Aquaculture Affirmative - SDI 2014

Affirmative
Plan
Version 1.0
The United States federal government should increase offshore
aquaculture development by implementing and fully funding
the National Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture research
(2014-2019).
Inherency
1AC Contention
Global aquaculture high but US low now focus on in-land,
freshwater production
Mother Jones 6
{Is Aquaculture the Answer? March/April,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/03/aquaculture-answer#THUR}
Where does farming take place, and what are some of the most heavily farmed
species? A: Aquaculture takes place all over the world , and the top 10 farmed species
account for about 70 percent of the production. Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout are formed in
America, Europe, and Australia; tropical shrimp and tiger shrimp are farmed in Asia
and South America; carps are produced in Asia and Europe; seaweeds are farmed
across Asia; catfish are farmed in Asia and the southern United States; tilapia are farmed in
Asia, South America, and Africa; and Oysters are farmed in Asia, the United States,
Australia, and Europe. In the United States, freshwater aquaculture production such
as catfish is more widespread at the moment than marine production .
Marine production in the United States , in turn, is currently dominated by
shellfish aquaculture, such as oysters and clams, rather than fish farms .
Solvency
1AC Contention
Implementation of the National Strategic Plan with robust
federal funding key to sustainable and effective aquaculture
development spurs further commercial development
-federal gov key to tech transfer, tech advancement, continuous funding, clarity in
regulations, incentivizing commercialization
Rubin et al. 14
{Philip, Principal Assistant Director for Science at the Office of Science and
Technology Policy for the White House, Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences, former Chief Executive Officer and a Senior Scientist at Haskins
Laboratories, National Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research (20142019), National Science and Technology Council Committee on Science Interagency
Working Group on Aquaculture, June,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/aquaculture_stra
tegic_plan_final.pdf#THUR}
Congress and the Executive Branch recognized the importance of aquaculture with passage of
the National Aquaculture Act in 1980 that stated, It is, therefore, in the national
interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the development of aquaculture in the United
States. The Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture (IWG-A), under the National Science and
Technology Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, developed the Strategic Plan for Federal
Aquaculture Research to increase the overall effectiveness of Federal aquaculture
research, technology transfer, and assistance programs. This plan aligns with the
Administrations outcome-oriented goals for multi-disciplinary research to accelerate
technology commercialization and innovation , and addresses key aims in
the National Bioeconomy Blueprint, the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, and Administration guidance on
regulatory efficiency. It is also consistent with the White House Rural Councils
objectives of strengthening rural communities and promoting economic growth. In addition, the plan
reinforces departmental and agency strategic guidance , such as the
Department of Agricultures Strategic Plan 2010-2015, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) 5-Year Research and Development Plan 2013-2017, and policies on aquaculture
from the Department of Commerce. The plan proposes this vision statement for the
future of aquaculture in the U.S.: A globally competitive, technologically appropriate, and
diverse aquaculture sector in the United States that meets increasing demand for seafood and
products that are affordable and meet high standards for safety, quality, and environmental stewardship, with
maximum opportunity for profitability and economic growth. The purpose of this plan is to:
Communicate Federal priorities for research, science, and technology development that
encourage aquaculture in the Nation with the goal of building an industry that increases
seafood availability, jobs, economic opportunities, and recreational opportunities, while providing for the
restoration and promotion of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Promote adoption and
implementation of ideas, concepts, approaches, technologies, and capabilities to advance U.S.
aquaculture production, and further establishment of technological and environmental
leadership in aquaculture. This plan includes 9 critical strategic goals , with outcomes
Federal agency and interagency

research, science, and technology priorities over
the midterm (5 years) that will support
and milestones
that identify
aquaculture development in the United States. Strategic Goals 1. Advance

Understanding of the Interactions of Aquaculture and the Environment 2. Employ Genetics
to Increase Productivity and Protect Natural Populations 3. Counter Disease in Aquatic Organisms and Improving Biosecurity 4.
Improve Production Efficiency and Well-being 5. Improve Nutrition and Develop Novel Feeds 6. Increase
Supply of Nutritious, Safe, High-quality Seafood and Aquatic Products 7. Improve Performance of Production
Systems 8. Create a Skilled Workforce and Enhance Technology Transfer 9. Develop and
Use Socioeconomic and Business Research to Advance Domestic Aquaculture The plan includes
introductory material to provide background and perspective on the role and scale of aquaculture domestically and worldwide. It
While there
is excellent research and technology development currently underway, the plan
also highlights the potential for job creation and economic development through expanded domestic aquaculture.
multi-disciplinary research and coordination of

Federal research programs are needed to improve
recognizes that
competitiveness, production efficiency, economic viability , and long-term

environmental sustainability through advances in genetics, nutrition, health, and
technology.
Plans federal spending is a pre-requisite to the privatization

CP
-Unifies fragmented funding
-Spurs commercial actors who dont want risk otherwise
-Rallies the public
-Fills in for lack of interested large companies
Rubin et al. 14
Annual Federal expenditures for aquaculture research have averaged approximately
S94 million in recent years, with a split of S40 million to extramural (Federal funds awarded to non-Federal
entities) and S54 million to intramural programs (Federal funds allocated to Federal agency-supported research
These funds support core research capabilities in universities and Federal

facilities and small businesses that solve critical problems and generate new
technologies and better practices. While there is currently excellent research and
technology development ongoing in Federal , university, and private research facilities, the
plan recognizes that multi-disciplinary research and coordination of Federal
programs).
research programs are needed to improve competitiveness,

production efficiency, economic viability, and long-term
environmental sustainability through advances in genetics, nutrition, health, and
technology. There are also opportunities to develop new industries to meet the growing
demand for seafood and to respond to the challenges of climate change, including the effects on ocean chemistry.
The primary rationale for Federal investment in aquaculture research, science,

and technology development is to: Provide building blocks for jobs and
economic growth :32 The Federal government has a national interest in fostering
technological innovation and transfer in partnership with industry entrepreneurs. In
fact, commercial aquaculture can create an estimated 75,000 to 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the U.S. with
Maintain
research capabilities for basic and applied research so that today's investment in
research drives future growth in productivity : New technologies will
improve the effectiveness of inputs and integrate evolving technologies in new and
better ways for high payoffs from Federal investments. Such growth is critical
for future aquaculture sector expansion and competitiveness; Support effective
extension education functions that help translate and deliver new knowledge for the
public good and facilitates farm-level adoption of new technology; Fill research gaps in a sector
dominated by small companies with limited ability to conduct research and
advance the industry and address societal interests; and Support sound science for
policy, regulatory, and permitting decisions that allow sustainable industry development: Scientific
knowledge is required to understand the environmental effects of private and
public sector aquaculture and mitigation options for sustainable development that is
acceptable to the public.
every 1 million metric tons of production because of its significant economic multiplier factor;33
US action vital international CP fails because of human

capacity and tech transfers shortfalls
Rubin et al. 14
U.S. Aquaculture depends on progressive science and technological innovation to
create jobs, compete in world seafood markets, meet environmental requirements, and meet evolving social
expectations.
Continued U.S. leadership in aquaculture science and technology
development will require building human capacity in diverse scientific fields to find
solutions to scientific, economic, social, and management challenges. Public education and
understanding of aquaculture science and the performance of diverse aquaculture
systems create a scientifically literate population leading to sound policy-making.
Science-based information, integrated with information delivery systems, offers
new outreach opportunities to the public and the aquaculture community. The purpose of
Federal and university extension education and technology transfer is to efficiently
integrate ideas, inventions, and technologies developed with both public and private funds into
the commercial and restoration aquaculture sectors. Unlike in some sectors, most support for
aquaculture research and technology development originates from

public funding sources . Encouraging private sector involvement through
cooperative and collaborative research ensures the relevance of research
investments. Federally-funded technology transfer is facilitated through
cooperative research and technology development agreements with the commercial and noncommercial
Research and extension scientists, private for-profit and non-profit

businesses, professional societies, and industry associations all share a need for
timely information exchange on research outcomes and emerging issues. International
scientific and industry exchanges can all accelerate technology development and diffusion
at a global scale . New public policy choices and consumer preferences also raise new
technology questions and drive the direction of future curriculum development and
educational needs. The long-term development and sustainability of aquaculture will be
determined , in part, by training scientists and technicians; effectively
connecting science, industry, and society; and using innovations in
education and technology transfer.
aquaculture community.
2AC Fed Key

Fed has to be the first-mover key credible signal for investors
Randy Cates May/June 2010, Member of the Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee, U.S. Department of Commerce, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture
Expansion in the 21st Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3,
U.S. Open Ocean Fish Farming: Are We There Yet?,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture
%20MTS%2044.3.pdf
A New National Policy for Marine Aquaculture One important thing we have learned in Hawaii is that
if the government is indifferent or hostile to aquaculture, it will not

develop. A supportive public policy is absolutely essential to establishing a
successful industry. The NOAA held listening sessions around the country in April 2010 for stakeholder input to a new
national policy for marine aquaculture development. According to the NOAA, the new policy is being formulated to reportedly enable
an industry that is sustainable, creates employment and business opportunities, fosters the production of safe seafood, and
This is an initiative of the

Obama Administration that is related to a larger and more comprehensive 5-year
effort to create a national ocean policy for managing all major ocean uses in federal
waters and includes detailed marine spatial planning. Although this action looks very positive, the
industry concern is, will decisive action to significantly develop domestic marine
aquaculture and create a permitting and leasing process for commercial
aquaculture farming in the EEZ have to wait until its conclusion ? Longtime members of the
complements the NOAAs strategy to main- rain a healthy and productive ocean.
industry suggest that the NOAA has been listening in one form or another to the marine aquaculture community since 1985. It is
also important that the NOAA recognize that these planning efforts are nor starting from zero. Other federal marine aquaculture
policy and planning exercises that considered marine aquaculture and open-ocean operations were carried out over the past 3 years
with the support of the marine aquaculture industry. In October 2007, the NOAA published a 10-year plan for marine aquaculture
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2007), an effort requested by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (2008), an experienced
citizen group that advises the Secretary of Com on fisheries and aquaculture policy. The plan, adopted by the NOAA, was intended to
guide a broad national initiative for marine aquaculture and had four goals: (1) de velopment of a comprehensive regulatory
program, (2) development of commercial marine aquaculture and replenishment of wild stocks, (3) better public understanding of
marine aquaculture, and (4) increased collaboration and cooperation with international partners. In 2008, the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Committee sent another important planning document entitled, Vision 2020: The Future of U.S. Marine Fisheries to the
Secretary which, among other things, reiterated the need for a broad and well-financed national initiative in marine aquaculture
development. Conclusions It is clear that America should not rely on imports to meet its growing demand for seafood. Interference
with international supplies can occur for a variety of reasons, including political, economic, bureaucratic, and food safety concerns.
Domestic marine aquaculture, particularly sustainable commercial farming in the

EEZ, is one means to provide significant increases in supply. However, the fledgling
offshore industry and potential investors in it are languishing because of
government indecision and the uncertainties of the political

process. This situation prevails despite the very pertinent policy and planning for marine aquaculture already completed
and adopted by the NOAA as well as candidate legislation introduced in the Congress by the previous administration and members
to implement expanded development and a permitting and leasing program for the EEZ. These efforts stalled in large part because
of concerns expressed by certain environmental and consumer advocacy groups. Open ocean aquaculture has its steadfast
detractors in the nongovemmental organization community. Ho ever, I believe that both the recent scientific research and the realworld farming experience in Hawaii, in the United States, and elsewhere, when accurately analyzed, clearly indicate that commercial
farms can be properly sited, monitored, and managed with minimal or no impacts. What lessons can be taken away from this brief
Hawaii
offers a model permitting and leasing process that should be studied to help
develop a national process for enabling commercial aquaculture development in fed
eral waters. Facilitating development of large- scale, commercial-scale
demonstration projects in a timely manner can provide additional real-world data
from which siting criteria and standards can be better addressed , formulated, and
fine tuned. To do so, the United States needs to rapidly develop a
review of the Hawaii offshore aquaculture experience and progress nationally? There are several I want to emphasize:
permitting and leasing process to allow the siting, operation, and

monitoring and oversight of commercial firms in the EEZ. Federal
funding for increased ma rine aquaculture research and de velopmcnt is needed to

move the industry forward. A regional ap proach to funding is suggested with the diverse potentials available for
marine aquaculture. The R&D focus should be on technological constraints to offshore aquaculture and improving farm economic
performance rather than on environ mental questions, where extensive data and understanding already exist and which can be
better studied with operating farms. If increased federal R&D funding is not avail able, then private sector investment should be
facilitated. Tackling the expansion of marine aquaculture technology into the EEZ must be a multidisciplinary team effort, with
collaboration and cooperation among government, university, and private sector exper tise. In addition, the siting process should
let us
not reinvent the wheel and spend a great deal of time considering new policy lan
guage, plans, and actions. The previous NOAA planning efforts and the
comprehensive, long-term research agenda already developed with the involvement
of industry provide an excellent foundation for moving forward. The ground work
has been laid to rapidly decide on a new policy that leads to a re vitalized , new
course of action for U.S. marine aquaculture development and commercial farming
of the EEZ. The bottom line for expanding commercial marine farming is that there will be a learning curve. We have seen this
include ample opportunity for stakeholder input to discuss and resolve issues before a farm be gins operation. Lastly,
in Hawaii, and we know it occurs with all new technolo gies. Helping ensure the long-term stability of U.S. seafood supplies by
greater domestic marine aquaculture production is a priority issue for the economy and the health and well being of the American
people. Everyone involved with producing, distributing, selling, and consuming seafood, the majority of the U.S. population, should
Putting in place a positive NOAA

policy now, one that facilitates meaningful progress, will allow marine aquaculture
to grow and the private sector to begin farming the EEZ . An effective national policy
followed by significant ac tion and investment can rapidly move U.S. open
be concerned that supplies are going to be adequate in the next 10 to 20 years.
ocean aquaculture up the learning curve to a global leadership

position.
A2: No Tech
No barriers besides will
Price and Morris 13 researchers @ Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research
Carol Seals and James A., Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first
Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry
[http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/detail.aspx?
resource=lS+q3d4eICvFWKFlXBYmz48uUqIGeFF871rIXjLV1/Y=]
The U.S. has everything required to develop a significant marine finfish
aquaculture industry in coastal and open ocean waters including excellent locations,
scientific expertise, state-ofthe- art technology, innovative equipment and feed
manufacturers and willing investors. Globally, aquaculture produces about half of the seafood people
eat, but only 5% of U.S. seafood comes from domestic aquaculture. In the U.S., the aquaculture
industry has not developed due to an uncertain permit processes at the state and
federal levels, concerns about environmental effects and conflicting coastal uses. These factors contribute to
trade imbalance, export of innovative technology and loss of potential jobs.
Its feasible demonstration projects exist

Johns 13
FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION O F OFFSHORE

AQUACULTURE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 86 Pg. 681
[http://lawreview.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/slideshow/Johns-86-3-Final-PDF.pdf]
Ind ed, a number of U.S. aquaculturists are already experimenting with offshore
technology: four projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire involved open ocean designs that could be viable far offshore. 35 The University of New Hampshire
is currently working on technology that would allow species of mussels and scallops
to be grown in far offshore facilities using special net containers suspended from
floating rafts. 36 Kampachi Farms LLC (formerly Kona Blue Water Farms, or Kona
Blue), a Hawaii - based a quaculture company, has recently announced its first
successful harvest of fish grown in offshore waters using an innovative design that
allows an unanchored cage to drift in open - ocean currents from three to seventy five miles offshore. 37 The success of this project, the co m panys CEO noted,
demonstrates that we can grow fish in the open ocean with no negative impact on
pristine ocean ecosystems. 38 He continued, We must now apply ourselves to
responsibly scale up this industry. 39 Optimistic about the offs hore industrys
development, Kampachi Farms next plans to test its design in waters six miles
offshore where it can still move freely in currents while being close enough to shore
for easy delivery of supplies . 40
Economy
1AC Contention
Contention #___ is the Economy
Aquaculture key to the economy two internal links
The first internal link is trade aquaculture mitigates the
deficit, but fed action key to streamline funding
Rubin et al. 14
Aquaculture research and development is a growing sector of agriculture that
offers alternative farming in a variety of aquatic environments In 2012. U.S. consumers spent an
estimated $82.6 Billion on seafood, making the nation one of the top three
seafood markets worldwide . Yet the domestic farm gate value of aquaculture products
only approaches $1.3 billion annually. Thus, much of the U.S. demand is
supplied by international imports . Current aquaculture productivity in the Nation is
driven by annual Federal investments in research

and development of approximately $100 million Advancing and
expanding this sector will provide the domestic production of greater seafood
products and economic opportunities for the United States The following National
Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research seeks to advance aquaculture research and
development to provide more domestic production of seafood products and
increase economic opportunities through aquaculture in the United States.
Sustained trade deficit collapses the economy and

manufacturing spurs unemployment and encourages offshoring
Moreland 14
{James, syndicated economic columnist, U.S. Trade Deficit Fosters

