week. "Currently, we do not see that the ozone hole
is recovering," she said. "It should become apparent in 2025." Researchers report puzzlingly large variations in the size of
the annual ozone hole over Antarctica. In 2012 for example, the ozone hole was the second smallest on record, an apparently positive sign that
the 1989 Montreal Protocol agreement - which called for the phasing out of Freon and other damaging chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs - was
working. But scientists say that meteorological effects masked the hole's true size. The year before, they point out, the ozone
hole was nearly as big as it was in 2006, the largest on record. "Currently, small declines in levels of ozone-depleting substances are far too small
to show ozone recovery, in comparison with year to year variability," Kramarova said. With the stratosphere still flush with ozone-destroying
chlorine, the size of the annual hole over Antarctica is more dependent on temperature and upper atmospheric winds, scientists said. As
chlorine levels drop, however, the annual ozone holes over Antarctica will consistently decrease in size,
they said. "We've still got so much chlorine up there that the ozone hole area just doesn't depend on chlorine," said atmospheric scientist Susan
As a result of the Montreal Protocol, scientists expected
chlorine levels to decrease by about 5 percent this decade. Instead, measurements from instruments aboard satellites
show chlorine levels increase or decrease by 5 percent every year, Strahan said. Chlorine is gradually declining, she said, "but it's
Strahan, also with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
bumpy road down - some years it's higher, some years it's lower." By the mid-2030s, chlorine levels are forecast to be 20 percent lower than
current levels, leading to consistently smaller ozone holes. A full recovery is expected between 2058 and 2090 and most likely around 2070,
scientists said.
Ozone Recovering- Montreal Protocol solved any alt causes
Newman and McKenzie 11 (Paul A. Newman NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
MD USA AND Richard McKenzie National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, NIWA Lauder,
New Zealand “UV impacts avoided by the Montreal Protocol” Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c0pp00387e)//BLOV
The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer has been one of the most successful
environmental international agreements ever. Both the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol
have been ratified by all of the 196 countries in the world. Its implementation has resulted in large
reductions of the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs, e.g., chlorofluorocarbons and
halons). In addition, these ODSs are also potent greenhouse gases. Thus, in addition to its success in
curbing ozone depletion, it has also mitigated a significant portion of the climate impacts due to
increasing GHGs (especially CO2, CH4, and N2O) that have occurred over the past two decades.1
Because of the success of the Montreal Protocol, only small decreases in ozone have occurred outside
polar regions. A gradual recovery in ozone is expected over the next few decades. Consequently, any
increases inUV radiation outside polar regions have been small and UV radiation is expected to decrease
in the decades ahead. However, the longer term future is uncertain due to possible interactions with
climate change, which will change atmospheric circulation patterns and stratospheric temperatures,
affecting the geographical distributions of ozone and cloud clover. By the end of the century, these may
lead to slight increases in UV in the tropics, but decreases at high latitudes. At mid latitudes, the future is
less certain because the radiative impact of increases in ozone may be offset by the radiative impacts of
decreases in cloud cover.2,3 Recently it was shown that without the Montreal Protocol ozone column
amounts at mid-northern latitudes could have reduced from around 300 DU to 100 DU by 2065, and that
the corresponding peak UV index (UVI) could have trebled.4 Clearly this would have had disastrous
consequences for human health and the environment. For example, at mid-northern latitudes, prior to the
onset of ozone depletion, the peak UVI values were approximately 10. At those UVI levels, skin damage
can occur for fair-skinned people in approximately 15–20 min. Without the Montreal Protocol, the peak
UVI by 2065 would be as high as 30, with a corresponding time for skin damage reducing to as low as 5
min. The health consequences of such an increase would have been enormous.5 There is a large at-risk
population in that latitude range, and it has been estimated that, all other factors being unchanged, an
increase in UV of 1% corresponds to an increase in the incidence of skin cancer of 2–3%.
2nc Cancer
Ozone depletion causes skin cancer
Norval et al 10 (M. Norval Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Scotland AND R.M.
Lucas National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia AND A.P.
Cullen,School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 5T6, Canada AND F.R. de Gruijl Department of Dermatology,
Leiden University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9600, NL-2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands AND J. Longstreth The Institute for Global Risk
Research, Bethesda, MD 20817, USA AND Y. Takizawaf National Institute for Minamata Diseases, 4058 Hama, Minamata City, Kumamoto
867-0008, Japan AND J.C. van der Leung Ecofys, Kanaalweg 16G, NL-3526 KL Utrecht, The Netherlands “Chapter 2. The human health effects
of ozone depletion and in-teractions with climate change”, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OZONE DEPLETION AND ITS
INTERACTIONS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE: 20 10 ASSESSMENT United Nations Environment Programme
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/EEAP/eeap-report2010.pdf)//BLOV
Summary Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer has led to increased solar UV-B radiation (280315 nm) at the surface of the Earth. This change is likely to have had an impact on human expo-sure to
UV-B radiation with consequential detrimental and beneficial effects on health, alt-hough behavioural
changes in society over the past 60 years or so with regard to sun exposure are of considerable
importance. The present report concentrates on information published since our previous report in 2007.
The adverse effects of UV radiation are primarily on the eye and the skin. While so-lar UV radiation is a
recognised risk factor for some types of cataract and for pterygium, the evidence is less strong, although
increasing, for ocular melanoma, and is equivocal at present for age-related macular degeneration. For the
skin, the most common harmful outcome is skin cancer, including melanoma and the non-melanoma skin
cancers, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. The incidence of all three of these tumours
has risen signifi-cantly over the past five decades, particularly in people with fair-skin, and is projected to
continue to increase, thus posing a significant world-wide health burden. Overexposure to the sun is the
major identified environmental risk factor in skin cancer, in association with various genetic risk factors
and immune effects. Suppression of some aspects of immunity follows exposure to UV radiation and the
consequences of this modulation for the immune control of infectious diseases, for vaccination and for
tumours, are additional concerns. In a common sun allergy (polymorphic light eruption), there is an
imbalance in the immune re-sponse to UV radiation, resulting in a sun-evoked rash.
2nc Disease
Increased UV indexes increase infectious disease incidence
Norval et al 10 (M. Norval Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Scotland AND R.M.
Lucas National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia AND A.P.
Cullen,School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 5T6, Canada AND F.R. de Gruijl Department of Dermatology,
Leiden University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9600, NL-2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands AND J. Longstreth The Institute for Global Risk
Research, Bethesda, MD 20817, USA AND Y. Takizawaf National Institute for Minamata Diseases, 4058 Hama, Minamata City, Kumamoto
867-0008, Japan AND J.C. van der Leung Ecofys, Kanaalweg 16G, NL-3526 KL Utrecht, The Netherlands “Chapter 2. The human health effects
of ozone depletion and in-teractions with climate change”, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OZONE DEPLETION AND ITS
INTERACTIONS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE: 20 10 ASSESSMENT United Nations Environment Programme
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/EEAP/eeap-report2010.pdf)//BLOV
Infectious diseases One
study of illness in children aged less than six years, presenting as emergency cases in Sydney, found
that the maximum daily temperature was a risk factor for both fever and gas-troenteritis, while increasing
UV Index was inversely correlated with gastroenteritis inci-dence; air quality was not a significant risk factor.186
A group in Philadelphia has assessed the seasonality of both invasive pneumonia, caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, and invasive
meningococcal disease and tested associ-ations with acute (day-to-day) environmental factors. For pneumonia, the weekly incidence in
Philadelphia County was greatest in the winter months. This
pattern correlated with ex-tended periods of lowest solar
UV radiation and, to a much lesser extent, with temperature.352 The limited solar UV radiation available at higher latitudes, (Chapter 1)
could aid the survival of the bacterium or could adversely affect innate immunity, possibly through the lack of vit-amin D. As temperature is not a
major factor in the seasonality of invasive pneumonia, glob-al warming is unlikely to affect the incidence of the disease significantly, although
increased cloud cover could reduce ambient UV radiation and hence lower the vitamin D status. For invasive meningitis, the number of cases in
Philadelphia was highest in the late winter and early spring.177 A one-unit increase in the UV Index 1-4 days prior to the onset of symptoms was
associated with a 46% decrease in the odds of disease. The
dose of solar UV-B radiation could affect transmission
from a colonised subject or the infectivity of the bacteria. Thus, although the evidence to date is sparse, ozone
depletion leading to increased solar UV-B radiation, or decreases in UV radiation projected for the future (Chapter 1), in
combination with other environmental factors, could impact significantly on the incidence of particular infectious
diseases.
2nc Marine ecosystems
Ozone depletion turns the case- UV radiation alters aquatic population dynamics
Nazari et al 13 (Evelise Maria Nazari, Dib Ammar, Yara Maria Rauh Müller Center for Biological
Sciences, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis / SC Brazil AND Silvana Allodi Institute of
Biophysics Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro“Impacts of ultraviolet-B
radiation on aquatic embryos” www.researchgate.net/publication/237555222_Impacts_of_UltravioletB_Radiation_on_Aquatic_Embryos/file/72e7e51bf7d71eb393.pdf)//BLOV
The biological effects of UVB radiation on aquatic organisms are complex, and depend on the dose of
radiation to which they are exposed. Therefore, according to the aquatic system (oceans, rivers, streams,
lakes, ponds, and wetlands) and the level of water transparency, the photobiological effects of UV
radiation may vary. Many organisms, including terrestrial species, spawn in aquatic systems and their
eggs and embryos pass the first part of their life cycles in the euphotic zone that is exposed to UV
radiation spectra. Many species have adopted reproductive strategies to avoid or to minimize UV
exposure, such as spawning in shaded or sheltered areas, or alternatively, in the evening. This last strategy
effectively delays for a few hours the egg exposure to UV. Thus, the DNA in the blastomeres resulting
from the first cleavages of the egg would be protected from damage, and consequently, the early
developmental genes would also be protected [13].Embryos of many aquatic species are reported to be
more sensitive to UV incidence than organisms in later stages of life [12, 14, 15, 16]. Therefore, it is very
important to study the responses to UV in early stages; additionally, because we must consider that if the
young organisms survive the alterations induced by UV, they may become adults that either cannot
reproduce or suffer an impaired reproductive process. Eventually, this may affect the dynamics of
populations and thus the integrity of aquatic ecosystems.
Agriculture
Increased UV Radiation increases plant vulnerability
UNEP 10 (United Nations Environment Programme, “Executive Summary” ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF OZONE DEPLETION AND ITS INTERACTIONS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE: 2010
ASSESSMENT, http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/EEAP/eeap-report2010.pdf)//BLOV
Terrestrial Ecosystems In areas where substantial ozone depletion has occurred, results
from a wide range of field studies
suggest that increased UV-B radiation reduces terrestrial plant productivity by about 6%. This reduction
results from direct damage and increased diversion of plant resources towards protection and acclimation. Longterm effects of reduced plant growth could be important, particularly for potential carbon sequestration (capture). Changes in UV
radiation caused by global environmental change can have very important consequences for terrestrial
ecosystems. Region-specific changes in cloud cover and vegetative cover (in response to increased aridity or deforestation) predicted for the
coming decades are likely to have large impacts on the levels of UV radiation received by terrestrial organisms. These variations in UV
radiation (both UV-B ad UV-A) will affect a large range of ecosystems. Predicted changes in climate may modify
plant and ecosystem responses to UV radiation. For example, while moderate drought can decrease UV sensitivity in
plants, further decreases in precipitation and increasing temperatures due to climate change are likely to
restrict plant growth and compromise plants to re-distribute resources for protection from UV radiation
and other climate factors. Thus even limited climate change could have consequences for survival, especially in harsh environments.
UV radiation promotes the breakdown of dead plant material and consequently carbon loss to the
atmosphere. Exposure of vegetation and soils to UV radiation may increase in the future at low to mid-latitudes due to reduced cloud cover
or more intensive land use. The breakdown of dead plant material through the action of sunlight (photodegradation) is a very important ecosystem
process in many environments, especially for those components that decay only very slowly by microbial action. Variations
in UV-B
radiation caused by climate change and ozone depletion can have large effects on plant interactions with
pests, with important implications for food security and food quality. Plant consumption by herbivores (e.g.
insects) usually decreases under elevated UV-B radiation. Over the coming decades, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and increased planting
density may counteract this beneficial effect of UV-B radiation. UV-B radiation may improve the quality of food, for example, through increased
antioxidant activity, flavour and fibre content. Knowledge gained in this area could be used in the design of agricultural systems that take
advantage of these natural plant products to increase nutritional value. Solar
UV-B radiation changes microbial biodiversity
with consequences for soil fertility and plant disease. Changes in the composition of microbial communities on dead plant
material can alter rates of decay (an important ecosystem process that contributes to soil fertility). On living plants, changes in species
composition of microbes by UV-B radiation can affect susceptibility to fungal infections.
Warming
UV Radiation increases GHG effects on climate change
UNEP 10 (United Nations Environment Programme, “Executive Summary” ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF OZONE DEPLETION AND ITS INTERACTIONS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE: 2010
ASSESSMENT, http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/EEAP/eeap-report2010.pdf)//BLOV
Biogeochemical Cycles There are interactions between the effects of solar UV radiation and climate
change on the processes that drive the carbon cycle. These interactions could accelerate the rate of
atmospheric CO2 increase and subsequent global warming beyond current predictions. Projected shifts
to warmer and drier conditions, such as in the Mediterranean and in western North America, will increase
UV-induced carbon loss to the atmosphere. UV-induced breakdown of dead plant material is likely to
become a much more significant pathway for CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. In mid- and high-latitude
oceanic areas, the capacity to take up atmospheric CO2 is decreasing. This decrease is mainly due to
negative effects of climate change and solar UV radiation on photosynthesis and related CO2 uptake
processes in oceans. Predicted climate-related increases in runoff from the Arctic and alpine regions to
aquatic ecosystems will accelerate the UV-induced breakdown of soil organic carbon into atmospheric
CO2. The runoff also reduces water clarity and thus UV exposure in freshwaters and the coastal ocean.
