You are on page 1of 5

Against Algae biofuel

Algae blooms cause a wreck of environmental destruction and destroy marine bio
Giersbergen, 14
(Jos van Giersbergen, Jos graduated as an engineer and reports on new and green technology, From
Quarks to Quasars, A Truly Green Revolution: Turning Algae into Biofuel, January 22, 2014

Some types of algae are more efficient than others. When pinpointing one specific thing, the lipid content seems the largest contributing factor. Depending on the
content, a kilo will either power an SUV or mow a small lawn. Unfortunately, the most effective forms of algae are also the most
exotic species of algae, and those generally dont multiply fast enough to suit our purposes. Plus, algae is
wet, very wet. So wet, in fact, that the only real way to use it as a viable source of energy is to dry it out at
massive costs. Growing them and drying them in large enough quantities is proving to be a major hurdle. To provide the U.S.
with enough algae to support their daily appetite, it would require an amount of algae equal in surface area
to the state of Maryland; however, thats still ten times smaller than what would be needed for providing enough biodiesel from corn or soy; that would
have to be half the landarea of the U.S.A. Additionally, even if we were able to grow that much algae in order to meet out needs, it would be
problematic as Algae blooms are quite destructive. They can literally choke the life from a region;
however, most worrying are the toxic species. If it becomes profitable to tinker with the genome of one of those, a corporate sense of ethics
might be all that stands between us and environmental pandemonium. So algae blooms are no joke. Even if the
species involved is not toxic (and most of them are not), they can still do plenty of harm. Simply blocking sunlight
will stifle the growth of, or even kill, the marine flora (which forms the basis of many underwater food chains). At
night, algae will use more oxygen than they produce (no photosynthesis). Compounding that is the fact that, as algae die and
decompose, they use up even more oxygen. In short, the day that there is an algae bloom is not a good day to
be a fish. In addition, to turn algae into oil, you have to be able to grow enough of them to begin with, and most
studies show that contamination with other organics would severely limit productivity.

Marine biodiversity key to solve disaster response and climate adaptation
World Wildlife Fund 8
"Biodiversity Loss Puts People At Risk: World Wildlife Fund." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20
May 2008. <>.
Future generations face hunger, thirst, disease and disaster if we carry on losing biodiversity. And as
biodiversity plummets our use of resources soars. WWF now estimates that biodiversity has declined by
more than a quarter in the last 35 years. The stark warning comes as WWF launches its 2010 and Beyond:
Rising to the Biodiversity Challenge report which contains the latest Living Planet index the
internationally agreed way to measure progress towards the global target of reducing biodiversity loss by
2010 and which reveals a continuing decline in biodiversity. Food, clean water, medicines and
protection from natural hazards are important ingredients in maintaining our security and quality of life. If
they are to be maintained then the species, natural habitats and ecosystems that support them need to be
protected. In 2002 the worlds governments set themselves a target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss
by 2010, but WWFs report shows that they are clearly not on track. Biodiversity underpins the health
of the planet and has a direct impact on all our lives . Put simply, reduced biodiversity means millions
of people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease and where water is in
irregular or short supply, said James Leape, WWF Internationals Director General. No one can escape
the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer
new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming

