Uniqueness
General
Environment improving – reject alarmist scenarios
Lomborg 11
Bjorn, associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of
Aarhus, Denmark, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center, “A Roadmap for the Planet,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/12/bjorn-lomborg-explains-how-to-save-theplanet.html#
Climate alarmists and campaigning environmentalists argue that the industrialized
countries of the world have made sizable withdrawals on nature’s fixed allowance, and unless
we change our ways, and soon, we are doomed to an abrupt end. Take the recent
proclamation from the United Nations Environment Program, which argued that governments
should dramatically cut back on the use of resources. The mantra has become commonplace:
our current way of living is selfish and unsustainable. We are wrecking the world. We are
gobbling up the last resources. We are cutting down the rainforest. We are polluting the
water. We are polluting the air. We are killing plants and animals, destroying the ozone
layer, burning the world through our addiction to fossil fuels, and leaving a devastated planet
for future generations.
In other words, humanity is doomed.
It is a compelling story, no doubt. It is also fundamentally wrong , and the
consequences are severe. Tragically, exaggerated environmental worries—and the willingness
of so many to believe them—could ultimately prevent us from finding smarter ways to actually
help our planet and ensure the health of the environment for future generations.
Because, our fears notwithstanding, we actually get smarter. Although Westerners were once
reliant on whale oil for lighting, we never actually ran out of whales. Why? High demand and
rising prices for whale oil spurred a search for and investment in the 19th-century version of
alternative energy. First, kerosene from petroleum replaced whale oil. We didn’t run out of
kerosene, either: electricity supplanted it because it was a superior way to light our planet.
For generations, we have consistently underestimated our capacity for innovation. There
was a time when we worried that all of London would be covered with horse manure because of
the increasing use of horse-drawn carriages. Thanks to the invention of the car, London has 7
million inhabitants today. Dung disaster averted.
In fact, would-be catastrophes have regularly been pushed aside throughout human
history, and so often because of innovation and technological development. We never just
continue to do the same old thing. We innovate and avoid the anticipated problems.
Think of the whales, and then think of the debate over cutting emissions today. Instead of
singlemindedly trying to force people to do without carbon-emitting fuels, we must recognize
that we won’t make any real progress in cutting CO2 emissions until we can create affordable,
efficient alternatives. We are far from that point today: much-hyped technologies such as wind
and solar energy remain very expensive and inefficient compared with cheap fossil fuels.
Globally, wind provides just 0.3 percent of our energy, and solar a minuscule 0.1 percent.
Current technology is so inefficient that, to take just one example, if we were serious about wind
power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy
for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don’t know what to
do when the wind doesn’t blow.
Making the necessary breakthroughs will require mass improvements across many
technologies. The sustainable response to global warming, then, is one that sees us get much
more serious about investment into alternative-energy research and development. This has a
much greater likelihood of leaving future generations at least the same opportunities as we have
today.
Because what, exactly, is sustainability? Fourteen years ago, the United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development report “Our Common Future,” chaired by Gro
Harlem Brundtland, provided the most-quoted definition. Sustainable development “meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” The measure of success, then, is whether or not we give future generations the same
opportunities that we have had.
This prompts the question: have we lived unsustainably in the past?
In fact, by almost any measure, humans have left a legacy of increased opportunity for
their descendants. And this is true not just for the rich world but also for developing countries.
In the last couple of hundred years we have become much richer than in all previous history.
Available production per capita—the amount that an average individual can consume—
increased eightfold between 1800 and 2000. In the past six decades, poverty has fallen more
than in the previous 500 years. This decade alone, China will by itself lift 200 million individuals
out of poverty. While one in every two people in the developing world was poor just 25 years
ago, today it is one in four. Although much remains to be done, developing countries have
become much more affluent, with a fivefold increase in real per capita income between 1950
and today.
But it’s not just about money. The world has generally become a much better educated
place, too. Illiteracy in the developing world has fallen from about 75 percent for the people
born in the early part of the 1900s to about 12 percent among the young of today. More and
more people have gained access to clean water and sanitation, improving health and income.
And according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the percentage of undernourished
people in the developing world has dropped from more than 50 percent in 1950 to 16 percent
today.
As humans have become richer and more educated, we have been able to enjoy more leisure
time. In most developed countries, where there are available data, yearly working hours have
fallen drastically since the end of the 19th century: today we work only about half as much as
we did then. Over the last 30 years or so, total free time for men and women has increased,
thanks to reductions in workload and housework. Globally, life expectancy today is 69. Compare
this with an average life span of 52 in 1960, or of about 30 in 1900. Advances in public health
and technological innovation have dramatically lengthened our lives.
We have consistently achieved these remarkable developments by focusing on technological
innovation and investment designed to create a richer future. And while major challenges
remain, the future appears to hold great promise, too. The U.N. estimates that over this century,
the planet’s human inhabitants will become 14 times richer and the average person in the
developing world a whopping 24 times richer. By the end of the century, the U.N. estimates we
will live to be 85 on average, and virtually everyone will read, write, and have access to food,
water, and sanitation. That’s not too shabby.
Rather than celebrating this amazing progress, many find it distasteful. Instead of
acknowledging and learning from it, we bathe ourselves in guilt, fretting about our supposed
unsustainable lives. Certainly many argue that while the past may have improved, surely it
doesn’t matter for the future, because we are destroying the environment!
But not so fast. In recent decades, air quality in wealthy countries has vastly improved. In
virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the water is more
drinkable than they were in 1970. London, renowned for centuries for its infamous smog and
severe pollution, today has the cleanest air that it has had since the Middle Ages.
Today, some of the most polluted places in the world are the megacities of the developing
world, such as Beijing, New Delhi, and Mexico City. But remember what happened in developed
countries. Over a period of several hundred years, increasing incomes were matched by
increasing pollution. In the 1930s and 1940s, London was more polluted than Beijing, New
Delhi, or Mexico City are today.
Eventually, with increased affluence, developed countries gradually were better able to
afford a cleaner environment. That is happening already today in some of the richest
developing countries: air-pollution levels in Mexico City have been dropping precisely
because of better technology and more wealth. Though air pollution is by far the most menacing
for humans, water quality has similarly been getting better. Forests, too, are regrowing in rich
countries, though still being lost in poor places where slash-and-burn is preferable to starvation.
These days, of course, the specter of global warming overshadows any discussion of the
environment. Even if we are making progress elsewhere on air pollution, water pollution, or
reforestation, what difference does it make when we are overheating the planet? Global
warming is caused by our reliance on fossil fuels. It is going to exacerbate many of the issues
that we experience today, and in some of the world’s poorest regions it will slow our progress
against malnutrition and disease. It is certainly a real problem. However, far too often we
exaggerate its impact and indulge in fearmongering with imagery of devastation
of biblical proportions .
Ext. General
Current environmental innovation solves – produces new mechanisms for
solutions
Ewing 2012
J. Jackson, Research Fellow and Coordinator of the Environmental Security and Climate
Change and Food Security Programmes, at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Studies in the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological
University, “BACK TO THE FUTURE: IS RIO+20 A 1992 REDUX OR IS THERE CAUSE FOR
OPTIMISM?,” http://www.rsis.edu.sg/nts/html-newsletter/alert/nts-alert-may-1201.html
The fracture points between environmental and economic considerations are not cause for
abandoning sustainable development approaches nor do they negate the potential value of
Rio+20. Judiciously developing resources is a long-term social imperative, particularly if
intergenerational equity is considered. It is also an avenue from which immediate and nearterm progress can be made on issues of development, quality of life and political
stability.
However, these benefits will require that difficult decisions be made and creative
compromises found that assuage the concerns of parties with a multitude of competing
interests. It is here that the deliberations of Rio+20 can have their greatest impact , even if these
impacts are not readily evident from the formalised outcomes. The meetings will facilitate
what Andonova and Hoffman (2012:60) have termed ‘collective wondering’ about new
pathways for solutions to problems spanning environmental and economic spheres.
As Andonova and Hoffman (2012:58) state, it has been the ‘somewhat unintended’ result of
global environmental dialogue that ‘ innovation and experimentation outside the
formal, multilateral processes’ have expanded mightily . Creative and potentially
effective policy mechanisms in areas such as the valuation of environmental and social
externalities, payments for ecological services, and transboundary environmental justice have
had their genesis in collaborative international meetings. The goalposts have shifted as a
result of such connections created through diligent international dialogue, and Rio+20 will again
bring together multi-sector stakeholders with a wide array of skills and ideas. The legacy of the
impending discussions will be written and judged on the tangible agreements and mechanisms
that are proffered at the international level, and sending effective signals from this lofty perch is
no doubt necessary. However, it is likely that effective mechanisms for managing
environmental problems will come less from top-down agreements than from coordinating
innovative approaches among national and subnational actors. In this sense, inclusive
meetings such as Rio+20 remain invaluable.
Global innovation and non-state environmental management increasing
now
Andonova and Hoffmann 2012
Liliana B., Professor of Political Science and Deputy Director of the Center for
International Environmental Studies at the Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies, Geneva, Matthew J., Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department
of Social Sciences at the University of Toronto Scarborough, “From Rio to Rio and Beyond:
Innovation in Global Environmental Governance,” Journal of Environment & Development, 21(1)
57–61, http://jed.sagepub.com/content/21/1/57.full.pdf+html
Pathways to Governing Complex Systems
The Rio conference was an expression, and perhaps the quintessential one, of the growing
trend of large-scale multilateralism—global conferences and negotiations encompassing
essentially all nation-states. Following a legacy of universal-membership international
organizations and the rise of multilateral environmental treaties (e.g., The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, later treaties on Ozone Depletion), the Earth Summit
ushered in an era where multilateralism was seen as the way to govern global problems. The
Rio conference cemented this trend, institutionalizing the idea that regular global negotiations
would be the world’s approach to key environmental problems (climate change, biodiversity
loss, forests, desertification). It is ironic, but nonetheless true, that one somewhat unintended
legacy of multilateralism has been to spur innovation and experimentation outside the
formal, multilateral processes.
The substance of the discussions at the 1992 Earth Summit would prove transformative. By
advancing the concept of “sustainable development” as its organizing principle, the Summit
brought into sharp relief the complexity of the task of addressing environmental problems. It
reflected the growing recognition that they are inextricably linked with other global issues such
as development and trade. Scientific assessments that formed the foundation for negotiations
reflected understanding of complex human-ecological systems making it obvious that
challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss were more than isolated “environmental
problems” subject to the same kind of governance mechanisms that served the international
community in dealing with transboundary pollution and even ozone depletion.
The complex nature of global environmental problems would serve to make multilateral
cooperation challenging and simultaneously spur experimentation. The two
intergovernmental conventions adopted in 1992 at Rio—the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
are a case in point of how attempting to regulate issues of unenviable complexity enhanced the
recognition of the multiscalar nature of environmental challenges and catalyzed momentum
behind innovation and experimentation. The breadth and depth of the undertaking embodied
in the implementation efforts that followed the agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol of the
UNFCCC, awoke a range of actors at multiple levels to the scale of the problems and the
types of activities that would be called on to implement global solutions. NGOs and
corporations began to work on developing the infrastructure for carbon markets,
transnational city networks emerged to prepare local governments for climate action, and
community-based efforts for conservation and livelihoods proliferated. The multilateral
process floundered in part because of the profound mismatch between a single, centralized,
topdown global governance system and the inherently complex nature of environmental
problems. The resulting uncertainty about fragmentation and appropriate scales of interventions
has only been enhanced by processes of globalization and growing incentives and capacity of
nonstate actors to engage in direct action for the environment.