Unemployment, Americas Economic Report, 2/2,
http://economyincrisis.org/content/lack-jobs-due-our-massive-trade-deficit#THUR}
it is
actually Americas trade deficit that is the root of many of
our problems . The U.S. is still millions of jobs behind where it was when the
While many politicians blame the lack of jobs on the federal budget deficit,
Great Recession started. The economy has been unable to create jobs due to
Americas massive trade deficit caused by our failed economic policy. Since 1975,
the U.S. has imported more goods than it has exported. In 2010 alone, the U.S. had
a deficit of $478 billion in global trade. A large portion of this was oil imports, but
consumer goods are another area in which the U.S. imports virtually
everything. Trade policy that encourages businesses to relocate
production of goods to other nations without penalizing them for selling those goods
back to this nation has resulted in millions of lost jobs . White House estimates
show that for every $1 billion in goods exported, the economy creates 5,000 jobs.
Unfortunately, that street goes both ways data from the Economic Policy Institute
shows that for every $1 billion in goods imported, the economy loses 9,000 jobs .
Making it possible for American businesses to sell products to the American people
would open up a market long denied to them. This would help create
American jobs and help protect our national security (the decline of
American manufacturing has forced the military to increasingly rely on foreign
suppliers ).
In addition to hurting the economy, manufacturing collapse

crushes the dollar and hegemony
Thompson 9 (Loren B., Ph.D. and Chief Operating Officer Lexington Institute,
Reversing Industrial Decline: A Role for the Defense Budget, 8-19,
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/reversing-industrial-decline-a-role-for-the-defensebudget)
the U nited S tates is losing its edge in
manufacturing to other nations. Over the last 30 years, manufacturing has fallen from a quarter
After dominating global industrial activity for a century,
to an eighth of the domestic economy, while the share of manufactured goods consumed in America but produced
by foreigners has risen from a tenth to a third. The decline of U.S. manufacturing is reflected in record
merchandise trade deficits, the loss of over 40,000 manufacturing jobs every month in the current
decade, and the shrinking role of American producers in global industries such as electronics, steel,
autos, chemicals and shipbuilding. U.S. manufacturers continue to generate over 20 percent of global industrial
output and have increased productivity by a third in this decade, but if current trends continue America will cease to
be the biggest manufacturing nation in the near future. Many factors have contributed to the slippage in U.S.
standing, including high corporate taxes, burdensome regulations, globalization of the economy, and the efforts of
trading partners to protect their economies. Manufacturers frequently cite the failure of public schools to
adequately prepare students for jobs in modern manufacturing. However, the nations declining industrial
competitiveness appears to be caused mainly by problems outside the educational system and scientific
community. If the erosion of U.S. manufacturing persists, America will become more dependent
on offshore sources of goods and the nations trade balance will weaken. That will
undercut the role of the dollar as a reserve currency and diminish
U.S. influence around the world . The economy will be less capable of
supporting major military campaigns and less resilient in the face of market
reverses. Most profoundly, America will become poorer relative to other nations, a trend that the National
Intelligence Council says is already under way in its most recent assessment of global trends.
Dollar collapse causes nuclear war

Porter 6 (Dave , Director of Business Development-Structures at General
Dynamics, Oregon Steel, Blue Oregon, 12-8,
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/12/ff_oregon_steel.html)
There could be a soft landing or a domestic and international disaster. As Clyde Prestowitz in "Three Billion New
Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East" writes: "The nightmare scenario - an economic 9/11 - is
a sudden, massive sell-off of dollars; a world financial panic whose trigger might be as minor, relatively speaking, as
the assassination of a second-rate archduke in a third-rate European city. A collapse of the dollar and its
consequent abandonment as the world's reserve currency
would create a
deep recession in the
U nited S tates. Gas and fuel prices would soar , anything imported would suddenly
become much more expensive, interest rates would jump , as would unemployment. The
"stagflation" of the 1970's - slow growth and high unemployment combined with double-digit interest rates-would
look like a walk in the park. And since the United States is at present the world's only major net importer, all of the
exporters that depend on it for their economic stability would suffer severely as well. It's the thought of
these consequences that make the big dollar holders so nervous, and makes them, for now, hold on to their excess
dollars." Our economy has been totally mismanged and it's scary. And beyond the worldwide economic ruin,
international cooperation would break down and wars would erupt. Peoples around the world would be so
vulnerable and angry that they would blame and envy their neighbors. I am particularly concerned about
China-US relations during the rest of the 21st century. Both countries would be under
severe stress in such a scenario. Nuclear exchanges would not be impossible . As I
have argued in our proposal "Developing the China Connection through Educational Programs," we need to give our
children the skills to get through such a crisis.
Heg collapse spurs global nuclear war too

Brooks 13 Stephen G., Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth
College, G. John ikenberry, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International
Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University
in Seoul and William C. Wohlforth, Professor of Government at Dartmouth College,
Lean Forward, Foreign Affairs, January / February, 92(1)
advocates of retrenchment overstate the costs of the current grand strategy and
understate its benefits. In fact, the budgetary savings of lowering the United States' international profile are debatable,
and there is little evidence to suggest that an internationally engaged America provokes other
countries to balance against it, becomes overextended, or gets dragged into unnecessary wars. The
benefits of deep engagement, on the other hand, are legion. U.S. security
commitments reduce competition in key regions and act as a check
against potential rivals . They help maintain an open world economy and
give Washington leverage in economic negotiations. And they make it easier for the
U nited S tates to secure cooperation for combating a wide range of global threats .
Were the U nited S tates to cede its global leadership role, it would forgo these proven upsides while
exposing itself to the unprecedented downsides of a world in which the country was less secure, prosperous, and influential. AN
They are wrong. In making their case,
AFFORDABLE STRATEGY Many advocates of retrenchment consider the United States' assertive global posture simply too expensive. The international relations scholar Christopher
Layne, for example, has warned of the country's "ballooning budget deficits" and argued that "its strategic commitments exceed the resources
available to support them." Calculating the savings of switching grand strategies, however, is not so simple, because it depends on the expenditures the current strategy demands and
the amount required for its replacement--numbers that are hard to pin down. If the United States revoked all its security guarantees, brought home all its troops, shrank every branch of
the military, and slashed its nuclear arsenal, it would save around $900 billion over ten years, according to Benjamin Friedman and Justin Logan of the Cato Institute. But few advocates
"offshore balancing" strategy, or an "over the horizon" military posture.

savings these approaches would yield are less clear, since they depend on which security commitments Washington would abandon outright and how much
it would cost to keep the remaining ones. If retrenchment simply meant shipping foreign-based U.S. forces back to the United States, then the savings would be
modest at best , since the countries hosting U.S. forces usually cover a large portion of
the basing costs. And if it meant maintaining a major expeditionary capacity, then any savings would again be small, since the Pentagon would still have to pay for the
of retrenchment endorse such a radical reduction; instead, most call for "restraint," an
The
expensive weaponry and equipment required for projecting power abroad. The other side of the cost equation, the price of continued engagement, is also in flux. Although the fat
high levels of spending aren't needed to

maintain an engaged global posture. Spending skyrocketed after 9/11, but it has already begun to
fall back to earth as the United States winds down its two costly wars and trims its base level of nonwar spending. As of the fall of 2012, the Defense Department was planning for
defense budgets of the past decade make an easy target for advocates of retrenchment, such
cuts of just under $500 billion over the next five years, which it maintains will not compromise national security. These reductions would lower military spending to a little less than three
percent of GDP by 2017, from its current level of 4.5 percent. The Pentagon could save even more with no ill effects by reforming its procurement practices and compensation policies.
Even without major budget cuts, however, the country can afford the costs of its ambitious grand strategy. The significant increases in military spending proposed by Mitt Romney, the
Republican candidate, during the 2012 presidential campaign would still have kept military spending below its current share of GDP, since spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
would still have gone down and Romney s proposed nonwar spending levels would not have kept pace with economic growth. Small wonder, then, that the case for pulling back rests
One such alleged cost of the current grand strategy is that, in the
words of the political scientist Barry Posen, it "prompts states to balance against U.S. power however they can." Yet there is no
evidence that countries have banded together in anti-American alliances or tried to
match the U nited S tates' military capacity on their own-- or that they will do so in the
future. Indeed, it's hard to see how the current grand strategy could generate true
counterbalancing. Unlike past hegemons, the U nited S tates is geographically isolated, which means that it
is far less threatening to other major states and that it faces no contiguous great-power rivals that could
step up to the task of balancing against it. Moreover, any competitor would have a hard time matching the U.S.
military. Not only is the United States so far ahead militarily in both quantitative and qualitative terms, but its security guarantees also give it the
leverage to prevent allies from giving military technology to potential U.S. rivals. Because the
more on the nonmonetary costs that the current strategy supposedly incurs. UNBALANCED
United States dominates the high-end defense industry, it can trade access to its defense market for allies' agreement not to transfer key military technologies to its competitors. The
embargo that the United States has convinced the EU to maintain on military sales to China since 1989 is a case in point. If U.S. global leadership were prompting balancing, then one
since
the Soviet Union collapsed, no major powers have tried to balance against the U nited
S tates by seeking to match its military might or by assembling a formidable alliance; the prospect is simply too daunting.
Instead, they have resorted to what scholars call "soft balancing," using international institutions and norms to constrain
Washington. Setting aside the fact that soft balancing is a slippery concept and difficult to distinguish from everyday
diplomatic competition, it is wrong to say that the practice only harms the United States. Arguably, as the global leader, the U nited S tates
benefits from employing soft-balancing-style leverage more than any other country. After all, today's rules and institutions came about under its
would expect actual examples of pushback--especially during the administration of George W. Bush, who pursued a foreign policy that seemed particularly unilateral. Yet
auspices and largely reflect its interests, and so they are in fact tailor-made for soft balancing by the United States itself. In 2011, for example, Washington coordinated action with
Another argument for

retrenchment holds that the U nited S tates will fall prey to the same fate as past hegemons and accelerate its own decline . In order to
several Southeast Asian states to oppose Beijing's claims in the South China Sea by pointing to established international law and norms.
keep its ambitious strategy in place, the logic goes, the country will have to divert resources away from more productive purposes--infrastructure, education, scientific research, and so
on--that are necessary to keep its economy competitive. Allies, meanwhile, can get away with lower military expenditures and grow faster than they otherwise would. The
historical evidence for this phenomenon is thin; for the most part, past superpowers lost their leadership not
because they pursued hegemony but because other major powers balanced against them--a prospect that is not in
the cards today. (If anything, leading states can use their position to stave off their decline.) A bigger problem with the warnings against "imperial
overstretch" is that there is no reason to believe that the pursuit of global leadership saps
economic growth. Instead, most studies by economists find no clear relationship
between military expenditures and economic decline . To be sure, if the United States were a dramatic outlier and spent
around A quarter of its GDP on defense, as the Soviet Union did in its last decades, its growth and competitiveness would suffer. But in 2012, even as it fought a war in Afghanistan and
conducted counterterrorism operations around the globe, Washington spent just 4.5 percent of GDP on defense--a relatively small fraction, historically speaking. (From 1950 to 1990, that
figure averaged 7.6 percent.) Recent economic difficulties might prompt Washington to reevaluate its defense budgets and international commitments, but that does not mean that
any money freed up from dropping global commitments would

not necessarily be spent in ways that would help the U.S. economy. Likewise, U.S. allies' economic
those policies caused the downturn. And
growth rates have nothing to do with any security subsidies they receive from Washington. The contention that lower military expenditures facilitated the rise of Japan, West Germany,
and other countries dependent on U.S. defense guarantees may have seemed plausible during the last bout of declinist anxiety, in the 1980s. But these states eventually stopped
climbing up the global economic ranks as their per capita wealth approached U.S. levels--just as standard models of economic growth would predict. Over the past 20 years, the United
States has maintained its lead in per capita GDP over its European allies and Japan, even as those countries' defense efforts have fallen further behind. Their failure to modernize their
militaries has only served to entrench the United States' dominance. LED NOT INTO TEMPTATION The costs of U.S. foreign policy that matter most, of course, are human lives, and
critics of an expansive grand strategy worry that the U nited S tates might get dragged into unnecessary wars .
Securing smaller allies, they argue, emboldens those states to take risks they would not otherwise accept, pulling the superpower sponsor into costly conflicts--a classic moral hazard
problem. Concerned about the reputational costs of failing to honor the country's alliance commitments, U.S. leaders might go to war even when no national interests are at stake.
History shows, however, that great powers anticipate the danger of entrapment and
structure their agreements to protect themselves from it. It is nearly impossible
to find a clear case of a smaller power luring a reluctant great power into war . For decades,
World War I served as the canonical example of entangling alliances supposedly drawing great powers into a fight, but an
outpouring of new historical research has overturned the conventional wisdom, revealing
that the war was more the result of a conscious decision on Germany's part to try to dominate Europe than a
case of alliance entrapment . If anything, alliances reduce the risk of getting pulled into a
conflict. In East Asia , the regional security agreements that Washington struck after World War II were designed, in the
words of the political scientist Victor Cha, to " constrain anticommunist allies in the region that might engage in aggressive
behavior against adversaries that could entrap the U nited S tates in an unwanted larger war." The
same logic is now at play in the U.S. Taiwan ese relationship. After cross-strait tensions flared in the 1990s and the first decade of this
century, U.S. officials grew concerned that their ambiguous support for Taiwan might expose them to the risk of entrapment. So the Bush administration adjusted its policy, clarifying that
its goal was to not only deter China from an unprovoked attack but also deter Taiwan from unilateral moves toward independence. For many advocates of retrenchment, the problem is
that the mere possession of globe-girdling military capabilities supposedly inflates policymakers' conception of the national interest, so much so that every foreign problem begins to
look like America's to solve. Critics also argue that the country's military superiority causes it to seek total solutions to security problems, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, that could be dealt
with in less costly ways. Only a country that possessed such awesome military power and faced no serious geopolitical rival would fail to be satisfied with partial fixes, such as
containment, and instead embark on wild schemes of democracy building, the argument goes. Furthermore, they contend, the United States' outsized military creates a sense of
obligation to do something with it even when no U.S. interests are at stake. As Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, famously asked Colin Powell, then chairman of
If the
U.S. military scrapped its forces and shuttered its bases, then the country would no doubt eliminate the risk of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when debating intervention in Bosnia in 1993, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
entering needless wars, having tied itself to the mast like Ulysses. But if it instead merely moved its forces over the horizon, as is more commonly proposed by advocates of
retrenchment, whatever
temptations there were to intervene would not disappear . The bigger problem with the idea
that a forward posture distorts conceptions of the national interest, however, is that it rests on just one case: Iraq. That war is an outlier in terms of both its high costs (it accounts for
some two-thirds of the casualties and budget costs of all U.S. wars since 1990) and the degree to which the United States shouldered them alone. In the Persian Gulf War and the
interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya, U.S. allies bore more of the burden, controlling for the size of their economies and populations. Besides, the Iraq war was not an
inevitable consequence of pursuing the United States' existing grand strategy; many scholars and policymakers who prefer an engaged America strongly opposed the war. Likewise,
continuing the current grand strategy in no way condemns the U nited S tates to more wars
like it. Consider how the country, after it lost in Vietnam, waged the rest of the Cold War with proxies and highly limited interventions. Iraq has generated a similar reluctance to
undertake large expeditionary operations--what the political scientist John Mueller has dubbed "the Iraq syndrome." Those contending that the United States' grand strategy ineluctably
leads the country into temptation need to present much more evidence before their case can be convincing. KEEPING THE PEACE Of course, even if it is true that the costs of deep
engagement fall far below what advocates of retrenchment claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do. The most obvious benefit of the
current strategy is that it reduces the risk of a dangerous conflict. The United States' security
commitments deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from
contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to solve security
problems on their own in ways that would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this
benefit by arguing that U.S. security guarantees aren't necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high costs of territorial conquest and the many
tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers could peacefully manage regional multipolarity without the
If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South

Korea would likely expand their military capabilities and go nuclear , which could
provoke a destabilizing reaction from China . It's worth noting that during the Cold War,
both South Korea and Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that
stopped them was the U nited S tates, which used its security commitments to restrain their
nuclear temptations. Similarly, were the U nited S tates to leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by
Washington--notably, Israel , Egypt , and Saudi Arabia --might act in ways that would intensify the
region's security dilemmas. There would even be reason to worry about Europe .
Although it's hard to imagine the return of great-power military competition in a post-American Europe, it's not difficult to foresee
governments there refusing to pay the budgetary costs of higher military outlays and the political costs of
increasing EU defense cooperation. The result might be a continent incapable of securing itself from
threats on its periphery, unable to join foreign interventions on which U.S. leaders might want European help, and vulnerable
to the influence of outside rising powers. Given how easily a U.S. withdrawal from key regions
could lead to dangerous competition , advocates of retrenchment tend to put forth another argument: that such rivalries wouldn't
American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine.
actually hurt the United States. To be sure, few doubt that the United States could survive the return of conflict among powers in Asia or the Middle East--but at what cost? Were
states in one or both of these regions to start competing against one another, they would likely boost their military budgets, arm
client states, and perhaps even start regional proxy wars , all of which should concern the United States, in part because its
lead in military capabilities would narrow. Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of
nuclear proliferation as powers such as Egypt , Saudi Arabia , Japan ,
South Korea , and Taiwan built nuclear forces of their own. Those countries'
regional competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although nuclear deterrence
can promote stability between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the Soviet Union and the United States possessed, things get
shakier when there are multiple nuclear rivals with less robust arsenals .
As the number of nuclear powers increases, the probability of illicit transfers ,
irrational decisions , accidents , and unforeseen crises goes up. The case for
abandoning the United States' global role misses the underlying security logic of the current approach. By reassuring allies and actively
managing regional relations, Washington dampens competition in the world s key
areas, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse in which countries would
grow new military capabilities. For proof that this strategy is working , one need look no
further than the defense budgets of the current great powers: on average, since 1991 they have kept their
military expenditures as A percentage of GDP to historic lows, and they have not attempted to match the U nited S tates' top-end
military capabilities. Moreover, all of the world's most modern militaries are U.S. allies, and the United States' military lead over its potential rivals .is by many measures growing. On top
grand strategy acts as a hedge against the emergence regional hegemons.