Feedbacks involving greenhouse gases other than CO2 are increasing due to interactive effects of
UV radiation and climate change. For example, increases in oxygen-deficient regions of the ocean
caused by climate change enhance emissions of nitrous oxide, an important greenhouse and ozonedepleting gas.
Adv CP’s
MEBM CP
1NC MEBM CP
Text: The United States federal government should develop and implement marine
ecosystem-based management practices.
Ocean development applies multiple pressures to the environment- EBM resolves
pressures
Douvere and Ehler 09 (Fanny Douvere and Charles Ehler* Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, UNESCO, Paris, France “Ecosystem-based marine
spatial management: an evolving paradigm for the management of coastal and marine places” Ocean
Yearbook 01/2009 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 228361930_Ecosystembased_marine_spatial_management_an_evolving_paradigm_for_the_
management_of_coastal_and_marine_places)//BLOV
Ocean resources are limited both in space and abundance and the pressure on the marine
environment, resulting from an expansion of existing use and the rise of new ones, has been devastating
to many places. Essentially, increased activity in the marine environment has led to two important types
of conflict. First, not all uses are compatible with one another and are competing for ocean space or have
adverse effects on each other (user vs. user conflicts). Numerous examples exist of conflicts between
ocean users both globally and locally and include, for example, incompatibilities between the fastgrowing, billion-dollar submarine cable industry and fisheries, causing damage to, or loss of, fishing gear
or huge repair costs and lost revenues for cable disruptions.5 Other user conflicts include wind farms
located near shipping routes or traffic separation schemes, causing high risks of collisions and loss of
cargo. In New Zealand, spatial conflicts have arisen from legislative obligations to uphold the historic and
indigenous rights of fishers with more recent obligations toward nature conservation.6 Spatial use
conflicts also occur within one particular use and refer, for example, to the use of different gear types for
fisheries in certain areas, or the competition over use of space between commercial and recreational
fisheries. Studies in California have illustrated that new commercial ocean activities will only exacerbate
conflicts between users.7 Second, not all uses are compatible with the needs of a healthy and sustainable
environment and cause conflicts between users and the environment (user vs. environment conflicts).
Too often, ocean uses are located in sensitive biological and ecological areas without much consideration
of their impact. Many scientific studies document the degradation of the world’s oceans, the decline of
marine ecosystems, and the collapse of important fish species, illustrating that this is increasingly
impairing the ocean’s ability to produce the goods and services essential for life on Earth.8 Recent
research measured the cumulative impacts of human offshore activities on the marine environment at a
global scale and concluded that almost half (41 percent) of the world’s oceans is strongly affected by
multiple stresses. Elighly affected regions include the Eastern Caribbean, the North Sea, and Japanese
waters. Only a few areas around the North and South poles remain relatively unaffected by human
activities. Negative cumulative impacts of human activities on coastal and marine ecosystems would
probably be higher if historical effects, unreported extraction, recreational use (including fishing), disease,
and point-source pollution were incorporated in future measurements.9 Many of the conflicts described
above can and have been avoided or reduced through marine spatial management by influencing the
location of human activities in space and time. During recent years, marine spatial management (which
includes marine spatial planning) has become increasingly important as a way to make ecosystem-based
management10 a reality in coastal and marine environments.11 While concepts regarding ecosystembased management are often considered too broad, too abstract and too complex to enable effective
implementation,12 marine spatial management proves to be a way to make this process more tangible.13
Innovative and successful initiatives toward the development and implementation of ecosystem-based
marine spatial management have been taken in both highly-used marine areas such as the North Sea, the
Baltic Sea, the coastal area around China, and in large ocean areas such as Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. A key characteristic of these marine spatial management initiatives is their ability to provide
integration across multiple uses and sectors, to minimize conflicts, to maximize sustainable economic
development, and to protect important habitat and biodiversity areas.14
Data is sufficient In the squo it is a question of policy implementation. EBM takes a
holistic, cross- sector approach towards environmental protection.
Arkema et al 06 (Katie K Arkema Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University
of California, Santa Barbara, CA AND Sarah C Abramson The Donald Bren School of Environmental
Science and Management University of California, Santa Barbara, CA AND Bryan M Dewsbury
Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, “Marine ecosystem-based
management: from characterization to implementation” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4.10
2006 http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/carr/labmeetingpapers /winter2007/arkema_etal.pdf)//BLOV
Conclusions and suggestions for the future Scientists characterize EBM differently than agencies planning
to manage coastal and marine ecosystems (Figure 3). We found that management objectives and
interventions tend to miss critical ecological and human factors emphasized in the academic literature.
Our results indicate that managers are beginning to put some EBM principles into practice, but this
implementation needs to be much greater. The degree to which specific EBM criteria are translated
from definitions to management actions is inconsis-tent among the sites reviewed for this study. Site
differences in management goals, ecosystem function, and human use may affect the extent to which an
ecosystembased approach is incorporated into management planning. However, these inconsistencies may
also be due to an inability to implement the complex array of EBM criteria. Perhaps in both science and
management we lack a clear approach or toolset for implementing EBM. Tools for traditional, singlespecies management are available and widely used, but explicit approaches are still needed to
successfully conduct EBM. We encourage the scientific community to connect important EBM
concepts to operational goals for management. For example, place-based management (eg MPAs) can
be useful when managing for ecosystem complexity, such as interspecific connections in food webs
(Guerry 2005). Zoning can also be employed to target both ecological and economic goals. Areas of
commercial importance can be zoned for a certain level of use, while sensitive habitats may be zoned as
no-use or no-take areas, to maximize resource sustainability. By connecting specific EBM principles with
applicable tools, scientists may better communicate strategies for taking an ecosystem approach to
management. We recommend that communication be improved among scientists, management
agencies, and the public to highlight the parallels that exist between ecological and human
perspectives and facilitate a better understanding of EBM. Inconsistencies in terminology that different
scientists use in describing EBM criteria may inhibit communication. Furthermore, ecological terms often
have analogous concepts in the human dimension. For example, the ecological concept of ecosystem
function corresponds to the socioeconomic concept of ecosystem services. From an ecological
perspective, reproduction and growth of fishes is an ecosystem function; while in the human dimension,
food, employment, and recreation provided by fishing are ecosystem services. Improved communication
and standard terminology would provide opportunities to identify parallels and overlapping goals
among disciplines, thus facilitating a better understanding of EBM and reasonable means for its
implementation. Commitment from all levels of government to support and foster EBM is also needed.
Recently, the US Joint Ocean Commission Initiative – a united group of Commissioners from both the US
Commission on Ocean Policy and Pew Ocean Commission working to catalyze ocean policy reform –
released a plan outlining key actions for Congress that would establish more effective and integrated
ocean policy. The plan emphasizes the importance of EBM in many of its priorities. For example, it calls
for Congress to facilitate EBM of marine resources in the reauthorization of laws such as the Magnuson–
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act (JOCI 2006).
Advancements are also necessary at the operational level, to meet these policy recommendations and to
further the implementation of EBM. Ultimately, scientists and managers need to work collaboratively
and generate realistic methods for applying EBM principles, thereby helping to overcome barriers
between the scientific concept of EBM and its implementation.
2NC Solvency
EBM uses Integrated ecosystem Assessments to create better policy frameworks
Levin et al 09 (Phillip S Levin Ecosystem Science Program and the Nearshore Ecology Team at NOAA Fisheries' Northwest Fisheries
Science Center in Seattle, WA, AND Michael J. Fogarty. Adjunct Associate Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and NOAA
Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center AND Steven A Murawski Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor,
National Marine Fisheries Service , AND David Fluharty Associate Professor [WOT] at the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs
“Integrated Ecosystem Assessments: Developing the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Management of the Ocean” PLoS Biol 7(1): e1000014
1/20/09 http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000014)//BLOV (IEA=Integrated ecosystem assessments)
Historically, the
cutting edge of ecosystem research was dominated by reductionist investigations [43].
and policy makers find themselves drowning in data while gasping for
knowledge of how ecosystems respond to human activities [44]. While synthesis and integration are far more difficult
to achieve than reduction [43], an understanding of the whole, not simply the parts, is clearly necessary to conserve and
restore marine ecosystems and the services they deliver [45]. Masses of data simply cannot tell us how to implement EBM,
or determine priorities for doing so. Likewise, simply tallying the status and trends of various components of the
ecosystem cannot inform EBM. Instead, there is a clear need to actively integrate diverse physical, biological, and socioeconomic data
and to think critically about the ways in which decisions affect tradeoffs among ecosystem goods and services valued by society. The IEA
we describe here accomplishes this task and provides critical assessment support to the institutional
framework supporting societal interests in healthy and productive ecosystems. The time is ripe for a change in how
marine resources are managed in the US [46]. Knowledge in the marine environment is immensely difficult to acquire,
but over the decades marine scientists have steadily accumulated data, expertise, and tools. The future of marine
Consequently, researchers
ecosystems lies in the hands of policy makers, resource managers, scientists, and stakeholders who can take this collection of information,
integrate it, and operationalize EBM. We have now reached a fork in the road between the well-trodden reductionist path and the less traveled
synthetic way. IEAs, under the model we propose, point to a road less traveled, and we hold that this will make all the difference in defining a
practical way forward in implementing EBM.
Fishery Solvency
EBM is key to solve fisheries- big picture analysis prevents ecosystem trade-offs
Link and Browman 14 (Jason S. Link 6 National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, AND Howard I. Browman 2 Marine Ecosystem Acoustics Group, Institute of
Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, 5392 Storebø, Norway“Integrating what? Levels of marine
ecosystem-based assessment and management” http://fishlarvae.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/LinkBrowman_Intro-to-IEA.pdf
In theory, EBM
seeks to address the various natural and an- thropogenic pressures faced by the key
components of marine systems simultaneously. EBM also attempts to account for “cumu- lative impacts”
that might otherwise be overlooked. Nascent attempts to implement EBM highlight the need—in practice—to address trade-offs
across multiple objectives for a given system, in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. During the past decade, the discussion
over EBM has shifted from “what is it and why should we do it” ( Link, 2002 ; Browman and Stergiou, 2004 , 2005 ) to
“how can we do it and when can we operationalize it” ( Arkema et al ., 2006 ; Link, 2010 ; Berkes, 2012 ). Marine EBM
(e.g. Levin and Lubchenco, 2008 ; McLeod and Leslie, 2009 )andsimilar ecosystem-based efforts for more specific ocean-use sectors, such as
ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM; e.g. Pikitch et al ., 2004 ; Link, 2010 ) or integrated coastal-zone management (e.g. Cicin-Sain
and Knecht, 1998 ; Moksness et al ., 2013 ), have
become the mandated approach to managing ocean resources. EBM
is a major policy objective of many marine-oriented organizations—as is clear from a perusal of the strategic plans
of organizations such as ICES, PICES, FAO, UNEP, and NOAA. The need for integrated assessments frequently arises in
the context of discussions over implementing EBM. The term “integrated assessments” is perceived as mysterious and
ultimately unhelpful because it suffers from a plurality of defi- nitions and it is used in a multitude of contexts—i.e. it has high lin- guistic
uncertainty. That is why we pose the question in the title of this introduction: what are we integrating and, hence, what are we assessing?
Returning to the EBM context for sustainably managing marine resources, we note that there
are, in fact, multiple levels at which
an “ecosystem approach” can be adopted in practice. To illustrate, we focus on the fisheries sector. There are levels of
application for EBM that focus solely on fish stocks, levels that focus on fish stocks but with ecosystem considerations incorporated, ecosystem
levels that focus solely on the fisheries sector but for the full system of fisheries and stocks, and the full set of ocean-use sectors impacted by and
impacting the fisheries sector (Table 1 ). For example, consider forage stocks such as small pelagic fish. For
an ecosystem approach to
fisheries(EAF)that takes a stock focus, one would need to consider the effects of environmental factors (e.g. temperature
changes or NAO events) and ecological factors (e.g. predator removals or models of multispecies interactions) in addition to targeted
fisheries removals to truly grasp what is driving the population dynamics of such stocks. Using the same type of focal species as an example, for
EBFM that takes a system focus in the fisheries sector, one would have to consider not only the impacts of other factors on these forage stocks,
but also the dynamics of these forage stocks on other parts of the ecosystem. For instance, there are seabirds or marine mammals that have some
form of protected or conservation status and that are highly dependent on small pelagic forage fish. There are commercially targeted ground fish
that are also major predators of these small pelagic forage fish. There are also multiple fisheries operating on both the ground fish and the small
a more integrated, “bigger picture” evaluation of the whole system and
how it fits together is needed to address the potential trade-offs among the different uses of and
impacts to these forage stocks. Further, if these forage stocks represent a key pathway of energy from lower trophic levels to upper
pelagic species. In such a case, clearly
trophic levels (which they typically do), then the resilience, structure, and functioning of the system would need to be evaluated. For an EBM that
covers all ocean-use sectors, consideration of these small pelagics and their role in the ecosystem is warranted in a broadercontext foranthropogenic drivers such as power plant discharges (thermal impacts), eu- trophication, toxin deposition, h ydroelectric energy generation, dredging for
navigation safety, and similar uses that might impact the habitats of these species. One can envision similar examples for other ocean-use sectors,
but facets of this full range of considerations across different levels of EBM are demonstrated in Mo ̈ llmann et al . (2014) . The salient point
being that one can do integrated assessments at all these levels of application, but they are called different things
AT: Tech fails
New long term funding strategies solve- multiple sources of funding and proactive
budgeting
Curtice et al 12 (Corrie Curtice Daniel C. Institute of Dunn, and Jason J. Roberts are all researchers with the Marine Geospatial
Ecology Lab at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. Sarah D. Carr is the coordinator of the
Coastal–Marine Ecosystem-Based Management Tools Network and is based at the nonprofit conservation orga - nization NatureServe, in
Arlington, Virginia. Patrick N. Halpin is an associate professor of marine geospatial ecology and director of the Geospatial Ecology Program at
the Nicholas School of the Environment, at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina“Why Ecosystem-Based Management May Fail without
Changes to Tool Development and Financing” American Biological Sciences, BioScience vol. 62, No. 5 (May 2012), pp. 508-515
http://mgel.env.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bio.2012.62.5.13_Curtice_et_al.pdf)//BLOV
Despite all the challenges associated with obtaining long- term funding for the development of EBM
tools, it can be done. There are many successful tools available. Supporting and maintaining these tools is
the primary challenge of the developer. Resources are needed to fix bugs, support users, and update the
software’s compatibility with other products. If resources are not available for these purposes, users will
not be able to accomplish their objectives for using the tool, and the tool will become unused and
obsolete. This wastes the money originally invested in developing the tool and deprives EBM
practitioners and managers of the full benefits the tool could provide. Together, changes adopted by both
developers and funders will increase the rates of success and sustainability of EBM software tools and
will contribute to better understanding and management of our coastal and marine resources. In the
present article, we put forth comprehensive rec - ommendations for developers and funders to promote the
creation of more sustainable and more widely adopted EBM tools (boxes 2 and 3). In summary,
developers should not undervalue their knowledge and the services they provide. We encourage them to
seek multiple sources of funding, including fee-based sources, to help assure the long-term financial
stability of the product. Furthermore, develop - ment budgets should account for the need to hire profes sional software developers, to produce documentation and customer training courses, and to support and
maintain the product for several years after its initial release. Funders should acknowledge the
fundamental need for software tool development to aid in the implementation of EBM processes and
should support the employment of experienced pro - grammers to improve product quality. Proposals in
which documentation, support, and maintenance of the tool are addressed and in which the ways in which
the tool will be sustained in the long term are discussed should be favored. To help break the episodic
funding cycle, funders should consider creating tool endowments, requiring participation in open-source
development communities, and proactively funding software projects for longer terms
Blue Carbon CP
1NC
CP text: The United States federal government should incorporate carbon services
into consultative, regulatory, and mitigative processes in the Clean Water Act, the
Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment
process that is part of the Oil Pollution Act, and should stimulate increased
investment in coastal habitat conservation through private carbon markets.