Private Authority and Public–Private Partnerships
The conditions that made possible a flurry of multilevel, multiactor activity for the environment
can also be traced to political dynamics that came to a head at Rio. The 1992 Earth Summit
was one of the first major international meetings where what Rosenau (1990) has dubbed the
multicentric world engaged with the state-centric world on a global stage. NGOs, local
governments, corporations, and a host of civil society actors converged on Rio, sharing their
experiences, urging action, networking, and considering their roles in the global governance of
environmental problems. This widening of participation in global environmental governance
emerged and was potent precisely because the conference reflected another trend in global
governance, the pluralization of global authority. Since the 1990s, growing marketization of
politics and society (key aspects of globalization) has gained significant momentum. These
globalization dynamics coupled with the recognition of the multiscalar nature of
environmental problems altered a system that had state sovereignty as its foundation and
resulted in a proliferation of actors that considered themselves to be authoritative agents
undertaking actions for the environment.
The resulting infusion of nonstate actors in environmental politics opened new space in the
global public domain for experimentation with new instruments that seek to influence
behavior and environmental outcomes via markets, norms, and networks. The NGO-led Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and the business-led ISO14001 certification are two
well-documented schemes of regulation beyond the state. FSC certification gained ground
rapidly since its creation in 1995, more than doubling after 2005 to 148 million hectares of
forests, across 80 countries with more than 1,000 certificates issues (Forest Stewardship
Council, 2011). The ISO14001 environmental management standard, which was inspired by
efficiency and wasteminimization approaches advocated at Rio, similarly diffused rapidly from
13,994 certificates in 1999 to 223,149 in 2009. These prominent examples are just the tip of
a multitude of nonstate initiatives undertaken by networks of advocacy or business
actors, which have proliferated across multiple domains such as carbon markets, voluntary
emission reductions, conservation, sustainable production, or chemical safety.
We do not suggest, however, that private authority has sidelined or substituted for public and
intergovernmental institutions in environmental governance. On the contrary,
intergovernmental frameworks such as the UNFCC and its Kyoto Protocol and the CBD
provide the normative foundation and often specific incentives for nonstate actors as well
as substate public authorities such as cities, regions, and communities to engage in direct
environmental action. International organizations and units of national governments have
furthermore actively facilitated the opening of the multilateral system to an array of public–
private interventions for the environment. Public–private partnerships have diffused across the
globe taking a variety of forms. Thousands of community-based partnerships for
biodiversity management, energy efficiency, transportation, or agriculture coexist with
large global partnerships platforms for corporate social responsibility, renewable energy
diffusion, or resource management. International organizations and regimes are slowly starting
to come to grips with the flurry of decentralized governance innovations and to evaluate their
implications for advancing environmental objectives.
New UN blueprint solves
Stocchetti 2013
Marikki, doctoral candidate in Development Studies at the University of Helsinki, researcher at
the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, “The UN Blueprint for the Post-2015 Development
Agenda > Enabling optimism or true transformation?,” The Finnish Institute of International
Affairs, April, http://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/335/
In September 2015 the United Nations (UN) General Assembly is to agree on a new global
agenda for international development (2015-2030) as the era of Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) comes to an end. Over 50 development expertsfrom different UN entities and
other international organizations were tasked with reporting on the lessons learnt from the
MDGs, and with proposing a fresh blueprint for the future. The resulting document, “Realizing
the Future We Want for All”, is serving as the first referencefor consultations across the globe.
Two intertwined challenges make this UN-led endeavour particularly difficult. The first of
these relates to the magnitude of the international development agenda and the work that
still needs to be done. Several of the MDGs remain unrealized, while priorities that were not
sufficiently covered by the current framework compete for attention and resources. Most notable
of these are employment and livelihoods, peace and security, as well as human rights and
environmentalconcerns. However, the second challenge is almost as huge as the workload
ahead, namely, the almost paralyzing degree of passivism and disinterest among political
leaders.
It is this raft of problems that the UN Task Team is aiming to tackle. At the core of the
blueprint lies the notion of enabling development through shared responsibility between
countries and actors. This marks a shift from a pessimistic focus on the developing
countries’ own problems to a wider view whereby developed nations and private sector
actors would play a much bigger role.
To make this happen, the UN Task Team is structuring the proposal around three core values
for all stakeholders to share. These are human rights, equality and sustainability. The
envisioned post-2015 agenda in itself consists of four key dimensions. These include 1)
inclusive social development, 2) inclusive economic development, 3) environmental
sustainability and 4) peace and security. Each of these dimensions will be completed with
concrete goals, targets, indicators and means of implementation now that the complex
consultation process has run its course.
Yet the ground-breaking suggestion that the UN team is making relates to the factors that
underpin each of the four dimensions. The UN System Task Team calls them “enablers”.These
enablers can be understoodas prerequisites that need to be in place in order to achieve any of
the future development goals. They are included to guide policy-makers and private actors to
act more coherently. For instance, the achievement of inclusive economic development-related
objectives calls for fair and stable global trading and financial systems as well as affordable
access to technology and knowledge. By the same token, the fate of environmental
sustainability goals will be determined by the way in which we use natural resources. Peace and
security also hinge on good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Moreover,
the four dimensions are interconnected. This implies that failures and successes in each sector
influence one another. The same interdependence is highlighted between national and
international levels.
The UN Blueprint broadens the conventional approach to development well beyond the
tradition donor-recipient relationship and development cooperation. It also points to the
underlying weakness of the current international agenda and discusses failures to address the
root causes and incoherencies behind poverty and unsustainability. In so doing, the UN Task
Team has reignited the debate over “Global partnership for development”, which has been
the largely unfulfilled MDG for developed countries to support poorer countries with effective
aid, better trade rules, and access to technology and knowledge.
Hence, the overriding strength of the UN Blueprint is that it connects the present MDGs for
developing countries to the wider frame of sustainable development. While advocating an
agenda for global transformation, the UN Task Team acknowledges the power of the present
MDGs to galvanize international attention and much-needed development assistance for
the poorest countries. Indeed, the MDGs have had a positive impact on decreasing
absolute poverty, and improving access to primary education, as well as to clean
drinking water. Yet much more is needed to stay on track and to ensure the full attainment of
all MDGs. Among them are the still unrealized objectives of better nutrition as well as lower child
and maternal mortality rates, which cannot be reached by development aid only.
at: climate – doha solves
Doha created momentum to solve climate
Hedegaard 2012
Connie, “Why the Doha climate conference was a success,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/doha-climate-conference-success
In Doha, we changed the very structure of our negotiations . Before, we had different
working groups based on the sharp distinction between developed and developing countries.
Now, we have one negotiation forum, the Durban Platform, for all countries. Check.
This is not a small achievement. Today, the average emission per capita in China is already
7.2 tonnes and increasing. Europe's is 7.5 tonnes and decreasing. The world cannot fight
climate change without emerging economies committing. That is why crossing the
bridge from the old system to the new system was so important. And we did it.
And this bridge is being constructed by the EU and a handful of other developed countries
committing to a second Kyoto Protocol period. Too many years of hard work would have been
lost if we had not renewed Kyoto, which is still the only existing treaty that requires emission
cuts. We simply couldn't afford that. Another check. ✓
We have ensured continuity up to the new global deal in 2020, with the EU succeeding in
negotiating an eight-year extension of the protocol. Check. ✓
We have finally resolved the long-running problem of "hot air" – surplus of unused carbon
credits from the first Kyoto period. Buyers will be limited in how much they can purchase.
The EU's law doesn't allow using them and all potential buyers made declarations that they will
not buy them anyway. Moreover, the new rules prevent the creation of additional hot air. This is
a strong environmental outcome. Check.
Despite the difficult economic times in Europe, we also continued to provide climate funding
in Doha. Several EU member states and the European Commission came forward with
some €7bn in climate funds for 2013 and 2014, which represents an increase from the past
two years. Check.
The EU also requested that Doha set out a schedule of what must be done from now until 2015.
We now have a workplan. Check. ✓
But before the future legal regime kicks in 2020, the EU insisted on identifying further
measures to reduce emissions in order to hold global warming below 2°C. Doha delivered
that. And all Kyoto and non-Kyoto countries' targets will be revisited by 2014 with a view to
considering raising their ambition. Check. ✓
at: overpopulation – wrong
Overpopulation is alarmist fantasy
Berezow 2013
Alex B., editor of RealClearScience, “Humanity is not a plague on earth: Column,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/05/humanity-is-not-a-plague-on-earthcolumn/1965485/
In January, David Attenborough, an internationally renowned host of nature documentaries,
revealed how disconnected he is from nature. Mankind, he recently warned, is a "plague on the
earth." He said, "Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us."
Nobody told him that world population growth is already slowing in nearly every part of the
world. In many countries, demographers worry more about a shrinking population than an
exploding one.
Americans haven't gotten the memo, either. A Center for Biological Diversity poll released last
week reports that a majority of Americans worry about population growth sparking global
warming, killing off endangered species or causing other environmental mayhem. And, they say,
we have a "moral responsibility" to do something about it.
Nevertheless, the notion that humanity is a blight upon the planet is a long discredited
idea, long nurtured by a vocal cadre of fearful prophets .
Fearful history
Thomas Malthus predicted more than 200 years ago that world population growth would
outpace food production, triggering mass starvations and disease. In 1977, Paul and Anne
Ehrlich, along with Obama administration "science czar" John Holdren, authored a textbook that
discussed population control, including the unsavory possibility of compulsory abortions. As
recently as 2011, Anne Ehrlich compared humans to cancer cells.
Yet, science says otherwise. Indeed, what Attenborough, the Ehrlichs and Holdren all have in
common is an ignorance of demographic trends. Anyone who believes that humans will overrun
the earth like ants at a picnic is ignoring the data.
Wealth plays role
According to the World Bank, the world's fertility rate is 2.45, slightly above the replacement rate
of 2.1. Some demographers believe that by 2020, global fertility will drop below the
replacement rate for the first time in history. Why? Because the world is getting richer.
As people become wealthier, they have fewer kids. When times are good, instead of
reproducing exponentially (like rabbits), people prefer to spend resources nurturing fewer
children, for instance by investing in education and saving money for the future. This trend
toward smaller families has been observed throughout the developed world, from the
United States to Europe to Asia.
The poorest parts of the world, most notably sub-Saharan Africa, still have sky-high fertility
rates, but they are declining. The solution is just what it has been elsewhere: more education,
easier access to contraception and economic growth. Catastrophe avoided.
Consequently, no serious demographer believes that human population growth resembles cancer
or the plague. On the contrary, the United Nations projects a global population of 9.3 billion by
2050 and 10.1 billion by 2100. In other words, it will take about 40 years to add 2 billion people,
but 50 years to add 1 billion after that. After world population peaks, it is quite possible that it will
stop growing altogether and might even decline.