Some supporters of retrenchment argue that the U.S. military should keep its forces over the horizon and
pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing rising regional powers. Washington, they contend, should deploy forces
abroad only when a truly credible contender for regional hegemony arises, as in the cases of Germany and Japan during World War II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet
there is already a potential contender for regional hegemony--China--and to balance it,
the U nited S tates will need to maintain its key alliances in Asia and the military capacity
to intervene there. The implication is that the U nited S tates should get out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, reduce its military presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia. Yet that is exactly what
the Obama administration is doing. MILITARY DOMINANCE, ECONOMIC PREEMINENCE Preoccupied with security issues, critics of the current grand strategy
miss one of its most important benefits: sustaining an open global economy and a favorable
of all this, the current
place for the United States within it. To be sure, the sheer size of its output would guarantee the United States a major role in the global economy whatever grand strategy it adopted. Yet
the country's military dominance undergirds its economic leadership . In

addition to protecting the world economy from instability , its military
commitments and naval superiority help secure the sea-lanes and other
shipping corridors that allow trade to flow freely and cheaply . Were
the U nited S tates to pull back from the world, the task of securing the global commons would
get much harder. Washington would have less leverage with which it could convince countries to cooperate on
economic matters and less access to the military bases throughout the world needed to keep the seas open. A global role also lets the United States
structure the world economy in ways that serve its particular economic interests. During the Cold War, Washington used its overseas security commitments to get allies to embrace the
economic policies it preferred--convincing West Germany in the 1960s, for example, to take costly steps to support the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. U.S. defense agreements work
the same way today. For example, when negotiating the 2011 free-trade agreement with South Korea, U.S. officials took advantage of Seoul's desire to use the agreement as a means of
tightening its security relations with Washington. As one diplomat explained to us privately, "We asked for changes in labor and environment clauses, in auto clauses, and the Koreans
took it all." Why? Because they feared a failed agreement would be "a setback to the political and security relationship." More broadly, the United States wields its security leverage to
shape the overall structure of the global economy. Much of what the United States wants from the economic order is more of the same: for instance, it likes the current structure of the
World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund and prefers that free trade continue. Washington wins when U.S. allies favor this status quo, and one reason they are
inclined to support the existing system is because they value their military alliances. Japan, to name one example, has shown interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama
administration's most important free-trade initiative in the region, less because its economic interests compel it to do so than because Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda believes that his
geopolitical dominance also helps keep the U.S.

dollar in place as the world's reserve currency, which confers enormous benefits on
the country, such as a greater ability to borrow money . This is perhaps clearest with Europe: the EU'S dependence on
support will strengthen Japan's security ties with the United States. The United States'
the United States for its security precludes the EU from having the kind of political leverage to support the euro that the United States has with the dollar. As with other aspects of the
Shirking that responsibility would

place those benefits at risk. CREATING COOPERATION What goes for the global economy goes for
other forms of international cooperation . Here, too, American leadership benefits many countries but
disproportionately helps the U nited S tates. In order to counter transnational threats ,
such as terrorism , piracy , organized crime , climate change , and
pandemics , states have to work together and take collective action. But
cooperation does not come about effortlessly, especially when national interests diverge. The United States' military
efforts to promote stability and its broader leadership make it easier for Washington to launch
joint initiatives and shape them in ways that reflect U.S. interests . After all, cooperation is hard to come by
in regions where chaos reigns, and it flourishes where leaders can anticipate lasting stability. U.S. alliances are about security first, but they also provide the
political framework and channels of communication for cooperation on nonmilitary
issues. NATO, for example, has spawned new institutions, such as the Atlantic Council, a think tank, that make it easier for Americans and Europeans to talk to one another and do
global economy, the United States does not provide its leadership for free: it extracts disproportionate gains.
business. Likewise, consultations with allies in East Asia spill over into other policy issues; for example, when American diplomats travel to Seoul to manage the military alliance, they
also end up discussing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Thanks to conduits such as this, the United States can use bargaining chips in one issue area to make progress in others. The
benefits of these communication channels are especially pronounced when it comes to fighting the kinds of threats that
require new forms of cooperation, such as terrorism and pandemics . With its alliance system in place, the United States is in a stronger position than it
would otherwise be to advance cooperation and share burdens. For example, the intelligence-sharing network within NATO, which was originally designed to gather information on the
Soviet Union, has been adapted to deal with terrorism. Similarly, after a tsunami in the Indian Ocean devastated surrounding countries in 2004, Washington had a much easier time
orchestrating a fast humanitarian response with Australia, India, and Japan, since their militaries were already comfortable working with one another. The operation did wonders for the
United States' image in the region. The United States' global role also has the more direct effect of facilitating the bargains among governments that get cooperation going in the first
place. As the scholar Joseph Nye has written, "The American military role in deterring threats to allies, or of assuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in the Persian Gulf, means
that the provision of protective force can be used in bargaining situations. Sometimes the linkage may be direct; more often it is a factor not mentioned openly but present in the back of
statesmen's minds." THE DEVIL WE KNOW Should America come home? For many prominent scholars of international relations, the answer is yes--a view that seems even wiser in the
There is little evidence that the U nited S tates

would save much money switching to a smaller global posture . Nor is the current strategy
self-defeating: it has not provoked the formation of counterbalancing coalitions or caused the country to spend itself into economic
decline. Nor will it condemn the U nited S tates to foolhardy wars in the future. What the strategy does do is
wake of the disaster in Iraq and the Great Recession. Yet their arguments simply don't hold up.
prevent the outbreak of conflict in the world's most important regions, keep
the global economy humming, and make international cooperation easier.
Charting a different course would threaten all these benefits . This is not to say that the United States' current foreign policy
help
can't be adapted to new circumstances and challenges. Washington does not need to retain every commitment at all costs, and there is nothing wrong with rejiggering its strategy in
response to new opportunities or setbacks. That is what the Nixon administration did by winding down the Vietnam War and increasing the United States' reliance on regional partners to
contain Soviet power, and it is what the Obama administration has been doing after the Iraq war by pivoting to Asia. These episodes of rebalancing belie the argument that a powerful
and internationally engaged America cannot tailor its policies to a changing world. A grand strategy of actively managing global security and promoting the liberal economic order has
served the United States exceptionally well for the past six decades, and there is no reason to give it up now. The country's globe-spanning posture is the devil we know, and a world with
a disengaged America is the devil we don't know. Were American leaders to choose retrenchment, they would in essence be running a massive experiment to test how the world would
work without an engaged and liberal leading power.
The results could well be disastrous .
The second internal link is economic growth Aquaculture

industry feasible and ready to boom but requires federal
action That sector is vital for all aspects of the marine
economy
-Bump seafood
-Provide jobs
-Spur R and D economic boosters
-General fishing
-Gives cheap products to pharma and manufacturing
-Aids tourism industry
Rubin et al. 14
Globally, aquaculture has evolved dramatically since Federal legislation was first enacted in 1980 and 198521. While wild fish harvests have stabilized,
aquaculture has driven growth of the seafood sector, influenced product

diversity, and addressed both economic development and environmental conservation goals in aquatic
ecosystems. The sector is driven by knowledge and technology and continues to innovate and
adapt to societal needs for nutritious food, jobs, species enhancement, and species and habitat restoration. Several factors
and new trends may drive an increase in U.S. commercial aquaculture production. The
U.S. has bountiful freshwater and marine natural resources, plentiful feed grains, world class
aquaculture research infrastructures, and scientists, pioneers, and entrepreneurs to drive
innovation. The seafood supply chain ranges from farmers and fishermen to upstream and downstream industries (feed and equipment
manufacturing, harvesting processing, distribution, and retail outlets) to consumers. The United States is now among the
three largest seafood markets in the world. Aquaculture is becoming an
increasingly integral source of safe, sustainable seafood for consumers worldwide as supplies from wildcapture fisheries remain flat. In 2011, U.S. consumer seafood expenditures were $57 billion in food service and $27.6 billion in retail sales for home
consumption.22 The top 10 species presently consumed domestically represent about 90 percent of the total U.S. seafood consumption; six of these
species come from farmed or a mix of farmed and wild sources, including shrimp, salmon, and tilapia. The United States and other countries are currently
working to rebuild wild stocks of seafood. But, even if habitats are restored and well-managed wild stocks contribute more to the world supply of seafood,
experts note that most of the future increase in seafood production will come from
aquaculture.23 Increases in demand for aquaculture products, food security
considerations, and job creation highlight the need for increased
domestic development . Demand for seafood in the United States may grow as a result
of a growing population and increased consumer awareness of seafoods health benefits
(as long as demand is not dampened by higher seafood prices). The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 24 published by the Departments of
Agriculture and Health and Human Services, recommends that Americans double their current consumption of seafood from a wide range of species as a
Future supplies of seafood for U.S. consumers will largely come from a combination of
increased domestic aquaculture production and imported aquaculture products. As
the growing middle class in many emerging economies consumes more seafood,
competition for quality seafood products will increase and these products may cost more,
healthy food choice.
impacting seafood-dependent businesses and consumers . The growing global

Although current U.S. aquaculture
production largely comprises fish and shellfish, the cultivation of marine algae is showing
promise as a source of food, animal feed, cosmetics, health, biofuels, and other industrial products. Commercial aquaculture
also produces baitfish and hatchery stock for recreational and commercial fishing, ornamental fish and other
products for the aquarium trade, alligator and other species for leather goods, and various products and co-products for
pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and industrial uses. Despite these global and
national trends that may drive an increase in U.S. aquaculture production, the
United States today is a minor producer , supplying only about 5 percent of the
seafood consumed domestically.26 The Nation is increasingly dependent on imports to meet seafood demand. In fact, 80 to 90
demand for seafood also presents an export opportunity for U.S. producers.25
percent (by value) of the seafood that Americans eat is imported, creating a seafood trade deficit nearing $11 billion in 2012. Approximately 50 percent of
this seafood is from aquaculture and 50 percent from capture fisheries. 26 Compared with U.S. manufacturing, agriculture, and fisheries,
commercial aquaculture is relatively small and at an early stage of
development . The annual farm gate sales of private domestic aquaculture production approached $1.3 billion in 2010.27
Aquaculture also supports commercial and recreational fisheries and fisheries
restoration. Private and public salmon hatcheries release juvenile fish that are later caught in capture fisheries
and supply about 40 percent of the commercial catch of salmon around Alaska and more
than 80 percent of catches off the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts. These hatcheries use fish culture
during the critical early life rearing stage before releasing juvenile fish into the natural environment for stock enhancement and restoration programs. In
2006, more than 40 million licensed anglers generated over $46 billion in retail sales with a $115
billion impact on the Nations economy, creating employment for more than
828,000 people and stimulating local businesses .28 Many of these anglers,
and the resultant economic benefits, depend on aquaculture for these hatchery
reared and released fish. A recent economic study 29 estimated that the economic contribution
of the private, recreation-based aquaculture industry in the western region of the United States is $1.9
billion annually, and supports 26,229 full-time jobs . The top trout hatcheries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
produced fish that generated more than 3.9 million angler days, directly supporting more than 3,500 jobs with $325 million in total economic benefits to
local economies.30 The 123 million fish (all species) stocked by the National Fish Hatchery System generated more than 13 million angler days in 2006.31
States in the Gulf of Mexico region have proposed new hatcheries to supplement
recreational and commercial species and to restore species affected by the Deep
Water Horizon oil spill. Hatchery stocks are also used to help restore Atlantic salmon
in Maine, Pacific salmon and abalone on the West Coast, and native oysters and aquatic plants (marsh grasses)
around the country.
It may seem small, but that marine sector is key to the US

economy weak fishing sector is holding it down now
Narula 3/21 editorial fellow at The Atlantic (Americas OceanPowered Economy 3/21/14,
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/americas-oceanpowered-economy/284516/)
The area of the sea within an invisible border 200 miles out from every U.S. shore isn't called the "exclusive
The fact that

every nation with a coast also has an EEZwhich extends far beyond a country's
"territorial" watersreflects the importance of the ocean as a source of wealth . But
economic zone" for nothing: Countries have property rights at sea just as they do on land.
when it comes to analyzing our economy, we hardly ever single out the activity in the EEZ as a special slice of
national employment or productivity. The National Ocean Economics Program, which started at MIT and is now
based at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, is home to a group of academics who would like to change
that. NOEP has been tracking economic activity in U.S. coastal zones (both on and offshore) since 1999. It released
the first comprehensive report on the American maritime economy in 2009, covering time-series data through
2005. This month NOEP published a new analysis of the ocean economy with data from 2007-2012. Seafood
harvesting accounts for fewer jobs and less money in this country than ever before. Among the findings from this
report: The number of Americans going on cruises has grown by more than a third since 2000; Louisiana residents
say they are willing to pay thousands of dollars to restore their disappearing wetlands; and seafood harvesting
accounts for fewer jobs and less money in this country than ever before. Unlike what NOEP calls "the coastal
economy," which is defined solely by geography (and is also pretty much a reflection of the national economy as a
the ocean economy represents a range of goods produced and services