CP causes increased protection of marine ecosystems and solves warming
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
Many agencies and organizations, including in the United States federal government, are expressing
interest in the measurement and valuation of ecosystem services. Despite this interest, specific guidance
on whether and how to incorporate ecosystem services into federal activities remains scarce. This analysis
examines three regulations that are important parts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's mission to protect coastal and marine habitats: the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process that is part of the Oil Pollution
Act. Case studies of each reveal that it is possible to incorporate the carbon sequestered and stored in
coastal habitats, or “carbon services,” into existing processes—consultative, regulatory, and mitigative—
that are employed to implement these regulations. Specific examples illustrate how carbon services could
be incorporated into the implementation of each federal regulation. The study concludes that
incorporating carbon services into the implementation of existing environmental regulations could
provide increased protection or restoration of coastal habitats. Increased conservation outcomes could
result from changing the way the federal government implements national policy and/or by stimulating
increased investment in coastal habitat conservation through private carbon markets. These outcomes
would result in a “win-win” for both climate regulation and habitat conservation and would preserve not
only the carbon services, but also the many ecosystem services these habitats provide.
2NC Solvency
Spills over domestically
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
Despite these activities, the exact process for implementing a larger-scale (NOAA-wide) ecosystem framework is not yet clear. In fact, even
though there is a significant legal literature examining attempts of agencies to incorporate ecosystem services thinking into decision-making [710], very little detail has been offered in legal rules or standards for how any federal agency should implement the concept of ecosystem services
in federal activities and implementation of statutes or agency regulations [11]. In other words, NOAA,
as well as many other
organizations and government agencies, is still working to determine how best to operationalize the
concept of ecosystem services. This analysis focuses on a pilot effort underway at NOAA to
operationalize one specific ecosystem service, carbon storage and sequestration. The goal is to
incorporate the carbon services of habitats into the way NOAA does business, including the way the
agency implements policies, makes decisions, conducts on-the-ground habitat protection and restoration,
focuses scientific research efforts, and works with partners, which could then set a precedent for other
federal agencies to follow when applicable.
Spills over internationally
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
NOAA has taken a three-pronged approach to addressing coastal blue carbon needs. The team has
focused on the science gaps that need to be filled (see details of these gaps in [13, 20]), the developing international
opportunities (including bilateral agreements and the team’s work at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), and
domestic policy opportunities. The analysis presented here details only this latter piece of NOAA’s
efforts, focusing on domestic policy opportunities related to coastal blue carbon. This analysis examines
the possibility of including coastal blue carbon services in existing federal policies by changing the way
these policies are implemented to include carbon services of habitats. This type of analysis has been
called for by the International Blue Carbon Policy Working Group [30]. These initial efforts to examine U.S. domestic policy
opportunities may spur additional examinations of both U.S. and other nations’ opportunities to
account for and value the carbon services of habitats in their policies and practices.
It’s a net turn for the neg- only the CP solves warming but any destruction of the
ecosystems causes global environmental collapse
A growing body of literature has started to quantify the carbon sequestration and storage potential of salt
marshes, mangroves, and sea grasses (Pidgeon, Herr, and Fonseca 2011; Sifleet, Pendleton, and Murray 2011, McLeod et al. 2011).
In these habitats, carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere and retained in living biomass and soils. Because of its proximity to the ocean, the
carbon in these habitats often is referred to as “coastal blue carbon.” Herein, we refer to this ecosystem service as simply “coastal carbon.” Unlike
forests, which typically store most of their carbon in aboveground biomass such as tree trunks, coastal carbon habitats store the majority of their
carbon in the soil, with carbon-rich sediments sometimes reaching depths of many meters.
When these wetland ecosystems are
degraded or destroyed, the carbon in the plant biomass and soil can be released to the atmosphere, where
it adds to the concentration of greenhouses gases (GHGs) that contribute to climate change (IPCC 2007).
Many federal statutes and policies specifically require that impacts on ecosystem services be considered
in policy implementation. Some federal policies directly include the economic value of certain ecosystem
services in estimates of economic impact. Yet, we are unaware of a single federal statute, regulation, or
policy that accounts directly for the carbon held in coastal habitats. Explicitly accounting for coastal
carbon could change the outcome of federal policy actions for variety of federal statutes and policies,
including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and others. These statutes and
policies allow for agency discretion in deciding which ecosystem services to include when considering
alternative policies, plans, actions, and even assessments of the economic costs of damages to coastal
ecosystems. Coastal carbon is an ecosystem service that could be included.
Spills over to the private sector
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
If federal agencies begin to include carbon services in decision- making and habitat management, this
inclusion would signal that this carbon-regulating ecosystem service is important, thus encouraging
private sector investment in both compliance and voluntary carbon markets. Both of these markets
are examples of other methods of managing and mitigating carbon emissions contributing to global
climate change. In other words, including carbon services in federal policy implementation will send an
important policy signal to private sector interests to consider the inclusion of carbon ecosystem services
in their business planning. This could in turn result in higher levels of participation in private sectordriven carbon markets.
Solves ecosystems
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
The planet faces several environmental challenges, including rapid loss of habitats and biodiversity as
well as changing climate. But better accounting for ecosystem services in decision methods, including
cost benefit analyses and environmental impact assess- ments, should lead to more informed decisions
about policy options and tradeoffs 1111. This paper posits that the incorporation of carbon services into the
implementation of existing environ- mental policy could result in increased protection and restoration
of coastal habitats through changes in the way the U.S. federal government implements national policy.
It also could send a policy signal to the private sector and thus lead to increased investment in coastal
habitat conservation through private carbon markets. Both of these outcomes would result in climate regulation
benefits and the preservation of the multiple ecosystem services that these habitats provide.
AT: Links to politics
Doesn’t link to politics
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
This analysis demonstrates that it is possible to incorporate carbon services (storage and sequestration) into the
existing policy framework, specifically NRDA. CWA and CZMA. This study deter- mined that as part of the
existing consultative, regulatory, and mitigation processes, federal agencies already incorporate ecosystem functions and services such as food production, nutrient regulation, and vegetative cover. The
conclusion then is that there are no legislative barriers to include carbon regulation as an additional
ecosystem service that could be part of the above- mentioned processes.
Aff Answers
Environment DA
Oceans Declining
Warming collapsing ocean ecosystems now
Shah 14 (Anup, writer for Global Issues, Climate Change Affects Biodiversity,
http://www.globalissues.org/article/172/climate-change-affects-biodiversity, 1/19/14)
The link between climate change and biodiversity has long been established. Although throughout Earth’s
history the climate has always changed with ecosystems and species coming and going, rapid climate
change affects ecosystems and species ability to adapt and so biodiversity loss increases. From a human
perspective, the rapid climate change and accelerating biodiversity loss risks human security (e.g. a major change in the food chain upon which
we depend, water sources may change, recede or disappear, medicines and other resources we rely on may be harder to obtain as the plants and
forna they are derived from may reduce or disappear, etc.). The UN’s Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, in May 2010, summarized some concerns
that climate change will have on ecosystems: Climate
change is already having an impact on biodiversity, and is
projected to become a progressively more significant threat in the coming decades. Loss of Arctic sea ice
threatens biodiversity across an entire biome and beyond. The related pressure of ocean acidification,
resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is also already being observed.
Ecosystems are already showing negative impacts under current levels of climate change … which is
modest compared to future projected changes…. In addition to warming temperatures, more frequent
extreme weather events and changing patterns of rainfall and drought can be expected to have significant
impacts on biodiversity. — Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010,
p.56 Some species may benefit from climate change (including, from a human perspective, an increases in diseases and pests) but the rapid
nature of the change suggests that most species will not find it as beneficial as most will not be able to
adapt.
Whaling
COLLINS 14 (Katie, writer for Wired Science, Whales are the engineers of our ocean ecosystems,
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/03/whales-ecosystem-engineers, 7/3/14)
Thanks to marine biologists around the world we now know that the
gentle giants of our oceans have a powerful and
positive impact on our underwater ecosystems. It has long been presumed that whales are so rare that their effect on our oceans
is negligible. Not so, according to new research published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which has taken into account
several decades of whale-related data and found that their influence can be seen in the global carbon
storage and the health of commercial fisheries. In the past fishermen have often taken taken the view that whales, which after all
have massive metabolic demands, are their competition. It turns out, however, that a prevalence of whales actually encourages
the development of more robust fisheries. It's estimated that the dramatic decline in whale numbers,
primarily due to industrial whaling, has seen their numbers decline between 66 and 90 percent, but there are
signs of recovery, which could well have a dramatically positive impact on the health of ocean ecosystems overall. " Future changes in the
structure and function of the world's oceans can be expected with the restoration of great whale population," write the
researchers in the study's abstract.
Declining fish size
Rietta 14 (commentator at Pucci Foods ocean blog citing a recent study, conducted by fisheries
scientists with the University of Aberdeen, Rising Ocean Temperatures: Smaller Fish Will Impact
Fisheries and Ecosystems Unless Humans Learn to Adapt, http://puccifoods.com/pucciseafoodnew/blog/ocean-temperatures-rise-smaller-fish-will-impact-fisheries-ecosystems-unless-humans-learnadapt/, 3/3/14)
There may be serious negative effects on entire ecosystems that come with decreasing fish size.
Everything in the ocean food web is connected – if fish on a lower trophic level become smaller, they will
naturally yield fewer nutrients for organisms higher up on the energy chain. These animals could be
predatory fish or sharks that are already suffering from the same depleted oxygen levels, or marine
mammals that need to sustain massive amounts of energy to survive. They will be compelled to eat more
of the smaller fish – lending to a decline in population – or switch their food source to something else. Ripple effects
could be seen far and wide in many different ocean ecosystems. Organisms have an amazing ability to
adapt and evolve to survive. But much more time is needed to keep things in balance. These fish are being
forced to adapt too quickly to changing conditions – entire ecosystems need at least thousands of years to
properly evolve. Right now human activity is forcing monumental changes over a span of decades.
Increased ocean temperatures
Rietta 14 (commentator at Pucci Foods ocean blog citing a recent study, conducted by fisheries
scientists with the University of Aberdeen, Rising Ocean Temperatures: Smaller Fish Will Impact
Fisheries and Ecosystems Unless Humans Learn to Adapt, http://puccifoods.com/pucciseafoodnew/blog/ocean-temperatures-rise-smaller-fish-will-impact-fisheries-ecosystems-unless-humans-learnadapt/, 3/3/14)
This study took place on fish data from the North Sea, but what about other areas? Although scientists
predict that different regions will show quite a bit of variation, we have seen a global increase in sea
surface temperatures. We must wonder how other animals are likely to be affected. If all our oceans are
warming, then we must believe that they will all begin losing the capacity to hold oxygen. Organisms rely
on this oxygen – it would be akin to our atmospheric being sucked away, so that humans were forced to survive on less oxygen. Imagine
a world where it is hard for our lungs to gather enough oxygen to fuel the movement of our bodies. Just
walking down the street would become a tremendously difficult task. Fish and invertebrates would surely
lose the energy needed to find food, shelter and mates. Coral reefs are especially sensitive to
environmental conditions, with higher temperatures causing coral bleaching and eventual death. Coral reefs
are home to 25% of life in the oceans with biodiversity levels on par with terrestrial rainforests. Coral reefs provide millions of people with food
and jobs in fishing and ecotourism. Their
disappearance would have grave implications for the future.
Caribbean Reefs will disappear in 20 years- increased pressures and lack of grazers
Seattle Times 7/7/14 (“Study: Caribbean coral reefs will be lost within 20 years” Seattle times 7/7/14
http://seattletimes.com/html/outdoors/2024012938_caribbeanreefs disappearingxml.html)//BLOV
Most Caribbean
coral reefs will disappear within the next 20 years unless action is taken to protect them, primarily
due to the decline of grazers such as sea urchins and parrotfish, a new report has warned. A comprehensive
analysis by 90 experts of more than 35,000 surveys conducted at nearly 100 Caribbean locations since
1970 shows that the region’s corals have declined by more than 50 percent. But restoring key fish populations and
improving protection from overfishing and pollution could help the reefs recover and make them more resilient to the impacts of climate change,
according to the study from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the
U.N.’s Environment Program. While
climate change and the resulting ocean acidification and coral bleaching
does pose a major threat to the region, the report — Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012 — found that local
pressures such as tourism, overfishing and pollution posed the biggest problems. And these factors have
made the loss of the two main grazer species, the parrotfish and sea urchin, the key driver of coral decline in the Caribbean. Grazers are
important fish in the marine ecosystem as they eat the algae that can smother corals. An unidentified
disease led to a mass mortality of the sea urchin in 1983 and overfishing throughout the 20th century has
brought the parrotfish population to the brink of extinction in some regions, according to the report.
