---1AR Japan CP

Solvency Deficit
Cant solve global modeling thats the Naylor evidence the world looks to the United States to set the
precedent

Japaneses aquaculture fails thats Fujiya they have diseases and polluted waters proves they cant
make the sustainable model spread globally

AT Aquaculture Bad Turns (0:30)

Four global arguments
1: every single piece of neg evidence is describing the squo
2: aquaculture is inevitable which triggers the impacts only the aff solves
3: their evidence assumes genetically modified fish we dont allow those thats
Johns
4: Prefer evidence specific to the plans regulations thats Wheeler they are
unprecedented in their ability to prevent harmful damages

The plan creates incentives for innovation

Klinger & Naylor, 12 --- *Ph.D. student in Stanford's Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in
Environmental and Resources, AND **professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford
(Dane & Rosamond, Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course,
http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aquaculture.
pdf, JMP)

POLICY AND INFORMATION APPROACHES The aquaculture

sector has a wide range of innovative technologies and

management strategies at its disposal to improve its overall environmental performance as it
continues to expand. The question is: Will the industry take advantage of these innovations, particularly
if the costs of adopting new approaches are initially high? Price signals often provide inducement for
technological change and the adoption of improved management, yet capitalism fails to set a
sustainable path when the social costs of aquaculture production namely ecosystem damagesare
not priced in the market. Substantial volatility in global commodity prices since 2005 has further obscured market signals to
producers. Policy interventions, international standards, labeling, and information strategies can help provide incentives to
producers to adopt improved technologies and management practices, but they can also be counterproductive or
confusing to producers and consumers (5). To create the right incentives for widespread adoption of the innovations
outlined in this review, governments promoting aquaculture need to establish enforceable standards that set
clear limits on ecosystem damage, pollution, and resource use. Standards are required for aquaculture operations and
siting, as well as for the flow and cumulative impact of nutrient and chemical effluents, pathogen transmission, fish escapes, and invasive
species related to aquaculture activities (122). In addition, the establishment of a monitoring system, liability criteria for violations of standards,
and a transparency process for public participation are needed to ensure the desired social outcome (122). A

wide range of scientific

guidelines and information approaches has emerged to help policy makers and businesses set
environmental standards and identify best practices and technologies for aquaculture development.
Examples include the use of life-cycle assessments, the global aquaculture performance index, United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization codes of conduct, and business social performance standards (as reviewed by Reference 5). Numerous certification schemes are
also available to producers to capture higher returns; although they provide a valuable service to society, they can be extremely costly to
producers because there is little coordination among the various schemes. As a result, firms trying to establish a socially responsible global
business must meet the demands and inspections of multiple groups.2 Organic certifications are also used in aquaculture when feed sources
can be tracked (e.g., Reference 196) but are of limited value as they focus only on inputs to production and do not necessarily curb harmful
outputs such as effluents, escapes, and pathogens.

AT McCutheon
McCutcheon flows aff
McCutcheon, 14 (3/27/2014, Jody, Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment,
http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/, JMP)

The Solution May Be Simple Despite

risks of food poisoning, ingesting pesticide, and even worse, highly toxic
mercury, demand for big commercial fish like swordfish and tuna doesnt seem to be decreasing, but
people would be better offeconomically and environmentallyby eating fish lower in the food chain, i.e., those with a more efficient FCR,
which include: Trout (freshwater) Haddock Whitefish Anchovies Perch Squid Mullet Scallops Sardines Domestic crabs Also, some species are
better adapted for aquaculture. Farming barramundi, for example, is more efficient than farming salmon or cod, since barramundi requires less
protein in feed than what it ultimately yields, thus producing a net protein gain. With the

huge demand for seafood and the

need to preserve wild fisheries, fish farming seems to be the best solution. The billion-dollar question,
then, is how to make aquaculture more efficient and healthy and less polluting. The ideal plan is for fish
farms to mimic oceans by mixing multiple, complementary species, including cleaner fish to control
pests. Some Norwegian farms are already doing this, and theyre producing more biomass and less waste. Ultimately, the industry must
establish proper communication with regards to where the seafood was farmed, and certification of whether it was farmed sustainably. Until
then, more often than not, be prepared for a seafood surprise.