performed all over the country. It includes 21 industries in six sectors. Certain
industries, like commercial fishing, obviously depend on the sea and are wholly
included. But only portions of other industries qualify; the tourism & recreation sector, especially, is full of these
whole),
cases: There are many luxury hotels in America, for example, but only the ones in shore-adjacent zip codes can be
said to depend on the sea. Here, below, are 7 more big-picture things to know about the ocean's ties to American
jobs, money, and well-being. Most of the values are reported in 2005 dollars. 1. In 2010, the ocean economy
employed about 2.8 million people and produced $258 billion worth of goods and services .
But, according to
NOEP, an additional 2.6 million jobs and $375 billion were indirectly associated with
or induced by ocean industries. Taking this multiplier effect into account, NOEP says
that the ocean economy contributes roughly 4.4 percent of total U.S. GDP. That's
not huge, but it is more than America's creative industries (recently estimated to
contribute 3.2 percent of U.S. GDP) or agriculture. 2. Its two pillars are the mineral
extraction and tourism & recreation sectors. It's not really surprising that these are
the two most productive sectors of the ocean economy. The minerals sector
includes offshore drilling and exploration of oil and natural gasa business that,
catastrophic explosions and spills notwithstanding , is booming. And there remains a
solid American tradition of flocking to the seashore for vacations. But these two sectors
dominate the ocean economy in different ways. Nearly three out of every four ocean economy jobs are in tourism &
recreation, but 65 percent of the ocean economy's GDP comes from other sectors. The workers in the minerals
sector, who account for only 5 percent of ocean-related employment, contribute over six times that to the total
ocean-related GDP. In 2011, reports NOAA, the minerals sector actually surpassed tourism & recreation on the GDP
measureaccounting for 37 percent of the ocean economy's productivity. Tourism & recreation is a service-oriented
sector; the minerals sector is about producing high-value goods. The workers' wages reflect this. 3. But a third
sector is growing rapidly: marine transportation. This includes the deep sea freight, warehousing, navigational
equipment, marine transportation services, and marine passenger industries. The production of search and
navigation equipment contributes more to GDP than the other four industries in this sector. The freight industry is
becoming more productive with fewer workers (and a case in point here is the coming fleet of drone ships, as The
Atlantic's Megan Garber recently reported): the total value of freight coming through U.S. ports nearly doubled
between 2002 and 2012, while employment of people moving that freight dropped by 2.5 percent. Transportation of
cargo at seaencompassed by four out of five industries in this sectoris huge, but what's really growing is the
transportation of humans at sea. The cruise industry just keeps getting richer, and though it's a global industry, it's
dominated by the U.S. The number of global cruise ship passengers doubled between 2000 and 2010, and in 2010,
3 out of every 4 of those passengers embarked from a U.S. port. 4. People stopped buying boats during the
recession. Ship building in the U.S. primarily revolves around construction and maintenance of naval vessels. That
industry has had its ups and downs, but the boat builders, who serve fishermen and recreational boaters, were hit
particularly hard by the recession. Sales of recreational boats dropped by more than half in 2009-2010, and the
boat building industry lost more than half of its 2005 employment. 5. The fishing industry is of declining
importance, but it's also not accurately represented by the available data. The living-resources sector,
which includes fishing, seafood markets, and seafood processing, makes up only 2 percent of ocean economy GDP
This was the only sector that did not see employment growth between
2005 and 2008. U.S. fisheries are not as productive as they used to be, for various
reasons, but what's also happened is that many American jobs in this sector have
either been replaced by technology or sent overseas. For example, says NOEP
researcher Matthew Nichols, "Much of our shrimp used to be harvested by
Vietnamese-Americans in Louisiana. Ironically, they've been put out of a job
by shrimp farming (aquaculture) in Vietnam. " America imports a lot more seafood
and employment.
than it harvests. Another thing, though, is that the majority of commercial fishermen in America are technically selfemployed and thus left out of standard federal employment data. 6. Measuring GDP output, employment, and
wages doesn't tell us everything. The NOEP report devotes a full chapter to the emphasis of non-market data, which
can only be captured by individual studies. Wildlife viewing, surfing, snorkeling, diving, and recreational fishing are
popular leisure activities that attract millions of Americans to the ocean each year, but their economic effects are
not totally apparent. For example, the amount of money spent by tourists on fishing gear can be observed, but that
does not capture the full value of the fishing area as a tourist attractionwe have to know how much people would
be willing to pay to access the fishing area if such a charge existed. Non-market research has played a crucial, if
controversial, role in assessing the aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion. The federal Oil Pollution Act,
which was passed after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, actually dictates that companies are responsible for lost nonmarket values to society when an ecosystem is damaged. Check out this brief video from NOAA explaining the
Current efforts to understand

the U.S. ocean economy foreshadow the gradual recognition of the global ocean
economy. Roughly 15 countries explicitly track some measure of their ocean economies, but there are no
importance of non-market values when considering ocean resources: 7.
standardized accounting methods. NOEP researchers Jason Scorse and Matt Nichols point to a handful of trends that
Global growth in oceandependent industries like marine aquaculture , cargo shipping, and deep sea mining
is one thing, but countries are also starting to realize that climate-related
impacts to coastal regions intensifying hurricane seasons, sea level rise
"are pushing the world toward the need for standardized ocean accounts":
necessitate economic analysis for policy-making purposes.
US key to global economy collapse causes global stagnation

Caploe 9 (David-, CEO American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities
in Asia, April 7, Straits Times, Focus still on America to lead global recovery)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United
'The world has become

accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a
lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While
superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in fact
been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada,
Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that
sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but
the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan,
and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same
time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also
explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing,
logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic
crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other
engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US
does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US
policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to
the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration
seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and
States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown:
transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman
have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit
freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are
If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to

be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is
unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than
practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether
failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question:
in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the
engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped
that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a
poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real possibilities for growth
in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the
rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the
European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency
become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present.
Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous
advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this
history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold
currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this,
the US will remain the engine of global
economic recovery for the foreseeable future , even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis
began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
Economic decline causes global war

Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department
of Defense, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of
Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political
Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of
economic decline may increase the likelihood of external
conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that
rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As
such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power
(see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
(Feaver, 1995). Alternatively,
increasing the risk of miscalculation
even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a
permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner.
1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among
major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions
future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they
have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for
difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states
will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external
armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a s trong
correlat ion between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during
remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that '
periods of
economic downturn . They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
presence of a
recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been
linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004),
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.
"Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic
decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and
Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for

democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from
office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the
political science scholarship links economic decline

with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection
frequency of economic crises, whereas
between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
That escalates to extinction

Auslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond
Lachman Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy
Unravels, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
global
chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from
America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not
know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist
The threat of
instability is a pressing concern . China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just
reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced
upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year . A sustained downturn poses grave and
possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced
economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's
Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its
Far East as well as in downtown Moscow . Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil
liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression
inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is
likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict.
neighbors.
As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency
economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this
decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010;
Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is
Europe as a whole
will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from
haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.
poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five
million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2
A prolonged
global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these
countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic
and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders
actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that
coalesce into a big bang .
million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe.
Internals Growth A2: Aquaculture Insufficient

Aquaculture solves economic decline
Thierry Chopin, Professor in the Biology Department at the University of New
Brunswick in Saint John, 08/ 2006, Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture What it
is, and why you should care.. and dont confuse it with polyculture
http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/articles/files/Northern%20Aquaculture%20IMTA
%20July%2006.pdf
What is quite remarkable is that we are doing nothing more than recreating a simplified, cultivated ecosystem that is in balance with
its surroundings instead of introducing a biomass of a certain type we think we can cultivate in isolation of everything else.
Moreover,
IMTA goes beyond environmental sustainability; it provides economic

diversification and reduces economic risk when the appropriate species are chosen, and it
increases the acceptability of the overall aquaculture sector by using practices
evaluated as responsible by the industry , the regurendered by extractive biofiltering organisms (for example,
in Denmark, the cost of remediating one kilogram of nitrogen is estimated at 33). The introduction of a nutrient
tax, or its exemption through the implementation of bioremediative practices
(nutrient credits), would make the economic validity of the IMTA approach even
more obvious. Based solely on the value of the crops we are adding to our IMTA system, we have calculated that if 80% of
the salmon farms in New Brunswick are suitable for IMTA and two-thirds are in production at any one time, adding kelps and mussels
to the operations would generate CDN$44.6 million in extra revenues and create 207 jobs.
Impact Econ A2: No War

Perception alone causes global instability
Harold James 7/3/13 (Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton
University and Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence,
project syndicate, financial crisis and war http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/financial-crisis-and-war-by-haroldjames#6ObpMZcq3uXv7puL.99)
The approach of the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of World War I in 1914 has jolted politicians and commentators worried by the fragility of current global political and
economic arrangements. Indeed, Luxembourgs prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, recently argued that Europes growing north-south polarization has set the continent back by a
The lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national animosities. The
origins of the Great War include a fascinating precedent concerning how financial
century.
globalization can become the equivalent of a national arms race , thereby

increasing the vulnerability of the international order. In 1907, a major financial crisis
emanating from the United States affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the entire international financial system.
The response to the
current financial crisis is replaying a similar dynamic.
Walter Bagehots 1873 classic Lombard Street described the City of

London as the greatest combination of economic power and economic delicacy that the world has ever seen. In one influential interpretation, popularized by the novelist, Labour Party
MP, and future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Angell in 1910, the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But the opposite conclusion
was equally plausible: Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to the control levers might facilitate a military victory by the economic hegemon. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove
the hegemonic power of the time Great Britain to reflect on how it could use its financial clout to enhance its overall strategic capacity. That is the conclusion of an important recent
book, Nicholas Lamberts study of British economic planning and the First World War, entitled Planning Armageddon. Lambert demonstrates how, in a grand strategic gamble, Britain
began to marry its military and especially naval predominance and its global financial leadership. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty developed the broad outlines of a
plan for financial and economic warfare against Europes rising power, Germany. Economic warfare, if implemented in full, would wreck Germanys financial system and force it out of any
military conflict. When Britains naval visionaries confronted a rival in the form of the Kaisers Germany, they understood how power could thrive on financial fragility. Pre-1914 Britain
anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple, or Verizon to US intelligence agencies. London banks underwrote most of the worlds
trade; Lloyds provided insurance for the worlds shipping. These financial networks provided the information that enabled the British government to discover the sensitive strategic
vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 demonstrated the necessity of mobilizing financial power themselves. The US, for its part,
recognized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers were persuaded that New York needed to develop its own commercial trading system to
handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market and arrange their monetization (or acceptance). The central figure in pushing for the development of an American
acceptance market was Paul Warburg, the immigrant younger brother of a great Hamburg banker who was the personal adviser to Germanys Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Warburg brothers,
Max and Paul, were a transatlantic tandem, energetically pushing for German-American institutions that would offer an alternative to British industrial and financial monopoly. They were
the dynamics of the pre-1914

financial world are now reemerging . In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial
institutions appear both as dangerous weapons of mass economic
destruction , but also as potential instruments for the application of national
power. In managing the 2008 crisis, foreign banks dependence on US-dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal
convinced that Germany and the US were growing stronger year by year, while British power would erode. Some of
Reserve. Addressing that flaw requires renationalization of banking, and breaking up the activities of large financial institutions. For European bankers, and some governments, current
efforts by the US to revise its approach to the operation of foreign bank subsidiaries within its territory highlight that imperative. They view the US move as a new sort of financial
protectionism and are threatening retaliation. Geopolitics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere as well. Russian banks are trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe.
Many countries
have begun to look at financial protectionism as a way to increase their political
leverage. The next step in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic conflict. Sanctions
are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can
be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the global
economy. In 1907, in the wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a
complete global collapse, several countries started to think of finance primarily as an
instrument of raw power that could and should be turned to national advantage. That kind
of thinking brought war in 1914. A century later, in 2007-2008, the world experienced an even
greater financial shock, and nationalistic passions have flared up in its wake.
European banks are playing a much-reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their role in global commerce.
Destructive strategies may not be far behind.
Decline causes escalatory wars in multiple regions

Kemp 10 (Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs Nixon Center and
Former Director of the Middle East Arms Control Project Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing
Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234)
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong
world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and
Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy
demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energyproducing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That
in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited
to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed
states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by
Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger
of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an
extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances
nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel
and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases,
and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states
may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like
impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire
does go wrong. The
consequences for
two-thirds of
the planets population
Impact Econ A2: Not Nuclear

Yes conflict escalates to nuclear war
Merlini 11 Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the
United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian
Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, A Post-Secular World?, Survival, Vol.
53, No. 2
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first
One or more of the acute tensions

apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps
even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered
by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just
experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for
peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited
exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside
interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, empty ing,
scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system.
perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of
multilateralism , including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts,
such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration
Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated . One way or

secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic
absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism .
might become unbearable.
another, the
Impact Econ A2: Resilient

Not resilient Economy improving but extremely fragile
-Low consumer confidence
-Slow GDP growth
-Decreased capital expansion
-Frictional unemployment
-Lagging recession recovery
Cook 5/12
{Charlie, syndicated political analyst, Resident Fellow at the Harvard Institute of
Politics, 2010 recipient of the Carey McWilliams award from the American Political
Science Association, Georgetown grad, Our Fragile Economy Still Needs Time to
Gather Its Strength, National Journal, 2014, http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-tothe-races/our-fragile-economy-still-needs-time-to-gather-its-strength20140512#THUR}
Americans remain pretty pessimistic about the economy. The National Bureau of Economic
Research calculates that the most recent recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. But that is certainly news to most Americans. In a
57 percent of respondents said they believe we are

still in a recession , while 41 percent said we are not. Indeed, in the seven times that NBC/WSJ
pollsters have asked the question since the latter half of 2001, a majority of Americans have felt
that we were in a recession. While consumer confidence is on the rise and pretty close to the
highest it has been since the last recession began, we are nowhere near the levels of optimism and comfort
that Americans felt during the period of 1992 until this latest recession began in late 2007. We feel
better, but nowhere near good . The recent economic reports that we only had a one-tenth of a percentage point
March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll,
increase in the real gross domestic product is attributed to an unusually harsh winter; but a vibrant economy doesn't sustain that kind of hit from a tough
As Mesirow Financial's Chief Economist Diane Swonk put it in a recent report to clients: "The economy came
to a virtual standstill in the first quarter [of 2014], adding insult to injury to an
economy still struggling to recover ." She added that it was "reflective of a
fundamental weakening in a recovery that was already compromised ." This
was and remains a very fragile economy . The monthly survey of top economists conducted by Blue Chip
Economic Indicators projects that the economy, as measured by change in real GDP, will likely grow at a rate of 3.4 percent for the
ongoing second quarter of this year, then 3.0 and 3.1 percent for the third and fourth quarters, respectively. And projections for 2015 remain
basically at the 3.0 percent level. Obviously, this is far better growth than we have had during
recessions; looking back over the last three-quarters of a century, mid-to-high single digits is more the norm, so the economy will likely be
growingbut compared with the pain we have gone through, n ot at nearly the rate
we need and would like to have. SHARE THIS STORY With projections calling for
growthbut nothing like the impressive growth we have seen in previous erasbusinesses are
slow to risk huge investments in new plants and equipment. To paraphrase
economist Michael Drury of McVean Trading and Investments, without a surge in capital spending which is not
happening this economic cycle will remain lackluster , but last longer. Manufacturing and
winter alone.
employment in that sector is picking up strongly, but caution remains. Cornerstone Macro, a New York-based firm that advises its Wall Street clients on
economics, policy, and investment strategy, said in a recent report that the manufacturing workweek is near a record high, and manufacturing wages are
now on the increase after a stomach-churning plunge during the 2008 recession. The manufacturing employment rate for April was 5.6 percent, the
largest increase in almost 30 years. Citing figures from the payroll firm ADP, the employment rate for small businessesorganizations with fewer than 50
workersis at a record high. Now almost 50 million people work for small businesses, almost double those working for large businesses of 500 or more
Hiring numbers for small, medium, and large firms are doing well, but not all of the
unemployed have the skills for this new economy. The labor-participation rate (the
percentage of the population working) is still languishing , and long-term unemployment remains
employees.
a critical problem. Sadly , the longer people are unemployed, the more their
skills and marketability atrophy, and the harder it is for them to find a new job. We were in a pretty deep hole
during the recession, followed by an exceedingly sluggish recovery . Much of
the good news in manufacturing is linked to the energy renaissance coming from the oil and gas
sector. The International Energy Agency projects that the U.S. will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world's top oil producer by 2015. Energy
Information Administration figures show that U.S. crude-oil inventories are the highest since 1931, currently at almost 400 million barrels. This is roughly a
third more than 10 years ago, and far greater than the 250 million during the energy crisis of the 1970's. U.S. oil production is now at double the amount
of oil we import from OPEC, a huge plus for the United States for both economic and geopolitical reasons. Heading into the recession that began in
December 2007, imports far outstripped production.
The bottom line is that while there is considerable good
news, the bad news was so bad for so long, we need much better
news for a much longer period of time.
Uneven recovery means extreme fragility county surveys

prove also proves discipline key to recovery
Philipps 14
{Jim, Manager at the National Association of Counties, U.S. Economic Recovery
Remains Uneven, Fragile across Counties, NACO, 1/13,
http://www.naco.org/newsroom/Documents/Press%20Release%20Documents/county
%20tracker.pdf#THUR}
U.S. economic growth continued last year for the 3,069 county economies, but the recovery
remained uneven and fragile, according to an analysis of four economic
performance indicators by the National Association of Counties (NACo). As a result of the fragile and
uneven recovery, many counties are continuing to struggle with their budgets, meet
financial obligations and provide essential public services. NACos new study, County Tracker 2013: On the Path to Recovery assesses the performance of
the nations county economies by studying annual changes in four indicators economic output (GDP), employment, the unemployment rate and home
prices. The report also contains case studies to illustrate how specific county economies fared during the recession and recovery. The counties profiled
include, Tarrant County, Texas (population 1.9 million), Los Angeles County, Calif. (10 million), Linn County, Iowa (215,000) and Mountrail County, N.D.
indicators analyzed by NACo suggest that 2013 was a year of