Reefs where parrotfish are not protected have suffered significant declines, including Jamaica, the entire
Florida reef tract from Miami to Key West, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. At the same time, the report showed that some
of the healthiest Caribbean coral reefs are those that are home to big populations of grazing parrotfish. These include the U.S. Flower Garden
Banks national marine sanctuary in the northern Gulf of Mexico, Bermuda and Bonaire — all of which have restricted or banned fishing practices
that harm parrotfish.
Fishery Management is failing- Positive trends come from developed countries’
skewed databases which are only 20% of all fish catches
Cheung and Pitcher 13 (William W.L Cheung PhD in Resource Management and Environmental
Studies Assistant Professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre AND Tony J. Pitcher founding director of the
Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, where he is currently a professor of fisherie
“Fisheries: Hope or despair?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013
Bulletinhttp://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Pitcher-Cheung.pdf)//BLOV
review of the main types of fishery management sug- gests that most of the ‘silver bullet’ approaches
of a single type of management system (such as ‘property rights’, ‘MPAs’ or ‘co-man- agement’) will not work well, and
A recent
only combined management ap- proaches (ecosystem and restoration-based) perform best ( Pitcher and Lam, 2010 ). However, despite many calls
for its implementa- tion (e.g., Hall and Mainprize, 2005 ), there has been a widespread failure among the principal fishing countries to adopt the
key fea- tures of ecosystem-based fishery management ( Pitcher et al., 2008a,b ). Nevertheless, there
are some signs that the
management of some fisheries in the developed world is improving. For exam- ple, countries with higher Code
compliance scores showed improvement in status between 1995 and 2005, according to an ecosystem health index ( Coll et al., 2012 ).
Unfortunately, countries with poor Code compliance had not changed, or had got slightly worse.
Poor governance in managing fisheries in developing coun- tries is a hard problem to tackle: for many small-scale
fisheries in developing countries it is impractical to collect any data. In such situations, it has been suggested that basic elements of ‘primary
fisheries management’ represent a practical solution ( Cochrane et al., 2011 ). Is
the current status in sustainability of fisheries
better than had previously been thought? Analysis of stock assessment data from over 350 stocks by Worm et
al. (2009) suggested that improved management had led to increased biomass and that fishery stocks were
recovering. However, the analysis was based on fish popula- tions that have conventional stock assessment
procedures held in a public database (the ‘‘Ram Myers legacy database’’: Ricard et al., 2012 ). These fish stocks, however, comprise
only 16% of the annual world fish catch (only about 8% without just one stock, the US North Pacific pollock), and moreover, most
of them are from North America and Europe ( Worm and Branch, 2012 ). As one might ex- pect for fisheries where costly
modern stock assessment is carried out, these fisheries are largely in countries of the developed world
with the top 15% of fishery management quality scores ( Mora et al., 2009 ). They all have a relatively high UN Human
Development In- dex and are at the upper end of the range of compliance with the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (see Fig. 2 :
Pitcher et al., 2009 ). In these assessed fisheries, biomass lies at about 32% of estimated unfished biomass, or about 90% of the MSY level (
Worm and Branch, 2012 ). Moreover, Froese et al. (2012) argue that these
assessed stocks are a fundamentally biased subset
of all fished stocks in that they represent high value, resilient stocks that have survived fishing for
decades, or centuries of fishing in the case of some European ecosystems. While there is indeed some evidence of small
improvements to fisheries management in the developed world ( Coll et al., 2012 ), over 80% of the world’s fish
are caught elsewhere ( Pomeroy and Andrew, 2011 ) and so this does not support a message of confi- dence. In
fact, a statistical analysis of the status of the majority of world fisheries ( Costello et al., 2012 ) using a multiple
regression model to predict status (B/Bmsy) for unassessed fisheries, confirms that, although fisheries for which stock assessment is available are
mostly in a reasonable shape, serious depletions are the norm world-wide. This argues against Worm and Branch’s (2012) sug- gestion that
unassessed fisheries
may ‘‘probably harbor higher but declining fish biomass’’. Moreover, recent analysis suggests that
catch per effort is still declining ( Watson et al., 2012 ). This evi- dence suggests that the global picture is indeed
alarming.
No Biod Impact
Ocean biodiversity is getting better
Panetta, 13 (Leon, former US secretary of state, “Panetta: Don't take oceans for granted,”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html)
Our oceans are a tremendous economic engine, providing jobs for millions of Americans, directly and
indirectly, and a source of food and recreation for countless more. Yet, for much of U.S. history, the
health of America's oceans has been taken for granted, assuming its bounty was limitless and capacity to
absorb waste without end. This is far from the truth. The situation the commission found in 2001 was
grim. Many of our nation's commercial fisheries were being depleted and fishing families and
communities were hurting. More than 60% of our coastal rivers and bays were degraded by nutrient
runoff from farmland, cities and suburbs. Government policies and practices, a patchwork of inadequate
laws and regulations at various levels, in many cases made matters worse. Our nation needed a wake-up
call. The situation, on many fronts, is dramatically different today because of a combination of leadership
initiatives from the White House and old-fashioned bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill. Perhaps the
most dramatic example can be seen in the effort to end overfishing in U.S. waters. In 2005, President
George W. Bush worked with congressional leaders to strengthen America's primary fisheries
management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This included
establishment of science-based catch limits to guide decisions in rebuilding depleted species. These
reforms enacted by Congress are paying off. In fact, an important milestone was reached last June when
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced it had established annual, sciencebased catch limits for all U.S. ocean fish populations. We now have some of the best managed fisheries in
the world. Progress also is evident in improved overall ocean governance and better safeguards for
ecologically sensitive marine areas. In 2010, President Barack Obama issued a historic executive order
establishing a national ocean policy directing federal agencies to coordinate efforts to protect and restore
the health of marine ecosystems. President George W. Bush set aside new U.S. marine sanctuary areas
from 2006 through 2009. Today, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, one of several
marine monuments created by the Bush administration, provides protection for some of the most
biologically diverse waters in the Pacific.
Oceans resilient - adaptation
Kennedy 2 (Victor, Environmental science prof, “Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate
Change”, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems
are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the
biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to
respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable. Some
species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to climate
change.
Empirics prove no impact
NG 12 (National Geographic, “Mass Extinctions, What Causes Animal Die Offs?”,
science.nationalgeographic.com, 2012, https://science.nationalgeographic.com/prehistoric-world/massextinction)
More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to
fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from
constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species
on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye. Though these mass extinctions are deadly
events, they open up the planet for new life-forms to emerge. Dinosaurs appeared after one of the biggest
mass extinction events on Earth, the Permian-Triassic extinction about 250 million years ago. The most
studied mass extinction, between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods about 65 million years ago, killed
off the dinosaurs and made room for mammals to rapidly diversify and evolve.
Alt causes
Panetta 13 (Leon, former US secretary of state, co-chaired the Pew Ocean Commission and founded
the Panetta Institute at California State University, Monterey Bay, “Panetta: Don't take oceans for
granted,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html)
Despite the strides made in the 10 years since the Pew Oceans Commission issued its report, challenges
remain. Coastal development continues, largely unchecked, and wetlands and marshes continue to shrink.
That exposes more than half of the Americans who live along the coasts to the physical and economic
damage caused by increasingly high-intensity storms such as Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy.
On top of that, major challenges that the commission could not see as clearly in 2003, including ocean
acidification and rising ocean temperatures, further threaten some of our most valuable fisheries. The
United States must pursue a broader, ecosystem-based approach to build resilience in our oceans and
respond to future threats.
No acididfication
No Acidification impact – its natural
Eschenbach 11 (Willis, senior writer for WUWT, “The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified”, What’s up
with that?, 12/27/2011, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/)
In reality, it’s quite the opposite.
The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral.
Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less
corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity. That is the problem with the term “acidify”, and it is why I use and insist on the more
accurate term “neutralize”. Using
“acidify”, is both alarmist and incorrect. The ocean is not getting acidified
by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2. With that as prologue, let me go on to discuss the
paper on oceanic pH. The paper is called “High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison” (hereinafter pH2011). As
the name suggests, they took a look at the actual variations of pH in a host of different parts of the ocean. They show 30-day “snapshots” of a
variety of ecosystems. The authors comment: These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low
dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100. First, they
show the 30-day snapshot of both the open ocean and a deepwater open ocean reef: Figure 2. Continuous 30-day pH measurements of open ocean
and deepwater reef. Bottom axis shows days. Vertical bar shows the amount of the possible pH change by 2100, as estimated in the pH2011
study. I
note that even in the open ocean, the pH is not constant, but varies by a bit over the thirty days.
These changes are quite short, and are likely related to rainfall events during the month. As mentioned above,
these slightly (and temporarily) neutralize the ocean surface, and over time mix in to the lower waters. Over Kingman reef, there are longer
lasting small swings. Compare the two regions shown in Fig. 1 to some other coral reef “snapshots” of thirty days worth of continuous pH
measurements. Figure 3. Thirty day “snapshots” of the variation in pH at two tropical coral reefs. Bottom axis shows days. There are a couple of
things of note in Figure 3. First, day-to-night variations in pH are from the CO2 that is produced by the reef life as a whole. Also, day-to-night
swings on the Palmyra reef terrace are about a quarter of a pH unit … which is about 60% more than the projected change from CO2 by the year
2100. Moving on, we have the situation in a couple of upwelling areas off of the California coast: Figure 4. Thirty day pH records of areas of
oceanic upwelling. This upwelling occurs, among other places, along the western shores of the continents. Here we see even greater swings of
pH, much larger than the possible predicted change from CO2. Remember that this is only over the period of a month, so there will likely be an
annual component to the variation as well. Figure 5 shows what is going on in kelp forests. Figure 5. pH records in kelp forests Again we see a
variety of swings of pH, both long- and short-term. Inshore, we find even larger swings, as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6. Two pH records from a
near-shore and an estuarine oceanic environment. Again we see large pH changes in a very short period of time, both in the estuary and the nearshore area. My conclusions from all of this? First, there are a number of places in the ocean where the pH swings are both rapid and large. The
life in those parts of the ocean doesn’t seem to be bothered by either the size or the speed these swings. Second, the size of the possible pH
change by 2100 is not large compared to the natural swings. Third, due to a host of buffering mechanisms in the ocean, the possible pH change by
2100 may be smaller, but is unlikely to be larger, than the forecast estimate shown above. Fourth, I would be very surprised if we’re still burning
much fossil fuel ninety years from now. Possible, but doubtful in my book. So from this effect as well, the change in oceanic pH may well be less
than shown above. Fifth, as the authors commented, some
parts of the ocean are already experiencing conditions that
were not forecast to arrive until 2100 … and are doing so with no ill effects. As a result, I’m not
particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The
ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and
others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly
more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.
Acidification good – increases ocean growth
Middleton 09 (Dave, Geoscientist and BS in Earth Sciences, “Ocean Acidification… Another Nail in a
Junk Science Coffin,” Debunk House, 11/13/2009, http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/oceanacidification-another-nail-in-a-junk-science-coffin/)
In other words… Anthropogenic
CO2 emissions help feed the critters that build coral reefs. Dissolved
Inorganic Carbon (CO2, bicarbonate, etc.) are consumed by shell building organisms to build shells (bicarbonate) and photosynthesis in the
photic zone (CO2). DIC constitute about 97% of the carbon in the oceans. Dissolved Organic Carbon (noncolloidal bits of carbohydrates, proteins, etc.) are the mostly the product of photosynthesis. DOC can come from land or, marine
sources. This is consumed by sponges which secrete food for reef building organisms. Both DIC and DOC are
part of the carbon cycle. Anthropogenic carbon emissions (primarily CO2) constitute about 3% of the Earth’s carbon
budget (~6 Gt/yr). More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to something called “CO2 fertilization.” In an enriched
CO2 environment, most plants end to grow more. The fatal flaw of the infamous “Hockey Stick” chart was in Mann’s
misinterpretation of Bristlecone Pine tree ring chronologies as a proxy for temperature; when in fact the tree ring growth was actually indicating
CO2 fertilization as in this example from Greek fir treesEnriched atmospheric
CO2 “feeds” reefs in two ways: 1) Enhanced
photosynthesis for the symbiotic algae; and 2) More DOC to feed the sponges that also feed reef builders
as the result of enhanced photosynthesis of land and marine vegetation. Coral reefs can only grow in the
photic zone of the oceans because zooxanthellae algae use sunlight, CO2, calcium and/or magnesium to
make limestone. The calcification rate of Flinders Reef has increased along with atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1700 Flinders Reef
calcification rate has increased along with atmospheric CO2 since 1700. As the atmospheric CO2 concentration has grown since the 1700′s coral
reef extension rates have also trended upwards. This
is contrary to the theory that increased atmospheric CO2 should
reduce the calcium carbonate saturation in the oceans, thus reducing reef calcification. It’s a similar enigma to the
calcification rates of coccoliths and otoliths. In all three cases, the theory or model says that increasing atmospheric CO2
will make the oceans less basic by increasing the concentration of H+ ions and reducing calcium
carbonate saturation. This is supposed to reduce the calcification rates of carbonate shell-building
organisms. When, in fact, the opposite is occurring in nature with reefs and coccoliths – Calcification rates are
generally increasing. And in empirical experiments under laboratory conditions, otoliths grew (rather than shrank)
when subjected to high levels of simulated atmospheric CO2. In the cases of reefs and coccoliths, one answer is that the
relatively minor increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last couple of hundred years has enhanced photosynthesis more than it has hampered
marine carbonate geochemistry. However, the otoliths (fish ear bones) shouldn’t really benefit from enhanced photo-respiration.
