1AC
1AC – Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all marihuana in the United States.
1AC – Scenario 1
The advantage is Environmental Policy
Scenario 1 is Biodiversity
Prohibition results in cartel grow ops that destroys biodiversity -- legalization solves
Merchant 09 (Brian is a freelance writer and editor that covers politics with a focus on climate and
energy issues, http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/drug-cartels-turning-us-forestsinto-marijuana-plantations-toxic-messes.html, “Drug Cartels Turning US Forests into Marijuana
Plantations, Toxic Messes”, AB)
When I argued a few months back that legalizing marijuana would be good for the environment, my main point was that illegal
marijuana plantations endanger forests by operating under the radar--and unregulated--in some
of
our most pristine natural areas . They contaminate water supplies , result in deforestation,
and threaten indigenous species . But I had no idea how widespread the destruction really
was--just recently, the "Save our Sierras" campaign uncovered 69 marijuana plantations run by
Mexican drug cartels and seized over a billion dollars worth of plants in California national forests. According to a report in
Greenwire, "Mexican drug trafficking organizations have been operating on public lands to
cultivate marijuana, with serious consequences for the environment
Kerlikowske, chief of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. In
and public safety," said Gil
creating, and eventually abandoning, vast
marijuana plantations the cartels are leaving heaps of trash , slaughtered animals , copious
amounts of
pesticides , and dangerous spilled fuels
in their wake. Essentially,
each plantation results in an
environmental disaster . But the campaign to stop them is vigorous, and is already seeing encouraging results: The massive
operation that began in February has already seized about 318,000 marijuana plants worth an estimated $1.1 billion, officials announced last
week. In addition to 82 arrests, the multi-jurisdictional federal, state and local operation netted 42 pounds of processed marijuana, more than
$40,000 in cash, 25 weapons and three vehicles. But there
are still believed to be many plantations still in
operation, and the cartels aren't slowing down . They've realized that it's cheaper and easier to
fund the plantations from below the border and grow the marijuana closer to prime US
markets--eliminating the need to smuggle the drugs across the border. Instead, US forests are
suffering . The pesticides are perhaps the worst byproduct of the operations: Growers in Fresno County
used a cocktail of pesticides and fertilizers many times stronger than what is used on residential lawns to
cultivate their crop . . . While the chemical pesticides kill insects and other organisms directly, fertilizer
runoff contaminates local waterways and aids in the growth of algae and weeds. The
vegetation in turn impedes water flows that are critical to frogs, toads and salamanders in the
Kings and San Joaquin rivers. As a response to the issue, California is hiring more forest service law enforcement, and expanding their efforts.
But it seems to me that
the surest way to prevent such destruction in the forests is to legalize the
growing of marijuana , and thus removing the incentives to operate recklessly and clandestinely-and allowing for regulation of pesticide and fertilizer use. For now, however, I wish the Save our Sierras program
continued luck in their good work.
Border region is a critical hotspot - no adaptation
BGC 9 (Border Governors Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable
Development of the U.S.-Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, September, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic-guidelines-for-thecompetitive-and-sustainable-development-the-us-mexico)
Due to its vastness the
U.S.-Mexico border region encompasses an important wealth of natural resources and diverse
ecosystems. Freshwater, marine, and wetland ecosystems, deserts, rangelands, and several forest
types constitute sensitive and invaluable natural features . For example, the Chihuahuan Desert supports 350 of the 1 500
known species of cacti in the world. Many of these species are found only in single valleys. In the western region, the
Sonoran Desert
has the greatest diversity of vegetation of any desert in the world. A prominent feature of the Chihuahuan and
Sonoran deserts is the occurrence of mountain ranges separated by extended valleys. These ranges provide habitats not present in the
valleys and host species that contribute to the biodiversity of the border territory. Urban settlements, along with
agriculture and cattle ranches, generally occupy the valleys. Big waterways, like the Rio Grande or the Colorado River, traverse the
international border and support millions of people in large cities and rural towns. The Rio Grande or Río Bravo, as it is
known in Mexico, flows through five Mexican states and three U.S. states, and a dozen Native American nations. All rely on it for
irrigation. From the headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, through the semi-arid Colorado Plateau and the arid Chihuahuan Desert, to its
final subtropical ending in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Rio Grande sustains a diversity of critical ecosystems and is
crucial for wildlife , including animals as diverse as beavers, bears, kangaroo rats, and migratory birds. The Colorado River also sustains
a very biodiverse region encompassing six U.S. states and two Mexican states. The ecosystems along the Colorado are facing unprecedented
pressure from economic activities. The ecosystem’s water needs are rarely considered as agricultural production, industry, and a rapidly
growing urban population use all but a trickle of the river’s water. The
Gulf of Mexico supports productive fisheries, which
are largely dependent on the estuaries, lagoons, wetlands and freshwater inflows from the Rio Grande. The coastal habitats at the
mouth of the Rio Grande are particularly important as breeding grounds and maturation areas for
commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Pacific coastal area, a saltwater lagoon and slough mark the seaward end of
the Tijuana River within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR). Established in 1982 to restore and preserve the
integrity of the estuary as a functioning ecosystem supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife resources, this protected area encompasses 2 500
acres of beach, dune, mudflat, saltmarsh, riparian, coastal sage, and upland habitats. The
reserve is home to eight threatened
and endangered species, including the light-footed clapper rail and the California least tern among others.
That causes extinction
Chivian 11, Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global
Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical School and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam.
He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Chivian works with the
United Nations on how to address the pressing environmental problems the world is facing. (“Species
Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health”, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmentalhealth-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health, 2011)
Human activity is causing the extinction of animal, plant and microbial species at rates that
are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally (Wilson l992),
approximating the largest extinctions in geological history . When homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago,
the number of species that existed was the largest ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the lowest since
the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l).
In addition to the ethical issues involved - that we have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came into being tens of millions of years prior
to our arrival -
this behaviour is ultimately self-destructive, upsetting the delicate ecological balance on which
all life depends, including our own , and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils fertile, creates the air we breathe and
provides food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered. The exponential growth in human population coupled with an even
Global
warming, acid rain, the depletion of stratospheric ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals into the air,
greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the production of wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species.
soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately
by
human activities, particularly
lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it is habitat destruction
deforestation, that is the greatest destroyer.
This is especially the case for tropical
rainforests. Less than 50% of the area originally covered by prehistoric tropical rainforests remains, but they are still being cut and burned at a rate of approximately
l42,000 square kilometres each year, equal in area to the countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands combined; this is a loss of forest cover each second the size
of a football field (Wilson l992). It is
this destruction which is primarily responsible for the mass extinction of
the world’s species . It has been estimated that there are somewhere between l0 million and l00 million different species on Earth. Even if a
conservative estimate of 20 million total world species is used, then l0 million species would be found in tropical rainforests, and at current rates of tropical
deforestation, this would mean 27,000 species would be lost in tropical rainforests alone each year, or more than seventy-four per day, three each hour (Wilson
It is the author’s belief that
if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have - in
foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases, and
l992). This article examines the human health implications resulting from this widespread loss of biological diversity.
ultimately, perhaps, in threatening human survival - then they would recognize that the
current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly evolving medical
emergency and would demand that efforts to preserve species and ecosystems be given the highest priority.