growth, but the recovery remained fragile. By 2013, the economic output (GDP) in about
half of all county economies recovered or had no declines over the last decade. Home prices
were in the same situation. But this is only part of the story . Jobs recovered in
one quarter of county economies and in only 54 county economies
unemployment is back to pre-recession levels. The low unemployment recovery rates
show the fragility of the recovery. The recovery has been also uneven. All
counties, large, mid-sized or small, have been affected by the recession but the patterns of recovery
vary significantly . Large county economies were at the core of the recession and the recovery. Only 4 percent of
the nations large county economies in counties with more than 500,000 residents delivered around 58
percent of the county economies output (GDP) growth and a similar share of the added
jobs over the recovery. Large county economies in the South such as in Tarrant County, Texas bounced back quickly. While blessed with
(9,000). The economic
an economic diversity that enabled us to withstand the national recession better than other areas of the country, we were most impressed with the
resilience of Tarrant Countys manufacturing and housing sectors, which allowed them to respond quicker to developing opportunities, said Roy Brooks,
commissioner, Tarrant County, Texas, and chair of NACo's Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC). Employment in medium-size county economies was more
stable during the recession, but had a mixed record in 2013. About half of the medium-sized county economies in counties with populations between
50,000 and 500,000 residents had shorter and/or shallower job recessions than the national average. One of the factors that helped stabilize Linn
Countys economy through the recession was the amount of post-flood construction and revitalization that took place, said NACo President Linda
Langston, supervisor, Linn County, Iowa. Nearly $1 billion was reinvested throughout our community from federal, state, local and private sources in the
five years since the flood. Linn County also has the benefit of the value-added agriculture industry and expanding new start-up businesses that helped to
fully restore us to pre-recession levels. The
recovery in small county economies covered the entire
scale of potential outcomes.
Twenty-seven small county economies in counties with fewer than 50,000 residents
had no recession or fully recovered across all four indicators by 2013. The housing market downturn was mild in small county economies, with more than
half not going through home price declines or already returned to pre-recession home price levels by 2013.
This fragile and uneven
recovery across county economies adds to the challenges that counties
face currently . Most counties survived through the recession
because of their fiscally prudent approaches . Los Angeles County

would not have weathered the recession as strongly as we did without our focus on
fiscal prudency , as well as the partnerships we have with our labor unions, who have foregone cost of living increases to avoid
Our
frugality has paid off through the rough economic times . Nevertheless,
furloughs and layoffs, said Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chairman Don Knabe, member of the NACo Large Urban County Caucus.
as we see improvements ,
we must remain disciplined and

continue to operate within our means . Counties with fast growing economies, such as
Mountrail County, N.D. have a hard time to keep up with the necessary service delivery. The fast growth that Mountrail County experienced for the last
several years has been great with jobs, but tough on the countys infrastructure and on the countys residents on fixed incomes, said Greg Boschee,
commissioner, Mountrail County, N.D. Other counties, with challenged economies are finding new ways to maintain services and prepare their counties for
the future. Trying to run county government in a contracting economy and declining population base has its challenges. But similar to running a business,
if you are successful at making your organization as efficient as possible in delivering quality goods or services in trying times, you prepare your
In addition to the
situation of their economy, all counties face a triple threat from the uncertainty
around major federal policy changes, from tax reform, entitlement reform and appropriation cuts, not accompanied by cuts
in unfunded mandates and federal regulations. The national economic numbers mask the growth
patterns on the ground , said Emilia Istrate, NACos director of research and lead author of the report. The
dynamics within county economies affect the capacity of counties to deliver
services and meet their financial obligations. The County Tracker offers a reminder
that the U.S. economy happens on the ground , in the 3,069 county economies that provide the basis
for county governments. As fiscal tightening continues to limit the scope of state and federal
investment, it is becoming imperative for states and the federal government to
work with counties to maintain the fundamentals of the U.S. economy county
economies.
organization for greater success during more favorable times said Matthew McConnell, commissioner, Mercer County, Pa.
Impact Heg A2: No War

Extinction
Brzezinski 12 Zbigniew, Professor of American Foreign Policy at the School of
Advanced International Studies Johns Hopkins University, Counselor CSIS and
Trustee and Co-Chair CSIS Advisory Board, Former National Security Advisor
Carter, After America, Foreign Policy, January / February,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/artic les/2012/01/03/after_america?page=full
if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even
China. International uncertainty, increased tension among global
competitors , and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While
a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political
and economic disorder , a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or
For
endlessly widening warfare
with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective
No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon
of a new, globally
cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather
inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in
a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global wellbeing . Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced
national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could
ensue. The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the
global successor.
the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader
potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be
thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters
Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain
prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet
Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy
and China rises.
toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter
European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship
Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional
spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth.
with a declining United States.
None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting
America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of
carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently
accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the
system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to
assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important
measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several
decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita
indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership.
a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's

A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a
powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to
At some stage, however,
international interests.
acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly
The resulting regional scramble could become intense , especially given the similar
nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in
Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent
and bloodthirsty. At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next
to major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's global
preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to
America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia , Taiwan ,
assertive China.
South Korea , Belarus , Ukraine , Afghanistan , Pakistan , Israel , and the

greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species.
Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it
A faltering U nited S tates could

find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic
resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such
sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in
American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the
U.S. economic and political systems. A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national
ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist.
also
identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations
between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major
Another
consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative
management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes , space ,
cyberspace , and the environment , whose protection is imperative to the longterm growth of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical
stability . In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role
would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the
superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally be
conflict. None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would
generate global insecurity , endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North
issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents.
American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century
make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world after America
would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start
bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.
Collapse of leadership destroys the economy and causes

escalating conflict that goes global
Felzenberg 11 (Alvin S., Lecturer University of Pennsylvania and Yale
University and Alexander B. Gray, Ph.D. Candidate in International Affairs George
Washington University, The New Isolationism, The National Review, 1-3,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256150/new-isolationism-alvin-s-felzenberg)
Anything Reps. Ron Paul (R., Tex.) and Barney Frank (D., Mass.) both support should give the rest of us pause. Their proposal to slash
defense spending by $1 trillion over a decade only the most recent joint effort by the new isolationists on the Left and Rig ht
to
curtail American military strength around the world is as foolhardy as it is
unrealistic. Were such a policy enacted, the nation and the world would be set on a
path not toward peace, but toward instability, conflict, and a lessening of freedom in
many corners of the world. As the deteriorating situation on the Korean peninsula
reminds us, the security concerns of the United States do not disappear in times of
economic distress. Americas interests, whether economic, strategic, diplomatic, or
moral, cannot be set aside when Congress tires of them. The United States and the
world paid a severe price for the ostrich-like behavior too many democratic nations
exhibited during the 1920s and 1930s. Reps. Paul and Frank appear determined to
repeat this mistake. The United States continues to face an array of global
challenges that require a modern, technologically superior military. It is very much
in the interests of the United States to uphold the territorial integrity and economic
independence of much of Asia, maintain the security of critical waterways such as
the Strait of Hormuz, and protect American trade from pirates and terrorists
worldwide. Rather than regard the nations defenses as a ready source of money available for diversion to
domestic concerns, Congress and the president should identify the challenges America faces and assure that its
military is able to meet them. At its core, the Frank-Paul effort appears to be an attempt to prevent repetitions of
wars the two congressmen regard as either unnecessary or faultily executed. But the United States has broader and
As the U.S. became

bogged down in those two countries, it began feeling strains elsewhere, precipitated
by China, Russia, and potentially toxic menaces such as Iran and Venezuela.
Counterinsurgency warfare and Predator-drone strikes against transnational
terrorists certainly defined much of the last decade. But the next decade will
witness increasing competition among nation-states for control of valuable
resources and the exertion of influence worldwide. Russia, through its control of vital
energy pipelines, seeks to draw Western Europe more closely into its orbit, thereby
weakening the latters historical ties to the United States. By taking a similar
more important long-run national-security concerns than Iraq and Afghanistan.
approach to Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, the Baltics, and Moldova, Russia is

on the verge of re-colonizing economically many of its former satellites. China,
while continuing to upgrade its naval capabilities, grows increasingly assertive. In
pursuit of its own Monroe Doctrine for East Asia, Beijing has proclaimed its sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, menaced
neighbors from India to Vietnam, used its economic muscle to intimidate Japan, and increased its threats against Taiwan. Chinas
leaders have been studying the writings of the 19th-century American naval theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan, who demonstrated the
connection between sea power and economic strength. At the turn of the last century, Theodore Roosevelt found in Mahan the
blueprint for achieving unprecedented American influence in world affairs. His efforts to build both a strong navy and a sound
economy ushered in the American century, the period in which the United States became a force for good throughout the world
and a beacon of hope for those yearning to breathe free. In pursuing a blue-water ocean-going navy capable of supporting their
expanding global economic ambitions, the Chinese are acting from a desire to defend their nations trade and access to world
markets, with a focus on energy supplies. It is critical that the Chinese who are closely studying both Mahans writings and the
history of the Monroe Doctrine and Americans who see Chinese hegemony over Asia as either inevitable or a price they are willing
to pay in exchange for slashing defense spending not draw the wrong lessons from history. Both sides should understand that it was
not American might that gave the Monroe Doctrine force, but the then all-powerful British navy. For much of the 19th century, Great
Britain had reasons of its own for keeping other nations out of the Western Hemisphere and for wanting to see the United States
develop internally. If appropriately funded, the United States Navy has the capacity to play a similar role in Chinas rise perhaps,
in the process, influencing how China develops. Should China conclude that the United States intends to remain a visible and active
presence in the region, it will respond accordingly. Acting together, the two nations might embark on a series of cooperative
ventures designed to help assure a steady flow of trade and an unimpeded exchange of people, goods, and ideas. They can also
work together to combat a rise in piracy and terrorism in Asia and elsewhere and to respond to humanitarian crises, like the 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami. For its part, China, should it continue to hold North Korea in check, will achieve some of the status it seeks as
Should China conclude, on the other

hand, that the United States intends to turn inward, it may grow even more
ambitious and assertive in its region and beyond, potentially menacing world peace.
Its smaller neighbors nervously wait to see how the United States will respond to
Chinas growing assertiveness. Should they come to believe that the U.S. is in
retreat, they will make their own accommodations with Beijing. That result would
wreak irreparable damage both to Americas economy and to its security. Messrs. Frank and
a rising world power, with commensurate influence on the world stage.
Paul and their supporters have taken it into their minds that a reduced American presence in world affairs,
World politics,
like nature, is hardly prone to respect vacuums. Iran and Venezuela remain as
bellicose and destabilizing as ever, in spite of two years of Obama engagement. Iran squats beside the
particularly where the military is involved, would be a good thing. They had better think again:
Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the worlds energy supply travels. Iran has also, the original Monroe
Doctrine be damned, extended its military cooperation with Hugo Chvezs authoritarian regime. Evidence is strong
that Venezuela is providing sanctuary for Hezbollah terrorists in South America. The alliance of
these two anti-American and increasingly menacing states could pose a threat to the United States of a kind that
Faced with such challenges, the United

States can ill afford military retrenchment as advocated by the new isolationists.
would make us nostalgic for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
While waste in the Pentagons budget can and should be cut, the new isolationists want to do it with a chainsaw
when a scalpel is needed. In the last decade, the U.S. Navys fleet has shrunk to its smallest size since the 19th
century, just as potential rivals such as China have not only expanded theirs but have begun to target perceived
American maritime vulnerabilities. The U.S. Air Force is fielding an aging and shrinking force, while China is
A world in which the

United States willingly ceded power and influence would both be more dangerous
and prove less receptive to values that most Americans share, such as respect for
human rights, the need to restrain governments through the rule of law, and the
sanctity of contracts. By reducing its military strength to alarmingly low levels, the
developing an advanced fighter for sale to adversaries of America, including Iran.
United States would create dangerous power vacuums around the world that other
nations, with entirely different values, would be only too happy to fill. That, as
history shows, would make war more, rather than less, likely. Congress and the president
would do well to reflect on those lessons and remember their duty to provide a dominant American military
presence on land, at sea, and in the air.
Collapse of leadership causes global nuclear war

Kagan 11 (Robert, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, The Price of Power, The Weekly Standard, 1-24,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533695.html?nopager=1)
Today the international situation is also one of high risk. The terrorists who would
like to kill Americans on U.S. soil constantly search for safe havens from which to
plan and carry out their attacks. American military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere make it harder for them to strike and are a large part of
the reason why for almost a decade there has been no repetition of September 11.
To the degree that we limit our ability to deny them safe haven, we increase the
chances they will succeed. American forces deployed in East Asia and the Western
Pacific have for decades prevented the outbreak of major war, provided stability,
and kept open international trading routes, making possible an unprecedented era
of growth and prosperity for Asians and Americans alike. Now the United States
faces a new challenge and potential threat from a rising China which seeks
eventually to push the U.S. militarys area of operations back to Hawaii and exercise
hegemony over the worlds most rapidly growing economies. Meanwhile, a nucleararmed North Korea threatens war with South Korea and fires ballistic missiles over
Japan that will someday be capable of reaching the west coast of the United States.
Democratic nations in the region, worried that the United States may be losing
influence, turn to Washington for reassurance that the U.S. security guarantee
remains firm. If the United States cannot provide that assurance because it is
cutting back its military capabilities, they will have to choose between accepting
Chinese dominance and striking out on their own, possibly by building nuclear
weapons. In the Middle East, Iran seeks to build its own nuclear arsenal, supports
armed radical Islamic groups in Lebanon and Palestine, and has linked up with antiAmerican dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere. The prospects of new instability
in the region grow every day as a decrepit regime in Egypt clings to power, crushes
all moderate opposition, and drives the Muslim Brotherhood into the streets. A
nuclear-armed Pakistan seems to be ever on the brink of collapse into anarchy and
radicalism. Turkey, once an ally, now seems bent on an increasingly anti-American
Islamist course. The prospect of war between Hezbollah and Israel grows, and with it
the possibility of war between Israel and Syria and possibly Iran. There, too, nations
in the region increasingly look to Washington for reassurance, and if they decide the United
States cannot be relied upon they will have to decide whether to succumb to Iranian influence or build their own nuclear weapons to
resist it. In the 1990s, after the Soviet Union had collapsed and the biggest problem in the world seemed to be ethnic conflict in the
In the present,
increasingly dangerous international environment, in which terrorism and great
power rivalry vie as the greatest threat to American security and interests, cutting
military capacities is simply reckless. Would we increase the risk of strategic failure in an already risky world,
Balkans, it was at least plausible to talk about cutting back on American military capabilities.
despite the near irrelevance of the defense budget to American fiscal health, just so we could tell American voters that their military
had suffered its fair share of the pain? The nature of the risk becomes plain when one considers the nature of the cuts that would
have to be made to have even a marginal effect on the U.S. fiscal crisis. Many are under the illusion, for instance, that if the United
States simply withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and didnt intervene anywhere else for a while, this would have a significant
impact on future deficits. But, in fact, projections of future massive deficits already assume the winding down of these
interventions.Withdrawal from the two wars would scarcely make a dent in the fiscal crisis. Nor can meaningful reductions be
achieved by cutting back on waste at the Pentagonwhich Secretary of Defense Gates has already begun to do and which has also
been factored into deficit projections. If the United States withdrew from Iran and Afghanistan tomorrow, cut all the waste Gates can
find, and even eliminated a few weapons programsall this together would still not produce a 10 percent decrease in overall
defense spending. In fact, the only way to get significant savings from the defense budgetand by significant, we are still talking
about a tiny fraction of the cuts needed to bring down future deficitsis to cut force structure: fewer troops on the ground; fewer
airplanes in the skies; fewer ships in the water; fewer soldiers, pilots, and sailors to feed and clothe and provide benefits for. To cut
the size of the force, however, requires reducing or eliminating the missions those forces have been performing. Of course, there are
any number of think tank experts who insist U.S. forces can be cut by a quarter or third or even by half and still perform those
missions. But this is snake oil. Over the past two decades, the force has already been cut by a third. Yet no administration has
To fulfill existing security

commitments, to remain the worlds power balancer of choice, as Leslie Gelb puts
it, to act as the only regional balancer against China in Asia, Russia in eastern
Europe, and Iran in the Middle East requires at least the current force structure , and
reduced the missions that the larger force structures of the past were designed to meet.
almost certainly more than current force levels. Those who recommend doing the same with less are only proposing a policy of
insufficiency, where the United States makes commitments it cannot meet except at high risk of failure. The only way to find
substantial savings in the defense budget, therefore, is to change American strategy fundamentally. The Simpson-Bowles
commission suggests as much, by calling for a reexamination of Americas 21st century role, although it doesnt begin to define
what that new role might be. Others have. For decades realist analysts have called for a strategy of offshore balancing.
Instead of the United States providing security in East Asia and the Persian Gulf, it
would withdraw its forces from Japan, South Korea, and the Middle East and let the
nations in those regions balance one another. If the balance broke down and war
erupted, the United States would then intervene militarily until balance was
restored. In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, for instance, Christopher Layne has
long proposed passing the mantle of regional stabilizer to a consortium of Russia,
China, Iran, and India. In East Asia offshore balancing would mean letting China, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and others manage their own problems, without U.S. involvementagain, until the balance broke down and war erupted,
at which point the United States would provide assistance to restore the balance and then, if necessary, intervene with its own
forces to restore peace and stability. Before examining whether this would be a wise strategy, it is important to understand that this
really is the only genuine alternative to the one the United States has pursued for the past 65 years. To their credit, Layne and
others who support the concept of offshore balancing have eschewed halfway measures and airy assurances that we can do more
with less, which are likely recipes for disaster. They recognize that either the United States is actively
involved in providing security and stability in regions beyond the Western Hemisphere, which means maintaining a robust presence
in those regions, or it is not. Layne and others are frank in calling for an end to the global security strategy developed in the
aftermath of World War II, perpetuated through the Cold War, and continued by four successive post-Cold War administrations. At
the same time, it is not surprising that none of those administrations embraced offshore balancing as a strategy. The idea of relying
on Russia, China, and Iran to jointly stabilize the Middle East and Persian Gulf will not strike many as an attractive proposition. Nor
The prospects of a war