Space Col nearly impossible - too many barriers, Mars One proves
Keller 13 (Harry, chair of the Northeastern Section of the American Chemical Society and as a reviewer
for Analytical Chemistry, assistant professor of chemistry at Northeastern University, PhD in analytical
chemistry from Columbia , Mars One: Exciting Adventure or Hoax?, April 8, ETC Journal *educational
technology & change], http://etcjournal.com/2013/04/08/mars-one-exciting-adventure-or-hoax/)//DLG
Problem number one is radiation. Interplanetary space is filled with solar and cosmic radiation. The former originates from the Sun
and fluctuates on an eleven-year cycle. The latter originates outside of our solar system from cataclysmic star events and black holes. Both are

potentially deadly. NASA has estimated that a three-year round-trip and visit to Mars by astronauts would
expose them to about one Siemen of radiation, the recommended lifetime dosage. Annual exposure on Earth at
sea level is in the milliSiemens range. The effects of radiation exposure include cataracts, increased likelihood of cancer, and
sterility. Without radiation shielding on Mars, colonists will be doomed to very shortened lifespans and would be
unlikely to reproduce. Children, if born, would have even more problems because rapidly developing
cells are even more sensitive to radiation effects. The reasons that radiation is such a problem on Mars but not on Earth
arise from the two things that shield us Earthlings from radiation: our atmosphere and the Earths magnetic field.
The Martian atmosphere is about 1/100 that of the Earth. Essentially all radiation arrives on the surface. Mars has no magnetic field. Scientists
postulate that it is solid to the core and so has no liquid interior to generate a magnetic field. The Earths magnetic field deflects arriving ionic
cosmic rays and solar radiation, although gamma rays are unaffected. This deflection to our polar radiation is the reason that we see the aurora
borealis near our north pole but not near the equator. Those light displays are caused by energetic ions impacting the atmosphere. The
proposed Mars One habitats have no evident radiation shielding, and radiation is not mentioned on their website. The best shielding would be
a thick layer of liquid hydrogen, but water can also function reasonably well. Oddly,

metal shielding, unless very thick, makes cosmic

radiation worse because the rays hit metal atom nuclei and create a shower of new radiation from what was
a single ray. The colonists could go underground to avoid radiation, but Mars One has no such plans. They do hope to build extensions to the
shelters from the Martian soil. We dont know how feasible this plan is or whether the thickness of the soil walls will be sufficient to avoid
significant radiation damage. Moving on past the radiation issues, which may never be adequately resolved, you will encounter a number of
more mundane issues. These fall into two areas: physical and psychological. Physical Problems The physical

problems have to do

with life support and expansion. Life requires air, water, food, and shelter. With one percent of Earths atmosphere, Mars has an
atmosphere that we cannot breathe. Its mostly carbon dioxide (95%) anyway with oxygen only as a trace component. Even if you compressed
it, you still could not breathe it. The colonists

must live in a pressurized environment and must scrub the carbon

dioxide (CO2) from the air to prevent stress and eventual death from hypercapnia. Oxygen must
constantly be generated from some source to make up for oxygen consumed by the colonists. Plants grown for food can perform the
functions of carbon dioxide removal and oxygen generation, but early plans for Mars One suggest that the space allotted for plants may not be
sufficient for these purposes and must be supplanted by mechanical and chemical processes, which will require power. Substantial
supplies of water will be required to support even four colonists who will be living in a water-poor environment. The interior of the
habitat may actually be moist because it will not take much water to saturate the small atmosphere contained there. Most edible plants
transpire, and a moist atmosphere will reduce their water requirements. Water will come from three sources: water carried on the mission,
water recycled from colonists, and water mined from the Martian soil. This last source may be a problem because the

best location
for water is near the Martian poles, but the best place for solar energy is near the Martian equator. We
do not yet know if reasonable amounts of water exist below the Martian surface at the equator. Water is
also the most likely source of oxygen. Electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen gases. Therefore, water is necessary
for both its own value and for replenishing air. Because colonists must venture outside and so step through an airlock, losing air in the process,
and because the habitat will certainly have at least minor leaks, air must be constantly replaced. The initial six habitat modules
have been allocated in pairs. One pair has been reserved for food production. The exact nature of the plants to be used has not been described
by Mars One. Unless colonists have a decent radiation shield, the plants will neither grow nor reproduce well. Assuming such a shield is
available, the plants must convert sunshine to edible plant matter. The solar intensity is about 43% of that on Earth, which will necessitate the
use of efficient plants that can grow well in eternally cloudy Earth climes. Most food plants must have strong sunlight. Hybrids may be
developed to compensate. Even so, its