The fact
that otoliths grew rather than shrank when subjected to high CO2 levels is a pretty good indication
that the primary theory of ocean acidification has been tested and falsified. In the field of geology, when we
falsify a hypothesis or a theory, we trend to start looking for a new hypothesis or theory. That’s why we rely very heavily on Chamberlain’s
Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. In
the junk science of ocean acidification and anthropogenic global
warming, it appears that the process is to simply discard any data that deviate from the ruling theory.
No impact - adaptation
Anthony 7 (Floor, the Director of Sea Friends, “Ocean acidification Are oceans becoming more acidic
and is this a threat to marine life?” Seafriends, 2007,
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#conclusion)
It is an important message that I want you to take home and keep in the back of your mind whenever you read about marine science or planet
science. It is a message for scientists too. Dead planet thinking:
most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a
dead planet, where every force, every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated
by a computer. But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing circumstances. Of all these,
the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel the secrets of the
sea. Opening with these thoughts, the (bio)chemistry of the sea is so complicated and unknown that the scare for
acidic oceans is entirely unjustified. It is true that humans should act from a position of humility and prudence, adjusting to nature
while never exploiting more than 30% of the environment but we have gone far over that limit. Today nature is adjusting to us and we cannot
change that without a much smaller human population and much less waste (CO2 is part of human waste). Well, that is not going to happen. So
we have to accept that nature is now changing. An important part of that is an increase of the life-bringing gas carbondioxide. With
higher
CO2 levels, plants will produce more. Hopefully the world will become warmer too, and all this is
welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become more acidic, they will become more productive too,
adjusting to the new scenario. There will be no 'tipping points' but there could be some unexpected and unforeseen
surprises. The world has been changing and adapting to major changes since it came out of the last ice age, and the changes caused by fossil fuel
will be relatively small. As
far as the science of ocean acidification goes, there are some major errors and
conflicts, and the amount of missing knowledge is much larger than what we know. Scientists have uncritically
accepted the findings of the IPCC with critically low 'pre-industrial' levels of CO2, but has anyone tried to grow plants and seedlings at 180ppmv
CO2?
No soil erosion
No impact to soil erosion.
Taylor 93 (Jerry, Director of Natural Resource Studies at CATO, “The Growing Abundance of Natural
Resources”, Market Liberalism, 1993, http://cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html)
Although conservationists argue that accelerating soil erosion will make those productivity gains short-lived and illusory, the facts speak
otherwise. Most of the world's worst soil erosion problems are the result, not of modern high-yield farming, but of attempts to use low-yield,
traditional agricultural techniques on fragile soils.30 Studies by the U.S Department of Agriculture, the University of Minnesota's Soil Sciences
Department, and economist Pierre Crosson of Resources for the Future all conclude that, at
current erosion rates, heavily
farmed soils in the United States might lose 3 to 10 percent of their inherent fertility over the next
100 years. Such small losses are sure to be more than offset by continued improvements in
agricultural productivity even if no new conservation techniques are adopted. As Crosson noted: The
success of the new [high-yield] technologies strongly suggests that erosion damage to soils in the
main crop- producing regions of the country was not and is not as severe as is sometimes claimed. Soil
scientists have acknowledged that even severely eroded soil can be restored to high productivity
with investments of human skill and other resources, even though they may seem to forget this when they make
pronouncements about the erosion threat. Continuation of present rates of erosion throughout most of the next
century would pose no serious threat to the productivity of the nation's soils.31
Soil erosion is media hype – There’s no threat
Simon 97 (Julian, Professor at the University of Maryland, Washington Times, 1997,
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6139)
Then in a Jan. 11, 1983, speech President Reagan said, "I think we are all aware of the need to do something about soil erosion." The headline on
a June 4, 1984, Newsweek "My Turn" article typified how the issue was presented: "A step away from the Dust Bowl." More recently, we have
such statements as that of Vice President Al Gore about how "8 acres' worth of prime topsoil floats past Memphis every hour," and that Iowa
"used to have an average of 16 inches of the best topsoil in the world. Now it is down to 8 inches " These
are the scam-busting
facts: The long-run trend in the decades up to 1970 was about 1 million acres of total land urbanized per year. The Soil Conservation Service in
conjunction with NALS asserted that the rate then jumped to 3 million acres yearly from 1967 to 1975 or 1977. Scholars at several universities
and think tanks found that the 3 million-acres-a-year rate was most implausible in light of data from other sources. And we found that the survey
on which the NALS based its claim employed a faulty polling technique and had amazing huge errors in arithmetic. The soil
erosion
claims were equally ridiculous. According to the USDA, only a tiny proportion of cropland--3 percent--is so
erosive that no management practices can help much. Seventy-seven percent of cropland erodes at
rates below 5 tons per acre each year, the equilibrium rate at which new soil is formed below the
surface; that is, most cropland erodes less than the "no net loss rate." Just 15 percent of U.S. cropland "is moderately
erosive and eroding about a 5-ton tolerance. Erosion on the land could be reduced with improved management practices,"
though this does not necessarily mean the land is in danger or is being managed uneconomically. In short, the
aggregate data on the condition of farm and the rate of erosion do not support the concern about
soil erosion. What's more, the data suggest that the condition of cropland has been improving rather than
worsening. Theodore W. Schultz, the only agricultural economist to win a Nobel Prize, and Leo V. Mayer of the USDA, both wrote very
forcefully that the danger warnings were false. Mr. Schultz cited not only research but also his own lifetime recollections starting as a farm boy in
But even a Nobel laureate's efforts could not slow the public-relations juggernaut
that successfully co-opted the news media, won the minds of the American public, and were used to
justify the USDA giveaways.
the Dakotas in the 1930s.
No keystone Species
Keystone species are myths
Plummer and Mann 95 (Senior directors at the Discovery Institute, Noah’s Choice, 1995, p.130)
In the 1970s, this thinking generated an outpouring of eco-"philosophy for the common man, as exemplified by the lovely vision that
"everything
is connected to everything else"—to cite the first of biologist Barry Commoner's famous Three Laws of Ecology.
been tested and found wanting. Indeed, some ecologists question whether ecosystems actually exist as such.
"There are the self-perpetuating, self-regulating systems you see in popular accounts." Daniel Simberloff told us, "but I am unaware of
any rigorous proof that [such perfectly meshed systems] occur frequently in nature." Biological
communities, he argued, are little more than creations of contingency. Collections of organisms that happen to share the same
living quarters. Species interact with one another, but so do the denizens of an apartment complex, and
nobody thinks the building will fall down if one family leaves.
But this picture has
Redundancy prevents ecosystem collapse-keystone theory is wrong
Maser 92 (Chris, Internationally recognized expert in forest ecology and governmental consultant, Global Imperative: Harmonizing
Culture and Nature, 1992, p. 40)
Redundancy means that more than one species can perform similar functions. It’s a type of
ecological insurance policy, which strengthens the ability of the system to retain the integrity of its basic relationships. The
insurance of redundancy means that the loss of a species or two is not likely to result in such severe
functional disruptions of the ecosystem so as to cause its collapse because other species can make up for the
functional loss.
No Overfishing
Overfishing is the least of our problems – alt causes
O’Connor 8 (Elaine, staff writer for the Edmonton Journal, “World's oceans at risk of becoming soupy
swill; Rising temperatures, runoff toxins creating 'dead zones'”, Edmonton Journal, 9/15/2008,
www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=3c40fbee-40e4-443a-b736-c70c6072649e)
VANCOUVER - Sally Cole came home from a sailing trip in August looking forward to a hot shower. But when she turned on her tap, all she got
was slime. "I turned on the tap and it just flooped. Just a bit of viscous gloop came out. It was really horrible," said the resident of B.C's
Saltspring Island between the mainland and Vancouver Island. The culprit was an algae bloom on the nearby lake that had choked the water pipes
of hundreds of the area's residents. It took three days to clear. The incident is one example of how seas and lakes are suffocating in slime. That
toxic slime -- algae feasting on pollutants and fertilizers, and starving the ocean of oxygen -- is killing off
sea life at an alarming rate. A new study published in August reveals the world's "dead zones" have doubled in size every decade since
1960. Coastal waters with once rich marine life -- Chesapeake Bay, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and off
Peru, Chile and Namibia -- are rapidly losing species. According to the report by two U.S. scientists, there are 405
asphyxiating dead zones in our oceans. The cause, predictably, is pollution. The culprits are fertilizer runoff in
estuaries, sewage, global warming, overfishing and industrial waste. Millions of tonnes of "nutrient pollution" -chemical fertilizer that adds phosphates and nitrogen to the water -- feed algae blooms. Some zones are vast -- the Baltic Sea's 70,000-squarekilometre aquatic graveyard is the largest. The Gulf of Mexico harbours North America's giant dead zone: A 22,000-square-km sea morgue, or
something roughly the size of New Jersey. Other dead
zones have been discovered off California, in Lake Erie, around
the Florida Keys, in North and South Carolina creeks and in Washington's Puget Sound. Together, they have
turned 246,048 square kilometres of the seas -- an area the equivalent of all five of the Great Lakes -- into marine wastelands. Robert Diaz, a
Virginia Institute of Marine Science professor and co-author of the study, says the problem is already evident in Canadian waters. In B.C., a dead
zone was first spotted in the Saanich Inlet in 1960. Dead zones have been recorded in P.E.I. fish-farming bays since 2000. If fish swim into a
dead zone, they often become unconscious and cannot escape. Shellfish and bottom-dwellers move too slowly, so a stew of rotting marine life is
left behind. Even when fish survive in low-oxygen water, research shows their reproduction suffers, which could jeopardize wild fish stocks. Diaz
says this could be catastrophic for our local marine life and aquaculture. He says zones are likely to intensify as their contributing factors of algal
blooms and intensive fish-farming are "problems that will continue into the future." Already, the impact of ocean deterioration is being felt all
along the Pacific coast. Fishermen are bringing up cages of dead Dungeness crabs and salmon researchers have found low oxygen from the
Columbia River on Oregon border's to northern Washington. As fish stocks fall, seabird populations are dying of starvation. Deadly
algae
are also becoming common on the Pacific West Coast. They have been blamed for the erratic behaviour and mass dieoffs of sea mammals since some algae act as neurotoxins and impair brain function. Some 14,000 seals, sea lions and dolphins have washed up
sick or dead in California in the last 10 years, and 650 grey whales have beached. Deadly algae have been a problem in the region since the
1980s, but scientists say they're increasingly frequent and intense. Algae is also storming international seas and claiming human victims. Near
Sweden, cyanobacteria blooms at times turn the Baltic Sea into a brown slush that makes residents' eyes burn. On Florida's Gulf Coast, toxic tides
have killed hundreds of manatees and caused breathing problems for area residents. Algae has smothered 80 per cent of coral reefs in the
Caribbean and ruined 75 per cent of California's fish-rich kelp forests. Poison day-glo-green caulerpa algae is killing fish off the coasts of 11
countries. What will become of our oceans? One U.S. oceanographer has a succinct answer: slime. Jeremy Jackson, a Scripps Institution of
Oceanography professor, released a report in August warning of "mass extinction" in oceans due to dead zones,
global warming, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, ecosystem destruction and invasive species.
Can’t solve - Too many boats
VOA 08 (Voice of America, “Overfished Vietnam Subsidizes More Fishing Boats”, VOA, 5/8/2008,
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-08-voa15.cfm)
There are a 100,000 fishing boats in Vietnam - too many, say conservation experts, who warn of
overfishing in Vietnam's coastal waters. But Vietnamese fishermen are hurting from rising fuel prices. To help them, the
government is offering subsidies to build even more boats. Matt Steinglass reports from Hanoi. Vietnamese fisherman
works on a basket-shaped boat locally called Thuyen Thung at a fishing village in Danang, Vietnam (File photo) Deputy Agriculture Minister
Nguyen Van Thang told Vietnamese fishermen this week that the government will lend them a hand. Thang
says any fisherman
who buys a new boat with an engine of 90 horsepower or more will get a subsidy of about $3,500 a
year. Thang says the subsidies will help fishermen to switch to more powerful boats that can fish
further from shore. He says they will also soften the pain of high fuel prices.But the new policy seemed to contradict
Vietnam's official strategy of shrinking its fishing fleet. Vietnam has nearly a 100,000 fishing boats. That is far too
many, according to wildlife experts like Keith Symington of the international conservation group
WWF, who say stocks of fish are declining. "In 2001, for tuna, on average 25 kilograms of tuna could be caught with 100
hooks on a long-line tuna boat. And in 2005, on average, that number's gone down to about 15. You have to fish harder to catch
the same amount," said Symington. Overfishing like this could severely damage Vietnam's fisheries."In scientific terms they call it serial
depletion. Which means you'll eventually hit a point where there's no recruitment of baby fish," he
added. "And then there's really a crisis. The fishery can become quickly commercially extinct."
Impact Calc
Growth solves oceans
Economic growth solve environment – conservation projects
Everett et al 10 (Tim, Senior Policy Advisor for Defra, “Economic Growth and the Environment”,
Defra Evidence and Analysis Series, March 2010,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69195/pb13390-economicgrowth-100305.pdf)
The demand for a clean and healthy natural environment provides opportunities for employment and
wealth creation; for example, organic agriculture and industries responsible for managing and
protecting natural resources. Other industries aim to reduce the environmental impacts of economic
activity; for example, through generating renewable energy, through waste management techniques, and
through products and technologies that reduce air and noise pollution from production processes. Yet
others aim to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and restore natural assets to their previous
condition, such as water treatment services and land remediation. These industries contribute substantially
to the UK economy. A recent study found that the Low Carbon and Environmental Goods and Services
sector was worth over £100 billion in the UK in 2007/08, including the supply chains of these
industries24. They provided 880,000 jobs, a figure forecast to rise to over 1.3 million by 2015.