1AC – Scenario 2
Legalization of marijuana would legalize hemp under the CSA
Duppong 9 (Thomas A., J.D. candidate at the University of North Dakota School of Law, “NOTE:
INDUSTRIAL HEMP: HOW THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS MARIJUANA UNDER THE
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT HAS CAUSED THE DREAM OF GROWING INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN NORTH
DAKOTA TO GO UP IN SMOKE,” 2009, 85 N. Dak. L. Rev. 403, Lexis)
The CSA was initiated under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug
Prevention and Control Act of 1970. n128 The CSA went into effect on May 1, 1971. n129 It streamlined federal drug enforcement by
Background of the Controlled Substances Act
replacing more than fifty pieces of drug legislation. n130 The purpose of the CSA was to focus the federal government's efforts in curtailing the spread of drug use in
Amer-ica. n131 The subsequent enforcement of the criminal and regulatory provisions [*417] of the CSA were consolidated into the DEA under the Department of
Justice in 1973. n132 By creating the CSA, the federal government established a single system of control for both narcotic and psychotropic drugs for the first time in
the CSA makes it illegal "to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or
possess ... a controlled substance" except as authorized by the CSA. n134 An essential component of this
United States history. n133 In effect,
regulatory scheme was to implement a series of categories or "schedules" in order to distinguish potency among various drugs. n135 The CSA has implemented five
schedules and determined various findings in order to properly classify each drug through three categories: (1) the drug's potential of abuse; (2) its medical
The CSA classifies
marijuana in the first category of schedules, placing it among the most harmful and
dangerous drugs. n137 Marijuana meets the criteria for a Schedule I controlled substance because of its THC content, which is a psychoactive
relevance; and (3) the safety of use of the drug. n136 B. Classification of Marijuana Under the Controlled Substances Act
hallucinogenic substance with a high potential for abuse. n138 Another key classification made by the CSA regarding marijuana was its broad definition of the drug.
The CSA defines marijuana as follows: The term ""marihuana" means all parts of the plant
Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any
part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such
n139
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except
This effectively
placed the entire use of the hemp plant, whether for drug use or as industrial hemp, squarely
under the control of the CSA. n141 Therefore, the DEA views industrial hemp containing .3%
THC the same as marijuana grown for drug use which commonly contains a 24% THC level, or
eighty times more THC. n142 The CSA permits the United States Attorney General to establish the
schedules of drugs in accordance with the CSA. n143 The Attorney General must consider several factors in determining whether
[*418] the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. n140
a drug should be controlled or removed from the schedule. n144 Also, the Attorney General, when appropriate, is authorized to enforce any rules, regulations, and
These duties have been shifted to the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator of the DEA, which allows them to maintain or exempt substances from
the schedule. n146 Accordingly, when the DEA executes rules regarding controlled substances, the
newly implemented rules have the full force of the law. n147 C. The DEA Issues New Rules The DEA's power
to make rulings on its regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool for the agency to
influence the regulation of industrial hemp. n148 The most recent substantive rulings on industrial hemp are pro-vided in the next
procedures in order to execute the purpose of the CSA. n145
two sections to develop a better understanding of the [*419] proper role of the CSA as well as to present various regulatory issues facing American industrial hemp
producers. Also, the subsequent section provides a brief overview of the DEA registration requirements, which is the basis to understand the purpose of the North
, the DEA has interpreted every product
that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance. n149 In response to increased
Dakota registration requirements. 1. DEA Issues an "Interpretive Ruling" Since its inception
requests for clarifications on industrial hemp law, the DEA, on October 9, 2001, issued an interpretive ruling. n150 The purpose of the interpretive ruling was to
make clear that the listing of THC "refers to both natural and synthetic THC." n151 This ruling initiated a lawsuit from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) because
the ruling would have banned them from selling their products. n152 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp I), n153 American
hemp importers challenged the validity of the DEA's interpretive ruling of October 9, 2001. n154 Since the ruling would have banned many industrial hemp products
that the petitioners sold, the HIA petitioned the Ninth Circuit to declare the rule invalid. n155 The HIA argued that the interpretive rule issued by the DEA was
legislative and, therefore, subjected the DEA to the notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). n156 [*420] Whether the
ruling was interpretive or legislative was a critical determination because if the DEA's rule had the effect of a legislative rule, it would be invalid, because the agency
cannot make legislative rules under the APA. n157 The DEA argued that its interpretative ruling did not have the effect of a legislative ruling. n158 However, the
court concluded that because the interpretive ruling would have altered the way in which American hemp retailers could operate, it had the force of law. n159 Also,
because the DEA did not post notice or comment regarding the rule, the DEA did not properly implement the ruling even if it was a legislative rather than an
interpretive ruling. n160 The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted HIA's request and declared the ruling invalid. n161 2. DEA Issues a "Final Ruling" On March 21,
2003, the DEA issued the agency's final rules regarding the listing of industrial hemp products containing THC. n162 The purpose of the rules was to clarify the DEA's
position that the CSA applied to both natural and synthetic THC. n163 Although the Ninth Circuit held that the DEA's interpretive rule had the effect of a legislative
rule, the DEA determined that the October 2001 rule was consistent with APA principles. n164 According to the DEA, the agency's final ruling only prohibited hemp
products that did not enter the human body, regardless of THC content. n165 It did not matter whether the product was grown naturally or synthetically. n166 The
DEA's examples of exempted industrial hemp products that contain THC included, but were not limited to, paper, rope, clothes, animal feed mixtures, and personal
care products. n167 The exemption effectively altered the scheduling from all products with THC to all products containing THC, excluding products that are not
used for human consumption. n168 The practical reason behind the DEA's exemption of industrial hemp products [*421] was due to the DEA's belief that the
regulation of these products was not an appropriate prioritization of its time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined the enforcement of the final
rule. n169 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp II), n170 American importers of hemp challenged the DEA's final rule, which
regulated any product that contained any amount of natural or synthetic THC. n171 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA could regulate synthetic
THC of any kind. n172 However, the court also held that the DEA could not regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana
products, because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. n173 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA's definition of THC contradicts
the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA" and therefore cannot be upheld. n174 Moreover, the court determined that the inclusion of hemp
products would place non-psychoactive industrial hemp in Schedule I for the first time and therefore voided the DEA's rule making THC applicable to all parts of the
Although 21 C.F.R. § 1308.35 exempted certain products from
the CSA Schedule I list, the DEA clearly stated that the exemptions did not change the rule for
the manufacturing or cultivation of any THC-containing product, which still requires
registration under the CSA. n176 Registration through the DEA is an essential component of the CSA as it "provides for control by the Justice
Department of problems related to drug abuse" and "makes transactions outside the legitimate distribution chain illegal." n177 The importance
placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THCcontaining products has prohibited North [*422] Dakota farmers from growing industrial hemp even
though the .3% THC content makes it illegal.
Cannabis plant. n175 3. DEA Registration Requirements
Hemp production solves deforestation
Winterborne 12 – director at Esoteric Hydroponics
[Jeffrey, 5/1. “Medical Marijuana / Cannabis Cultivation: Trees of Life at the University of London”]
Deforestation is a major threat. Hemp¶ is an outstanding substitute for wood¶ in the paper
industry as it is an¶ extremely fast growing and renewable¶ crop. Hemp can be harvested every¶ three to four months whereas forests¶
take many years to regenerate. One¶ hectare of hemp yields the equivalent ¶ volume of usable fibre as 3-4
hectares¶ of forest. In short, one hectare of¶ industrial hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest.¶ The
greenhouse effect is very much in¶ the news at the moment. Interestingly.¶ growing hemp is a very efficient way of ¶ absorbing carbon
dioxide, especially¶ if it is used as a means of reducing¶ deforestation.¶ In addition, the hemp plant
helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil; it uses¶ far less fertiliser, fungicides, herbicides¶ or
pesticides than other crops. and it¶ needs less amounts of water too. Hemp¶ grows well in a variety of climates and¶ conditions
as long as they are frost-free¶ tor at least 90 days or more per year.¶ At the very least. hemp makes excellent¶ green manure, especially when used as¶ a rotational crop. Hemp stabilises and¶ enriches the soil and ensures fields
are¶ free from weeds negating the needs¶ and costs of herbicides. Its value on¶ this point alone, even if no part of the¶ plant is being utilised is immense. Any¶ additional benefits. be they industrial¶ or monetary, represent a
bonus.