on the Korean Peninsula would increase. Japan and other nations in the region would
face the choice of succumbing to Chinese hegemony or taking unilateral steps for
self-defense, which in Japans case would mean the rapid creation of a formidable
nuclear arsenal. Layne and other offshore balancing enthusiasts, like John Mearsheimer, point to two notable occasions
is U.S. withdrawal from East Asia and the Pacific likely to have a stabilizing effect on that region.
when the United States allegedly practiced this strategy. One was the Iran-Iraq war, where the United States supported Iraq for
years against Iran in the hope that the two would balance and weaken each other. The other was American policy in the 1920s and
1930s, when the United States allowed the great European powers to balance one another, occasionally providing economic aid, or
military aid, as in the Lend-Lease program of assistance to Great Britain once war broke out. Whether this was really American
strategy in that era is open for debatemost would argue the United States in this era was trying to stay out of war not as part of a
considered strategic judgment but as an end in itself. Even if the United States had been pursuing offshore balancing in the first
decades of the 20th century, however, would we really call that strategy a success? The United States wound up intervening with
millions of troops, first in Europe, and then in Asia and Europe simultaneously, in the two most dreadful wars in human history. It
was with the memory of those two wars in mind, and in the belief that American strategy in those interwar years had been
mistaken, that American statesmen during and after World War II determined on the new global strategy that the United States has
pursued ever since. Under Franklin Roosevelt, and then under the leadership of Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, American leaders
determined that the safest course was to build situations of strength (Achesons phrase) in strategic locations around the world, to
build a preponderance of power, and to create an international system with American power at its center. They left substantial
numbers of troops in East Asia and in Europe and built a globe-girdling system of naval and air bases to enable the rapid projection
of force to strategically important parts of the world. They did not do this on a lark or out of a yearning for global dominion. They
simply rejected the offshore balancing strategy, and they did so because they believed it had led to great, destructive wars in the
past and would likely do so again. They believed their new global strategy was more likely to deter major war and therefore be less
destructive and less expensive in the long run. Subsequent administrations, from both parties and with often differing perspectives
on the proper course in many areas of foreign policy, have all agreed on this core strategic approach. From the beginning this
strategy was assailed as too ambitious and too expensive. At the dawn of the Cold War, Walter Lippmann railed against Trumans
containment strategy as suffering from an unsustainable gap between ends and means that would bankrupt the United States and
exhaust its power. Decades later, in the waning years of the Cold War, Paul Kennedy warned of imperial overstretch, arguing that
American decline was inevitable if the trends in national indebtedness, low productivity increases, [etc.] were allowed to continue
at the same time as massive American commitments of men, money and materials are made in different parts of the globe. Today,
we are once again being told that this global strategy needs to give way to a more restrained and modest approach, even though
the indebtedness crisis that we face in coming years is not caused by the present, largely successful global strategy. Of course it is
precisely the success of that strategy that is taken for granted. The enormous benefits that this strategy has provided, including the
financial benefits, somehow never appear on the ledger. They should.
We might begin by asking about the
global security order that the United States has sustained since Word War IIthe
prevention of major war, the support of an open trading system, and promotion of
the liberal principles of free markets and free government. How much is that order
worth? What would be the cost of its collapse or transformation into another type of
order? Whatever the nature of the current economic difficulties, the past six
decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity than any time in human
history. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Once-backward nations
have become economic dynamos. And the American economy, though suffering ups
and downs throughout this period, has on the whole benefited immensely from this
international order. One price of this success has been maintaining a sufficient
military capacity to provide the essential security underpinnings of this order . But has
the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th century, the United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the
second half, this global American strategy helped produce a peaceful end to the great-power struggle of the Cold War and then 20
more years of great-power peace. Looked at coldly, simply in terms of dollars and cents, the benefits of that strategy far outweigh
Many
assume that the world has simply become more peaceful, that great-power conflict
has become impossible, that nations have learned that military force has little
utility, that economic power is what counts. This belief in progress and the
perfectibility of humankind and the institutions of international order is always
alluring to Americans and Europeans and other children of the Enlightenment. It was
the prevalent belief in the decade before World War I, in the first years after World
War II, and in those heady days after the Cold War when people spoke of the end of
history. It is always tempting to believe that the international order the United
States built and sustained with its power can exist in the absence of that power, or
at least with much less of it. This is the hidden assumption of those who call for a
change in American strategy: that the United States can stop playing its role and
yet all the benefits that came from that role will keep pouring in. This is a great if
recurring illusion, the idea that you can pull a leg out from under a table and the
table will not fall over.
the costs. The danger, as always, is that we dont even realize the benefits our strategic choices have provided.
Impact Heg A2: Unsustainable

Unipolarity now and sustainable
Kagan 13 Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Chair of
the World Economic Forums Global Agenda Council on the United States, A
Changing World Order?, Washington Post, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-changing-worldorder/2013/11/15/4ce39d1a-489a-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?hpid=z3
By most measures, reports of Americas declining power, relative to the rest of the
world, have again proved premature. The U.S. economy increasingly seems to be
on an upswing. The U nited S tates remains among the worlds safest and most
attractive investments . The shale gas revolution is transforming America into an
energy giant of the future. The dollar, once slated for oblivion, seems destined to
remain the worlds reserve currency for some time to come. American military
power, even amid current budget cuts, remains unmatched in quantity and
quality. Meanwhile, the rise of the rest, which Fareed Zakaria and other declinists
touted a few years ago, has failed to materialize as expected. For all of
Americas problems at home the fiscal crisis, political gridlock, intense
partisanship and weak presidential leadership other great powers, from China to
India to Russia to the E uropean U nion, have debilitating problems of their
own that, in some cases, promise to grow more severe . Overall, the muchheralded return of a multipolar world of roughly equal great powers, akin to that
which existed before World War II, has been delayed for at least a few more
decades . Absent some unexpected dramatic change, the international system will
continue to be that of one superpower and several great powers, or as the late
Samuel P. Huntington called it, uni-multipolarity.
Heg is sustainable
Rubinovitz 12 (Ziv, Post-doctoral Fellow Davis Institute for International
Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The US vs. the East Asian Rising
Powers: Can The US Stay On Top?, Presented at the 22nd IPSA World Congress,
Madrid, July 8-12, 2012, http://rc41.ipsa.org/public/Madrid_2012/rubinovitz.pdf)
The Argument This paper views the international system with geographical and geopolitical eyes. For this reason, it uses
geographical facts as factors in analyzing the current global system and its future prospects. The argument this paper will promote
U.S. physical location and geopolitical position are the cornerstones of its foreign policy and
serve as a "safety net" from foreign powers' assaults (not perfect, obviously, as became painfully clear on
September 11, 2001). The U.S., unlike any other great or superpower now or anytime can decide
whether or not and to what extent will it be involved in international affairs . Isolationism was a practical
is that the
policy (regardless of its success) for approximately twenty years since the end of World War I until Pearl Harbor (1941). Even though
since the end of World War II the United States is conducting an opposite strategy, theoretically and hypothetically it can be
resumed, perhaps not to the extent it was in the 1920s-1930s, but a sort of isolationism is possible. No other country can afford such
U.S. is still and

will remain in the foreseeable future the naval superpower with the most powerful navy that
has the best power-projection capabilities . It can afford to leave the continent and become an offshore balancer.
True, it will lose some of its influence, but it can preserve its power on the sea and
project it restrictedly whenever needed. So, very briefly, the U.S. has a much wider room for
maneuver than is presumed, and with the most powerful military with no parallel in
a policy because all other powers are on the same continent and cannot disregard one another. Moreover, the
the foreseeable future, the U.S. still has a wide spectrum of policies it can use, hence it is in the best
position for the coming hegemonic competition. Literature Review It is important to note that most of the
literature is American, which is expected and logical, but also somewhat problematic due to obvious biases. One of these is the
obsession with China, as it is the focus of most studies but seems more frightening than in reality. The obsession with China leaves
out analyses of the rise of other great powers, therefore the literature cannot really establish that the alternative to unipolarity is
multipolarity. The studies that focus on China seem to implement that the next system will be bipolar. To its credit, though, it seems
that there is no power that is emerging as much as China does, hence it is correct to focus on it. But then,
will other powers be entitled to be regarded as poles? This is an extra-regional question with significant implications to East Asia in a
global context. The literature regarding the structure of the international system can be divided into two major types: A. By the
source of threat to the U.S. primacy (future structure): 1. The China alarmists (bipolarity); 2. The BRICS are emerging (multipolarity);
3. Who cares? The American advance is too large to catch up (unipolarity). B. By the effect on U.S. behavior: 1. Fight to preserve
primacy preemption or prevention; 2. Get used to it selective engagement or offshore balancing. Within the Realist paradigm
there are two competing theories that prescribe conflicting advice that is based on contradictory readings of reality.12 Whereas
offensive realism suggests securing material power that will guarantee a given country's security, and securing regional and global
primacy even by force,13 defensive realism suggests possessing sufficient material power and prefers some sort of power sharing to
enhance mutual trust among the great powers, which enhances they believe the security of each power.14 In the American case,
defensive realism suggests offshore balancing or selective engagement, while offensive realism would prefer domination and
engagement with potential rivals. This does not mean that there cannot be agreement among all realists concerning American
actions, such as the consensus among many realists that the war against Iraq in 2003 was unnecessary and even damaging.15 The
disagreements grow and are much more acute regarding other great powers. How should the U.S. treat China and other emerging or
reemerging powers? Should they be engaged? Should the U.S. prevent the foreseen competition by striking first, or should the U.S.
allow them to emerge as regional hegemons and then divide the world into spheres of influence with them? The question everyone
asks is whether or not American hegemony is over or when will it happen. Ian Clark suggests that the term hegemony is misused,
and prefers questioning the future of American primacy.16 This paper will follow Clark in terminology and substance. Schweller and
Pu say that "If a great transformation is coming, it is not one that heralds a radically altered world politics based on legalism,
constitutionalism, or global civic activism. Rather, it is a structural transformation from unipolarity to multipolarity that most realists
There definitely
seems to be a transition, but is it to multipolarity or bipolarity, and in any case will it resemble
past experiences? This is highly uncertain. The power that the U.S. had obtained in the last
several decades places it in a different category than any other great power in the
foreseeable future, therefore even if the U.S. is less dominant compared to
other great powers, it is far fetching to argue for similar status as in any previous
system. This is not to say that later in the future such a system might emerge, but in the near future it is
unlikely .18 Robert Art argued in 2010 that the U.S. is the most powerful state in the world in
economic and military assets and will remain the most powerful military power "for
some time to come," but inevitably its edge relative to other great powers will diminish in the coming decades. China is
believe promises a return to the familiar history of great powers struggling for power and prestige."17
the greatest potential rival, provided that its economy will continue to grow in the coming two decades as it did in the last two
China had already changed the

balance of power in East Asia. It is already the region's dominant military land power. Art assesses that if China invests in
decades (then it will surpass the U.S. in its GDP, but not in its GDP per capita). For now,
its military forces for several decades, and is determined to project naval and air power, it will be able to deploy a naval force that
Some conflict seems inevitable, including arms

race, but there can be more cooperation than is assumed by most scholars. Art
correctly argues that as long as China's emerging hegemony in East Asia does not include Japan and
the U.S. maintains strongholds in the region (Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia),
the geopolitical threat from China will not be of similar extent as that of the Soviet
Union. China cannot jeopardize the global balance of power as long as Europe, the Persian Gulf,
"could contest the American supremacy at sea in East Asia."19
India, Japan and Russia are independent or under U.S. influence.20 China cannot threaten the U.S. as the Soviet Union did due to its
relative size. His conclusion: be smart; let China grow but draw a line in the sand, accept that it is growing but make sure China
knows the U.S. is stronger. This seems as good advice, but one need only to see China's increasing defense budget to understand
why apparently following it is a difficult job. China had increased the defense budget by 11.2% in 2012, following two decades of
annual two-figure percents increases (since 1989, except for 2009 only 7.5%).21 There are always questions on the purpose of this
steady increase: in preparation for a global conflict with the U.S. over resources and political interests (i.e., preparing China to
become a rival pole); a regional conflict with any of its neighbors and China indeed has issues with all of them, be it territorial,
historical, economic, etc.; or domestic, preparing to crush separatists or rebels. In 2001, Mearsheimer wrote that "American policy
[on China] has sought to integrate China into the world economy and facilitate its rapid economic development, so that it becomes
wealthy and, one would hope, content with its present position in the international system. This U.S. policy is misguided. A wealthy
China would not be a status quo power but an aggressive state determined to achieve regional hegemony. Although it is certainly
in China's interest to be the hegemon in Northeast Asia, it is clearly not in America's interest to have that happen. It is not too late
for the United States to reverse course and do what it can to slow the rise of China."22 A decade after Mearsheimer's warning, it
seems that he was partly correct and partly wrong. A steadily increasing share of China's wealth is turned into military power, and
recently, it is reported, Chinese strategists apparently began calling their government to fit China's foreign policy to its capabilities,
which means replacing the "peaceful rise" and the "low profile policy" with a much more ambitious policy.23 But China's economic
rise will first need to finance its aging population. Nevertheless, China's goals are unclear to American and western analysts and
policymakers, although there are official Chinese documents that allow assessing their true aims.24 It is interesting to follow China's
rise to hegemony in East Asia and the reaction of its neighbors. They were expected to act to balance China, but according to Chan's
study, they don't. The defense burden is not rising and trade with China is increasing contrary to the theoretical expectations.25
This can indicate either that China succeeded in splitting among its regional rivals, or that the U.S. is no longer functioning as a
regional hegemon, therefore they have no one to turn to against China. Michael Beckley provides a detailed analysis of the rise of
China and of the U.S. decline or non-decline.26 Most declinists, as Beckley labels them, argue that the U.S. is in economic decline,
not in military decline.27 This is an important point in military terms the U.S. is still the sole superpower, and it is hard to see
American spending on defense is still

higher than that of all its potential rivals combined, and even if the tipping point is coming closer and China
will surpass the U.S. in defense expenditure, it will take many years for China to close the gap
qualitative and quantitative. Unlike money, military assets do not vanish (it is hard to imagine an
aircraft carrier simply disappear or being given or sold to China). Therefore, even if the U.S. expenditure on defense
decreases, it does not affect American military primacy, at least in the short run. Nevertheless, the
circumstances under which the U.S. would lose this status. The
bond between economy and military affairs is very strong. For instance, in April 2012 senior U.S. officials admitted that there is no
budget to strike Syria, therefore the solution of the turmoil would have to be diplomatic.28 Mario Carranza mentions that those who
argue that the U.S.
hegemony is not in decline claim that neither China nor Europe can
shape events on the basis of their material power, but he also argues that they underestimate China's (and to lesser extent,
Europe's) ability to take control over markets in the Global South (South America and South Asia), and mentions that China
increased dramatically its economic relations with key South American countries such as Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil.29 Daniel
Drezner presents the economic aspect of China's rise, and focuses on its new status as the U.S.'s greatest debt holder.30 This issue
is political no less and probably more than economic. But part of being proof that in the age of globalization that the U.S. promoted
so powerfully it lost the economic primacy (and there are counterarguments on this), does it make a real difference? After all, had
the U.S. lost any military asset due to its economic decline? Had any such asset been sold to China? Of course not. Hence, the
balance in hard power is quite clear: China possesses the major part of American dollars in the world and is America's largest
creditor and debt holder, but the U.S. had not lost any of its military power, and it is still superior to any other power, especially
China. Hart and Jones assert that the U.S. economy is still three times larger than the Chinese
one.31 But still, there is change in the degree of influence each power has in the system. "China, for instance, has long been a
sovereignty hawk, generally opposing the notion that interventions for humanitarian purposes are legitimate. Its model of
authoritarian capitalism has also increasingly become an ideological export, challenging the United States liberal model."32 Russia
is perhaps misplaced in the list of emerging powers. Its economic data are not really improving and its population is declining
annually by 4%, and with this rate it might drop to less than 120 million by 2050 compared to 140 million today.33 This sample of
scholarly literature of the last decade demonstrates the confusion regarding the current
situation, although in recent years it is clearer that there is a significant decline in American economic primacy. However, it
seems clear to all that the U.S. still holds military primacy and in this aspect primacy
does not seem to be jeopardized for many years to come .34
Heg sustainable military and economy checks any risk of

decline
Gallarotti 13 Giulio M. Gallarotti is Professor @ the Wesleyan University, US
Presidents Find Industrial-Military Complex Difficult to Tame, interviewed by
Kourosh Ziabari, 1-25-13, http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/US-DeclineNo-10-Giulio-M-Gallarotti-US-Presidents-Find-Industrial-Military-Complex-Difficult-toTame.htm, Accessed Date: 5-15-13 y2k
One can cite hundreds of statistics showing changes in a plethora of
indicators (from literacy to income gaps) that suggest that the US is slipping relatively to other advanced
Yet there are also hundreds of statistics that suggest an

increase in relative standing . Putting all these variables together and
nations.
trying to clearly ascertain relative power levels is impossible.
The interesting and

unfortunate thing about ascertaining power is that power can only be clearly ascertained when it is fully activated, otherwise we cannot know
In material terms, the US is now the most dominate nation