unclear whether the amount of space allocated for food production will
suffice to feed the entire colony. Even if the space is adequate, the diet will be monotonous. The inefficiency of animals
for food sources means that the entire diet must be vegan. Yeast or similar organisms must be grown as well to provide B12, which cannot be
obtained from strictly plant sources. Colonists will never again see a steak or filet of fish. They will have eggs or milk products. They wont even
have the produce of trees nuts, apples, citrus, etc. There will be no pepper, cinnamon, or vanilla. Only the most efficient plants can be
utilized for food on Mars. The variety will certainly be limited. We cannot yet tell if colonists can grow some ginger or basil to help alleviate the
monotony of diet. Shelter

will remain a serious problem for the foreseeable future. Four people will inhabit six small modules of
which four are reserved for mechanical and food purposes. The shelter must remain airtight and insulating at all times.
Temperatures on the Martian surface drop to far below freezing at night. Although the atmosphere is extremely thin, very strong winds create

sandstorms that can erode anything exposed outside, including the shelters. The materials from which shelters are built
must be strong enough to withstand the winds but light enough to ship to Mars, a real engineering
challenge. NASA's Curiosity Rover NASAs Curiosity Rover Heat will be lost through the walls of the habitat even with the
best insulation. This heat must be replaced. The Mars colonists will find absolutely no coal, no oil, and no natural gas to use as
an energy source. Only solar and wind energy will be available unless they bring along a nuclear power generator. Small ones,
such as is being used by NASAs Curiosity rover, can provide some power but not enough for this purpose. Heat will be a serious issue for Mars
One. Their plans call for large flexible solar panels to be rolled out onto the Martian surface to capture the wan sunlight. The plans

do not

show calculations for expected energy capture during the long Martian winters. With a year twice as long as ours,
winters are also twice as long. In addition, batteries must store this captured solar energy. Lots of batteries will be needed
to hold enough energy for heating and other purposes such as oxygen generation throughout the Martian nights. The Mars One information
does not include battery specifications. Even the most

efficient batteries are heavy and will have to be lifted from

Earth to Mars at $10,000 per pound. The colonists must work outside of their habitat in the harsh Martian environment and so
must have Mars suits that are the equivalent of space suits. Maintaining these will be crucial to extending the colony. Without
petrochemical sources, its unclear what materials will be used to replace the plastic components of
these suits. If the colony is to be self-sustaining, it must be able to expand using local materials. Water is too
precious to use for making concrete or even adobe if the basic materials could be obtained. Note that cement requires lots of
heat to make. To make iron, iron ore and enormous amounts of energy are needed. Converting iron to steel requires
more energy and lots of carbon, but Mars has no fossil fuels as sources of carbon. Similarly, copper, zinc, and tin all require massive amounts of
energy far

more than the solar arrays will provide. Colonists will have to expand their solar arrays as they expand the colony
required for manufacturing these arrays will be far beyond

if such expansion can be done at all. The high-technology

the capabilities of the Martian colony. With nothing to export, the colonists will have to depend on Earth to
send them the needed materials and will become interplanetary beggars. If they have children, theyll have to expand their food tanks.
Of what will they construct them? Indeed, what building materials will the colonists have for any purpose, even for making cooking pots or
childrens toys? Medical

issues have not even been considered. The colonists would not have any access to

modern medicine. They would have to be carefully screened for genetic factors that predispose to disease. Medical problems that we
can handle readily here would result in death on Mars. Psychological Pressures Even if power, air, water, food, shelter, and building materials
can be resolved, a very unlikely result, the colonists must