Climate change puts deforestation on the brink – reducing human causes is key to
prevent tipping points
Cotter 14 – Senior Scientist from Greenpeace International Science Unit
[Janet, 3/31. "What does the IPCC WGII report say on forests?"
www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/IPCC-WGII-Forests.pdf]
Deforestation accounts globally for about 12% of total man-made greenhouse gas emissions¶ (GHG).
Deforestation causes roughly the same GHG emissions as both transport (13%) and ¶ agriculture (12%). ¶ • Forests are
crucially important in soaking up humankind’s GHG emissions . Unfortunately,¶ deforestation largely
cancels out this effect. While forests have taken up about 45% of the ¶ CO2 emissions to the atmosphere since 1750, this is roughly
balanced by emissions from ¶ deforestation.¶ • Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems .
Increased tree mortality has ¶ occurred in some regions, notably western and boreal North America – either as a
result of ¶ high temperatures, drought, and/or changes in the distribution and abundance of insect pests ¶ and diseases
which have been attributed, at least in part, to warming. In addition, the fire¶ regime in the boreal forests has intensified in recent decades.¶
What do the findings mean in practice?¶ • For forests, mitigation and adaptation go together. In
order for humans to adapt to
climate ¶ change, we need forests because they provide essential “services”, such as water,
food and ¶ raw materials. Maintaining forests as intact, i.e. as unbroken tracts of forest landscape,¶ increases
their resilience to climate change. This also enables the species living within them, ¶ to adapt to climate change and maintain
these services.¶ • For the Amazon, a combination of deforestation and climate change could to lead to a ¶
“tipping point”, where the forest cover could change rapidly into savannah. This would cause
¶ not only a loss in biodiversity, but release carbon to the atmosphere, leading to additional ¶
climate change. However, climate change alone will not cause this tipping point to be ¶ reached this
century, especially if warming remains below 2°C. Reductions in deforestation ¶ rates will also navigate us away
from such a tipping point. The massive decline in ¶ deforestation rates for the Brazilian
Amazon between the years 2005-2012 demonstrates8hat policy-led approaches to curb deforestation can
work (see IPCC WG2 Ch. 4). However, the reverse is also ¶ true as witnessed by last year’s increases in deforestation in the Amazon as a
result of a severely weakened ¶ domestic forest policy.¶ What Greenpeace says about climate change and forests¶ Deforestation together with
climate change makes for a vicious cocktail. Climate change is expected to increase ¶ periods of drought in tropical forests. At the same time,
deforestation fragments the remaining forest, making it ¶ more vulnerable to droughtinduced fires. Fires then release carbon, triggering even faster climate change. Last ¶ year’s massive forest fires in Indonesia were a stark
reminder of what the future might look like if we do not end ¶ deforestation by the end of this decade.
Deforestation leads to extinction
Watson 6
Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, ìThe
Politics of Extinction.î http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html
The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20
percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the
foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an
exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species
for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the
dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More
importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to
provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing
more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a
biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-away train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone
wall of extinction . The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the
window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and
animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of
greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down
while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all.
SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints.
Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present
perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and
the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of
Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a
man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal
swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the
mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of
Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the
trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes
mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the
mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten
that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred
years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear
because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion
and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey
whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos
Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has
been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years
to recreate the passenger pigeon. It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty,
Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower.
the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit
blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous
than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and
sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each
other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human
being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This
is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each
and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a
part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the
structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room
and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told
me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them
to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would
do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew
and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of
their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of
the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command, it
will not be long until the biospheric
integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come
pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature,
and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.
Deforestation leads to zoonotic disease
Singh 13 – PhD, Virologist working in the area of Emerging Viruses at Centre for Cellular and Molecular
Biology
(Sunit, “Viral Infections and Global Change,” Googlebook)
Landscape changes
that result in deforestation simultaneously impact climate change and the emergence of
viral zoonoses. Healthy forests sequester atmospheric carbon on a global scale and stabilize temperature and rainfall patterns on a local
scale (Patz and Olson, 2006). Large-scale development projects that result in extreme landscape changes, like mining and timber
extraction in Central Africa, contribute to climate change through deforestation and facilitate the emergence of
zoonotic disease (Daszak et al., 2000; Wolfe et al., 2005, 2007). Deforestation facilitates contact between
people and novel zoonotic viruses. For example, large-scale natural resource projects draw laborers and their
families to extraction sites, resulting in increased population density and corresponding use of
the forest itself. As people work and live in these degraded ecological systems, they may come
into contact with novel zoonoses through direct contact such as hunting, butchering, and
consumption of wildlife (Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2005) or through indirect contact including
ecological overlap of human livelihood spaces with wildlife habitat. Selective deforestation, whereby humans extract high-value timber,
increases spatial fragmentation, thereby
increasing the variety of zoonotic pathogens that can infect hunters
and humans engaged in other activities (Wolfe et al., 2005).
New zoonotic diseases cause extinction – no burnout because infectivity precedes
symptoms
Quammen 12 – award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine, writer for
National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others, 9/29
(David, “Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?,” The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis)
Infectious disease is all around us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition.
Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their
prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under
ordinary conditions, it's every bit as
natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't
always
ordinary .¶ Just as
predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow
instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target.
Aberrations occur . When a pathogen
leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result
is a zoonosis.¶ It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the
ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It's a
future, destined
word of the
for heavy use in the 21st century.¶ Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-
called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the
human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction
called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a
that can
pathogen
"spillover", crossing into people from other animals.¶ Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus
that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of
interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed
between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the
thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few
hundred, and then disappearing for years.¶ Zoonotic
pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to
lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while
suffering little or no illness. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some
reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the
ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall
out.¶ Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a
bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much
overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned
from Uganda.¶ Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle
Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through
Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends
to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they
were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007.¶ They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling
as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash
across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast."¶ By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in
suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious
disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back
negative, including the test for Marburg.¶ Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left
hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg.
Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus,
got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had
died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats.¶ Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article
on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for
Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample.¶ The new results went to Fujita, who called
Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive."¶ The Marburg
virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave.
But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of
Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out
of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a
peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat.¶ The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from
Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team,
including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats.¶ Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of
scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles
away.¶ "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting
site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be
transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And
it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to
which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars?¶ In the case of Sars, the scenario could
have been very
much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are
relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the
outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus
and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were
instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. If
sort of big city
the virus had arrived in a different
- more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - it
might have burned
through a much larger segment of humanity.¶ One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars
affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed
many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other
diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919
influenza. And that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before globalisation. Everything nowadays moves around
the planet faster, including viruses. When
the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same
perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms . That
will help it move through cities and airports like an angel of death.¶ The Next Big One is a subject that
disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be
every virus goes
airborne from one host to another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus
could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for
airborne transmission, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by
predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, not
the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that
capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best.¶
Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what separates a bizarre, awful, localised,
intermittent and mysterious disease (such as Ebola) from a global pandemic. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz
about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply,
though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during
2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of
menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As
yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it,
very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right
way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918.¶ It got to Egypt in 2006
and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That
represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those
unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient
way to pass from one person to another.¶ Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that
Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is
shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and
their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people.¶ "As long as H5N1 is out there
in the world," Webster told me, " there
is the possibility of disaster . . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire
the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us."¶ We're unique in the history of mammals. No
other
primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the degree we do. In ecological terms, we are
almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant.
We are an outbreak .¶ And here's the thing
about outbreaks: they end. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end
gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example,
seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they
seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in
particular.