( relatively ) that the world has ever known. Beyond the size of its economy and the
global economic and cultural impact it has had on the world, its global military presence has achieved a
reach no other nation or civilization in the past has ever acquired , with over 700
military bases in over 100 countries. Note that at the height of the Roman Empire, Rome had only 37 foreign military
installations to police its vast territory. Similarly, the British had only 36 naval bases at the height of its imperial stretch in 1898.
precisely how powerful nations are.
Yet with all this material power, the US is often frustrated in getting what it wants, even in contests with much weaker nations (Vietnam, Iran, North
Korea, Cuba, etc). So is the US as powerful as most people think? Perhaps it is and perhaps it is not. The US has not fully activated its power since
Has a greater countervailing coalition formed against the US in recent

Some would be quick to say yes: citing the prevalence of terrorists, anti-capitalist
demonstrations, rogue nations, and leftist regimes. In terms of civil society, perhaps the countervailing
response is greater, as terrorism and anti-capitalist movements have become more prevalent. But in terms of nation
states , one would have to say the countervailing coalitions against the US are weaker today
World War II, so we do not know.
years?
than they were in the past. The Cold War itself presented the US with is greatest menace in terms of countervailing coalitions. The Cold War is now
over. There are in fact a number of leftist regimes even in the US hemisphere that are taking a hostile stance against the US, but this pales in
comparison to the size of the Communist coalition of the Cold War. Q: Well, you believe that the US dominance has remained unchallenged so far. Well, some political
scientists believe that the United States is voluntarily retreating from its position as a global hegemon, as a result of a remarkable increase in the costs of the unipolar and
A: The problem for America ns is that in fact it is

not retreating . The size of the USs global military presence is greater than it has ever
been. Close to one trillion dollars is spent on military , most of it feeding the global
military machine . Obamas more dovish approach to foreign policy has not significantly
diminished our global presence ( even with the scaling down of activities in Iraq and
hegemonic order and the considerable decrease in its utilities. Whats your viewpoint in this regard?
Afghanistan ). Irrespective of the personal convictions of Presidents, they have found the industrial-military complex difficult to tame.
American society faces its greatest domestic challenges since the Great Depression, and yet we have hundreds of bases in Europe alone. Whats
wrong with this picture? Does this appear to be a retreat? Q: So, you are one of those who believe that with its massive military presence overseas, the U.S. has not
retreated from its position as a hegemon. Lets get to the next question. The global capitalistic economy is collapsing and its consequences for the uni-polar and hegemonic order
are beginning to appear gradually. What do you think about the impact of the downfall of global economic recession and its effects on the compasses of the U.S. power?
A:
The
recession affected many other nations more than it did the US . It is not clear
that the US was a relative loser on this one. The American economy is strong and presently
growing again. Moreover, to paraphrase Twain, rumors of the death of global capitalism are pre-mature. If anything, the last
25 years has seen an expansion of capitalism , especially with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Just like in
economic departments in American universities, the extreme left is poorly represented politically and economically in the world today. Even in the last
great bastion of Communism, China, the Communist ideology is almost completely bankrupt as a philosophy and practical guide, both among the
Chinese people and their leaders.
Overfishing
1AC Contention
Contention #___ is Overfishing
Overfishing now and ecosystem collapse nearly inevitable 40
years until total extinction of fish policy reversal is possible
but it requires immediate action
Discovery 10
{Oceans' Fish Could Disappear by 2050, AFP via Discovery News, 5/17,
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-fish-fishing-industry.htm#THUR}
The world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050

without fundamental restructuring of the fishing industry , UN experts said
Monday. "If the various estimates we have received... come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years
down the line we, effectively, are out of fish ," Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN
Environment Program's green economy initiative, told journalists in New York. A Green Economy
report due later this year by UNEP and outside experts argues
this disaster can be avoided if subsidies to
The report, which was

also assesses how surging global demand in other key areas including
energy and fresh water can be met while preventing ecological destruction around
the planet. UNEP director Achim Steiner said the world was " drawing down to
the very capital" on which it relies . However, "our institutions, our
governments are perfectly capable of changing course, as we have seen with
the extraordinary uptake of interest. Around, I think it is almost 30 countries now have engaged with us directly,
fishing fleets are slashed and fish are given protected zones -- ultimately resulting in a thriving industry.
opened to preview Monday,
and there are many others revising the policies on the green economy," he said. Collapse of fish stocks is not only an environmental
matter. One billion people, mostly from poorer countries, rely on fish as their main animal protein source, according to the UN. The
Green Economy report estimates there are 35 million people fishing around the world on 20 million boats. About 170 million jobs
According to
the UN, 30 percent of fish stocks have already collapsed , meaning they
yield less than 10 percent of their former potential, while virtually all fisheries risk
running out of commercially viable catches by 2050. The main scourge , the UNEP
report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish
-- with little attempt to allow the fish populations to recover. Fishing fleet
capacity is "50 to 60 percent" higher than it should be , Sukhdev said. "What is scarce here
is fish," he said, calling for an increase in the stock of fish , not the stock of
fishing capacity."
depend directly or indirectly on the sector, bringing the total web of people financially linked to 520 million.
Aquaculture key to reverse the trend towards overfishing

FAO 14
{Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries: Urgent Action
Needed on Overfishing, Pollution and Climate Change, 2014,
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/234106/icode/#THUR}
da Silva opened a meeting of the world's only intergovernmental forum on fisheries and aquaculture issues, calling for urgent
action to address climate change and other threats to sustainable fisheries and fish
FAO Director-General Jos Graziano
stocks. FAO's Committee on Fisheries (COFI) opened its 9-13 June session to address a range of issues related to
the long-term well-being of marine and inland fisheries and aquaculture and to discuss potential action by
governments, regional fishery bodies, NGOs, fish workers and other actors in the international community.
Saying
aquaculture make a "central contribution to

food security and nutrition ," Graziano da Silva added that sustainable
that fisheries and
development in the world's island and coastal states was especially dependen t on the
"vitality of oceans and fish stocks." "Overfishing, pollution and climate change are putting this
vitality at risk . The impacts are already evident. And the world's poor, in
rural and coastal areas, are among the most affected ," said Graziano da Silva. "I want to stress
the urgency of individual and collective action to address climate change, one of the most pressing challenges the
world faces today," he said, adding that FAO was making it a priority in its work to improve sustainable
development through its Blue Growth Initiative.
The Director-General pointed out that fisheries
and aquaculture were the sources of 17 percent of the animal
protein consumed in the world and up to 50 percent in some Small

Island Developing States (SIDS) and Asian countries. They were also central to the
livelihoods of some of the most vulnerable families in the world. "The livelihoods of 12
percent of the world's population depend on this sector. In particular, small-scale
fisheries are the source of employment for more than 90 percent of the world's
capture fishers and fish workers, about half of whom are women," he said.
Overfishing crushes marine biodiversity India is case-in-point

Antony 4/17 professor of zoology at Christ University (Overfishing Kills Marine
Biodiversity 4/17/14, http://www.deccanherald.com/content/400025/overfishingkills-marine-biodiversity.html)
rich in marine biodiversity. Indias coastline is more than 7,500km in length
Despite logistic
constraints in explorations and collection of specimen; the number of species known
from the Indian coastline is more than 13,000. The Indian coastal water harbours
451 species of sponges, more than 200 species of corals, more than 2900 species of
crustacean, 3370 species of marine mollusks, more than 200 species of bryozoans,
765 species of echinoderm, 47 species of tunicates, more than 1300 marine fishes,
26 species of sea snakes, 5 species of sea turtles and 30 species of marine
mammals including dugong, dolphins, whales, etc. In addition a wide variety of sea
birds can be observed around the coast. But unfortunately, habitat and biodiversity
loss due to bottom trawling, overfishing, use of small sized mesh nets, juvenile
fishery etc. are wreaking havoc on marine biodiversity of India. About 72 per cent of total production
of marine fish in India, lands at the West Coast. Kerala is the biggest producer followed by Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Goa,
Like its rich terrestrial biodiversity,
India is
equally
and extends to a total area of about 2, 81,600 sq km. It harbours unique habitats and a plethora of marine species.
Daman and Diu. Kerala has a long coastal line of 590 km on the western side of the state hugging the Arabian Sea. The marine, brackish and freshwater
fisheries are important for the states economy. For a biologist, the Ramsar convention wetlands, mangrove forests and marine biodiversity of Kerala serve
The domestic turnover in fishery sector is about Rs 6,000 crore and provides
livelihood for 1.7 million people in Kerala . Foreign exchange turnover of the state through the export of
marine product accounts for more than 20 per cent of the total marine export
earnings of the country. At the same time crores of rupees are lost due to large scale fish
massacre in the Arabian Sea. More than 100s of tons of small fishes are drained daily from the sea using small mesh nests and
as a natural laboratory. Massive turnover
sent to the factories in Mangalore. There it is dried and powdered to make organic manure and fish feed. Fishmeal from Mangalore reaches Japan via
Bottom
trawling results in a lot of by-catch and can damage the sea floor. A single pass along the seafloor
can remove 5 per cent to 25 per cent of the seabed life . From the Munambum harbour of kerala itself more
Colombo in 20 to 25 days. A large net called trawl is towed along the sea bottom by one or more boats, called trawlers or draggers.
This will make the sea barren and lead to severe

shortage of fishes. The fingerlings of leather jacket fishes are mostly captured. Besides crabs, prawns, lobsters and squids; the young ones
than 40 tones of small fishes are harvested like this.
of Sardine, Mackerel, Threadfin Bream, and Milk Fish etc. too get entangled in the small mesh nests. Along with this so many other inedible biota too are
This in turn completely smashes up the marine ecosystem
captured.
. These small fishes are sold just for
Rs10 per kilogram. There is large scale removal of fingerlings from Beypore, Neendakara, and Shakthikulangara harbours. The leather jacket which grows
up to 2.5 kg has a market value of Rs 150 per kg. It has good demand abroad and has an export value of 6 dollars. Thousands of tons of leather jackets
below 25 gm weight are drained from the sea in the past one month in these areas. Fishes which can grow hundred fold weights and yield good foreign
money is being crushed and made manure and fish feed. Fishermen who go in big trawlers exhaust small fishes using odd nets. They catch it as an extra
source of income. Traditional fishermen leave small fishes back into the sea. Perverse subsidies in fishing industries are incentives to fishermen to overfish.
Various aspects of coastal ecosystems- the environmental process, functioning, flow of marine resources and various conflicts are to be mulled over before
integrated
management practices of marine and surrounding terrestrial areas are required to
develop a sound marine biodiversity conservation strategy.
drawing a strategy of marine diversity conservation. Proper legislative measures, socio-economic analysis and
That biodiversity loss causes mass extinction

Borenstein 11 AP science writer and professor at NYU (Pretty bleak situation:
Mass extinctions in oceans predicted 6/21/11,

http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2011/06/21/pretty_bleak_situation_mas
s_extinctions_in_oceans_predicted.html)
The health of the worlds oceans is declining much faster than originally thoug ht
under siege from pollution, overfishing and other man-made problems all at once scientists say in a new report.
The mix of interacting ingredients is in place for a mass extinction in the worlds oceans,
said a report by a top panel of scientists that will be presented to the United Nations on Tuesday. The report says
Factors
include dead zones from farm runoff, an increase in acidity from too much carbon dioxide, habitat destruction
and melting sea ice, along with overfishing. Things seem to be going wrong on several different levels, said
the troubles from global warming and other factors are worse when they combine with each other.
Carl Lundin, director of global marine programs at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which helped
produce the report with the International Program on the State of the Ocean. The conclusions follow an international
meeting this spring in England to discuss the fate of the worlds oceans .
Some of the changes affecting

the worlds seas all of which have been warned about individually in the past
are happening faster than the worst case scenarios that were predicted just a few
years ago, the report said. It was a more dire report than any of us thought
because we look at our own little issues, Lundin said in an interview. When you
put them all together, its a pretty bleak situation. The combination of problems suggests
theres a brewing worldwide die-off of species that would rival past mass extinctions, scientists said in the
document. Coral deaths alone would be considered a mass extinction, according to study chief author Alex Rogers
of the University of Oxford. A single bleaching event in 1998 killed one-sixth of the worlds tropical coral reefs.
Lundin pointed to deaths of 1,000-year-old coral in the Indian Ocean and called it really unprecedented. We
now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs,
within a single generation, the report said. Multiple high intensity factors also led to the previous five
mass extinction events in the past 600 million years, the scientists note. The chief causes for
extinctions at the moment are overfishing and habitat loss, but global warming is
increasingly adding to this, the report said. Carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels ends up
sinking in the ocean which then becomes more acidic. Warmer ocean temperatures also are shifting species from
their normal habitats, Rogers said. Add to that melting sea ice and glaciers. Chemicals and plastics from daily life
are also causing problems for sea creatures, the report said. Overall, the worlds oceans just cannot bounce back
from problems such as oil spills like they used to, scientists said. However, Lundin said ,
some of these
things are reversible if we change our behaviour.
Put away your defense biod loss kills everyone

Coyne and Hoekstra 7 - Jerry Coyne is a professor in the department of
ecology and evolution at the university of Chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is John L. Loeb
associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at
Harvard University and curator of mammals at Harvards museum of comparative
zoology. ,(Diversity Lost as We Head Towards a Lonely Planet 11/10/07,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/diversity-lost-as-we-head-towards-a-
lonely-planet/story-e6frg8gf-1111114841209?
nk=2350ab91a5c50b97104e82b17be35fb6)
Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global
warming increases extinction, 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:
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 got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats.
Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't
just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden
services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such
services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through 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 harbours and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species
Thanks to these developments, soils will erode

and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish
agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, 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 important 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
(often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat.
phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the
Species extinction is
also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than
recreational value: they provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations
and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided by
oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.)
ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been
estimated to be as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross
Life
as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're
heading if species extinction continues at its present pace. Extinction also has a
huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana
domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber.
becomes 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 species of worm: its wriggly relatives have
evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent), decorsin and
ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical
goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is
More than one-quarter of the

medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the
highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin.
Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug
that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have
been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given
present 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
morality and intellectual values that transcend

pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other
worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely,
creatures?
And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our
evolutionary cousins and realising 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
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 are not immune to extinction.
is moved by such concerns, it is certain
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.
Independently, overfishing causes climate change large fish

populations serve as a key carbon sink
Harball 6/9 reporter for ClimateWire (How Fish Cool Off Global Warming 6/9/14,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fish-cool-off-global-warming/)
scientific reports are attempting to make nations
reconsider the true worth of their fishing activities. The first, a new assessment backed by the
Global Ocean Commission, roughly estimates that fish and other aquatic life in the high
seas absorb enough carbon dioxide to avert $74 billion to $222 billion in climate damage
per year. A second recently published study found that each year, deep-sea fish swimming off the United Kingdom's and Ireland's shores capture and store a quantity of carbon
emissions worth 8 million to 14 million on the European carbon market, or up to $20 million. Scientists behind both reports warned
that fishing and mining activities jeopardize the oceans' ability to provide the planet with
a massive, all-natural carbon storage bank. "Fish are actually really important in the
global carbon cycle, and they've been rather neglected," said Clive Trueman of the University of Southampton, lead
By assigning a dollar value to carbon stored in ocean ecosystems, two recent
author of the deep-sea fish study. "I really think to use our oceans sensibly, we need to look at all the services that they provide and then find those that contribute to human welfare and
well-being the most, and try to encourage that," added Rashid Sumaila, professor and director of the fisheries economics research unit at the University of British Columbia, who coauthored the Global Ocean Commission report. The first study, led by the University of Southampton in the U.K. and the Marine Institute of Ireland, sheds light on exactly howand how
. Phytoplankton, tiny organisms that make up

the base of the ocean food web, absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year.
But because phytoplankton live near the ocean's surface , Trueman explained, much of the greenhouse gas
returns to the atmosphere if it isn't eaten by marine organisms. Huge populations of fish swim
near the surface each night to eat phytoplankton, returning to the ocean's cooler depths during the day. But these species don't venture
muchdeep-sea fish contribute to the ocean ecosystem's carbon-capture ability
deep enough to lock the carbon within the ocean's depths for long periods. That's where ugly-looking, hard-to-study fish species that live thousands of feet below sea level come in.
By analyzing muscle samples from deep-sea fish species collected on the U.K.-Irish continental slope,
Trueman and his co-authors found evidence that they swim up and dine on the migrating,
phytoplankton-eating species more than previously thought. "These big, bottomfeeding, predatory fish are basically capturing the moving animals and storing that
carbon by killing them and keeping them at the bottom," Trueman said. "It's only once the carbon fixed by
phytoplankton actually gets below about 100 to 200 meters that it's not free to get back to the atmosphere." Based on earlier surveys of deep-sea fish populations, the researchers
We really don't know

very much about them, and yet they're doing something pretty useful for us," Trueman said.
Is the service worth more than the fish? The Global Ocean Commission report calculates that ocean
organisms living in the high seaswaters outside the economic zones of specific
nationsabsorb 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each
year. Sumaila and his co-authors used the U.S. Federal Government Interagency
Working Group's range of estimates for the social cost of carbon to arrive at their
final mean value of $148 billion. Given this figure, the report claims it may make
sense to ban fishing in international waters altogether. The total value of fish caught on the high seas each year adds up
estimated deep-sea fish effectively capture and store 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from Irish and U.K. surface waters each year. "
to $16 billion. The high seas make up about 60 percent of the world's oceans. However, these vast waters are managed by a complicated and largely ineffective web of international
bodies, the report states.
Fish stocks in international waters are overexploited and likely a drain on coastal fisheries, it
As a result, nations attending the 2012 Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development charged the United
Nations to come up with a better management plan for the high seas. This Global
Ocean Commission report, which will be formally launched later this month, is
intended to influence this process . Sumaila said the $148 billion price tag is a ballpark figure and that the estimated range of $74 billion to $222
adds.
billion is very broad. "Our estimates of carbon capture and storage in the high seas are preliminary and necessarily subject to a great deal of uncertainty," the report states, largely
because the mechanisms behind carbon transfer in the ocean are not yet fully understood. But, Sumaila added, "the uncertainty is high, but the consequences can be very high, also."
Unmitigated, climate change causes extinction