Econ Turns environment
Economic growth is prerequisite to environmental protection - funding
Sagoff 97 (Mark, one of the country's foremost environmental philosophers, and senior fellow at
George Mason University's Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy,"Do we consume too much?", The
Atlantic, June 1997, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/consume.htm)
Many have argued that economic activity, affluence, and growth automatically lead to resource depletion,
environmental deterioration, and ecological collapse. Yet greater productivity and prosperity -- which is
what economists mean by growth -- have become prerequisite for controlling urban pollution and
protecting sensitive ecological systems such as rain forests. Otherwise, destitute people who are unable to
acquire food and fuel will create pollution and destroy forests. Without economic growth, which also
correlates with lower fertility, the environmental and population problems of the South will only get
worse. For impoverished countries facing environmental disaster, economic growth may be the one thing
that is sustainable.
Economic growth is an environment booster – conservation funding
Biello 08 (David, editor for Scientific America, “Is a Global Recession Good for the Environment?”,
Scientific America, 11/13/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/is-a-globalrecession-good-for-the-08-11-13/)
Times are tough when a millionaire oil man can't get a wind farm built. T. Boone Pickens backed off of
his much ballyhooed mega-wind project in Texas this week, citing the declining cost of natural gas. Fossil
fuel burning power plants are still too good of a deal to bother investing $2 billion into wind turbines. A
bear market might seem like a boon for the environment: less overall economic activity, like
manufacturing and driving, means less overall pollution. Right? Actually, as the Pickens example proves,
global economic downturns take a toll on the environment by restraining economic activity that
could improve the situation. But that's not all. Over-farming and drought led to 400,000 square
kilometers of prime top soil blowing away in the wind in the 1930s, exacerbating, and exacerbated by, the
Great Depression. And the economic crises that crippled the economies of southeast Asia in the 1990s
also set in motion a rapid uptick in environmentally damaging pursuits such as illegal logging and
cyanide fishing, according to the World Bank. Even as I speak, economic worries have prompted some
European countries to begin backpedaling on their commitments to cut back on global warming pollution.
So an economic downturn is no friend of the environment. Brother, can you spare a turbine?
Warming turns Biod
Warming causes biodiversity loss
SRI 11 (Senckenberg research Institute, “Global warming may cause higher loss of biodiversity than
previously thought”, Science Daily, 8/24/11,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110824091146.htm)
If global warming continues as expected, it is estimated that almost a third of all flora and fauna
species worldwide could become extinct. Scientists from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre
(Biodiversität und Klima Forschungszentrum, BiK-F) and the SENCKENBERG Gesellschaft für
Naturkunde discovered that the proportion of actual biodiversity loss should quite clearly be revised
upwards: by 2080, more than 80 % of genetic diversity within species may disappear in certain groups of
organisms, according to researchers in the title story of the journal Nature Climate Change. The study is
the first world-wide to quantify the loss of biological diversity on the basis of genetic diversity. Most
common models on the effects of climate change on flora and fauna concentrate on "classically"
described species, in other words groups of organisms that are clearly separate from each other
morphologically. Until now, however, so-called cryptic diversity has not been taken into account. It
encompasses the diversity of genetic variations and deviations within described species, and can only be
researched fully since the development of molecular-genetic methods. As well as the diversity of
ecosystems and species, these genetic variations are a central part of global biodiversity. In a pioneering
study, scientists from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) and the Senckenberg
Gesellschaft für Naturkunde have now examined the influence of global warming on genetic diversity
within species. Over 80 percent of genetic variations may become extinct The distribution of nine
European aquatic insect species, which still exist in the headwaters of streams in many high mountain
areas in Central and Northern Europe, was modelled. They have already been widely researched, which
means that the regional distribution of the inner-species diversity and the existence of morphologically
cryptic, evolutionary lines are already known. If global warming does take place in the range that is
predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), these creatures will be pushed back
to only a few small refugia, e.g. in Scandinavia and the Alps, by 2080, according to model calculations. If
Europe's climate warms up by up to two degrees only, eight of the species examined will survive, at least
in some areas; with an increase in temperature of 4 degrees, six species will probably survive in some
areas by 2080. However, due to the extinction of local populations, genetic diversity will decline to a
much more dramatic extent. According to the most pessimistic projections, 84 percent of all genetic
variations would die out by 2080; in the "best case," two-thirds of all genetic variations would
disappear. The aquatic insects that were examined are representative for many species of mountainous
regions of Central Europe. Slim chances in the long term for the emergence of new species and species
survival Carsten Nowak of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) and the Senckenberg
Gesellschaft für Naturkunde, explains: "Our models of future distribution show that the "species" as such
will usually survive. However, the majority of the genetic variations, which in each case exist only in
certain places, will not survive. This means that self-contained evolutionary lineages in other regions such
as the Carpathians, Pyrenees or the German Central Uplands will be lost. Many of these lines are
currently in the process of developing into separate species, but will become extinct before this is
achieved, if our model calculations are accurate." Genetic variation within a species is also important for
adaptability to changing habitats and climatic conditions. Their loss therefore also reduces the chances for
species survival in the long term.
War turns environment
War destroys the environment
Jha 06 (Alok, a science and environment correspondent at the Guardian, “Climate threat from nuclear
bombs “, The Guardian, 12/12/2006,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/dec/12/nuclearindustry.climatechange)
Nuclear weapons pose the single biggest threat to the Earth's environment, scientists have warned. In
a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale
war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for
more than a decade. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco yesterday,
Richard Turco of UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human
history. He said the effects would be "much greater than what we're talking about with global warming
and anything that's happened in history with regards volcanic eruptions". According to the research, tens
of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable
to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict. In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the
surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited
areas and up to 70% at the poles. Alan Robock, the co-author of the study, told Guardian Unlimited:
"Nuclear weapons are the greatest environmental danger to the planet from humans, not global warming
or ozone depletion." There are around 30,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, 95% of which are held by
the US and Russia. In addition, there is enough unrefined nuclear material to make a further 100,000
weapons.
War destroys ecosystems – invasive species and habitat destruction
Lannanilla 09 (Marc, science, health and environmental journalist, environmental consultant, a writer
and an editor, “Bombed: The Effects of War on the Environment One surprising impact of war:
Preserving nature”, About.com Green Living, No date but cites a book written in 2009,
http://greenliving.about.com/od/greenprograms/a/Effects-Of-War-And-The-Environment.htm)
War is waged differently today, of course, and has widespread environmental impacts that last far
longer. "The technology has changed, and the potential effects of the technology are very different," said
Carl Bruch, co-director of international programs at the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C.
Bruch, who is also the co-author of The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and
Scientific Perspectives, notes that modern chemical, biological and nuclear warfare has the potential to
wreak unprecedented environmental havoc that, fortunately, we haven't seen -- yet. "This is a great
threat," said Bruch. But in some cases, precision weapons and other technological advances can shield
the environment by targeting key facilities, leaving other areas relatively unscathed. "You could make the
argument that these weapons have the ability to minimize collateral damage," said Geoffrey Dabelko,
director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
in Washington, D.C. It's Local: The Impact of War Today Warfare today also occurs infrequently
between independent nations; more often, armed conflict breaks out between rival factions within a
nation. These localized civil wars, according to Bruch, are usually beyond the reach of international
treaties and bodies of law. "Internal conflict is viewed as a matter of sovereignty -- an internal matter," he
said. As a result, environmental damage, like human rights violations, occurs unchecked by outside
organizations. Though skirmishes, armed conflicts and open warfare vary tremendously by region and by
weapons used, the effects of war on the environment usually fall into the following broad categories:
Habitat Destruction: Perhaps the most famous example of habitat devastation occurred during the
Vietnam War, when U.S. forces sprayed herbicides like Agent Orange on the forests and mangrove
swamps that provided cover to guerrilla soldiers. An estimated 20 million gallons of herbicide were
used, decimating about 4.5 million acres of the countryside. Some regions are not expected to recover
for several decades. Refugees: When warfare causes the mass movement of people, the resulting impacts
on the environment can be catastrophic. Widespread deforestation, unchecked hunting, soil erosion
and contamination of land and water by human waste occur when thousands of humans are forced
to settle in a new area. During the Rwandan conflict in 1994, much of that country's Akagera National
Park was opened to refugees; as a result, local populations of animals like the roan antelope and the eland
became extinct. Invasive Species : Military ships, cargo airplanes and trucks often carry more than
soldiers and munitions; non-native plants and animals can also ride along, invading new areas and wiping
out native species in the process. Laysan Island in the Pacific Ocean was once home to a number of rare
plants and animals, but troop movements during and after World War II introduced rats that nearly wiped
out the Laysan finch and the Laysan rail, as well as bringing in sandbur, an invasive plant that crowds out
the native bunchgrass that local birds depend on for habitat.
War destroys the environment
Maman 12 (Jen, Peace Advisor for GreenPeace, “War’s silent Victim”, Greenpeace, 11/6/2012,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/wars-silent-victim/blog/42887/)
Often during conflict, the
environment itself has been used as a weapon of war, of mass destruction. Soils have
been poisoned, water wells polluted, crops torched, forests cut down, all to achieve political and military
goals: subdue resistance, destroy people’s livelihood and drive them away from their homes. During the
Vietnam War, nearly 72 million litres of ‘agent orange’, a combination of deadly chemicals, were sprayed
over the country’s forests, stripping huge areas of all vegetation. Even today it is impossible to grow
anything in some of these areas. During the 1991 gulf war, an estimated 1500m litres of oil were
released into the gulf waters causing the world’s largest oil spill. Much of the oil washed ashore and
contaminated over 700km of coastline. At least 30,000 marine birds were estimated to have perished due
to oil exposure. Fire set to more than 600 oils wells in Kuwait’s oil fields took up to eight months to
extinguish, leading to immediate respiratory problems with local populations. Greenpeace ship, the MV Greenpeace,
sailed into the gulf immediately after the war, documenting and raising awareness to the damage. Committed teams from Greenpeace went to the
Balkans in 1992 and then back to Iraq in 2003, to inspect a nuclear plant that was left unsecured and looted after the fall of the regime in the
second Gulf war. 15 years after the MV Greenpeace sailed into the oil polluted water of the gulf, it was Greenpeace’s ship Rainbow Warrior that
sailed to Lebanon to document and help with the clean up of an oil spill created by the bombing of fuel tanks at the Jiyeh power station outside of
Beirut, during the war in the summer of 2006. The bombing caused the leakage of 12,000 to 15,000 tons of fuel into the Mediterranean Sea.
Because of the on-going conflict clean up efforts started only five weeks later, by then the oil contamination had spread over 150km of Lebanese
coastline. The
problem is not only that war destroys the environment. The problem is also that
exploitation of natural resources triggers and fuels further conflict, which also destroys the
environment. Conflicts involving natural resources are twice as more likely to relapse. This is a vicious cycle. According to the UN
Environment Programme , over the past sixty years at least 40% of all intrastate conflicts had a link to natural resources. Timber, diamonds, gold,
minerals and oil were at the centre of civil wars in Liberia, Angola and the DRC. Other conflicts, such as in the Middle East and Sudan, have
involved control of scarce resources such as fertile land and water. Sudan has been in and out of conflict for most of the past fifty years. Many of
these conflicts were partly initiated by tension over the use of natural resources.
The same resources that were often damaged
by conflict. Climate change will further compound water and other resource stresses, not only in Sudan or
in the Sahel region, but all over the world. Back in 1992, governments from all over the world gathering in Rio acknowledged
that peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible. Sadly, not much has changed. Since 1990 at least
eighteen violent conflicts have been fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources. There can be no peace without environmental protection.
War turns the environment – bombings, debris, waste
Partow 09 (Hassan, Senior Environmental Expert at UN Environmental Programme's Post-Conflict and
Disaster Management Sector, “Environmental Impact of Wars and Conflicts,” p. 171,
http://www.afedonline.org/afedreport/english/book12.pdf)
Scientific assessment of the environmental effects of conflict are generally categorised as direct and
indirect impacts. Direct impacts relate to those whose occurrence may be physically and lineally linked to military action and which
typically arise within the immediate short-term (up to six months), whereas indirect impacts are those that can be reliably attributed to the conflict
but which usually interact with a web of factors and only become fully manifest in the medium to longer run. Some
examples of direct
impacts include environmental contamination from bombing of industrial sites, deliberate natural resource
destruction, and military debris and demolition waste from targeted infrastructure. Indirect impacts
include the environmental footprint of displaced populations, collapse of environmental governance and
data vacuum, and lack of funding for environmental protection. This section provides a brief synthesis of the
environmental fallout of conflict in three Arab countries: Iraq, Sudan and Lebanon.
War turns environment – no conservation
Partow 09 (Hassan, Senior Environmental Expert at UN Environmental Programme's Post-Conflict and
Disaster Management Sector, “Environmental Impact of Wars and Conflicts,” p. 171,
http://www.afedonline.org/afedreport/english/book12.pdf)
Post-conflict countries tend to have some of the fastest growing economies. According to the International Monetary
Fund, Sudan experienced a real GDP growth rate in 2007 of twelve percent, making it the second fastest growing economy in the Arab world.15
As for Iraq, the IMF foresees its economy to grow by seven percent or even higher in 2008-2009.16 Rapid
economic growth, dependent
great pressures on the environment unless adequate safeguards
are introduced. Post-conflict countries are especially prone to overlooking environmental legal
requirements and standards given the immediate needs of reconstruction, but this risks undercutting
sustainable development and the fragile peace. Good environmental governance based on tested and credible methods such as
in these cases almost entirely on the oil boon, imposes
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) can play an important role in helping ensure that
reconstruction and development is economically and environmentally balanced. EIA’s and SEA’s multi-stakeholder consultative approach also
carries a conflict resolution element as it seeks to maximize transparency, public participation and equitable benefit sharing.
War causes environmental collapse – empirics
McNeely 02 (Jeffery, chief scientist at IUCN and an expert in writings of biodiversity, economics,
anthropology, climate change, agriculture, and conservation policy, “Overview A: Biodiversity, Conflict
and Tropical Forests”, IUCN, 2002, p.40,
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2002/envsec_conserving_overview.pdf)
War, and preparations for it, has negative impacts on all levels of biodiversity, from genes to ecosystems.