1AC – Scenario 3
Scenario 2 is Agriculture
Legalization benefits sustainable ag -- efficiency, irrigation strategies and fertilizer
research
Grover 13 (Sami, November 13th, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”,
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-goodfor-agriculture, AB)
The growing availability of legalized (and semi-legalized) marijuana may have implications for all of us — from a
massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take
sustainable farming , for instance. Traditionally, covert
marijuana growers have earned themselves a bad rap, at least environmentally speaking. From
indoor growers' massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution ,
a lack of regulation — combined with the promise of massive cash rewards — have led to an "anything goes"
mentality, which has resulted in significant harm in the past. But growers have also learned to be resourceful, and The
Guardian reports that their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights in particular is getting attention from
mainstream farmers: Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's
work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. [...]
"They've undoubtedly been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since
they don't publish their research , we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They
probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Energy-efficiency isn't the
only benefit that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of
fertilizer runoff, bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the
harmful impacts of cultivation . As I've speculated before, marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for
some young people into horticulture as a profession.
Legalization allows sustainable tech to spillover to the commercial ag market
Kennedy 13 (Bruce is an award-winning journalist and communications professional who has covered
international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN, NPR, Reuters Television and
AOL's Daily Finance web site, “Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable
agriculture?”, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, AB)
In a nondescript, unmarked warehouse in Denver's industrial outskirts, row upon row of marijuana
plants – ranging from little cuttings to
tree-like bushes – extend into virtual cannabis forests. A tropical atmosphere comes from carefully
regulated humidity and lighting controls in each room, assisted by fans and vents. This "grow" facility belongs to
medical marijuana center Denver Relief, and it boasts something else besides healthy buds: state-of-the-art LED technology
that offers the potential to dramatically cut energy consumption , not only for marijuana, but also for
other large-scale commercial agriculture . After decades of history as an outlawed business, complete with incidents of
violence and destruction, the US marijuana industry is maturing. While possessing and selling marijuana is still a federal crime,
medical marijuana is now legal in 20 states, plus Washington DC, which together make up more than one-third of the country. Beginning in
January, the states of Washington and Colorado will also legalize the recreational use of cannabis for adults. The growing societal acceptance
has sparked what some call a "green rush" of people trying to cash in on what is already a multi-billion-dollar business. And as the marijuana
industry comes out of the shadows, its producers, consumers and advocates are pushing for more transparency – both about cannabis' alleged
medical benefits and its environmental impacts. The industry has its work cut out when it comes to changing its reputation. Research from the
University of California at Davis and Humboldt State University found that illegal growers – through bulldozing, use of fertilizers and pesticides,
and more – have damaged forests, polluted watersheds and killed wildlife in Northern California. Diversion of water for marijuana cultivation
from the Eel River is endangering California's third largest watershed and one of the state's major salmon-producing waterways. "It's a race to
the bottom in terms of environmental impacts," Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, told the New York Times earlier
is the industry's massive carbon footprint. An independent study from a Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory researcher in 2011 concluded that indoor cannabis production may account for 1% of US electricity
consumption, equivalent to the power used by 2m average US homes. That comes to an energy bill of $6bn annually,
this year. Then there
with related CO2 production equal to 3m average cars. Medical marijuana farmers say they want to
adhere to environmental regulations
and other laws to keep their products accessible and safe for their patients. "When you're
dealing with people who are truly growing for medical reasons, the whole goal is to be compliant and follow by the rules," Alison Sterling
Nichols, an environmental consultant for the Emerald Growers Association, a medical marijuana trade group, told Mother Jones magazine last
year. Will
legalization make marijuana more sustainable? And as the marijuana industry catches up with
commercial agriculture, it's increasingly coming under control of professional growers who not only
want to stay compliant with environmental regulations, but also want to find ways to cut their high land,
water and energy costs. Some indoor marijuana growers in Colorado are already using water catchment and
tabling systems, as well as reclaiming and filtering greywater from their operations and nearing "zero
wastewater" goals.
But one area in which the industry may be ahead of other commercial greenhouse crops is lighting. The LED
technology at Denver Relief comes from the Florida-based Lighting Science Group, which has been conducting controlled tests almost
exclusively in the medical marijuana industry. The
tests have shown the lights can produce the optimal amount of
the proper light spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis, says Neil Yorio, vice president of advanced projects at
Lighting Science. Yorio is a photobiologist who spent 20 years working at Nasa's Kennedy Space Center, where he studied how to grow plants in
controlled environments for long-duration space missions. " The
LED technology is ready ," he said. It's no secret that LEDs
consume less energy than the high-intensity lamps that have traditionally dominated indoor
marijuana growing. And their lower temperatures also result in a cascading series of energy-saving benefits –
including less air conditioning, water and fertilizer use – that can cut overall electrical costs in half ,
Yorio claims. But
the medical marijuana tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use,
but also that it can keep crop yields high . "We've always been of the thought that LED technology is
not where it needs to be to take over these high-intensity lamps like metal halide and high-pressure
sodium," said Denver Relief co-owner Kayvan Khalatbari. If the tests – currently confined to just part of the warehouse – continue to yield
the expected results, Denver Relief plans to expand its LED usage to a large greenhouse under construction outside of Denver. Will marijuana
innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the
marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream
commercial agriculture.
He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty
crop industry" – greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their
producers, like the commercial marijuana growers, are looking for ways to decrease energy costs
while increasing greenhouse yields. "They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years," Mitchell
says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how
far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial
production industry." Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say they realize their industry has an
environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further
decriminalized
Reforming industrial ag key to solve extinction
Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10 (Agriculture
and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)
Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists
understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, industrial
food and farming, and our entire global economy pose a
mortal threat , not just to our present health and well being, but also to human survival . Given the severity of
the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change
the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any
cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change.
“Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control
technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive
system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants,
gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized
GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and
strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the
atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell
pesticides and chemical fertilizers are
the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that consumes
prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate-destabilizing greenhouse
gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations that are
destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us
down. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill
junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion
pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against
Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment.
Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all
industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering
capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the
sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the
most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than
organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster
child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us.
Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant
organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is
renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite
mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”),
consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are
connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered
crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil microorganisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive
amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk
is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who
consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human
reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and
pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly
control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and
farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although
Local and organic food production is now
growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, reducing fossil fuel use and
greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per
year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. The growth of
organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics
are still the alternative, rather than the norm. As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos,
large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina).
many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but
rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning,
industrial agriculture and factory farming are in fact a primary (if not the primary ) cause of global warming
and deforestation . Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemical-intensive,
energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all. On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of
the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means
necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public
about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous
oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels);
monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes
such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit
with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role
that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological
breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration
and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of
3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer,
releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the
planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of
global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning
up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming
Although transportation,
industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people
understand that
the worst
U.S. and global
greenhouse gas emitter is
“Food Incorporated,” transnational
industrial food
and farming , of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn,
cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to
12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable
cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal
feed and biofuels - are
also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which
generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber, and biofuels
production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of industrial
agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and
Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our
children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.
1AC – Scenario 4
Scenario 3 is Warming
Legalization leads to greater disclosure of energy usage- its key to solve air pollution
and warming
Elkind 14 (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and
UCLA School of Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th
2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legalplanet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB)
Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this year, it’s clear that the
stars are
aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide. Sure, legalizing marijuana makes fiscal, moral, and
practical sense, but what about the benefits to the environment? Well, it turns out that even the fight
against climate change could potentially be enhanced by making cannabis
— and
the grow
operations that produce it — legal . It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers may recall co-blogger Rick
Frank writing about the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow operations on public lands. But
broader environmental issue at stake with legalizing
and mainstreaming
there’s another, potentially
grow operations : enabling
the improved collection of energy data to help target energy conservation and efficiency
programs. Energy data are critical to the fight against climate change and other harmful
forms of air pollution . Policy makers, especially here in California (as represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger
and senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), would
like to get a better sense of where the most energy is
being used. If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use, among
other categories, policy
makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives and
rates to become more efficient . Reducing this electricity usage would have major benefits in
terms of reducing air pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions) from power plants and
saving ratepayers money from the avoided construction of new plants. Not to mention that the
customers themselves would benefit from paying for less electricity . So what is standing in the way of
giving policy makers access to the vital data? Privacy
concerns. Even though the energy data are anonymized and
aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers doesn’t like even the remote possibility that the government could use these data to know when
you’re home, when you leave for work, or how your business operates. Overall, most
people have little to hide when it
comes to electricity usage. But indoor marijuana growers sure do , and they are quietly constituting a
major force in opposition to greater disclosure of energy data . And they have reason for concern. In
documented cases, police have issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012 study by
Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work) indicated that these grow
operations
could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of
$6 billion (in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially
wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s not a stretch to think that
legalizing marijuana nationwide, and allowing
commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional
benefit of defusing some of the major privacy objections to releasing environmentally
beneficial energy data . Of course, the privacy objections aren’t just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some
residential growers may still want or need to remain anonymous. But
sensible marijuana policies could make a
major difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data that can lead to sound
and strategic energy efficiency programs.