Despite all indications to the contrary, global population cataclysm isn't at hand and never
will be unless the well-established and widely researched trends reverse themselves.
That's not likely.
Ext. overpop wrong
Population growth slowing – decline inevitable
Wise 2013
Jeff, science writer, “About That Overpopulation Problem,”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_
start_declining_not_exploding.single.html
A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took
humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6
billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth,
4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate
of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing . Indeed,
according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing
within the lifespan of people alive today.
And then it will fall.
This is a counterintuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that
world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future as a species.
But population decline is a very familiar concept in the rest of the developed world, where
fertility has long since fallen far below the 2.1 live births per woman required to maintain
population equilibrium. In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36, worse even than its
low-fertility neighbors Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going, Western Europe as
a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century.
That’s not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by
half. As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this
quandary: Schrumpf-Gesellschaft, or “shrinking society.”
American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that
it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of
robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people
calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women
tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.
But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the
Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to
87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000
women—not enough to sustain our current population.
Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the
boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009,
Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from
six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average
birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement
level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population,
of course, but eventually the world’s.
Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called
“demographic transition.”
“For hundreds of thousands of years,” explains Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at
Stony Brook University, “in order for humanity to survive things like epidemics and wars and
famine, birthrates had to be very high.” Eventually, thanks to technology, death rates started to
fall in Europe and in North America, and the population size soared. In time, though, birthrates
fell as well, and the population leveled out. The same pattern has repeated in countries around
the world. Demographic transition, Sanderson says, “is a shift between two very different
long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low
birthrates.” Not only is the pattern well-documented, it’s well under way: Already, more
than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate.
If the Germany of today is the rest of the world tomorrow, then the future is going to look a lot
different than we thought. Instead of skyrocketing toward uncountable Malthusian multitudes,
researchers at Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis foresee the global
population maxing out at 9 billion some time around 2070. On the bright side, the long-dreaded
resource shortage may turn out not to be a problem at all. On the not-so-bright side, the
demographic shift toward more retirees and fewer workers could throw the rest of the world into
the kind of interminable economic stagnation that Japan is experiencing right now.
at: overpop – consumption not population
Consumption in wealthy countries overwhelms coming population boom
Pearce 2009
Fred, freelance author and journalist based in the UK, environment consultant for New Scientist
magazine, “Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat,”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/consumption_dwarfs_population_as_main_environmental_threat/21
40/
I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises
through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation. My argument here is
that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity’s impacts
on the planet’s vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?
We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that
Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global
economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40
percent above today’s level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be
small.
Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let’s go back to
carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this
planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world. They will raise the
population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the
poor two-thirds.
Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala’s calculations — and if we assume for the purposes of
the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today —
those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor
world from 7 percent to 11 percent.
Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population
growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon
emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20
Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.
Even if we could today achieve zero population growth , that would barely touch the
climate problem — where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century.
Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that overconsumption by the rich few is the
key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.
at: droughts
Drought fears are corporate alarmism
Posel 2013
Susanne, April 24th, Chief Editor of OccupyCorporatism and the globally syndicated host of the
Region 10 Report broadcast on American Freedom Radio, “Alarmist Decry Global Drought
While Water Privatization Controls Resources,”
http://www.setyoufreenews.com/2013/04/24/alarmist-decry-global-drought-while-waterprivatization-controls-resources/
The securitization of water is a conflict of control over society and the right to life. It is a nonnegotiable aspect of life on Earth. The false flag threat of water pollution (which is being
committed by the global Elite through multi-national corporations) is a cover story for the
march toward complete control over all basic necessities required to live.
Precipitation levels and drought have been correlated by alarmist scientists to explain
agricultural conditions that have been changing without long term studies to prove
emphatically that the two are conditional upon each other.
Five years later, the IPCC published a study that explained that droughts have many
different factors involved and narrowing down the blame on climate change is not
apparent; although they maintain that man-made global warming will cause an intensification of
those effects.
Alarmist scientists are claiming that global warming is causational to the deterioration of
public health, farming conditions, and the draining of the Great Lakes. This report was
commissioned by the US government by way of 13 agencies working under the US Global
Change Research Program (GCRP).
GCRP states that human activity; primarily fossil fuel usage is responsible for climate change for
the last 50 years. As a result, temperatures have heated up since the Industrial Revolution with
a culmination revealing itself in recent years which demands a reaction.
Experiments conducting last year by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), successfully
manufactured fifty rainstorms by scientists using large ionizers to generate negatively
charged particle fields. These structures promote cloud formation. Metro Systems International
(MSI), the technology purveyors, claims to have “achieved a number of rainfalls.”
too late
The environment is getting significantly worse – biodiversity is dying and
by 2030 we will need two Earths to sustain the population
Hale 12
(Erin Hale, “Earth's environment getting worse, not better, says WWF ahead of
Rio+20 – Swelling population, mass migration to cities, increasing energy use
and soaring CO2 emissions squeeze planet's resources,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/15/earth-environment-wwfrio20, Guardian News, Woojae)
Twenty years on from the Rio Earth summit, the environment of the planet is getting
worse not better, according to a report from WWF. Swelling population, mass migration to
cities, increasing energy use and soaring carbon dioxide emissions mean humanity is
putting a greater squeeze on the planet's resources then ever before. Particularly hard hit
is the diversity of animals and plants, upon which many natural resources such as clean
water are based.
"The Rio+20 conference next month is an opportunity for the world to get serious about the
need for development to become sustainable. Our report indicates that we haven't yet done that
since the last Rio summit," said David Nussbaum, WWF-UK chief executive.
The latest Living Planet report, published on Tuesday, estimates that global demand for
natural resources has doubled since 1996 and that it now takes 1.5 years to regenerate
the renewable resources used in one year by humans. By 2030, the report predicts it will
take the equivalent of two planets to meet the current demand for resources.
Most alarming, says the report, is that many of these changes have accelerated in the past
decade, despite the plethora of international conventions signed since the initial Rio
Summit in 1992. Climate-warming carbon emissions have increased 40% in the past 20
years, but two-thirds of that rise occurred in the past decade.
The report, compiled by WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint
Network, compiles data from around the world on the ecological footprints of each
country and the status of resources like water and forests. It also examines changes in
populations of 2,688 animal species, with the latest available data coming from 2008.
The eighth report of its kind, the new Living Planet document, comes five weeks before Rio+20,
the latest United Nations conference on sustainable development.
Ext. too late
We’re past the tipping points impacts are inevitable
Hughes et al 03’
(T. P. Hughes A. H. Baird1, D. R. Bellwood work at Centre for Coral Reef Biodiversity, James Cook University, , M. Card
Environmental Protection Agency P. Marshall Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the
Resilience of Coral Reefs Science 15 August 2003: Vol. 301 no. 5635 pp. 929-933
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5635/929.full)
Coral reefs are critically important for the ecosystem goods and services they provide to
maritime tropical and subtropical nations (1). Yet reefs are in serious decline; an
estimated 30% are already severely damaged, and close to 60% may be lost
by 2030 (2). There are no pristine reefs left (3–4). Local successes at
protecting coral reefs over the past 30 years have failed to reverse regionalscale
declines, and global management of reefs must undergo a radical change in emphasis and
implementation if it is to make a real difference. Here, we review current knowledge of the status
of coral reefs, the human threats to them now and in the near future, and new directions for
research in support of management of these vital natural resources. Until recently, the direct
and indirect effects of overfishing and pollution from agriculture and land development have
been the major drivers of massive and accelerating decreases in abundance of coral reef
species, causing widespread changes in reef ecosystems over the past two centuries (3–
5). With increased human populations and improved storage and transport systems, the
scale of human impacts on reefs has grown exponentially. For example, markets for fishes
and other natural resources have become global, supplying demand for reef resources far
removed from their tropical sources (6) (Fig. 1). On many reefs, reduced stocks of herbivorous
fishes and added nutrients from land-based activities have caused ecological shifts, from the
original dominance by corals to a preponderance of fleshy seaweed (5, 7). Importantly, these
changes to reefs, which can often be managed successfully at a local scale, are compounded
by the more recent, superimposed impacts of global climate change.
Link
Oil Spill – no impact
Oil Spill impact exaggerated
Schwennesen 2010
Paul, MA in government from Harvard University and a BS in History and Science (biology
concentration) from the U.S. Air Force Academy, completed a fellowship at the Property &
Environment Research Center (PERC), “The Catastrophe That Wasn’t: The Gulf Oil Spill in
Perspective,” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/08/false-catastrophe-bp-spill/
Picture your neighbor’s pool. Unless you live in Malibu, it’ll contain about 6,000 gallons.
That’s the “Gulf” for purposes of discussion. Now go to your garage, get a quart of oil and
pour it in when he’s not looking. Pretty good sense of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, right?
Nope, not even close. Put a drop of that oil onto a sheet of paper and carefully cut it in half.
Now do it again and toss that quarter of a drop into the deep end. Even this quarter droplet
(about the size of the comma in this sentence) is about 10% too large, but NOW you have
a sense of what 4.9 million barrels of oil in the Gulf looks like.[1]
Now that we’ve grappled with the issue of scale, let’s look at the aftermath of this ‘catastrophe.’
According to the government scientists, seventy-five percent of that sliver of a droplet
has now evaporated, been eaten by microbes, skimmed or burnt. (This estimate is in
dispute, but every day the released oil is being reduced to get to that figure, if not beyond it.)
Now, you’re going to need to borrow your kid’s microscope for the rest of this exercise….
“Ah,” says the ecologist in you, “but oil is like poison to an ecosystem, and so any amount is
disproportionately harmful.” Well, the science doesn’t agree , but let’s assume for the
moment that you’re right. Ignoring that the vast majority of this poison-oil has already been
happily consumed by portions of this delicate ecosystem, let’s pretend that oil is to the Gulf
what botulinum toxin is to man (really bad news, as it’s the deadliest substance known).
Distributed uniformly, oil would contaminate the water of the Gulf at a ratio of eight thousand
millionths per gallon. If the same concentration of botulinum existed in your swimming pool, you
could safely spend the day in it without a second thought.[2] Sure, oil is not distributed
uniformly, but shrill cries about the “collapse” of the Gulf’s ecosystem imply that it effects
are. It is indeed true that every action has reverberating ecological consequences, but if we
delude ourselves into thinking this means disintegration then we risk making poor policy
choices.
Good Intentions, Good Analysis, Good Policy
Please don’t misunderstand. I am firmly in the camp of those who think the Gulf ecosystem is
a wonderful and valuable thing that we should never take for granted. Furthermore, it’s not
my intention here to dismiss or minimize BP’s bungle. Neither am I suggesting cleanup
shouldn’t continue with the utmost diligence. After all, “scale” matters not one whit if that sliver
of oil washes into your crab pots. Legally, BP should be held to account for their negligence
and must make whole anyone whose property or livelihood they have harmed.