These impacts can be direct—such as hunting and habitat destruction by armies—or indirect, for example
through the activities of refugees. Sometimes these impacts can be deliberate, and a new word has been
added to the military vocabulary: “ecocide,” the destruction of the environment for military purposes
clearly deriving from the “scorched earth” approach of earlier times. Westing (1976) divides deliberate environmental
manipulations during wartime into two broad categories: those involving massive and extended applications of disruptive
techniques to deny to the enemy any habitats that produce food, refuge, cover, training grounds and
staging areas for attacks; and those involving relatively small disruptive actions that in turn release large amounts
of “dangerous forces” or become self-generating. An example of the latter is the release of exotic microorganisms or spreading of landmines (of which over 100 million now litter active and former war zones around the world—Strada,
1996). Perhaps the most outstanding example is Vietnam, where U.S. forces cleared 325,000 ha of land and
sprayed 72,400 cubic meters of herbicides in the name of security (Westing, 1982). The impact on
biodiversity was severe; spreading herbicides on 10 per cent of the country (including 50 per cent of the
mangroves) led to extensive low diversity grasslands replacing high-diversity forests, mudflats instead of
highly productive mangroves, major declines in freshwater, coastal fisheries and so forth (Nietschmann,
1990a).
Warming turns environment
Warming kills ecosystems
Stern 7 (Nicholas, Head of the British Government Economic Service, Former Head Economist for the
World Bank, “The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review”, p. 72)
Ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine
ecosystems, with possible adverse consequences on fish stocks. For fisheries, information on the likely
impacts of climate change is very limited – a major gap in knowledge considering that about one billion
people worldwide (one-sixth of the world’s population) rely on fish as their primary source of animal
protein. While higher ocean temperatures may increase growth rates of some fish, reduced nutrient
supplies due to warming may limit growth. Ocean acidification is likely to be particularly damaging. The
oceans have become more acidic in the past 200 years, because of chemical changes caused by increasing
amounts of carbon dioxide dissolving in seawater.44 If global emissions continue to rise on current
trends, ocean acidity is likely to increase further, with pH declining by an additional 0.15 units if carbon
dioxide levels double (to 560 ppm) relative to pre-industrial and an additional 0.3 units if carbon dioxide
levels treble (to 840 ppm).45 Changes on this scale have not been experienced for hundreds of thousands
of years and are occurring at an extremely rapid rate. Increasing ocean acidity makes it harder for many
ocean creatures to form shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate. These chemical changes have the
potential to disrupt marine ecosystems irreversibly - at the very least halting the growth of corals, which
provide important nursery grounds for commercial fish, and damaging molluscs and certain types of
plankton at the base of the food chain. Plankton and marine snails are critical to sustaining species such as
salmon, mackerel and baleen whales, and such changes are expected to have serious but as-yetunquantified wider impacts.
Yes War
War can still happen – flashpoints exist
Ferguson, 08 (Niall, professor of History at Harvard, “Hoover Digest”, Volume 1, p. 47-53, 2008)
The risk of a major geopolitical crisis in 2007 is certainly lower than it was in 1914. Yet it is not so low as to lie
altogether beyond the realm of probability. The escalation of violence in the Middle East as Iraq
disintegrates and Iran presses on with its nuclear program is close to being a certainty, as are the growing
insecurity of Israel and the impossibility of any meaningful U.S. exit from the region. All may be
harmonious between the United States and China today, yet the potential for tension over trade and
exchange rates has unquestionably increased since the Democrats gained control of Congress. Nor should
we forget about security flashpoints such as the independence of Taiwan, the threat of North Korea, and
the nonnuclear status of Japan. To consign political risk to the realm of uncertainty seems almost as rash
today as it was in the years leading up the First World War. Anglo-German economic commercial
ties reached a peak in 1914, but geopolitics trumped economics. It often does.
Rising powers make conflict likely
Ikenberry 08 (G. John Ikenberry, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and the
author of After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars, January/February 2008, “The Rise of
China and the Future of the West Can the Liberal System Survive?”, http://www.relooney.info/0_New_2710.pdf)
China is well on its way to becoming a formidable global power. The size of its economy has
quadrupled since the launch of market reforms in the late 1970s and, by some estimates, will double again over the next decade. It has
become one of the world's major manufacturing centers and consumes roughly a third of the global supply of iron, steel, and
coal. It has accumulated massive foreign reserves, worth more than $1 trillion at the end of 2006. China's military
spending has increased at an inflation-adjusted rate of over 18 percent a year, and its diplomacy has extended its
reach not just in Asia but also in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Indeed, whereas the Soviet Union rivaled the United States as a
military competitor only, China
is emerging as both a military and an economic rival -- heralding a profound shift
in the distribution of global power. Power transitions are a recurring problem in international relations. As
scholars such as Paul Kennedy and Robert Gilpin have described it, world politics has been marked by a succession of
powerful states rising up to organize the international system. A powerful state can create and enforce the rules and
institutions of a stable global order in which to pursue its interests and security. But nothing lasts forever: long-term changes in the
distribution of power give rise to new challenger states, who set off a struggle over the terms of that
international order. Rising states want to translate their newly acquired power into greater authority in the
global system - - to reshape the rules and institutions in accordance with their own interests. Declining states, in turn, fear their loss of control and
worry about the security implications of their weakened position. These
moments are fraught with danger. When a state occupies a
the
power of a challenger state grows and the power of the leading state weakens, a strategic rivalry ensues, and conflict -perhaps leading to war --becomes likely. The danger of power transitions is captured most dramatically in the
case of late-nineteenth-century Germany. In 1870, the United Kingdom had a three-toone advantage in
economic power over Germany and a significant military advantage as well; by 1903, Germany had pulled
ahead in terms of both economic and military power. As Germany unified and grew, so, too, did its dissatisfactions and
demands, and as it grew more powerful, it increasingly appeared as a threat to other great powers in Europe, and security competition
began. In the strategic realignments that followed, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, formerly enemies,
banded together to confront an emerging Germany. The result was a European war. Many observers see
this dynamic emerging in U.S.-Chinese relations. "If China continues its impressive economic growth over
the next few decades," the realist scholar John Mearsheimer has written, "the United States and China are likely to engage
in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war.
commanding position in the international system, neither it nor weaker states have an incentive to change the existing order. But when
War is biologically ingrained into humans
Thayer, 04 (Bradley, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies of
Missouri State University, Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, international and national security affairs senior
analyst at National Institute for Public Policy, “Darwin and International Relations”, pg. 11-12) *Disagree
with Gendered Language*
In Chapter 2, I explain how evolutionary theory contributes to the realist theory of international relations and to rational choice analysis. First,
realism, like the Darwinian view of the natural world, submits that international relations is a competitive
and dangerous realm, where statesmen must strive to protect the interests of their state through an almost
constant appraisal of their state's power relative to others. In sum, they must behave egoistically,
putting the interests of their state before the interests of others or international society. Traditional realist
arguments rest principally on one of two discrete ultimate causes, or intellectual foundations of the theory. The first is Reinhold Niebuhr's
argument that humans are evil. The second, anchored in the thought of Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau, is that humans posses an innate
animus dominandi—a drive to dominate. From these foundations, Niebuhhr and Morgenthau argue that what is true for the individual is also true
of the state: because individuals are evil or possess a drive to dominate, so too do states because their leaders are individuals who have these
motivations. I argue that realists have a much stronger foundation for the realist argument than that use by either Morgenthau or Niebuhr. My
intent is to present an alternative ultimate case of classical realism: evolutionary
theory. The use of evolutionary theory
allows realism to be scientifically grounded for the first time, because evolution explains egoism. Thus
a scientific explanation provides a better foundation for their arguments than either theology or
metaphysics. Moreover, evolutionary theory can anchor the branch of realism termed offensive realism and advanced most forcefully by
John Mearsheimer. He argues that the anarchy of the international system, the fact there is no world government, forces
leaders of states to strive to maximize their relative power in order to be secure. I argue that theorists of
international relations must recognize that human evolution occurred in an anarchic environment and that this
explains why leaders act as offensive realisms predicts. Humans evolved in anarchic conditions and the implications of
this are profound for theories of human behavior. It is also important to note at this point that my argument does not depend upon "anarchy" as it
is traditionally used in the discipline--as the ordering principle of the post-1648 Westphalian state system. When human evolution is used to
ground offensive realism, it immediately becomes a more powerful theory than is currently recognized. It explains more than just state behavior;
it begins to explain human behavior. It
applies equally to non-state actors, be they individuals, tribes, or
organizations. Moreover, it explains this behavior before the creation of the modern state system. Offensive
realists do not need an anarchic state system to advance their argument. They only need humans. Thus, their argument applies equally
well before or after 1648, whenever humans form groups, be they tribes in Papua New Guinea, conflicting city-states in ancient
Greece, organizations like the Catholic Church, or contemporary states in international relations.
Nations will fight – economic concerns, security dilemmas and nationalism
Mearsheimer 99 (John, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, “Is Major War Obsolete?”,
CIAO http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/index.html)
Now I think the
central claim that’s on the table is wrong-headed, and let me tell you why. First of all, there are a
number of good reasons why great powers in the system will think seriously about going to war in the
future, and I’ll give you three of them and try and illustrate some cases. First, states oftentimes compete for economic
resources. Is it hard to imagine a situation where a reconstituted Russia gets into a war with the United
States and the Persian Gulf over Gulf oil? I don’t think that’s implausible. Is it hard to imagine Japan and
China getting into a war in the South China Sea over economic resources? I don’t find that hard to imagine. A
second reason that states go to war which, of course, is dear to the heart of realists like me, and that’s to enhance their
security. Take the United States out of Europe, put the Germans on their own; you got the Germans on one side and the Russians on the other,
and in between a huge buffer zone called eastern or central Europe. Call it what you want. Is it impossible to imagine the Russians
and the Germans getting into a fight over control of that vacuum? Highly likely, no, but feasible, for sure. Is it hard to
imagine Japan and China getting into a war over the South China Sea, not for resource reasons but
because Japanese sea-lines of communication run through there and a huge Chinese navy may threaten it?
I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine that. What about nationalism, a third reason? China, fighting in the United
States over Taiwan? You think that’s impossible? I don’t think that’s impossible. That’s a scenario that makes me
very nervous. I can figure out all sorts of ways, none of which are highly likely, that the Chinese and the Americans end up
shooting at each other. It doesn’t necessarily have to be World War III, but it is great-power war. Chinese
and Russians fighting each other over Siberia? As many of you know, there are huge numbers of Chinese going into Siberia.
You start mixing ethnic populations in most areas of the world outside the United States and it’s usually a
prescription for big trouble. Again, not highly likely, but possible. I could go on and on, positing a lot of scenarios
where great powers have good reasons to go to war against other great powers. Second reason: There is no
question that in the twentieth century, certainly with nuclear weapons but even before nuclear weapons,
the costs of going to war are very high. But that doesn’t mean that war is ruled out. The presence of
nuclear weapons alone does not make war obsolescent. I will remind you that from 1945 to 1990, we lived in
a world where there were thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides, and there was nobody running
around saying, “ War is obsolescent.” So you can’t make the argument that the mere presence of nuclear weapons creates peace.
India and Pakistan are both going down the nuclear road. You don’t hear many people running around
saying, “ That’s going to produce peace.” And, furthermore, if you believe nuclear weapons were a great cause of peace, you
ought to be in favor of nuclear proliferation. What we need is everybody to have a nuclear weapon in their back pocket. You don’t hear many
people saying that’s going to produce peace, do you?
Obsolescence doesn’t apply to war – they are never intentionally started
Doran 99 (Charles, Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins, “Is Major War Obsolete? An
Exchange” Survival, Volume 41, Number 2, Summer)
'Obsolescence', in this context, can
that something falls out of fashion. The other is that it is no longer in use. The former definition applies,
perhaps, to war in general. But it does not apply to major war, because major wars were never in fashion. I
do not believe that any government since the beginning of the nineteenth century, has sought purposely a major war.
Finally, of course, it is important to be clear about the meaning of the word at the heart of this argument.
have two meanings. One is
Rather, they have slipped into major wars. They may well have been interested in fighting wars, especially if such wars were thought to be quick
and not very destructive, or only destructive for the other side. But they
did not expect these wars to develop into the kind
that took place in Napoleonic period, or the First and Second World Wars. That leaves the second definition, 'disuse'.
Therefore the burden of argument has to be that major wars are no longer going to happen. And that is a
faith that is very difficult to maintain.
Launches DA
2AC Non unique
Non-unique: ozone layer is depleting at record levels
Science Daily 11—award-winning website that is one of the Internet’s most popular science news sites,
used by students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, and educator (“Record
Depletion of Arctic Ozone Layer Causing Increased UV Radiation in Scandinavia,” April 5th,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110405102202.htm)
Over the past few days ozone-depleted air masses extended from the north pole to southern Scandinavia
leading to higher than normal levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation during sunny days in southern Finland. These air
masses will move east over the next few days, covering parts of Russia and perhaps extend as far south as
the Chinese/Russian border. Such excursions of ozone-depleted air may also occur over Central Europe and could reach as far south as
the Mediterranean. At an international press conference by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Vienna April 5, atmospheric
researcher Dr. Markus Rex from Germany´s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI)
pointed out that the current situation in the Arctic ozone layer is unparalleled. "Such
massive ozone loss has so far never
occurred in the northern hemisphere, which is densely populated even at high latitudes," AWI researcher Markus
Rex describes the situation. The ozone layer protects life on Earth's surface from harmful solar ultraviolet
radiation. Because of the low inclination angle of the sun, exposure to ultraviolet radiation is not normally a public health concern at high
northern latitudes. However, if ozone-depleted air masses drift further south over Central Europe, south
Canada, the US, or over Central Asiatic Russia, for example, the surface intensity of UV radiation could
lead to sunburn within minutes for sensitive persons, even in April. Whether and when this may occur can be forecasted
reliably only in the short term. People should thus follow the UV forecasts of regional weather services. "If elevated levels of surface
UV occur, they will last a few days and sun protection will be necessary on those days, especially for
children," Rex recommends.