Energy disclosure is the biggest and best internal link to stopping runaway warming
Fagotto and Graham 13 (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at
Harvard University and Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law
Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate
Change”, November 27th, AB)
An essential first step in any effective climate change policy is to require major contributors
to fully disclose their greenhouse gas emissions . Congressional leaders are finally working
seriously on long term-approaches to counter climate change. But all the major proposals leave
a critical policy gap because they would not take effect for at least five years. Meanwhile, U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions continue
to increase, and company executives continue to make decisions that
lock in the emissions of future power plants, factories, and cars. Congress could fill that policy gap now by
requiring greater transparency. In the immediate future, legislating product labeling and factory reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions
would make markets work better. Such disclosure would expose
inefficiencies and allow investors , business partners, employees, community residents, and
consumers to compare cars, air conditioners, lawn mowers, and manufacturing plants. As people
factored that information into everyday choices, company executives would have new incentives to
cut emissions sooner rather than later . Greater transparency would also help jump start
cap-and-trade
whatever
or other regulatory approach emerges from the current congressional debate. A carefully constructed
transparency system is therefore an essential element of U.S. climate change strategy . Such a
system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its
debate. Congress is debating long-term approaches to climate change. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are holding wide-ranging hearings, and
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to coordinate climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose
variations on a cap-and-trade approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with governmentcreated markets for trading emission permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps and in how they are set. The most
ambitious proposal, introduced by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels
by 2050. Ironically, though, even
if the 110th Congress approves some variation on a cap-and-trade approach, the new
law will not create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory
farms, and other major contributors to reduce emissions. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his
action would only signal the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. That
debate is likely to be
long and acrimonious because the fine print of the regulations will determine which companies are the real
winners or losers from government action. Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading
emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of
compliance—all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. Such delay may be inevitable but its
costs will be high . Even conservative projections conclude that U.S . greenhouse gas
emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next decade and will produce increasingly serious
consequences. The
administration’s latest climate action report, circulated in draft, projects that a 19% increase
in emissions between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding, and water shortages in many parts of the
country and around the world. That increase could be as high as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) reports that carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and emissions of
three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur hexafluoride, weighted for their relative
contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. The
United States still holds the dubious distinction of
being the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases . Each large contributor to increasing U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of total U.S. emissions from fossil
fuel combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in the price of natural gas have led some
power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration project that
such emissions will increase 1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less carbon
emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.) Power companies are investing now in facilities that will shape the next halfcentury of electricity generation—and the next half-century of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power
plants on the drawing boards will have useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste, not
even including paper and yard trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from
petroleum products were burned. Carbon emissions from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the
demands of the growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power cars, trucks, planes,
and other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel efficiency
across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the EPA. Executives
will need powerful incentives to alter current
plans in order to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon.
Most are understandably reluctant to place their companies at a competitive disadvantage by
making
bold and often costly emission-cutting
moves unilaterally . In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may
make executives more reluctant to act early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take effect. So far,
neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next critical years. A
carefully constructed transparency system would mobilize the power of public opinion ,
inform choice , and help markets work better now. Requiring disclosure
for each proposed and
existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace, refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product
would
expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such
emissions. Once disclosed, emissions data could be used by mayors and governors to design and carry out
emission-reduction plans ; by local zoning and permitting authorities to place conditions on
the construction or alteration of plants; by investors to more accurately predict material risks;
by consumers to choose among cars, air conditioners, and heating systems; and by employees to decide where they want to
work. Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the
information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars.
Warming is real and anthropogenic
Prothero 12
(M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology
and biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los
Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, “How We Know Global
Warming is Real and Human Caused” Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest)
How do we know that
global warming is real and primarily human caused ? There are numerous lines of
evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1.
Carbon Dioxide Increase . Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows
otherwise. Mann
et al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data
from tree rings, ice
cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out
like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then
bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of
variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the
Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in die 1700s and 1800s. But
the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply
unmatched
in all of human history. More revealing, die timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when
humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal,
gas, and oil.
2. Melting Polar Ice Caps . The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an
alarming rate. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in
summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe
longer),4 but now the
entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than
half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer. 5 As one can see from watching the news, this is an
ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4
million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice
shelf - over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly all
the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3
million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic,
Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3.
Melting Glaciers . Glaciers are
all retreating at the highest rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in
the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon - yet this
fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on
Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in
the summer has now thawed,
damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all
our pipelines to die North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the
permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global
warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year
joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we
shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments
change.6 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about
disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4.
Sea Level Rise. All
that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in
the geologic past. At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has
occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data
show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the
past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the
rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4
feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the
Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean
now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.7 Even a small sea level
rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane
Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of die world's coastal plains
and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned.
Uncertainty means vote aff – without action, our ability to predict exactly what will
happen and adapt is minimal
Kim, 2012 (Dr. Jim Yong, President of the World Bank Group, “Turn Down The heat: why a 4°C warmer
world must be avoided”, November, World Bank,
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centri
grade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)
It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to
work with much more urgency. This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists
are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes.
The 4°C scenarios are
devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition
rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the
tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones;
and
irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems. And most importantly, a 4° C world
the current one that it
comes with high uncertainty
anticipate and plan
for future
adaptation
and
new risks
that
is so different from
threaten our ability to
needs. The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of
reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development. It is clear that we already
know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are
already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are
acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme
heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought. Despite the global
community’s best
levels
intentions to keep global warming below a 2° C increase above pre-industrial climate, higher
of warming
are increasingly likely . Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain
unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes. Data and evidence drive the work of the World Bank Group. Science reports, including those
produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World
Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework
on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on
climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense. But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on
mitigation? What are the implications of
a 4° C world ? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world. It
would be so dramatically different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately;
much relies on complex projections and interpretations. We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that
different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But the
fact that such scenarios cannot be
discarded is sufficient to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the
health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be
hit hardest. A 4°C world can, and must, be avoided. The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional
agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon
emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green
growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically
reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth. This report is a stark reminder that
climate change affects everything. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie
in effective risk management
and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is
designed with the threat of a 4° C degree
world in mind . The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge.
Every reduction key
Nuccitelli 12
[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento,
California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley,
and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching
climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical
Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-futureclimate-look-like.html, HM]
We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted,
we are quickly running out of time to
realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold.
Every bit of CO2
we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change
impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to
emissions
cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global
warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and
anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since
various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track
for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions,
impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.).
hundreds of millions of people adversely
But we're not stuck on that track just yet , and we need to
move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as
much as possible . There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the
associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that
their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is
the best summary of scientific evidence
paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we
continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the
most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic
available, and it
scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the
solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change
consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).