But two lessons rise to the surface here. The first is to never underestimate the power of
ecosystems to absorb shocks and adapt to change. While we should not treat Nature with
reckless disregard, we should also not dishonor her by intimating that she stands in precarious
balance, perennially on the brink of human-caused collapse. As ecology continues to develop
as a science, I expect that it will be the extraordinary resilience of natural systems that will
become the prevailing acknowledgment.
The second lesson is that we must demand a sense of perspective when dealing
with issues of environmental concern . The natural inclination when faced with torrents
of extremely focused media coverage is to extrapolate broadly to “the ecosystem” at large.
Hysteria and fear do not make for good policy, however. An inability to properly understand
ecological sensitivity leads to dire predictions which fuel misguided regulatory reaction.
For instance, President Obama’s intuition told him that, “everybody understands that when we
are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implications not just for this generation, but for
future generations.” A true statement, of course, since every action necessarily has “concrete
implications.” The question is, how big are these implications? Do the imagined implications of
this oil spill (foodweb collapse, fishery destruction, economic implosion of the Gulf Coast)
warrant the sort of unwise knee-jerk decisions like the now-beleaguered six-month drilling
moratorium which would have very surely precipitated vastly more destructive results?
The ecological implications of this spill, I submit, will be relatively transitory and minimal. While
conceding that “nobody really knows” the long-term effects, scientists generally agree that
the sky isn’t falling. Comparable “disasters” such as the 1991 Persian Gulf spill (in which
the retreating Iraqi Army perpetrated the largest spill in history) or the Ixtoc 1 spill off the
coast of Yucatan (which gushed 3.5 million barrels for 290 days) can give us clues. In both
cases, within three years the ecology had returned to pre-spill equilibrium.
It would not be naively optimistic to expect a significantly more rapid recovery in the Gulf:
conditions lend themselves well to natural oil degradation and very little oil has ended up in the
vibrant coastal regions where life mostly congregates. It would be safe to assume that 99% of
the spill’s effects (economic loss, fishery damage, species diversity/habitat loss) will have
disappeared along with the oil in one year or less .
Ext. Oil Spill – no impact
Your predictions are wrong. Other factors play out in ecological effects
other than oil.
Kotta et al 2008 Estonian Marine Institute(R. Aps Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu,
Tallinn, Estonia and K. Herkül Institute of Zoology and Hydrobiology. “Predicting ecological resilience of marine benthic communities
facing a high risk of oil spills” EnvironmentalProblemsinCoastalRegionsVII 101 2008
http://www.ensaco.fi/media/Environmental%20Atlas%20seminar%20No.%202%20Helsinki/kotta%20et%20al%20oil%20spill%2008_
ok.pdf)
The impacts of oil spills to biological communities are difficult to predict because
physical conditions interact with the community response. Furthermore biological
systems are complex and impacts often result from indirect effects rather than direct
toxicological impacts [1]. Often factors other than oil largely determine community
structure resulting in confounded effects of the spill. Thus, the study designs that do not
include the measurement of other environmental factors or lack the baseline data must be
interpreted with particular care [2, 30].
Ecosystems correct for spills
Siegel 10
(Alan Siegel, journalist, “Is an Oil Spill Ever Good for Animals?” Slate, July 8, 2010,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/07/is_an_oil_spill_ever_good_fo
r_animals.html, date accessed 7/02/13, Woojae)
Yes. Scientists don't know what makes it so resilient to the health effects of oil, but the bloodred-colored bristle worm known as Capitella capitata seems able to survive in a polluted
environment. Indeed, it thrives. The worm's natural predators—shrimp, fish, and crabs—start to
die off after a spill, leaving room for what's called ecological succession: The population of one
species grows to fill a gap left by damage to another.¶ At up to 10 centimeters in length and
about the width of a human hair, Capitella capitata may seem like the oil spill's tiny grim reaper.
In fact, it could help to restore the Gulf ecosystem. The animals burrow into the sea floor to feed
on organic matter deposited there. This movement circulates new water into the sediments and
addresses one of the major problems after an oil spill—the depletion of oxygen in the ocean by
the hungry bacteria that are working to break down pollutants. By churning up mud at the
bottom of the Gulf, the worms release and recycle pockets of anoxic water, which in turn
allows sediment bacteria to degrade more oil. (The flourishing micro-organisms also serve
as food for the bristle worms.) The ecological interplay between worms and bacteria paves
the way for the return of other species. Bolstered ¶ by higher oxygen levels and more
worms to eat, the populations of fish, crab, and shrimp begin to increase.
Drilling – No Impact
No impact oil drilling has little effect on the ecosystem
Carter et al 06’
(Assheton Stewart Carter_, Keith Alger_, Larry Gorenflo_, Patricia Zurita (Mainstreaming
Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and Gas Development Prepared for “Biodiversity
Opportunities in Latin American and the Caribbean: The Role of the IDB” A workshop at the
Inter-American Development Bank July 28, 2006 CI Policy Paper
http://www.conservation.org/global/celb/Documents/idb_paper_oilgasdevelopment.pdf)
Developing an oil or gas field is a precise operation – like a root canal – and if done well
will have little physical and mostly local impacts, compared to the very grave and
landscape-scale impacts of grow- ing agricultural commodities for export, for example.
Yet, large natural resource companies, especially multinationals developing oil, gas and mineral
resources in developing countries, have a poor environ- mental record (Warhurst 1992) and a
turbulent history regarding relationships with their workforce and local communities (Stewart
Carter 1999). Developing oil and gas resources is not an environmentally benign activity.
Lifting Embargo Bad
Turn – lifting the embargo would devastate the Cuban marine ecosystem
and diverse environment
PBS 10
(PBS, September 29, 2010, “Cuba: The Accidental Eden,” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/cuba-the-accidentaleden/introduction/5728/, 6/28/13, Woojae)
Cuba may have been restricted politically and economically for the past 50 years, but its borders
have remained open to wildlife for which Cuba’s undeveloped islands are an irresistible draw.
While many islands in the Caribbean have poisoned or paved over their ecological riches on
land and in the sea in pursuit of a growing tourist industry, Cuba’s wild landscapes have
remained virtually untouched, creating a safe haven for rare and intriguing indigenous animals,
as well as for hundreds of species of migrating birds and marine creatures. Coral reefs have
benefited, too. Independent research has shown that Cuba’s corals are doing much better than
others both in the Caribbean and around the world.
Scientific research in Cuba on creatures such as the notoriously aggressive “jumping” crocodile,
and the famous painted snails, paired with long-term ecological efforts on behalf of sea turtles,
has been conducted primarily by devoted local experts. Conservation and research in Cuba
can be a constant struggle for scientists who earn little for their work. But their work is their
passion, and no less important than that of those collecting larger salaries. NATURE follows
these scientists as they explore the crocodile population of Zapata swamp, the birth of baby sea
turtles, and the mysteries of evolution demonstrated by creatures that travel no more than 60
yards in a lifetime.
As the possibility of an end to the U.S. trade embargo looms, Cuba’s wildlife hangs in the
balance. Most experts predict that the end of the embargo could have devastating results.
Tourism could double, and the economic development associated with tourism and other
industries could change the face of what was once a nearly pristine ecosystem. Or Cuba could
set an example for development and conservation around the world, defining a new era of
sustainability well beyond Cuba’s borders.
Impact
at: climate change – wrong/inev
No impact or it’s inevitable
Rucker 2012
Craig, Masters of Public Administration from the State University of New York at Albany,
Executive Director and co-founder of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT),
“Global Climate Planning: Down But Not Out (Doha’s ‘bitter defeat’ does not mean it’s over)”
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/12/doha-defeat-but-not-over/
For people who believe humans can prevent “catastrophic climate change” by adjusting
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by a few parts per million – or are determined to crave control
of “destructive” fossil fuels and “unsustainable” economic systems – Doha was a failure.
Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires
December 31 – and several countries may withdraw their consent. That means the new
agreement is legally non-binding and covers only at best 15% of global carbon dioxide
emissions.
While the European Union joined in and remains committed to “carbon trading” (making former
UNFCC chair Yvo DeBoer happy in his new role as a carbon trader, á la Al Gore), the United
States, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Canada, Japan and other major emitters refused to sign,
and the new treaty sets no binding emission limits. Atmospheric CO2 levels will thus
continue to climb – and climate campaigners will remain distraught over allegedly disastrous
weather events, imminent habitat devastation, species extinctions, injustice for the world’s poor,
and the disappearance of island nations beneath the waves.
For those who say computer models are meaningless, climate change and weather extremes
are natural, and economic growth should be sustained to lift more billions out of poverty – Doha
represents a partial success. Few nations signed the treaty, even the Obama Administration did
not commit to it, the document is not binding, and countless billions of dollars will be available
for continued economic development and disaster relief – instead of being squandered on
fruitless attempts to control Earth’s infinitely complex climate and weather.
Even Christina Figueres, DeBoer’s successor at the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, could proclaim victory. She wants to keep the planet’s temperature from rising more
than the internationally agreed maximum of two degrees Celsius. That goal has arguably been
reached already. There has been no detectable increase in average global temperatures
for 16 years.
In fact, while last summer was hot and dry in much of the continental USA, nearing records set
during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, it was a very cold summer in Alaska and parts of
Europe. Winter 2012 was snowy and nasty in Central Europe and very cold in South Africa
and South America. Britain just had its coldest autumn in nineteen years, Himalayan
glaciers are growing, interior Greenland is not melting, summer Antarctic sea ice is near
record extent, and seas are not rising any faster.
All this helps explain why climate alarmists keep changing their rhetoric : from global
cooling to global warming, to climate change to climate disruption, and now to extreme weather.
Indeed, they now try to link every unusual weather event to CO2 (and now methane, or
natural gas, the fuel produced through hydraulic fracturing or fracking). However, as Dr. Roger
Pielke Jr. has noted, when the Atlantic hurricane season starts next June 1, it will have been
2,777 days since a category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane made landfall along the U.S. coast – the
longest such period since 1900 . 2012 also marked the quietest U.S. tornado season on
record; only twelve tornadoes touched down in the United States in July 2012.
Of course, there are always disasters and human tragedies at the hands of a not-alwaysbenevolent Mother Nature. Hardly a year has ever gone by without many such weather events
somewhere on Planet Earth.
This year, however, climate alarmists have blamed virtually all of them on humans and CO2
emissions – from Sandy in the USA to 2011 and 2012 typhoons in the Philippines, and droughts
in Africa. It’s easy to see why. As a Greenpeace director cogently explained, “The key issue is
money” – as in the redistribution of wealth from rich, formerly rich and soon-to-be formerly rich
nations to still poor countries. The other issue is power and control: as in who gets to make
energy, economic, and human health and welfare decisions: individuals, families, communities
and nations – or eco-activists and UN bureaucrats.
That brings us to the in-between: the uncharted waters separating “bitter failure” and “partial
success.”
As climate activists and media “journalists” have observed, there is no legally binding
agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The world’s two biggest CO2
emitters, China and the United States, did not sign. What was agreed to contains only vague
promises that, “beginning in 2020, at least $100 billion a year will flow from public, private and
other sources” to poor countries, supposedly to help them cope with the “devastating effects” of
climate change and “extreme weather.” There is no agreement as to where that $1 trillion per
decade will come from, or how much will be available annually between now and 2020,
especially if the global economic downturn continues.