Biodiversity collapse will cause extinction.
Coyne 7
Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology at UChicago and Hopi Hoekstra, Professor of Biology at Harvard
Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's
diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is
different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a
single species, Homo sapiens. We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and
eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that
came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose
half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that
biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an
unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to
biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature
is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many
species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count
microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either;
how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of
some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between
organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical
rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10
percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone
from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global
warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse
gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases
extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As
extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a
downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the
rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal
cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved
together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully
jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets,
and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility.
But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over
provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and
oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both
intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing
zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great
Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single
species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode
and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields.
Meanwhile, with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be
able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most
vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off
phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans
depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb
carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest
coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these
reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human
populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by
ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated
to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And
that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber . Life as we know it would be impossible if
ecosystems collapsed . Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.
Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of
French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare
South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not
only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm:
Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer
agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are
pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol
(a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on
our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains
more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our
friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical
properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated
that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are
worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is
strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic
calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry
about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary
interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than
looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by
the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic
kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual
nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is
bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases
flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food
sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept
the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of
us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a
secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just
another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.
Russia LNG DA
Russia is the worlds largest natural gas exporter-US LNG threatens Russian gas
Choi and Robertson 13 *Tom, Natural Gas Market Leader @ Deloitte MarketPoint **Peter,
Independent Senior Advisor, Oil & Gas @
(Exporting the American Renaissance Global impacts of LNG exports from the United States
Gas exporting countries could suffer a decline in trade revenue due to price erosion and/or supply
displacement. Entry of new supply clearly benefits consumers, but negatively impacts suppliers
through price reductions and/or direct displacement of their export volumes. Even if gas supply in a
region is not directly displaced by U.S. LNG exports, its producers might suffer decline in revenues
due to lower prices affecting the region. Furthermore, gas exporting countries could face increased pressure to adopt
market-based gas prices in lieu of oil-indexed prices. As the worlds largest gas exporter by both volume and
revenue and a high cost gas provider into Europe, Russia appears to be particularly vulnerable,
especially if U.S. LNG exports are sent to Europe.
U.S. LNG exports decimates Russian natural gas prices- and crushes russian economy
Choi and Robertson 13 *Tom, Natural Gas Market Leader @ Deloitte MarketPoint **Peter,
Independent Senior Advisor, Oil & Gas @
(Exporting the American Renaissance Global impacts of LNG exports from the United States
Russia, the leading gas exporter to Europe, appears to be especially hard hit by U.S. LNG exports. Because of
its huge volumes of gas exports, primarily to Europe, and their high cost to markets, Russia is vulnerable to
supply competition. In Figure 3.4, Russian supplies are estimated to be the high-cost source into European markets and therefore
Russian contract supplies above the minimum-take volumes would be the first to be displaced by incremental lower cost supply. With
current slack European demand, there is already some displacement of Russian imports, as flexible
volumes indexed to oil price have not been utilized by European buyers. U.S. LNG exports to
Europe are projected to obviate the need for Russian and some other oil-indexed flexible supplies
Maintaining market share and oil-indexed prices are major concerns for Russia. Russia holds the worlds
largest natural gas reserves and was the largest producer until the U.S. overtook it in 2011 with the growth in U.S. shale gas production.
Gas export is vital to the Russian economy, contributing about $64 billion in revenues in 2011. 7 Russia has
jealously guarded its European market share through control of its pipeline transit capacities. By
restricting access to its transit pipelines, Russia is able to prevent supplies from other countries, such
as Turkmenistan which holds an estimated 500 Tcf of proved reserves, from reaching lucrative European markets and competing with
Russian supplies. The strategy was working well until several years ago when economic recession
caused European gas demand to stagnate and at the same time more LNG supplies, particularly
from Qatar, became available. Qatar had increased its LNG liquefaction capacity in anticipation of
exports to the U.S., but its plans were stymied by U.S. shale gas production which eliminated the
need for imports. As a consequence, European prices fell and Russians were pressured to offer more
competitive prices than the contractual oil-indexed prices. During the past year, several European companies
successfully renegotiated their contracts and extracted discounts from Russia. U.S. LNG exports will likely apply greater
pressure on Russia and other gas exporters to transition to competitively set prices. Based on WGM
projections using the two market scenarios, Russian revenues from exports to Europe are estimated to be
significantly impacted by U.S. LNG exports, which will both displace some amount of Russian
exports to Europe and reduce the price Russians receive in Europe. The table in Figure 3.5 shows the
projected impact of U.S. LNG exports on Russian revenues (in 2012 U.S. dollars) from exports to Europe. Of course, the impact is
higher when U.S. LNG exports are sent to Europe instead of Asia since there is direct competition with Russian supply and greater
European price impact. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, the impact is higher under the Competitive Response case than in the BAU scenario.
The reason is that under the BAU scenario, in which Russia and other major current gas exporters adhere to oil-price indexation, Russian
exports to Europe are reduced down to the minimum take volumes as competitively priced supplies displace the oil-indexed flexible
volumes. Hence, U.S. LNG exports have little impact on Russian volumes and most of the impact is
through lower prices it receives in European markets for their exports. In the Competitive Response scenario,
Russia is assumed to price more of its supplies on a competitive basis and therefore more Russian volumes are exported to Europe than
under the BAU market scenario. With U.S. LNG exports, some of these non-minimum take volumes are displaced. Therefore, Russia is
hit by both loss of volume and erosion of price under the Competitive Response scenario. These scenarios indicate that U.S. LNG
exports may lead Russia to price its supplies on a competitive basis or be relegated to just selling its minimum take contracted volumes

Russian economic decline causes nuclear war
Filger 9
Sheldon Filger, founder of Global Economic Crisis, The Huffington Post. Russian Economy Faces
Disastrous Free Fall Contraction. 5/10/9.
In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely
encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to
its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nations history, are
unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russias economic crisis will endanger the nations
political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and
protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates
that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial
oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash.
Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact
will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic
Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities
and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear
arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only
President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic
crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible
that U.S. President Barack Obamas national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic
meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence
community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States,
due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces
responsible for guarding the nations nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that
desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current
economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear
arsenal remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.