Warming causes extinction
Potsdam 12 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the
Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided”, A report for the World Bank, November,
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centri
grade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)
Ecosystems and their species provide a range of important goods and services for human society. These include water, food, cultural and other
values. In the AR4 an assessment of climate change effects on ecosystems and their services found the following: • If greenhouse gas
emissions and other stresses continue at or above current rates, the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to
be exceeded by an unprecedented combination of change in climate, associated disturbances (for example, flooding, drought, wildfire,
insects, and ocean acidification) and other stressors (global change drivers) including land use change, pollution and over-exploitation of
resources. • Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction, if
increases in global average temperature exceed of 2–3° above preindustrial levels. • For increases in global average temperature exceeding 2
to 3° above preindustrial levels and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, major
changes are projected in
ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges,
with predominantly negative consequences for bio d iversity and ecosystem goods and services, such as water and food
supply. It is known that past large-scale losses of global ecosystems and species extinctions have been associated with rapid climate change
combined with other ecological stressors. Loss and/or degradation of ecosystems, and rates of extinction because of human pressures over the
last century or more, which have intensified in recent decades, have contributed to a very high rate of extinction by geological standards. It is
well established that loss or
degradation of ecosystem services occurs
as a consequence of species extinctions,
declining species abundance, or widespread shifts in species and biome distributions (Leadley et al. 2010). Climate change is projected to
exacerbate the situation. This section outlines the likely consequences for some key ecosystems and for biodiversity. The literature tends to
confirm the conclusions from the AR4 outlined above. Despite the existence of detailed and highly informative case studies, upon which this
section will draw, it is also important to recall that there remain many uncertainties (Bellard, Bertelsmeier, Leadley, Thuiller, and Courchamp,
2012). However, threshold behavior is known to occur in biological systems (Barnosky et al. 2012) and most model projections agree on major
adverse consequences for biodiversity in a 4°C world (Bellard et al., 2012).
induced
stresses on ecosystems
have the potential to
With high levels of warming,
coalescing human
trigger large-scale ecosystem collapse
(Barnosky et al.
2012). Furthermore, while uncertainty remains in the projections, there
is a risk not only of major loss of valuable ecosystem services,
particularly to the poor and the most vulnerable who depend on them, but also of feedbacks being initiated that would result in ever
higher CO2 emissions and thus rates of global warming. Significant effects of climate change are already expected for warming well below 4°C.
In a scenario of 2.5°C warming, severe ecosystem change, based on absolute and relative changes in carbon and water fluxes and stores, cannot
be ruled out on any continent (Heyder, Schaphoff, Gerten, & Lucht, 2011). If warming is limited to less than 2°C, with constant or slightly
declining precipitation, small biome shifts are projected, and then only in temperate and tropical regions. Considerable change is projected for
cold and tropical climates already at 3°C of warming.
At greater than 4° C of warming, biomes in temperate zones will also be
substantially affected. These changes would impact not only the human and animal communities that directly rely on the
ecosystems, but would also exact a cost (economic and otherwise) on society as a whole, ranging from extensive loss of biodiversity and
diminished land cover, through to loss of ecosystems services such as fisheries and forestry (de Groot et al., 2012; Farley et al., 2012).
Ecosystems have been found to be particularly sensitive to geographical patterns of climate change (Gonzalez, Neilson, Lenihan, and Drapek,
2010). Moreover, ecosystems are affected not only by local changes in the mean temperature and precipitation, along with changes in the
variability of these quantities and changes by the occurrence of extreme events. These climatic
variables are thus decisive
factors in determining plant structure and ecosystem composition (Reu et al., 2011). Increasing vulnerability to heat and
drought stress will likely lead to increased mortality and species extinction . For example, temperature extremes have
already been held responsible for mortality in Australian flying-fox species (Welbergen, Klose, Markus, and Eby 2008), and interactions between
phenological changes driven by gradual climate changes and extreme events can lead to reduced fecundity (Campbell et al. 2009; Inouye,
2008). Climate change also has the potential to facilitate the spread and establishment of invasive species (pests and weeds) (Hellmann, Byers,
Bierwagen, & Dukes, 2008; Rahel & Olden, 2008) with often detrimental implications for ecosystem services and biodiversity. Human land-use
changes are expected to further exacerbate climate change driven ecosystem changes, particularly in the tropics, where rising temperatures
and reduced precipitation are expected to have major impacts (Campbell et al., 2009; Lee & Jetz, 2008).
affected by the increased occurrence of extremes
Ecosystems will be
such as forest loss resulting from droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use
and agricultural expansion (Fischlin et al., 2007). Climate change also has the potential to catalyze
rapid shifts in ecosystems such as
sudden forest loss or regional loss of agricultural productivity resulting from desertification
(Barnosky et al., 2012). The
predicted increase in extreme climate events would also drive dramatic ecosystem changes (Thibault and Brown 2008; Wernberg, Smale, and
Thomsen 2012). One such extreme event that is expected to have immediate impacts on ecosystems is the increased rate of wildfire
occurrence. Climate change induced shifts in the fire regime are therefore in turn powerful drivers of biome shifts, potentially resulting in
considerable changes in carbon fluxes over large areas (Heyder et al., 2011; Lavorel et al., 2006) It is anticipated that global warming will lead to
global biome shifts (Barnosky et al. 2012). Based on 20th century observations and 21st century projections, poleward latitudinal
biome shifts of up to 400 km are possible in a 4°
C
world
(Gonzalez et al., 2010). In the case of
mountaintop
ecosystems, for example, such a shift is not necessarily possible, putting them at particular risk of
extinction (La Sorte and Jetz, 2010). Species that dwell at the upper edge of continents or on islands would face a similar impediment to
adaptation, since migration into adjacent ecosystems is not possible (Campbell, et al. 2009; Hof, Levinsky, Araújo, and Rahbek 2011). The
consequences of such geographical shifts, driven by climatic changes as well as rising CO2 concentrations, would be found in both reduced
species richness and species turnover (for example, Phillips et al., 2008; White and Beissinger 2008). A study by (Midgley and Thuiller, 2011)
found that, of 5,197 African plant species studied, 25–42 percent could lose all suitable range by 2085. It should be emphasized that
competition for space with human ag riculture over the coming century is likely to prevent vegetation
expansion in
most cases (Zelazowski et al., 2011) Species composition changes can lead to structural changes of the entire ecosystem, such as the increase in lianas in tropical and temperate forests (Phillips et al., 2008), and the encroachment of woody plants in temperate grasslands (Bloor et al.,
2008, Ratajczak et al., 2012), putting grass-eating herbivores at risk of extinction because of a lack of food available—this is just one example of the sensitive intricacies of ecosystem responses to external perturbations. There is also an increased risk of extinction for herbivores in regions
of drought-induced tree dieback, owing to their inability to digest the newly resident C4 grasses (Morgan et al., 2008). The following provides some examples of ecosystems that have been identified as particularly vulnerable to climate change. The discussion is restricted to ecosystems
themselves, rather than the important and often extensive impacts on ecosystems services. Boreal-temperate ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, although there are large differences in projections, depending on the future climate model and emission pathway
studied. Nevertheless there is a clear risk of large-scale forest dieback in the boreal-temperate system because of heat and drought (Heyder et al., 2011). Heat and drought related die-back has already been observed in substantial areas of North American boreal forests (Allen et al.,
2010), characteristic of vulnerability to heat and drought stress leading to increased mortality at the trailing edge of boreal forests. The vulnerability of transition zones between boreal and temperate forests, as well as between boreal forests and polar/tundra biomes, is corroborated by
studies of changes in plant functional richness with climate change (Reu et al., 2011), as well as analyses using multiple dynamic global vegetation models (Gonzalez et al., 2010). Subtle changes within forest types also pose a great risk to biodiversity as different plant types gain
dominance (Scholze et al., 2006). Humid tropical forests also show increasing risk of major climate induced losses. At 4°C warming above pre-industrial levels, the land extent of humid tropical forest, characterized by tree species diversity and biomass density, is expected to contract to
approximately 25 percent of its original size [see Figure 3 in (Zelazowski et al., 2011)], while at 2°C warming, more than 75 percent of the original land can likely be preserved. For these ecosystems, water availability is the dominant determinant of climate suitability (Zelazowski et al.,