But don’t believe the vague promises, bitter failure, bitterly disappointed rhetoric. The climate
alarmists got a lot of what they came for, they gave up little or nothing, they’ll be back for more,
and in the meantime they will still get billions of dollars annually from taxpayers – to
conduct climate change causation, mitigation, adaptation and compensation “research,” issue
“balanced reports,” and attend many more conferences (all expenses paid) where virtually no
one except alarmists is allowed to speak or participate in official “discussions” and
“negotiations.”
More than 7,000 environmental NGO activists attended the Doha confab – and next time around
they won’t forget who sent them, now that Jonathan Pershing, chief U.S. negotiator for climate
change at Doha, has pointedly reminded them who paid for their presence in Qatar. They and
the official delegates will be there for specific objectives: more money, more power, more
control.
In Doha, they reached several benchmarks that they had achieved during previous COP events.
Most important, they enshrined in the treaty the concept of “loss and damage” supposedly
resulting from “manmade climate change” – and secured pledges from “rich” nations that poor
countries would receive billions of dollars per year in “aid” to repair any “loss and damage,” as
part of a “climate compensation mechanism.” They also incorporated “principles” of “equity” and
“justice” and “common but differentiated responsibilities”– to distinguish between nations that
“caused” climate change and “extreme weather events” and countries that presumably did not
or are “especially vulnerable.”
It is true that words like “compensation,” “fault” and “liability” were excised from the final treaty
language – and that it will be all but impossible to determine how much, if any, loss and damage
from a tornado, hurricane, typhoon, flood or drought was due to “manmade climate change”
versus how much from natural climate change and natural, normal extreme weather events.
Who will pay how much, from existing aid programs versus new programs, and through what
UN or other conduits, will likewise have to be decided at one of the presumably many future
Conferences Of Parties to the new climate agreement.
“This is just the beginning of the process,” a Greenpeace activist helpfully explained.
Indeed, the “parties” – and thus their taxpayers, food and energy consumers, and citizens
hoping to pursue their dreams – are slowly but surely, piece by piece, surrendering their rights,
freedoms, sovereignty and hard-earned wealth to a gaggle of unelected and unaccountable
activists, agitators, bureaucrats, autocrats and kleptocrats. The slippery slope is just ahead, if
we are not already on it.
The scientific case for manmade global warming disasters grows weaker by the day. But
no one should ever underestimate the desperation, audacity and political brilliance of those
who have staked their careers, reputations, salaries and pensions on the notion that our
energy use and quest for improved living standards for all humanity have somehow usurped the
natural forces that have driven climate changes from time immemorial. We underestimate the
alarmists at our peril.
at: biodiversity – humans resilient
Fossil fuels and tech has made humans resilient to loss of ecosystems
Raudsepp-Hearne et alt 10’ (Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne recently completed her PhD in the Department of
Geography, Elena M. Bennett is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resource Science, Graham K. MacDonald is a
doctoral student in the Department of Natural Resource Sciences, and Laura Pfeifer is a master's student in the Department of
Natural Resource Sciences and the McGill School of Environment Maria Tengö was a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of
Geography at McGill University when this manuscript was prepared and is currently a researcher at the Department of Systems
Ecology and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as
Ecosystem Services Degrade? BioScience , Vol. 60, No. 8 (September 2010), pp. 576-589
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4)
Fossil fuels, technology, and innovation have allowed people to substitute reliance on
engineered services for ecosystem services . Fossil fuels have greatly enhanced
human well-being with minimal additional use of ecosystem services by allowing people
to make use of energy accumulated over the history of the biosphere. Furthermore,
medicine, improved sanitation, and better water sources have compensated for
widespread deterioration in water quality and have greatly reduced child mortality (Cohen
1995). The construction and operation of infrastructure to replace degraded ecosystem
services—for example, irrigation and flood control, the breeding of novel crop varieties,
and the use of fossil fuels to produce artificial fertilizers and pesticides—have increased
the benefits people are able to extract from agriculture (Evenson and Gollin 2003). Smil
(2002) estimated that about 40% of all protein in human diets depends on nitrogen fertilizer
produced from fossil fuel. To date, productivity gains from artificial fertilization have exceeded
losses resulting from declines in natural soil fertility and water infiltration in soil, and slowed the
expansion of agriculture into other ecosystems (Tilman et al. 2002).
No impact four reasons why humans have continued to adapt through
ecological degradation.
Raudsepp-Hearne et alt 10’
(Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne recently completed her PhD in the Department of Geography, Elena
M. Bennett is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resource Science, Graham K.
MacDonald is a doctoral student in the Department of Natural Resource Sciences, and Laura
Pfeifer is a master's student in the Department of Natural Resource Sciences and the McGill
School of Environment Maria Tengö was a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Geography
at McGill University when this manuscript was prepared and is currently a researcher at the
Department of Systems Ecology and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Untangling the
Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services
Degrade? BioScience , Vol. 60, No. 8 (September 2010), pp. 576-589
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4)
Environmentalists have argued that ecological degradation will lead to declines in the
well-being of people dependent on ecosystem services. The Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment paradoxically found that human well-being has increased despite large
global declines in most ecosystem services. We assess four explanations of these divergent
trends: (1) We have measured well-being incorrectly; (2) well-being is dependent on food
services, which are increasing, and not on other services that are declining; (3)
technology has decoupled well-being from nature; (4) time lags may lead to future
declines in well-being. Our findings discount the first hypothesis, but elements of the
remaining three appear plausible. Although ecologists have convincingly documented
ecological decline, science does not adequately understand the implications of this
decline for human well-being. Untangling how human well-being has increased as ecosystem
conditions decline is critical to guiding future management of ecosystem services; we propose
four research areas to help achieve this goal.
at: marine biod – resilient
Marine ecosystems are resilient – different from the organisms that died
out in the past
Dupont 6/27
(Sam Dupont and Hans Portner, Senior post–doctoral fellow – Department of Biological and
Environmental Sciences – Kristineberg and coordinator of the Ocean Acidification Infrastructure
Facility at Kristineberg, Nature – International Journal of Science, “Marine science: Get ready for
ocean acidification,” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/498429a.html, date
accessed 6/30, Woojae)
Surprising resilience? We have known for decades that ocean acidification threatens calcifying
organisms such as corals, clams, mussels and brittlestars — some to the point of possible
extinction within decades. It came as a surprise in the past few years that some calcifier species
are resilient to acidification, such as the mussels that thrive in Kiel fjord in Germany despite a
seasonal flow of CO2-rich waters1. Other organisms can be both vulnerable and resilient at
different times in their life cycles, such as some phytoplankton, fish and sea urchins. Initially,
female green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) that are exposed to acidification
produce around one-fifth the number of eggs produced by urchins in current ocean pH
conditions. But after 16 months, adults acclimatize and reproduce as normal.
Ext. marine biod resilient
Marine ecosystems are resilient – studies prove
Craig 12
(Robin Kundis Craig, 5/28/12, Journal, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, “Marine Biodiversity, Climate Change, and
Governance of the Oceans,”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=66&ved=0CFgQFjAFODw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.c
om%2F14242818%2F4%2F2%2F224%2Fpdf&ei=pNDNUcvyKsuM0QH94oC4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHM4RHKxFJdGdTC3GIRwvV2BykehQ&sig2=p
uYofPoZgckFm3pBqcQP1w&bvm=bv.48572450,d.dmQ&cad=rja, Woojae)
As the world copes with the climate change era, improved marine governance will be of everincreasing importance if we are to maintain anything approaching broad and resilient marine
biodiversity in the face of pervasive ecological, chemical, and physical changes to the ocean’s
environments. Notably, there is already evidence of the ocean’s resilience, because “in enough
cases to encourage conservation, the Census of Marine Life documented the recovery of some
species”
Ecosystems are resilient adaptation solves
Magnus et al 2000
(Coral
reef disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated environment Magnus Nyström Carl
Folke Fredrik Moberg Dept of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, S-106 91, Stockholm,
Sweden Volume 15, Issue 10, 1 October 2000, Pages 413–417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01695347(00)01948-0)
The concept of ecosystem resilience thus captures the ability to resist, reorganize and reestablish from disturbance, as well as maintaining a diversity of options for development
and evolution15. This concept broadens the perspective from recovery at the site
impacted by disturbance to include the sources of resilience of the surrounding areas
that are required for self-organization and reorganization to sustain the reef in a coral-dominated
stable state. Human impacts on ecosystem resilience
Modern reefs might always have possessed several features that favor multiple stable
states11. However, studies from the Pleistocene coral reef fossil record suggest that
reefs have shown remarkable persistence in their community structure for tens to
hundreds of thousands of years, in spite of global environmental change and
disturbance16. A unique feature of recent decades is that shifts from one stable state to
another might have become more frequent and less reversible and that shifts are
influenced, even driven, by human impact. A growing body of literature addresses phase
shifts in coral reefs in relation to human activities
Coral reef recovery is inevitable even in the case of an impact
Nystro ̈m and Folke 2001 Department of Systems Ecology(Magnus Department
of Systems Ecology and Carl Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics “Spatial
Resilience of Coral Reefs” Ecosystems August 2001, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp 406-417
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10021-001-0019-y.pdf)
There is ample literature on coral reef recovery after disturbance, particularly at the level
of individual reefs. Although recovery following disturbance can be delayed (for
example, see Loya 1990; Wilkinson 1999; Karlson 1999), it has generally been assumed
that recovery will eventually occur. The sources of reorganization and reestablishment of
reef organ- isms and community interactions in the seascape have, to a lesser extent,
been investigated. In the following section, we review spatial links in the seascape that
support reef resilience and develop- ment following disturbance. Currents and
RecruitmentReorganization of a coral reef is related to the de- gree of openness to its
surrounding. Openness de- pends on whether the reef is located in a shallow or semi-enclosed
basin, on the margin of a continental shelf, or in the open ocean (for example, atolls). Openness
is supported, or discouraged, by the pre- vailing currents (Roberts 1997). The degree to which
these currents link areas depends on their magnitude and direction, the distance between ecosystems, and the influence of primarily climatic dis- turbance regimes.