2AC Ozone loss inevitable
Ozone depletion inev- China
Schroeder 11 (Stan Schroeder, China Daily Contributor, 4-26-2011, “China To Launch Its Own Space
Station by 2020,” Mashable, http://mashable.com/2011/04/26/china-space-station-2020/)
China plans to launch a space station into orbit by 2020, China Daily reports. The station will be made of three
capsules — a core module and two modules for conducting experiments, with total weight of the station
being 60 tons. China also plans to develop a cargo spaceship that will transport supplies to the station. At
60 tons, China’s space station will be small compared to the International Space Station, which weighs 419 tons
and is the only space station in orbit. Russian Space Station Mir, which was deorbited in 2001, weighed 137 tons.
However, Pang Zhihao, a researcher and deputy editor-in-chief of the monthly magazine, Space International, said, “It’s only the world’s
third multi-module space station, which usually demands much more complicated technology than a
single-module space lab.”
2AC Link Defense
Empirically denied- launch just happened
Wall 14 (Mike, senior writer for Space.com, NASA Launches Satellite to Monitor Carbon Dioxide,
http://www.space.com/26403-nasa-oco2-carbon-dioxide-satellite-launch.html, 7/2/14)
NASA has launched its first spacecraft devoted to monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide, the heattrapping gas thought to be responsible for much of Earth's recent warming trend. The space agency's
Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite (OCO-2) blasted off today (July 2) from Vandenberg Air Force
Base in California at 5:56 a.m. EDT (0956 GMT, 2:56 a.m. local time), carried aloft by a United Launch Alliance Delta
2 rocket. The liftoff was originally scheduled for Tuesday (July 1), but a problem with the launch pad's water system caused a one-day delay.
The satellite will measure carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere 24 times every second, revealing in
great detail where the gas is being produced and where it is being pulled out of the air — CO2 sources
and sinks, in scientists' parlance.
Advantage CP’s
AT: MEBM CP
CP doesn’t solve- stakeholders would be divided over human well being
Leslie and McLeod 7 (Heather M Leslie, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Princeton University, Karen L McLeod, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Confronting
the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management,
http://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2008/FIL_000000000907/Leslie%20and%20McLeod%20Fron
tiers%202007%20high%20res%20version.pdf
We have observed that when
groups of stakeholders work to define such vision, this leads to debate over
whether to emphasize ecosystem health or human well-being. This tension is inevitable and indeed
essential to developing a vision that resonates with the entire community of stakeholders. Whether the
priority is ecosystems or people greatly influences stakeholders’ assessment of desirable ecological and
social states. Marine EBM can facilitate this dialogue, given that a central tenet of EBM is that people are part of coastal and marine
ecosystems (POC 2003; USCOP 2004; McLeod et al. 2005).
CP fails- causes conflicts between agencies and ineffective policy
Leslie and McLeod 7 (Heather M Leslie, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Princeton University, Karen L McLeod, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Confronting
the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management,
http://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2008/FIL_000000000907/Leslie%20and%20McLeod%20Fron
tiers%202007%20high%20res%20version.pdf)
Ocean governance frameworks that enable people to implement marine EBM must be developed. Such
frameworks should include the web of formal and informal arrangements, institutions, and norms that
control how resources and the environment are used, what behavior is deemed acceptable, and what rules
and sanctions are applied to affect patterns of use (Juda 2003). Coastal and ocean-related activities are
regulated by dozens of agencies in the US, some of which actually have conflicting and overlapping
mandates (JOCI 2006). Moreover, the current structure often does not correspond well with the scales at
which key ecological, social, and economic dynamics are operating (Wilson 2006; Figure 4). Yet resource management
institutions that operate on multiple, nested spatial and organizational scales can be extremely effective (Dietz et al. 2003).
Aff-Tech fails
Software development that processes data destroys solvency
A Funding- “Skunkworks” only support basic research, not software development
for data processing
Curtice et al 12 (Corrie Curtice Daniel C. Institute of Dunn, and Jason J. Roberts are all researchers with the Marine Geospatial
Ecology Lab at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. Sarah D. Carr is the coordinator of the
Coastal–Marine Ecosystem-Based Management Tools Network and is based at the nonprofit conservation orga - nization NatureServe, in
Arlington, Virginia. Patrick N. Halpin is an associate professor of marine geospatial ecology and director of the Geospatial Ecology Program at
the Nicholas School of the Environment, at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina“Why Ecosystem-Based Management May Fail without
Changes to Tool Development and Financing” American Biological Sciences, BioScience vol. 62, No. 5 (May 2012), pp. 508-515
http://mgel.env.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bio.2012.62.5.13_Curtice_et_al.pdf)//BLOV
Shortfalls of the grant-based funding model. Lacking
the market share needed for commercial businesses to develop
tools, most EBM tools are funded episodically with grants, often as “skunkworks” projects that covertly
divert funds from short-term grants intended to support basic research, not software product development
(box 1). The prevalence of skunkworks efforts may be due to the scarcity of funders willing to directly
fund software development (a common complaint of our interviewees) or to researchers’ often considering hiring professional software
tool development expertise a lesser priority than covering core salaries and benefits for themselves and the existing members of their lab.
Researchers may also have trouble estimating the effort required to turn prototype-quality code written for
a spe - cific analysis into a high-quality redistributable product and unwittingly launch into development
projects that eventu - ally become huge, unfunded time sinks. In any case, the skunkworks pattern has several
consequences that all stem from the fact that, under such circumstances, the software tool is not listed on the
grant as a deliverable specifically authorized and expected by the funder. The consequences begin even
before tool development starts, since the researcher is usually unable to hire profes - sional software developers. Professional
developers com - mand high salaries in the commercial world, and without a steady stream of revenue, researchers have trouble keep - ing them
on staff. One survey respondent summed up the situation: “We are severely limited in [the] salaries that we are able to offer to developers. [It] has
been a significant problem. At universities, salaries are typically lower than [those] outside. Another nonprofit had a talented developer quit due
to being underpaid; [we have] trouble recruit - ing due to low salary offers.” Hiring
outside developers on short-term contracts
is even more expensive in hourly terms, and it is often impossible to bill the expense to the grant, because
software development was not specified in the grant’s budget. Therefore, graduate students and post - doctoral researchers
are often tasked with the software design and programming. Their lack of programming expertise and training in softwareengineering methodologies often leads to excessive development times and low-quality software.
B Staff turnover- inconsistent staff creates fragmented development processes
Curtice et al 12 (Corrie Curtice Daniel C. Institute of Dunn, and Jason J. Roberts are all researchers with the Marine Geospatial
Ecology Lab at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. Sarah D. Carr is the coordinator of the
Coastal–Marine Ecosystem-Based Management Tools Network and is based at the nonprofit conservation orga - nization NatureServe, in
Arlington, Virginia. Patrick N. Halpin is an associate professor of marine geospatial ecology and director of the Geospatial Ecology Program at
the Nicholas School of the Environment, at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina“Why Ecosystem-Based Management May Fail without
Changes to Tool Development and Financing” American Biological Sciences, BioScience vol. 62, No. 5 (May 2012), pp. 508-515
http://mgel.env.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bio.2012.62.5.13_Curtice_et_al.pdf)//BLOV
Staff turnover is a continual problem, because students graduate and postdoctoral researchers move on to
their next assignments. The situation is exacerbated by the short duration of most grants. When a grant ends,
the tool it funded is often minimally maintained for a period of time until additional injections of money allow for further development, either
explicitly through grants that cover software development or more commonly as additional skunkworks projects. Experienced
software
developers are further deterred from engaging in the project because of these funding gaps, which they perceive
as a lack of financial stability. Longer gaps between funding events increase the likelihood that the tool will become obsolete, which
means that the time and funds that have already been invested may have been wasted. In addition, researchers usually lack formal training and
experience with managing software projects. Consequently,
most tool-development projects do not follow well-defined
software-engineering process methodologies, such as agile software development (Larman 2003) or the waterfall
model (Royce 1970), that are often used in the commercial world. These
methodologies ensure that all the important tasks
of a successful software project are addressed, not just the coding. These tasks include speaking with potential and
existing users to determine functional requirements, verifying that the software executes correctly, writing documentation, pre - paring training
materials, providing support to users, and fixing bugs reported after the software’s release. The
short- term nature of most
grants and the general lack of funds for tool development unquestionably contribute to abbreviated
and fragmented development cycles. The reliance on grants and the lack of a viable tool market have resulted in a seri - ous
resource limitation for EBM tool developers relative to the resources of traditional for-profit software developers. For example, in the MEBMTIF program that we managed, the average award was $80,000. By comparison, in 2010, the average amount invested by venture-capital
companies in a new commercial-software development project was $4.7 million (NVCA 2011).
The amount of funding available to
EBM tool developers is less than 2% of that invested in new commercial software efforts.
AT: Blue Carbon CP
Ineffective data in the status quo means that CP doesn’t solve
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
That said, important
gaps in the scientific understanding of carbon services in these habitats do exist,
particularly regarding the recovery of carbon-regulating functions (both annual seques- tration and long-term storage)
when habitats are restored. One important gap in understanding of carbon dynamics in these habitats is
how quickly the annual sequestration rate of vegetative communities is restored in a restored coastal
marsh, seagrass meadow, or mangrove. This will likely be a function of annual growth rates, total vegetative cover, and potentially
hydrologic regimes in the restored habitats. It is also unclear, once a habitat is disturbed, how long it would take for
the amount of lost soil carbon, which may have accumulated over decades or centuries, to be restored to
wetland soils. In particular, it would be useful to know if there were ways to speed up carbon storage recovery or if it would be necessary to
wait decades or centuries to regain stored soil carbon. These data are critical to properly assess the mitigation
requirements for both CWA impacts and NRDA restoration requirements.
Socialization needs to be first- the CP fails to gain support
Moore et al 13 (Amber K. Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources Technology, United States, Ariana E. Sutton-Grier,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth Resources
Technology, United States, Peter C. Wiley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Peter E.T.
Edwards, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States, Incorporating ecosystem services into the
implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizing carbon
sequestration and storage, http://thebluecarboninitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Sutton-Grier-et-al.-2013Marine-Policy.-Incorporating-ES-into-US-nat-res-regs_operationalizing-Carbon-services.pdf, 4/18/13)
Some challenges
must still be overcome, however, before carbon services can be incorporated into existing
federal policy implementation. In comparing the three case studies, one of the main challenges to
incorporating carbon services is a lack of understanding of the importance of these services in coastal
habitats. Until relatively recently, it was not well understood that these habitats were such significant
carbon sinks 114.15). and the important carbon services of coastal habitats are still not broadly recognized
by many natural resource managers and policy makers. In some cases it is a question of socialization of
the value of carbon storage and sequestration among key stakeholders and the wider public. Just as the broader
concept of ecosystem services has been socialized via articles and books that have caught the attention of the media and the public 110,111, so
now must the carbon services of ecosystems gain popular understanding as well. This might involve an outreach effort to ensure that those who
have respon- sibility for the implementation of these policies are aware of this value and Incorporate It Into the priorities identified In policy
implementation. The goal of such socialization efforts would be to make It commonplace to talk about carbon services in habitats the same way
that it Is currently commonplace to talk about Impacts to other habitat services such as nutrient regulation, food sources, or vegetative cover.
There is some very recent progress in terms of the socialization of carbon services. The new "Principles and Requirements for federal water
projects" (P&G) that were released by the Council on Environmental Quality in March 2013, include "carbon storage" as one of the ecosystem
services that could be Included in evaluations of federal water resources projects (44|
No carbon sinks- Wrack(kelp) accumulation and sea-level rise
Macreadie et al 13 (Peter I. Macreadie Plant Functional Biology and Climate Change Cluster (C3),
School of the Environment, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), New South Wales, Australia AND
A. Randall Hughes and David L. Kimbro Marine Science Center, Northeastern University (NU), Boston,
Massachusetts, United States of America “Loss of ‘Blue Carbon’ from Coastal Salt Marshes Following
Habitat Disturbance” PLoS One. 2013; 8(7): e69244 7/8/13 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles
/PMC3704532/)//BLOV
In conclusion, our study provides evidence that localized disturbance to salt marshes can cause loss
of buried C, which has important implications for nature-based climate change mitigation programs if
this C is released into the atmosphere as CO2 (as opposed to being re-buried). Disturbance and
concomitant loss of salt marsh habitat via wrack accumulation is understudied [36], yet it could be one of
the major causes of C stock loss in salt marshes. Wrack accumulation is a natural process, and there is
little that could be done to prevent it occurring; however, it is important to understand how this
process of disturbance is likely to affect C budgets, and whether restoration is necessary to stop C release,
especially since the frequency and intensity of this disturbance is predicted to increase with future sealevel rise [36], which will increase both wrack production and salt marsh inundation [37].
It links to spending? wood Pendleton, Brian C. Murray, W. Aaron Jenkins, David Gordon Nicholas Institute for
Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America AND Daniel C. Donato Ecosystem
& Landscape Ecology Lab, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America AND Stephen Crooks ESA Phillip
Williams & Associates, San Francisco, California, United States of America AND Samantha Sifleet United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America AND Christopher Craft School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America AND James W. Fourqurean Department of
Biological Sciences and Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, North Miami, Florida, United
States of America AND J. Boone Kauffman Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United
States of America and Center for International Forest Research, Bogor, Indonesia AND Núria Marbà Department of Global Change
Research, Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, Esporles, Illes Balears, Spain AND Patrick Megonigal Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, United States of America AND Emily Pidgeon Conservation International,
Arlington, Virginia, United States of America AND Dorothee Herr International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Washington,
District of Columbia, United States of America AND Alexis Baldera The Ocean Conservancy, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of
America “Estimating Global “Blue Carbon” Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems “ 9/4/12
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0043542)//BLOV
The cost of coastal ecosystem protection includes the expense of creating and managing protected
areas, improving water quality, and particularly the opportunity costs of foregone alternative uses
(e.g., aquaculture, real estate development). These costs can be quite high in some cases; therefore strong
economic incentive would be required to counteract conversion. Absent payment mechanisms for the
protection of coastal carbon, the degradation and loss of coastal ecosystems will likely continue. The
global economic consequences will exceed the social cost of increased greenhouse gases as the loss of the
array of ecosystem services they provide, such as fishery nurseries, biodiversity support, and coastal
protection have tremendous economic value in their own right [5], [8]