2011). In general, Asia is substantially less at risk of forest loss than the tropical Americas. However, even at 2°C, the forest in the Indochina peninsula will be at risk of die-back. At 4°C, the area of concern grows to include central Sumatra, Sulawesi, India and the Philippines, where up to
30 percent of the total humid tropical forest niche could be threatened by forest retreat (Zelazowski et al., 2011). There has been substantial scientific debate over the risk of a rapid and abrupt change to a much drier savanna or grassland ecosyste m under global warming. This risk has
been identified as a possible planetary tipping point at around a warming of 3.5–4.5°C, which, if crossed, would result in a major loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services and the loss of a major terrestrial carbon sink, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Lenton et al., 2008)(Cox, et
al., 2004) (Kriegler, Hall, Held, Dawson, and Schellnhuber, 2009). Substantial uncertainty remains around the likelihood, timing and onset of such risk due to a range of factors including uncertainty in precipitation changes, effects of CO2 concentration increase on water use efficiency and
the CO2 fertilization effect, land-use feedbacks and interactions with fire frequency and intensity, and effects of higher temperature on tropical tree species and on important ecosystem services such as pollinators. While climate model projections for the Amazon, and in particular
precipitation, remain quite uncertain recent analyses using IPCC AR4 generation climate indicates a reduced risk of a major basin wide loss of precipitation compared to some earlier work. If drying occurs then the likelihood of an abrupt shift t o a drier, less biodiverse ecosystem would
increase. Current projections indicate that fire occurrence in the Amazon could double by 2050, based on the A2 SRES scenario that involves warming of approximately 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Silvestrini et al., 2011), and can therefore be expected to be even higher in a 4°C
world. Interactions of climate change, land use and agricultural expansion increase the incidence of fire (Aragão et al., 2008), which plays a major role in the (re)structuring of vegetation (Gonzalez et al., 2010; Scholze et al., 2006). A decrease in precipitation over the Amazon forests may
therefore result in forest retreat or transition into a low biomass forest (Malhi et al., 2009). Moderating this risk is a possible increase in ecosystem water use efficiency with increasing CO2 concentrations is accounted for, more than 90 percent of the original humid tropical forest niche in
Amazonia is likely to be preserved in the 2°C case, compared to just under half in the 4°C warming case (see Figure 5 in Zelazowski et al., 2011) (Cook, Zeng, and Yoon, 2012; Salazar & Nobre, 2010). Recent work has analyzed a number of these factors and their uncertainties and finds that
the risk of major loss of forest due to climate is more likely to be regional than Amazon basin-wide, with the eastern and southeastern Amazon being most at risk (Zelazowski et al., 2011). Salazar and Nobre (2010) estimates a transition from tropical forests to seasonal forest or savanna in
the eastern Amazon could occur at warming at warming of 2.5–3.5°C when CO2 fertilization is not considered and 4.5–5.5°C when it is considered. It is important to note, as Salazar and Nobre (2010) point out, that the effects of deforestation and increased fire risk interact with the
climate change and are likely to accelerate a transition from tropical forests to drier ecosystems. Increased CO2 concentration may also lead to increased plant water efficiency (Ainsworth and Long, 2005), lowering the risk of plant die-back, and resulting in vegetation expansion in many
regions, such as the Congo basin, West Africa and Madagascar (Zelazowski et al., 2011), in addition to some dry-land ecosystems (Heyder et al., 2011). The impact of CO2 induced ‘greening’ would, however, negatively affect biodiversity in many ecosystems. In particular encroachment of
woody plants into grasslands and savannahs in North American grassland and savanna communities could lead to a decline of up to 45 percent in species richness ((Ratajczak and Nippert, 2012) and loss of sp ecialist savanna plant species in southern Africa (Parr, Gray, and Bond, 2012).
Mangroves are an important ecosystem and are particularly vulnerable to the multiple impacts of climate change, such as: rise in sea levels, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, air and water temperature, and changes in precipitation patterns. Sea-level rise can cause a loss of
mangroves by cutting off the flow of fresh water and nutrients and drowning the roots (Dasgupta, Laplante et al. 2010). By the end of the 21st century, global mangrove cover is projected to experience a significant decline because of heat stress and sea-level rise (Alongi, 2008; Beaumont
et al., 2011). In fact, it has been estimated that under the A1B emissions scenario (3.5°C relative to pre-industrial levels) mangroves would need to geographically move on average about 1 km/year to remain in suitable climate zones (Loarie et al., 2009). The most vulnerable mangrove
forests are those occupying low-relief islands such as small islands in the Pacific where sea-level rise is a dominant factor. Where rivers are lacking and/ or land is subsiding, vulnerability is also high. With mangrove losses resulting from deforestation presently at 1 to 2 percent per annum
(Beaumont et al., 2011), climate change may not be the biggest immediate threat to the future of mangroves. However if conservation efforts are successful in the longer term climate change may become a determining issue (Beaumont et al., 2011). Coral reefs are acutely sensitive to
changes in water temperatures, ocean pH and intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. Mass coral bleaching is caused by ocean warming and ocean acidification, which results from absorption of CO2 (for example, Frieler et al., 2012a). Increased sea-surface temperatures and a
reduction of available carbonates are also understood to be driving causes of decreased rates of calcification, a critical reef-building process (De’ath, Lough, and Fabricius, 2009). The effects of climate change on coral reefs are already apparent. The Great Barrier Reef, for example, has
been estimated to have lost 50 percent of live coral cover since 1985, which is attributed in part to coral bleaching because of increasing water temperatures (De’ath et al., 2012). Under atmospheric CO2 concentrations that correspond to a warming of 4°C by 2100, reef erosion will likely
exceed rates of calcification, leaving coral reefs as “crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals” (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). In fact, frequency of bleaching events under global warming in even a 2°C world has been projected to exceed the ability of coral reefs to recover. The
extinction of coral reefs would be catastrophic for entire coral reef ecosystems and the people who depend on them for food, income and shoreline. Reefs provide coastal protection against coastal floods and rising sea levels, nursery grounds and habitat for a variety of currently fished
species, as well as an invaluable tourism asset. These valuable services to often subsistence-dependent coastal and island societies will most likely be lost well before a 4°C world is reached. The preceding discussion reviewed the implications of a 4°C world for just a few examples of
important ecosystems. The section below examines the effects of climate on biological diversity Ecosystems are composed ultimately of the species and interactions between them and their physical environment. Biologically rich ecosystems are usually diverse and it is broadly agreed
that
there exists a strong link between this biological d iversity and ecosystem productivity, stability and
functioning (McGrady-Steed, Harris, and Morin, 1997; David Tilman, Wedin, and Knops, 1996)(Hector, 1999; D Tilman et al., 2001). Loss of
species within ecosystems will hence have profound negative effects on the functioning and stability of ecosystems and on the ability of
ecosystems to provide goods and services to human societies. It is the
characterizes the
biodiversity and
overall diversity of species
evolutionary legacy of life
that ultimately
on Earth. As was noted at the outset of this discussion,
species extinction rates are now at very high levels compared to the geological record. Loss of those species presently classified as ‘critically
endangered’ would lead to mass extinction on a scale that has happened only five times before in the last 540 million years. The
those
loss of
species classified as ‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’ would confirm this loss as the sixth mass
extinction episode
(Barnosky 2011). Loss of biodiversity will challenge those reliant on ecosystems services. Fisheries (Dale, Tharp,
Lannom, and Hodges, 2010), and agronomy (Howden et al., 2007) and forestry industries (Stram & Evans, 2009), among others, will need to
match species choices to the changing climate conditions, while devising new strategies to tackle invasive pests (Bellard, Bertelsmeier, Leadley,
Thuiller, and Courchamp, 2012). These challenges would have to be met in the face of increasing competition between natural and agricultural
ecosystems over water resources. Over the 21st-century climate change is likely to result in some bio-climates disappearing, notably in the
mountainous tropics and in the poleward regions of continents, with new, or novel, climates developing in the tropics and subtropics (Williams,
Jackson, and Kutzbach, 2007). In this study novel climates are those where 21st century projected climates do not overlap with their 20th
century analogues, and disappearing climates are those 20th century climates that do not overlap with 21st century projected climates. The
projections of Williams et al (2007) indicate that in a 4°C world (SRES A2), 12–39 percent of the Earth’s land surface may experience a novel
climate compared to 20th century analogues. Predictions of species response to novel climates are difficult because researchers have no
current analogue to rely upon. However, at least such climates would give rise to disruptions, with many current species associations being
broken up or disappearing entirely. Under the same scenario an estimated 10–48 percent of the Earth’s surface including highly biodiverse
regions such as the Himalayas, Mesoamerica, eastern and southern Africa, the Philippines and the region around Indonesia known as Wallacaea
would lose their climate space.