Marine ecosystems are resilient – past spills prove
Hunt – No date cited
(Alex Hunt, no date cited, the senior technical advisor to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, “Effects of
Oil Spills,” http://kjpt.msa.gov.cn/ckfinder/userfiles/files/%E6%BA%A2%E6%B2%B9%E7%9A%84%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D.pdf,
date accessed 6/28/13, Woojae)
Experience from past spills shows that:
Damages may be profound at the individual level
Populations are naturally resilient to acute impacts
Natural recovery processes are capable of repairing damage
Ecosystem structure & function is typically restored
Many impacts are documented in the scientific literature
Not all effects of spills are completely understood
Overall scale and duration of impact can usually be deduced
Polarization of the scientific community is common & balanced views are rare
Does significant damage occur?... sometimes yes, sometimes no… depends on many factors
Measures of impact
Breeding success
Productivity
Biodiversity
Overall function
Marine ecosystems are able to cope with severe natural perturbations: tropical storms,
tsunamis, el Niño events
Widespread mortalities occur, but systems are able recover
at: hotspot
Their evidence is wrong no way to prove accurate loss of species in
hotspots
Brummitt and Lughadha 2003 (Neil Brummitt. Researcher in Botanical Diversity Eimear Nic Lughadha is Head
of Science (Operations) at the Royal Botanic Gardens Biodiversity: Where's Hot and Where's Not Volume 17, Issue 5, pages 1442–
1448, October 2003 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02344.x/full)
Despite the intuitive appeal of the concept, the selection of hotspots has been criticized
in general on several grounds. ( 1 ) Reliable quantitative data are generally only available
for the most conspicuous and popular groups of organisms ( vascular plants,
vertebrates ), which are by no means the most speciose ( Margules et al. 1994 ), and it is
generally assumed rather than proven that areas of diversity for one group will be
concordant with areas of diversity of unsampled groups ( Prendergast et al. 1993 ). ( 2 )
Without a measure of complementarity between hotspots there is no way of knowing
how many species are conserved twice in adjacent hotspots ( Margules & Pressey 2000 ).
( 3 ) Simply conserving maximum species numbers is not the same as conserving
maximum species diversity, because distantly related taxa are worth more in terms of
phylogenetic diversity than are numerous closely related species ( Vane-Wright et al.
1991; Williams & Humphries 1994 ). ( 4 ) The huge size of some hotspots makes effective
conservation action impractical, because it must involve the coordination of many national
governments; designation of such areas as the Mediterranean Basin ( 2,362,000 km2 ) or IndoBurma ( 2,060,000 km2 ) as biodiversity hotspots can hardly be said to represent “tight targeting
of conservation efforts.” Although no one is taking issue with the assertion that small areas of
the world are exceptionally rich biologically, all of the above criticisms may be leveled at the
work of Mittermeier et al. ( 1999 ) and Myers et al. ( 2000 ) . ( Mace et al. 2000; Humphries
2001 ).
Caribbean
Alt Causes – climate, development
Alt causes to Caribbean ecosystem – climate change, development
Day 2009
Owen, PhD, Marine Biology, head of communications and biodiversity at Caribsave, “The
impacts of climate change on biodiversity in Caribbean islands: what we know, what we need to
know, and building capacity for effective adaptation,” CANARI Technical Report No.386: 28pp
http://www.canari.org/CANARI%20Tech%20Report%20386.pdf
According to the IPCC, the Caribbean region is considered to be particularly vulnerable to
the numerous and varied impacts of human induced climate change. These include sea level
rise, increasing mean temperatures, changes in seasonal rainfall patterns and increasing
frequency of extreme weather events (see Section 3.1). The escalating intensity of hurricanes,
in particular the increased number of category 3 and higher hurricanes since 1995, is a
particularly serious concern for many Caribbean islands. The impact of the four consecutive
tropical storms/ hurricanes that affected Haiti and Cuba in 2008 demonstrated the region’s
existing vulnerability to weather-related hazards and also highlighted the importance of
planning and adaptation. The striking difference in the scale of the human loss and damage to
infrastructure in these two countries reflects Cuba’s more extensive adaptation planning and
forest conservation measures. Mass coral bleaching events have also become more
frequent and more severe in recent years, in particular the widespread and catastrophic
bleaching event of 2005 in the Caribbean. This is presenting a new challenge to islands
dependent on reefs for fisheries, dive tourism and coastal protection. Climate change and
variability are also affecting the region’s food security, with failing crops and shifting populations
of commercially important species of fish exacerbating the trend of reduced agricultural
production. The threats from climate change must not be viewed in isolation, but rather within
the context of the existing environmental pressures that affect most Caribbean islands, such as
habitat loss, deforestation, soil erosion, pollution and over-fishing. In the last three decades, the
rapid pace of tourism development, urbanisation and population growth throughout the
Caribbean, has presented major challenges to policy-makers, planners and environmental
managers. The new and emerging threats from climate change make the challenge even
more daunting.
No Impact – adaptation
Double bind – either the Caribbean can adapt OR alt causes make it
inevitable
Rogers 2013
Caroline S., Marine Ecologist with the Southeast Ecological Science Center based at the USGS
Caribbean, “Coral Reef Resilience through Biodiversity,” ISRN Oceanography, Volume 2013,
http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/oceanography/2013/739034/
At a conference in 1993, participants concluded that the most serious threats to reefs were
associated with human activities: shoreline development, overfishing, degraded water
quality from sediments and sewage [219]. Then, with severe bleaching episodes beginning in
1998, the focus shifted more to global stressors and climate change [74]. In some ways we are
back to where we started with an emphasis on managing human activities at a local level while
still hoping that international efforts to control greenhouse emissions will become more effective
[4, 23, 38, 142, 220, 221]. Managing local stressors is far more feasible than trying to control
global stressors, but even this has not proven to be easy. In spite of all of the uncertainties, it
only makes sense to move forward with controlling those stressors that we can control [23, 71].
Where it is feasible to design networks of marine reserves, every effort should be made to
protect areas that are likely to survive future climate-driven changes, although this is very
challenging [23].
Coral reefs are at a crossroads, and the situation is urgent [23, 71]. Humans are clearly
reducing the resilience of reefs [21]. Over 15 years ago, Walker [186] noted “the loss of species
and ecosystems is proceeding faster than research aimed at identifying priorities.” Soon after,
Vitousek et al. [10] stated “we can accelerate our efforts to understand Earth’s ecosystems and
how they interact with the numerous components of human-caused global change.”
The biodiversity of these complex ecosystems, one of their defining characteristics, offers
some hope that they will have a future. Conserving biodiversity increases the chance that
marine ecosystems, including reefs, can adapt or recover after disturbances [7]. A loss of
biodiversity could reduce resilience [6, 132], but we still have most of the “pieces.”
Carpenter et al. [122] highlighted an elevated risk of extinction for reef corals in just 10 years
(1998 to 2008) from local and global stressors. However, to date, the observed changes on
coral reefs reflect shifts in relative abundance of corals rather than losses of species. To
date, no coral species has become extinct throughout its range [50]. However, many are at risk
[122], and Knowlton [3] noted that some of the most important framework-building corals, on
which so many other species depend, have declined the most. In addition, some models predict
that because of a delayed response, even species that are the best competitors can become
extinct long after habitat fragmentation and degradation [222]. Hoegh-Guldberg [71] notes little
evidence that corals will be able to adapt to all of the changes and concludes that reefs could
become rare globally by the middle of this century.
There are some encouraging signs. Even threatened species, such as the Caribbean
acroporids, that declined significantly from disease and hurricanes, have persisted and are
increasing in some locations [142]. Likewise, the herbivorous sea urchin Diadema antillarum is
becoming more abundant in some places in the Caribbean [223]. Corals in some areas show
evidence of acclimatizing to warmer sea water temperatures [129, 174]. Some reefs have
recovered well after major bleaching episodes. Although there have been few success stories
[123], and restoration efforts will at best have very localized benefits, the future does not look
entirely bleak.
The high biodiversity of coral reefs means that a high diversity of responses to local and
global stressors (including increasing temperatures) is anticipated. Coral species and other
reef organisms will differ in their ability to deal with local stresses and the different aspects of
climate change (e.g., [224]). Responses will vary even within populations [174]. Some coral
species that are more susceptible to bleaching may recover faster and evolve faster than less
vulnerable species [46]. In addition, the effects of local and global stressors will vary
substantially within different regions [11, 137, 138, 225], and on different reefs and even
within different reef zones—not all will suffer equally from high temps, ocean acidification, and
increasingly powerful storms. To add to the complexity, many of the possible changes to
environmental factors, such as ocean currents, are unpredictable [158].
None of us can predict what reefs will look like in 100 years, or even two decades
from now . Ocean acidification and temperature increases are occurring along with changes in
other global and local stressors [4, 11, 46]. Changes in climate can push already stressed
ecosystems beyond their limits for recovery, but many reefs could have the ability to resist
and/or recover after disturbance. Walther et al. [11] point out that linking oceanic and
atmospheric processes to the responses of communities and populations is complex.
The fossil record provides evidence that at least some coral reefs may be able to persist in spite
of global climate change [46].
Additional research and long-term monitoring are essential to improve our predictions of the
future for coral reefs and to guide management of reefs and associated ecosystems. Models
can be helpful, partly by illustrating areas we need to know more about, or by indicating the
best placement for marine reserves. However, by necessity, models are oversimplified.
Recent models have not adequately taken coral diseases into consideration, and disease
outbreaks not only have already caused severe and widespread mortality of corals but also may
well increase in the future.
Many have noted the urgent need for international cooperation to reduce atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases [23, 226]. Given the challenges of curbing emissions on a
global scale, local efforts to reduce the more tractable stresses to coral reefs and to protect
marine areas that show signs of greater resistance and resilience should be emphasized [23].
Rau et al. [227] suggest that more proactive options should be considered—for example,
selective breeding of more resilient species, artificial shading of some portions of reefs during
thermal stress, and artificial upwelling.
There is no simple answer to the question of how climate change will affect tropical ecosystems,
and the connections among them, because of the complexity and unpredictability of the
stressors associated with climate change. Reefs that are linked to mangroves and seagrass
beds might be more resilient than those that are not or those that are remote. Connectivity
to sources of larvae is the basis for resilience. High levels of herbivory, high structural
complexity, and presence of fast-growing, resistant corals will contribute to reef resilience.
The remarkable complexity of coral reefs, one of their essential core characteristics,
makes it both more difficult to predict their future and more likely that they will have a future.
Managers may be able to increase the chances that reefs will persist but the greatest hope
may reside in the reefs themselves in the form of biodiversity at all scales.
Amazon
resilient
The Amazon forest is resilient – past extinction claims are false – has
evolving mechanisms that check
Budiansky 93
(Stephan Budiansky, December 5th, 1983, US News, “The Doomsday Myths – By exaggerating
environmental dangers, activists have undermined their credibility and triggered an antienvironment backlash,”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/931213/archive_016280_print.htm, date
accessed 7/03/2013, WOOJAE)
Similarly, the Atlantic coastal forests of Brazil have been cut to about 12 percent of their original
size, yet a team of Brazilian zoologists that combed the forests recently could not confirm a
single case of extinction. Instead, they rediscovered several birds and six species of butterfly
considered extinct 20 years ago. And a survey by the Flora Meso-Americana project found
increased abundance of some species considered threatened. "Despite extensive inquiries, we
have been unable to obtain conclusive evidence to support the suggestion that massive
extinctions have taken place in recent times," writes Vernon Heywood, a former chief scientist of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which works with
governments to protect endangered species and habitats. Natural resilience. Biologists offer
several explanations for such "unreasonable" tenacity of species. Many tropical species are
widely dispersed, so the loss of one chunk of a forest does not doom them to extinction.
Moreover, ecosystems like the Brazilian Atlantic forests may be naturally resilient, having
evolved mechanisms to cope with the severe natural upheavals that are endemic to a
mountainous climate subject to heavy rains and sudden cold spells.