face extreme psychological pressures. A single small error by

one colonist can kill them all. This could happen on any day. Only digital material could be imported from Earth on a regular basis. With
sufficient power, the colonists could watch videos and listen to music. However, conversation with Earth-bound families and friends would not
be possible. The round-trip delay for radio transmission is between 6 and 40 minutes. Say, Hello, and you hear a response 20 minutes later on
average. All communication with Earth would be asynchronous. What would it take to make life on Mars bearable? How
could you overcome the monotony of food, of view, of company, of smells, of cramped living spaces? You would never smell a pine forest again
or see the ocean. There are no amber waves of grain or even cityscapes. Youll have no blue skies or clouds and no hope of ever experiencing
them again in person. Youll

be subject to extreme cabin fever. It looks like Mars colonists will be in a constant
state of stress from a long list of sources. How can you stand this sort of stress? The answer typically lies in hope for the future,
in the belief that youre building something for your children and future generations. Unless the problems of radiation, power, water, building
materials, repairing and replacing Mars suits, and the rest are solved, youve just sentenced yourself to a life in prison, and that prison is the
closest thing to hell that any living person can experience over protracted periods. Without hope, Mars One is doomed today.

AT: Asteroids
Asteroid Deflection is improbable, it requires knowledge of the asteroid too far in
advance, and the spin of the asteroid makes moving it almost impossible.
Walker Et. Al 05 [Roger, European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team, European Space Agency,
Concepts For Near- Earth Asteroid Deflection Using Spacecraft With Advanced Nuclear and Solar
Electric Propulsion Systems, 2005, SM, Accessed: 7/11/11, http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PRO/ACTRPR-PRO-2005-ConceptsForNear.pdf]
For any deflection technique to be used, clearly its response time capability must be within the given
warning time of an impact. If the warning time is only a few months to a year, then the only possible
option would be a mass evacuation of the impact zone. The use of nuclear weapons would be
unsuitable, since the dispersion of fragments from the disrupted body would not be sufficient and
the hazard would be simply spread over a much wider area of the Earths surface. For longer warning
times of a few years, space-based intercept/impulsive methods are possible but their effectiveness
would strongly depend upon the asteroid mass. With only a few revolutions before impact, the
required delta-V to be imparted to the body (order 10-20 cm/s) is at least an order of magnitude
higher than with warning times of a decade or more 5 . Rendezvous/propulsive methods would not
be feasible in this scenario due to the time required for rendezvous and thrusting in addition to the
coast time for a miss. Typical warning times for asteroid impact are expected to be on the order of
10-50 years 6 with current optical survey capabilities. Over these timescales, both intercept/impulsive
methods and rendezvous/propulsive methods become feasible (assuming that the rendezvous delta-V
is not too high). There are a number of significant challenges associated with the propulsive
deflection method. Most asteroids rotate about their principal moment of inertia, but some
asteroids have been observed to be tumbling about all three axes, e.g. the slow, excited rotation state
of NEA Toutatis 7 . In the latter scenario, it may be very difficult to stabilise and control its attitude
motion so that propulsive thrusting for the deflection can occur. Additionally, if the asteroid angular
momentum is too large (e.g. it is a fast rotator and/or dense), a high delta-V on-board the spacecraft
will be required to re-orient the spin axis by the desired amount prior to deflection thrusting, thus
reducing the deflection effectiveness. With irregular (but measurable) rotation states and gravity
fields due to inhomogeneous internal mass distributions, a safe landing on the surface of an asteroid
may also be difficult operationally, though not impossible 8

Asteroid Detection costs $300 million that the government simply doesnt have.
Gilster 09 *Paul, Author for Centauri Dreams news forum, Centauri Dreams, Hunting Asteroids (and
Money) August 17, 2009, SM, Accessed: 7/11/11, http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=9094]
A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences points out that NASA has been tasked to locate
90 percent of the most deadly objects that could conceivably strike our planet. Yet only about a third
of this assignment has been completed, and the money has yet to be found to complete the job. The
agency calculates it needs about $800 million between now and 2020 to make the needed inventory,
while $300 million would allow it to find most objects larger than 300 meters across. The problem is
that even the smaller sum is not available, and this AP story quotes space policy expert John Logsdon
(George Washington University) as saying the money may never come through, calling the program a

bit of a lame duck. In other words, there is not yet enough pressure on Congress to produce the
needed funds. Meanwhile, asteroid detection remains a low priority for other governments as well,
making this a problem were choosing to ignore in the absence of recent reminders of its potential.