many species may
With limitations on how fast species can disperse , or move, this indicates that
find themselves without a suitable climate space and thus
face
a high risk of
extinction . Globally, as in
other studies, there is a strong association apparent in these projections between regions where the climate disappears and biodiversity
hotspots.
the
Limiting warming to lower levels
magnitude
of novel and disappearing climates
in this study
showed substantially reduced effects, with
scaling linearly
with global mean warming. More recent work by
Beaumont and colleagues using a different approach confirms the scale of this risk (Beaumont et al., 2011, Figure 36). Analysis of the exposure
of 185 eco-regions of exceptional biodiversity (a subset of the so-called Global 200) to extreme monthly temperature and precipitation
conditions in the 21st century compared to 1961–1990 conditions shows that within 60 years almost all of the regions that are already exposed
to substantial environmental and social pressure, will experience extreme temperature conditions based on the A2 emission scenario (4.1°C
global mean temperature rise by 2100) (Beaumont et al., 2011). Tropical and sub-tropical eco-regions in Africa and South America are
particularly vulnerable. Vulnerability to such extremes is particularly acute for high latitude and small island biota, which are very limited in
their ability to respond to range shifts, and to those biota, such as flooded grassland, mangroves and desert biomes, that would require large
geographical displacements to find comparable climates in a warmer world. The overall sense of recent literature confirms the findings of the
AR4 summarized at the beginning of the section, with a number of risks such as those to coral reefs occurring at significantly lower
temperatures than estimated in that report. Although non-climate related human pressures are likely to remain a major and defining driver of
loss of ecosystems and biodiversity in the coming decades, it is also clear that as warming rises so will the predominance of climate change as a
determinant of ecosystem and biodiversity survival.
While the factors of human stresses on ecosystems are manifold, in
a 4° C world, climate change is likely to become a determining driver
of ecosystem shifts and large-scale
biodiversity loss (Bellard et al., 2012; New et al., 2011). Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C
world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth´s ecosystems into a state unknown in human
experience. Such damages to ecosystems would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society
depends (e.g., hydrology—quantity flow rates, quality; fisheries (corals), protection of coastline (loss of mangroves). Barnosky has described the
present situation facing the biodiversity of the planet as “the perfect storm” with multiple high intensity ecological stresses because of habitat
modification and degradation, pollution and other factors, unusually rapid climate change and unusually high and elevated atmospheric CO2
concentrations. In the past, as noted above, this combination of circumstances has led to major, mass extinctions with planetary consequences.
Thus, there is a growing risk that
transition of
the
climate change, combined with other human activities, will cause the irreversible
Earth´s ecosystems
into a state unknown in human experience (Barnosky et al., 2012).
Pragmatic warming policy is effective and key to prevent extinction
Simpson 10 (Francis, College of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, “Environmental Pragmatism and its
Application to Climate Change The Moral Obligations of Developed and Developing Nations to Avert
Climate Change as viewed through Technological Pragmatism”, Spring 2010 | Volume 6 | Number 1)
Environmental pragmatism is a relatively new field of environmental ethics that seeks to move beyond the
strictly theoretical exercises normal in philosophy and allows the environmental movement to formulate
substantial new policies (Light, 1). Environmental Pragmatism was initially posited by Bryan Norton and evolved to not take a stance over the dispute between nonPragmatism and Footprinting¶
anthropocentric and anthropocentric ethics. Distancing himself from this dispute, he preferred to distinguish between strong and weak anthropocentricism (Light, 290-291, 298). The
This particular discipline
advocates moral pluralism, implying that the environmental problems being faced have multiple
correct solutions. Light argues that the urgency of ecological crises requires that action is necessary
through negotiation and compromise. While theorists serve to further the field of environmental ethics and to
debate the metaethical basis of various environmental philosophies, some answers to questions are best
main philosophers involved in advancing the debate in environmental pragmatism include Eric Katz, Andrew Light, and Bryan Norton.
left to private discussion rather than taking time to argue about them publically (introduction of pragmatism).
Pragmatism believes that if two theories are equally able to provide solutions to a given problem, then debate on which is more is argued that: “the commitment to
solving environmental problems is the only precondition for any workable and democratic political
theory” (Light, 11). While the science behind a footprint is well understood, what can the synthesis of environmental pragmatism and footprinting tell us about the moral obligation
to avert climate change? How does grounding the practice of sustainability footprinting in environmental pragmatism generate moral prescriptions for averting climate change?¶
pragmatism inherently
calls for bridging the gap between theory and policy/ practices. With the theory of pragmatism in mind, further research and
Environmental Pragmatism necessitates the need for tools in engineering to be developed and applied to avert the climate change problem, since
development of tools such as life-cycle analysis and footprinting are potential policy tools that are necessary under a pragmatist viewpoint so that informed decisions can be made by
policy makers. Since the role of life-cycle analysis and footprinting attempt to improve the efficiency and decrease the overall environmental impact of a given process, good, or service,
environmental pragmatism would call for the further development and usage of these tools so that we can continue to develop sustainably and fulfill our moral obligation to future
By utilizing footprinting and life-cycle analysis, it becomes possible to make environmentally
conscious decisions not only based upon a gut instinct but additionally based on sound science. Finally, in regards
generations.
to averting climate change, footprinting and life-cycle analysis offer another dimension to traditional cost-benefit analysis and can allow for our moral obligation to future generations to
weigh into final decisions which will eventually result in policies and/ or a production of a good or service. Since traditional cost benefit analysis does not account for the environment
Climate change
modeling inherently contains many unknowns in terms of future outcomes and applied simplifications, but these factors
should not be enough to hold us back from an environmental pragmatism stand point. Rather than
hiding behind a veil of uncertainty with the science, the uncertainty of the possible catastrophic
outcomes demands action on the part of every human individual. Environmental pragmatism could also adopt a view point like the precautionary principle where
a given action has great uncertainty, but also great consequence (Haller). Since we are attempting to protect human lives and
prevent unnecessary suffering, environmental pragmatism would dictate that we should take
action now and stop debating the theoretical aspects of this problem. A moral obligation exists to
protect human life, and it becomes our obligation to avert climate change. Despite the relatively high economic costs of
averting climate change, it is worth noting that the creation of green jobs and new sectors will help to stimulate the economy rather than completely hindering it. People
inherently fear change, and it is my opinion that averting climate change requires a drastic change in
our consumption patterns, an important reason why people are resisting averting climate change. From an environmental pragmatism viewpoint, it is humanities
responsibility to avert climate change before it is too late since we have a moral obligation to
protect the future of humanity and the biosphere.
explicitly, pragmatism would call for the application of these tools to ensure that the environment is adequately protected for future generations.¶