Ext. resilient
Theory proves Amazon is resilient and has been for 55 million years
Maslin et al 12’ Environmental Change Research Centre (Virginia J. Ettwein
Environmental Change Research Centre, University College London. Christopher Organic
Geochemistry Unit, Bristol Biogeochemistry Research Centre, School of Chemistry. James
Department of Geographical and Earth Sciences. “Amazon Fan biomarker evidence against the
Pleistocene rainforest refuge hypothesis?” 26 MAR 2012 Journal of Quaternary Science Volume
27, Issue 5, pages 451–460. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1567/full)
Indeed, persistent forest cover within the Amazon Basin despite cold-stage aridity is
consistent with coupled climate–vegetation model results (e.g. Cowling et al., 2001, 2004;
Cowling, 1999, 2004; Prentice et al., 2004) as the cooler temperatures mitigate the
detrimental effects of the low carbon dioxide and aridity via reduced evapotranspiration
and photorespiratory carbon loss in C3 plants (Cowling et al., 2001), allowing C3
vegetation to outcompete C4 species during glacial periods. Farrera et al. (1999) and
Bendle et al. (2010) have shown temperatures to be at least 5°C lower during the last glacial
period in the Amazon lowland, supporting this proposed biological response. This allows us to
reject the ephemeral view of the Amazon rainforest and confirms the theory that the
Amazon rainforest is resilient and has adapted to past climate change and has been a
dominant feature of the Earth climate system for at least the last 55 million years (Maslin
et al., 2005).
Amazon forest resilient no impact atleast for 65 million years
Maslin et al. 2005’ Environmental Change Research Centre (Yadvinder School of
Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford. Oliver Earth and Biosphere Institute, School of Geography. Sharon
Department of Geography, University of Toronto.” New views on an old forest: assessing the longevity, resilience and future of the
Amazon rainforest”
http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf17_20/pdf/2005/D8Z/01Dec05/19472860.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=19472860&S=R&D=aph&EbscoCont
ent=dGJyMNXb4kSeprE4yOvqOLCmr0uep7JSr6e4SbeWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGut1C0r7BPuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA)
Palaeo-climate and -ecological records suggest that the Amazon rainforest originated in the
late Cretaceous and has been a permanent feature of South America for at least the last
55 million years. The geological record is a testament to the lon- gevity and resilience of
the Amazon rainforest. However, there is extreme concern about the future of the Amazon
rainforest, both from the threat of deforestation and from climatic and atmospheric change (e.g.
Cramer et al. 2004; Laurance 2004; Lewis et al. 2004). For example, the most extreme
climate/vegetation models suggest the possible loss of half the Amazon rainforest in the next 50
years (Cox et al. 2000; Betts et al. 2000 2004; Cowling et al. 2004). We are entering a nonanalogue future. Figure 10 shows the compression of the mega- thermal moist forests in
response to global cooling. However, the future will clearly not simply involve a transition to
warmer Miocene-type climates. This is because there are significant differences to past
climates:
1 Despite the predicted global warming, the Pole– Equator temperature gradients are still
large, and will remain relatively large this century, prevent- ing a large shift of the frostfree zones to higher latitudes.2 The speed of global warming would not allow for the
large-scale movement of rainforests across the arid subtropical latitudes. 3 Even if
migration of rainforest to the convergence rainfall zone were possible, the mid-latitudes are
already dominated by human activities such as farming.
4 CO2 may rise rapidly in the next 100 years to levels (>700 ppmV) without precedent
during at least the last 25 and possibly 65 million years.
resilient – at: climate change
The Amazon is resilient to climate change – AND – CO2 is good – increases
forest growth and outweighs the negative effects of climate change –
studies prove
Doyle 13
(Alister Doyle, February 6th, 2013, Reuters, “Amazon forest more resilient to climate change
than feared – study,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-climate-amazonidUSBRE91510O20130206, date accessed 7/03/13, WOOJAE)
(Reuters) - The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global
warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts
as an airborne fertilizer , a study showed on Wednesday. The boost to growth from CO2,
the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed
damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said. "I am no longer so
worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter
Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature.
"In that sense it's good news." Cox was also the main author of a much-quoted study in 2000
that projected that the Amazon rainforest might dry out from about 2050 and die off because of
warming. Others have since suggested fires could transform much the forest into savannah.
Plants soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it as an ingredient to grow leaves,
branches and roots. Stored carbon gets released back to the atmosphere when plants rot or are
burnt. A retreat of the Amazon forests, releasing vast stores of carbon, could in turn aggravate
global warming that is projected to cause more floods, more powerful storms and raise world
sea levels by melting ice sheets. "CO2 fertilization will beat the negative effect of
climate change so that forests will continue to accumulate carbon throughout the 21st
century," Cox said of the findings with other British-based researchers. ROOT AND BRANCH
The scientists said the study was a step forward because it used models comparing
forest growth with variations in the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. It estimated that the damaging effects of warming would cause the release of
53 billion tons of carbon stored in lands throughout the tropics, much of it in the Amazon, for
every single degree Celsius (1.8F) of temperature rise. The benefits of CO2 fertilization
exceeded those losses in most scenarios, which ranged up to a 319 billion ton net gain of
stored carbon over the 21st century. About 500 to 1,000 billion ton of carbon are stored in land
in the tropics. Climate change would be more damaging for the Amazon if greenhouse gases
other than CO2, such as ozone or methane which do not have a fertilizing effect, take a bigger
role, the study said. It did not factor in damaging effects from deforestation, mostly burning to
clear land for farms, that is blamed for perhaps 17 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions
from human activities. Brazil has sharply reduced forest losses in recent years. But predictions
of a die-back in coming decades had led some people to conclude that there was no point
safeguarding trees. "Some people argued bizarrely that it would be better to chop them down
and use them now," Cox said, adding that the new findings meant that reasoning was no longer
valid. By underlining the importance of trees for soaking up CO2, the study could also bolster
slow-paced efforts to create a market mechanism to reward nations for preserving tropical
forests as part of U.N. negotiations on a new treaty to slow climate change, due to be agreed by
the end of 2015.
improving
The Amazon forest is improving – most recent and best data prove –
countries are adopting new satellite tech that is helping preservation
efforts
Butler 13
(Rhett Butler, June 13th, 2013, Mongabay, Peru opens deforestation data to the public, shows
drop in Amazon forest clearing,” http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0613-peru-deforestationtracking-system.html, date accessed 7/03/2013, WOOJAE)
Peru has made its comprehensive deforestation data available to the public. The data
shows that while more than 100,000 hectares have been cleared in the Peruvian Amazon on annual basis since 2005, the rate of clearing
has slowed in recent years. Between 2009 and 2010, some 108,571 ha of forest were lost in the
region. Between 2010 and 2011, that number fell to 103,380 ha or 0.16 percent of the Peruvian Amazon's
forest cover annually. Overall, more than 78 percent of the area is forested, down from 80 percent or about 63 million
hectares in 2000. Peru's deforestation monitoring system has been in development with several
partners since late 2009. The system is based primarily on analysis of satellite data using
CLASlite, a software tool that uses images from NASA's Landsat and MODIS sensors to generate
maps revealing changes in forest cover, including deforestation and degradation. The data was checked by field sampling and the
use of flyovers. According to the Peru's ministry of environment, MINAM, the system can detect changes from forest to
non-forest to a level of detail of 0.09 hectares or 30 meters by 30 meters. It tracks change
across 95 percent of Peru's forest cover with 92 percent accuracy, an above-average degree of accuracy for such a large area. Greg Asner, a
research at the Carnegie Institution for Science who has been working with the Peruvian
government on the project, says the system could be a model for other countries
developing deforestation tracking platforms. "This is a big deal," Asner told mongabay.com. "The Peruvian government is
making their first estimates of deforestation available online for others to view. Perhaps more countries will install their own
high-resolution mapping teams and make the results as transparent as Peru has done here." Peru's
new system will help it move forward on its program for reducing emissions on
deforestation and degradation (REDD+). Peru is one of several countries participating in the
Governors Climate and Forests Initiative, an effort to set up frameworks for REDD+ programs between
states and provinces internationally.
Ext. improving
The Amazon forest is improving – 84% less deforestation and Copenhagen
limits are being met
Presse 13
(Agence Presse, June 5th, 2013, MSN News, “Amazon deforestation reduced by nearly 84%:
Brazil,” http://news.ph.msn.com/top-stories/amazon-deforestation-reduced-by-nearly-84percentbrazil-2, date accessed 7/03/2013, WOOJAE)
Brazil said Wednesday it has reduced Amazon deforestation by nearly 84 percent over the
past eight years and is nearing its international target for slowing devastation of the
world's largest rainforest. From August 2011 to July 2012, 4,571 square kilometers (1,764 square
miles) of Amazon forest were destroyed, 27 percent less than during the previous
corresponding period and the lowest rate since Brazil began monitoring, said Environment Minister
Izabella Teixeira. It was the fourth consecutive annual reduction. Teixeira said the country
"reached 76 percent of its voluntary deforestation reduction goal in the Amazon as
agreed in Copenhagen in 2009," referring to an international conference on climate change
held that year. That goal set the deforestation ceiling at 3,900 square kilometers (1,505 square
miles) in 2020. According to official but still provisional data, deforestation totaled 1,900 square kilometers between August 2012 and April 2013. Key causes
of the destruction include fires, the expansion of agriculture and livestock, and illegal trafficking in timber and minerals.
Coalition of research institutions show that the Amazon forest is improving
– drastic drop in deforestation and increase in protected areas
Butler 12
(Rhett Butler, December 6th, 2012, Mongabay, “Deforestation rate falls across Amazon
rainforest countries,” http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1205-raisg-amazon-atlas.html, date
accessed 7/03/2013, WOOJAE)
The average annual rate of deforestation across Amazon rainforest countries dropped
sharply in the second half of the 2000s, reports a comprehensive new assessment of the region's forest
cover and drivers of deforestation. While the drop in deforestation in the Brazilian
Amazon has been widely reported, several other Amazon countries saw their rates of
forest loss drop as well, according to the report, which was published by a coalition of 11 Latin American
civil society groups and research institutions that form the Amazonian Network of
Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information (RAISG). The atlas shows the sharpest decline occurred in the tiny
nation of Suriname, where deforestation fell 80 percent from 938 square kilometers between 2000 and 2005 to just 191 sq km between 2005
and 2010. Brazil (61 percent drop), Venezuela (46 percent), Ecuador (18 percent), Guyana (17 percent), and Bolivia (17 percent) followed. Brazil
experienced the overall largest drop in deforestation in terms of overall area, going from 138,804 sq
km to 54,181 sq km between the two periods. Deforestation increased in Peru (4 percent), Colombia (32 percent), and French Guiana (40 percent). Overall
deforestation across the Amazon fell by 53 percent between the two periods. Meanwhile
the extent of indigenous territories and protected areas also increased during the
decade.
indicts
at: Holdren
Holdren’s a crank
Mosher 2009
Steven M., President of the Population Research Institute, “President Obama's Bizarre "Science
Czar": Dr. John R Holdren, Professional Alarmist,” PRI Review: 2009 (v19, n5)
September/October, http://www.pop.org/content/president-obamas-bizarre-science-czar--dr1958
Holdren justifies his proposals — proposals that if enacted would effectively brutalize the
entire human population in the name of stopping a global overpopulation catastrophe.
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century,” he writes
breathlessly. “This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny”
(p. 944). Yet the eco-catastrophe that he predicted by the year 2000 did not materialize.
Instead, as our numbers have grown, so has our prosperity and well being. On the whole,
mankind is leading longer, healthier lives than ever before.
Holdren has apparently felt little angst over either his failed predictions of a population
apocalypse or his outrageous proposals to counter it, either of which should have been
sufficient to disqualify him from being named to advise the President on matters of
science and technology. But he has shifted ground. As the perceived “crisis” of population
growth has faded — thanks in part to the work of PRI — Holdren began promoting alternative
energy, and opposing a missile defense for the U.S.
These days he prefers to talk about another supposed catastrophe that has, like
overpopulation a few years ago, seized the imagination of trendy, power-hungry technocrats:
global warming. Unless we make dramatic changes in the way we live, Holdren now tells us,
we are headed for a climate catastrophe. In a report to the U.N., Holdren predicts a dire future
caused by global warming and calls for a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Sea levels
could rise as much as 1.3 feet by the year 2010, he reportedly said in 2006, a prediction
that is waved off by respectable scientists. Same rhetoric, different subject.
Holden, who was trained in Plasma Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has a
long history of opining on subjects to which he brings no particular expertise. He wrote
on population issues but was not a demographer, He addresses on energy resources but is not
a geophysicist. He issues oracular statements on climate change but is not a climatologist.
What Obama’s new Science Czar really is, is a professional doomsayer along the lines
of his mentor, Paul Ehrlich. He has prophesied one end-of-the-world scenario after
another to advance his scientific career. He has been, one must admit, rather spectacularly
successful at this, and now has the ear of the U.S. President. But he has been
consistently wrong on the facts . And the fear mongering that he habitually engages in
gives science, and scientists, a bad name.
Holdren’s a joker
Bradley 2010
Robert Bradley Jr., Ph.D., political economy, International College, Los Angeles, founder and
CEO of Institute for Energy Research, “Halloween Hangover: Ehrlich, Holdren, Hansen
Unretracted,” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/11/halloween-hangover/
In the name of science, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and James Hansen (et al.) have made
doom-and-gloom predictions about business-as-usual in an attempt to shock humanity
into immediate legislative action and lifestyle changes.
It did not work . The elapsed predictions have failed to come to pass. Little wonder that
new installments of climate alarmism, such as Juliet Eilperin’s ”25% of Wild Mammal Species
Face Extinction: Global Assessment Paints ‘Bleak Picture,’ Scientists Say, and Figure of Those
at Risk Could Be Higher” in the Washington Post (October 7), don’t register with voters.
Worsening their predicament, the perpetrators will not renounce their specious
predictions. They remain the smartest guys in the room–versus all of us commoners, we the
hundreds of millions of market-failure-ites.
Here are the Big Three: 1) the dean of modern alarmism, Paul Ehrlich; 2) Al Gore’s influential
climate scientist James Hansen; and 3) Obama’s “dream ‘green’ team” member John
Holdren.
Let’s start with Dr. Holdren.
Holdren’s Billion Deaths
It was Ehrlich who outed his protege on what is perhaps the most outlandish prediction of
forthcoming doom of all: one billion potential deaths by 2020. That is about ten years and one
in seven of us. Are you scared?
At his confirmation hearings as Obama’s science advisor, Holdren did not disown this
prediction–in fact he defended it three times.
Background: Paul Ehrlich fathered the neo-Malthusian movement with his 1968 bestseller,
The Population Bomb, and John Holdren was an instant convert. In 1971, mentor-anddisciple wrote:
“We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe,
if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.
(The inability to forecast exactly which one – whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the
oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for
complacency.)”
- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, ‘What We Must Do, and the Cost of Failure’, in Holdren and
Ehrlich, Global Ecology, p. 279
And Dr. Doom senior and junior have been at it ever since, as chronicled in a series of
posts at MasterResource.
at: Ehrlich
Ehrlich’s a hack
Bradley 2010
Robert Bradley Jr., Ph.D., political economy, International College, Los Angeles, founder and
CEO of Institute for Energy Research, “Halloween Hangover: Ehrlich, Holdren, Hansen
Unretracted,” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/11/halloween-hangover/
In the name of science, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and James Hansen (et al.) have made
doom-and-gloom predictions about business-as-usual in an attempt to shock humanity
into immediate legislative action and lifestyle changes.
It did not work . The elapsed predictions have failed to come to pass. Little wonder that
new installments of climate alarmism, such as Juliet Eilperin’s ”25% of Wild Mammal Species
Face Extinction: Global Assessment Paints ‘Bleak Picture,’ Scientists Say, and Figure of Those
at Risk Could Be Higher” in the Washington Post (October 7), don’t register with voters.
Worsening their predicament, the perpetrators will not renounce their specious
predictions. They remain the smartest guys in the room–versus all of us commoners, we the
hundreds of millions of market-failure-ites.
Here are the Big Three: 1) the dean of modern alarmism, Paul Ehrlich; 2) Al Gore’s influential
climate scientist James Hansen; and 3) Obama’s “dream ‘green’ team” member John Holdren.
Let’s start with Dr. Holdren. Holdren’s Billion Deaths It was Ehrlich who outed his protege on
what is perhaps the most outlandish prediction of forthcoming doom of all: one billion potential
deaths by 2020. That is about ten years and one in seven of us. Are you scared? At his
confirmation hearings as Obama’s science advisor, Holdren did not disown this prediction–in
fact he defended it three times. Background: Paul Ehrlich fathered the neo-Malthusian
movement with his 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, and John Holdren was an instant
convert. In 1971, mentor-and-disciple wrote: “We are not, of course, optimistic about our
chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost
certain to overtake us before the end of the century. (The inability to forecast exactly which one
– whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the oceans, drastic climatic change, or some
disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for complacency.)” - John Holdren and Paul
Ehrlich, ‘What We Must Do, and the Cost of Failure’, in Holdren and Ehrlich, Global Ecology, p.
279 And Dr. Doom senior and junior have been at it ever since, as chronicled in a series of
posts at MasterResource. James Hansen: Six Years to Too Late In the face of believed-to-be
certain doom, NASA scientist James Hansen said in mid-2006: “We have at most ten years—
not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global
greenhouse emissions.” - James Hansen, “The Threat to the Planet,” New York Review of
Books, July 13, 2006. It is known that a fundamental shift away from fossil fuels is not going to
happen domestically on internationally. So can we give up the futile climate crusade, Dr.
Hansen, based on your belief? Can we replace mitigation with adaptation and think about
unleashing that incredible bread machine called Capitalism to best address real and imagined
challenges to come? A North Carolina Left environmental group, NC WARN, embraces
Hansen’s prediction in end-of-the-world terms: NASA’s James Hansen and the head of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.K. Pachauri, warn that global emissions must
start downward by 2015 or the climate crisis will move beyond humanity’s control. Such inspired
Ken Green to note: “Desperation is setting in among climate alarmists who by their own math
can see that the window is rapidly closing on ’saving the planet’.” Again, with the window
closing, can we ‘get real’ and try freedom over statism?
Paul Ehrlich: The World Ended Yesterday (oops!)
Where does one begin with Paul Ehrlich, the arch enemy and intellectual loser to the late
Julian Simon? MasterResource has extensively examined Ehrlich’s oeuvre , but here are just
two of the more outlandish of his predictions.
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–
hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now.”
- Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, (New York: Ballentine Books, 1968), p. 13.
“We can be reasonably sure . . . that within the next quarter of a century [by 2000] mankind
will be looking elsewhere than in oil wells for its main source of energy.”
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Rivercity, Mass.: Rivercity Press, 1974,
1975), p. 49.
And then there was Ehrlich’s prediction from 1970 that Julian Simon jumped all over to get Sir
Paul to enter into his ill-fated bet on the future of mineral resource prices as a measure of
scarcity: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the
year 2000″ (cited above).
Conclusion
So Halloween is every day with the fear mongers . But the sunshine of reality intervenes
time and again to demonstrate that Julian Simon is right and the neo-Malthusians wrong. Big
Government know-it-all’s–the coercionists–rant and rave even today about how the public
ignores the forewarned peril. But humility and mid-course corrections are called for. Only then
will the Howlin’ Wolfs (with apologies to Chester Burnett) receive the respect that they long for.
at: Hansen
Hansen’s an alarmist and it’s too late to solve
Bradley 2010
Robert Bradley Jr., Ph.D., political economy, International College, Los Angeles, founder and
CEO of Institute for Energy Research, “Halloween Hangover: Ehrlich, Holdren, Hansen
Unretracted,” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/11/halloween-hangover/
In the name of science, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and James Hansen (et al.) have made
doom-and-gloom predictions about business-as-usual in an attempt to shock humanity
into immediate legislative action and lifestyle changes.
It did not work . The elapsed predictions have failed to come to pass. Little wonder that
new installments of climate alarmism, such as Juliet Eilperin’s ”25% of Wild Mammal Species
Face Extinction: Global Assessment Paints ‘Bleak Picture,’ Scientists Say, and Figure of Those
at Risk Could Be Higher” in the Washington Post (October 7), don’t register with voters.
Worsening their predicament, the perpetrators will not renounce their specious
predictions. They remain the smartest guys in the room–versus all of us commoners, we the
hundreds of millions of market-failure-ites.
Here are the Big Three: 1) the dean of modern alarmism, Paul Ehrlich; 2) Al Gore’s influential
climate scientist James Hansen; and 3) Obama’s “dream ‘green’ team” member John
Holdren.
Let’s start with Dr. Holdren.
Holdren’s Billion Deaths
It was Ehrlich who outed his protege on what is perhaps the most outlandish prediction of
forthcoming doom of all: one billion potential deaths by 2020. That is about ten years and one in
seven of us. Are you scared?
At his confirmation hearings as Obama’s science advisor, Holdren did not disown this
prediction–in fact he defended it three times.
Background: Paul Ehrlich fathered the neo-Malthusian movement with his 1968 bestseller, The
Population Bomb, and John Holdren was an instant convert. In 1971, mentor-and-disciple wrote:
“We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe,
if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.
(The inability to forecast exactly which one – whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the
oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for
complacency.)”
- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, ‘What We Must Do, and the Cost of Failure’, in Holdren and
Ehrlich, Global Ecology, p. 279
And Dr. Doom senior and junior have been at it ever since, as chronicled in a series of posts at
MasterResource.
James Hansen: Six Years to Too Late
In the face of believed-to-be certain doom, NASA scientist James Hansen said in mid-2006:
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter
fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”
- James Hansen, “The Threat to the Planet,” New York Review of Books, July 13, 2006.
It is known that a fundamental shift away from fossil fuels is not going to happen
domestically on internationally . So can we give up the futile climate crusade, Dr. Hansen,
based on your belief? Can we replace mitigation with adaptation and think about unleashing that
incredible bread machine called Capitalism to best address real and imagined challenges to
come?