Flournoy 12
(Citing Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center and a
technology risk assessment expert, Don Flournoy, PhD and MA from the University
of Texas, Former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, Former Associate
Dean @ State University of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project
Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently
Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio
University, Citing Dr. "Solar Power Satellites," Chapter 2: What Are the Principal
Sunsat Services and Markets?, January, Springer Briefs in Space Development,
Book)
Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space
Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth,
writes, The evidence of global warming is alarming, noting the potential for a
catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010). Hsu and his NASA
In the Online Journal of Space Communication, Dr. Feng
colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they
received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar
After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts
on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and
that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether
ice cap melting.
these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts
there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive

correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earths atmosphere with
respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the
overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community is in agreement about
the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans
continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse
gases into Earths biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010). As a technology risk
assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet
will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it
will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is because
the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the
extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any
chances (Hsu 2010). It was this NASA scientists conclusion that humankind must now embark on the next era
that are crystal clear: (a)
of sustainable energy consumption and re-supply, the most obvious source of which is the mighty energy resource
of our Sun (Hsu 2010) (Fig. 2.1).
Global warming is real and anthropogenic

Prothero, 12 (Dr. Donald R., former Professor of Geology at Occidental College in
Los Angeles and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology and
has M.A. and M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia
University and a B.A. in geology and biology with highest honors Phi Beta Kappa
from the University of California Riverside and is the author or co-author or editor
or co-editor of 32 books and over 250 scientific papers including five leading
geology textbooks and five trade books as well as edited symposium volumes and
other technical works and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and the
Paleontological Society and the Linnaean Society of London and received fellowships
from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Science Foundation and served
as the President and Vice President of the Pacific Section of Society of Sedimentary
Geology and as the Program Chair for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and
received the Schuchert Award of the Paleontological Society for the outstanding
paleontologist under the age of 40, 2/8, How We Know Global Warming is Real and
Human Caused, Skeptic, http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/)
the W all S treet J ournal ran an Opinion Editorial written by 16 people who deny the
evidence of human-induced climate change. Most of the authors of the editorial were not
climate scientists; one of two actual climate scientists of the group, Richard Lindzen, is a notorious global warming denier
who also denies that smoking causes cancer. Predictably, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Journal refused to run a
statement by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences , although a Letter
to the Editor by 38 of the worlds leading climate scientists1 did manage to get published there. The letter pointed out
the numerous lies, mistakes, and fallacies in the editorial , along with a scathing rebuke by climate
scientist Kevin Trenberth, whose remarks were quoted out of context to make them seem the opposite of
what he actually said. As the Trenberth et al. letter pointed out, the 16 authors of the editorial were so far out of
their depth in discussing the topic that they were the climate-science equivalent
On January 27, 2012,
of dentists practicing cardiology . And as if to answer the editorial, the earth sent a resounding message
in reply. On Feb. 2, 2012, an 18-mile crack appeared in Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica (see photo above and sidebar for details), a
prelude to the calving off an iceberg 350 square miles in area, one of the largest icebergs ever seen.2 Converging Lines of
How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There
are numerous lines of evidence that converge to this conclusion. Carbon
Evidence
Dioxide Increase . Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an

unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of
time shows otherwise. Mann et al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years worth of
temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements of
the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands
out like a sore thumb. This famous graph (see Figure 1 above) is now known as the hockey stick because it is long and
straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show
that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000,
2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age . There were minor warming events during the
Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age from the 1700s and
the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200
years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, the timing of this warming
coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and
released carbon dioxide by burning coal, gas, and oil. Melting Polar Ice Caps . The polar
1800s. But
icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate . In 2000, my former graduate advisor
Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic
the entire ice sheet is

breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice
covered in the summer.4 As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for
ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years and maybe longer3, but now
everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people
whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In FebruaryMarch 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf
over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thickbroke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly
all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes for the
thick ice sheets

on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in
past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 yearsyet it and nearly all the other
geologic history. Melting Glaciers . Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates
ever documented. Many of those glaciers, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras,
provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend uponyet this fresh
water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of worlds population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on
The implications are staggering . The permafrost that once

remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening
all our pipelines to the North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the
permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases and is one of the major
contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat
waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010
Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water.
just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough).
Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their
environment changes.5 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not
have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north.
Sea
Level Rise . All that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea level to rise, as it has many times in the
geologic past. At present, sea level is rising about 34 mm per year, more than ten times the
rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data show
that sea level was virtually unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began.
A few millimeters here or there doesnt impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that
most scientists predict sea level will rise 80130 cm in just the next century. A sea
level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the worlds low-elevation cities,
such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny
island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the
Even a small sea level rise might

not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge
(as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level
waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.6
rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of the worlds coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the
worlds river deltas) would be drowned. Most of the worlds population lives in coastal cities such as
New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami, Shanghai, and London. All of those cities would be partially or
completely under water with such a sea level rise. If all the glacial ice caps melted completely (as they have several times before
during past greenhouse episodes in the geologic past), sea level would rise by 65 m (215 feet)! The entire Mississippi Valley would
flood, so you could dock your boat in Cairo, Illinois. Such a sea level rise would drown nearly every coastal region under hundreds of
feet of water, and inundate New York City, London and Paris. All that would remain would be the tall landmarks, such as the Empire
State Building, Big Ben, and the Eiffel Tower. You could tie your boats to these pinnacles, but the rest of these drowned cities would
be deep under water. Climate Deniers Arguments and Scientists Rebuttals Despite the overwhelming evidence there are
people who remain skeptical. One reason is that they have been fed lies, distortions, and
misstatements by the global warming denialists who want to cloud or confuse the issue. Lets examine some of
these claims in detail: Its just natural climatic variability. No , it is not. As I detailed in my 2009 book,
many
Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs, geologists and paleoclimatologists know a lot about past greenhouse worlds, and the icehouse planet
that has existed for the past 33 million years. We have a good understanding of how and why the Antarctic ice sheet first appeared
at that time, and how the Arctic froze over about 3.5 million years ago, beginning the 24 glacial and interglacial episodes of the Ice
Ages that have occurred since then. We know how variations in the earths orbit (the Milankovitch cycles) controls the amount of
solar radiation the earth receives, triggering the shifts between glacial and interglacial periods. Our current warm interglacial has
if it were not for global warming, we

would be headed into the next glacial in the next 1000 years or so. Instead, our pumping
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere after they were long trapped in the earths crust has pushed the
planet into a super-interglacial, already warmer than any previous warming period. We
can see the big picture of climate variability most clearly in the EPICA cores from Antarctica (see Figure 2 below),
which show the details of the last 650,000 years of glacial-interglacial cycles. At no
time during any previous interglacial did the carbon dioxide levels exceed 300 ppm,
even at their very warmest. Our atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are already close to 400
ppm today. The atmosphere is headed to 600 ppm within a few decades, even if we stopped releasing greenhouse gases
immediately. This is decidedly not within the normal range of climatic variability , but
clearly unprecedented in human history . Anyone who says this is normal
already lasted 10,000 years, the duration of most previous interglacials, so
variability has never seen the huge amount of paleoclimatic data that show otherwise. Its just
another warming episode, like the Mediaeval Warm Period, or the Holocene Climatic
Optimum or the end of the Little Ice Age. Untrue . There were numerous small fluctuations of
warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years of the Holocene. But in the case of the Mediaeval Warm Period (about
9501250 A.D.), the temperatures increased by only 1C, much less than we have seen in the
current episode of global warming (see Figure 1). This episode was also only a local warming in the North Atlantic and
northern Europe. Global temperatures over this interval did not warm at all, and actually cooled by more than
1C. Likewise, the warmest period of the last 10,000 years was the Holocene Climatic Optimum (50009000 B.C.) when warmer and
wetter conditions in Eurasia caused the rise of the first great civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China. This
was largely a Northern Hemisphere-Eurasian phenomenon, with 23C warming in the Arctic and northern Europe. But there was
almost no warming in the tropics, and cooling or no change in the Southern Hemisphere.7 To the Eurocentric world, these warming
events seemed important, but on a global scale the effect is negligible . In addition, neither of these warming
episodes is related to increasing greenhouse gases. The Holocene Climatic Optimum, in fact, is predicted by the Milankovitch cycles,
since at that time the axial tilt of the earth was 24, its steepest value, meaning the Northern Hemisphere got more solar radiation
than normalbut the Southern Hemisphere less, so the two balanced. By contrast, not only is the warming observed in the last 200
years much greater than during these previous episodes, but it is also global and bipolar, so it is not a purely local effect. The
warming that ended the Little Ice Age (from the mid-1700s to the late 1800s) was due to increased solar radiation prior to 1940.
Since 1940, however, the amount of solar radiation has been dropping, so the only candidate for the post-1940 warming has to be
Its just the sun, or cosmic rays, or volcanic activity or methane. No pe,
The amount of heat that the sun provides has been decreasing since 19409, just the
opposite of the denialists claims. There is no evidence (see Figure 3 below) of increase in cosmic
radiation during the past century.10 Nor is there any clear evidence that large-scale volcanic
events (such as the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, which changed global climate for about a year) have any
long-term effect that would explain 200 years of warming and carbon dioxide increase. Volcanoes
carbon dioxide.8
sorry.
erupt only 0.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, but humans emit over 29 billion tonnes a year11, roughly 100 times as
we have a bigger effect. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but there is 200 times
more carbon dioxide than methane, so carbon dioxide is still the most important
agent.12 Every other alternative has been looked at, but the only clear-cut relationship is between
human-caused carbon dioxide increase and global warming. The climate records
since 19 95 (or 1998) show cooling. Thats a deliberate deception . People who
much. Clearly,
throw this argument out are cherry-picking the data .13 Over the short term, there was a
slight cooling trend from 19982000 (see Figure 4 below), because 1998 was a record-breaking El Nio year, so the next
few years look cooler by comparison. But since 2002, the overall long-term trend of warming is
unequivocal . This statement is a clear-cut case of using out-of-context data in an
attempt to deny reality. All of the 16 hottest years ever recorded on a global scale have
occurred in the last 20 years. They are (in order of hottest first): 2010, 2009, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006,
2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, 1995, 1999, 1990, and 2000.14 In other words, every year since 2000 has been in
the Top Ten hottest years list, and the rest of the list includes 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Only 1996 failed to
make the list (because of the short-term cooling mentioned already). We had record snows in the winters of 2009
2010, and in 20102011. So what? This is nothing more than the difference between weather
(short-term seasonal changes ) and climate (the long-term average of weather over
decades and centuries and longer). Our local weather tells us nothing about another continent, or the
global average; it is only a local effect, determined by short-term atmospheric and oceanographic conditions.15 In fact,
warmer global temperatures mean more moisture in the atmosphere, which increases the
intensity of normal winter snowstorms. In this particular case, the climate denialists forget that the early
winter of NovemberDecember 2009 was actually very mild and warm, and then only later in January and February did it get cold
and snow heavily. That warm spell in early winter helped bring more moisture into the system, so that when cold weather occurred,
the snows were worse. In addition, the snows were unusually heavy only in North America; the rest of the world had different
weather, and the global climate was warmer than average. And the summer of 2010 was the hottest on record, breaking the
Carbon dioxide is good for plants, so the world will be better off.
Who do they think theyre kidding? The people who promote this idea clearly
dont know much global geochemistry, or are trying to cynically take advantage of the fact
previous record set in 2009.
that most
people are ignorant of science. The C ompetitive E nterprise I nstitute (funded by oil and coal
companies and conservative foundations16)
has run a series of shockingly stupid ads concluding with the tag
line Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life.
Anyone who knows the basic science
of earths
can spot the deceptions in this ad.17 Sure, plants take in carbon dioxide that animals exhale, as they have
global warming evidence (as shown from ice cores) is
that the delicate natural balance of carbon dioxide has been thrown out of whack by
our production of too much of it, way in excess of what plants or the oceans can handle. As a
consequence, the oceans are warming18 and absorbing excess carbon dioxide making them more acidic. Already we
are seeing a shocking decline in coral reefs (bleaching) and extinctions in many marine
ecosystems that cant handle too much of a good thing. Meanwhile, humans are busy cutting down huge areas of temperate
atmosphere
for millions of years. But the whole point of the
and tropical forests, which not only means there are fewer plants to absorb the gas, but the slash and burn practices are releasing
more carbon dioxide than plants can keep up with. There is much debate as to whether increased carbon dioxide might help
agriculture in some parts of the world, but that has to be measured against the fact that other traditional breadbasket regions
(such as the American Great Plains) are expected to get too hot to be as productive as they are today. The latest research19 actually
shows that increased carbon dioxide inhibits the absorption of nitrogen into plants, so plants (at least those that we depend upon
I
agree that climate is changing, but Im skeptical that humans are the main cause,
so we shouldnt do anything. This is just fence sitting. A lot of reasonable skeptics deplore the
today) are not going to flourish in a greenhouse world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant of basic atmospheric science.
climate denialism of the right wing, but still want to be skeptical about the cause. If they want proof, they can examine the
huge array of data that directly points to humans causing global warming.20 We can directly
measure the amount of carbon dioxide humans are producing, and it tracks exactly with the amount of increase in atmospheric
Through carbon isotope analysis, we can show that this carbon dioxide in the
is coming directly from our burning of fossil fuels, not from natural sources. We
can also measure oxygen levels that drop as we produce more carbon that then combines with oxygen to
produce carbon dioxide. We have satellites in space that are measuring the heat released from the
planet and can actually see the atmosphere get warmer. The most crucial proof emerged only in the past
few years: climate models of the greenhouse effect predict that there should be cooling in the stratosphere (the upper
carbon dioxide.
atmosphere
layer of the atmosphere above 10 km (6 miles) in elevation, but warming in the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere
exactly what our space probes have measured. Finally, we can

rule out any other culprits (see above): solar heat is decreasing since 1940, not increasing, and
there are no measurable increases in cosmic radiation, methane, volcanic gases, or any
other potential cause. Face itits our problem. Why Do People Deny Climate Change? Thanks to all the noise and
below 10 km (6 miles), and thats
confusion over the debate, the general public has only a vague idea of what the debate is really about, and only about half of
the
scientific community is virtually unanimous on what the data demonstrate about
anthropogenic global warming. This has been true for over a decade. When science
historian Naomi Oreskes22 surveyed all peer-reviewed papers on climate change
published between 1993 and 2003 in the worlds leading scientific journal , Science, she found that
there were 980 supporting the idea of human-induced global warming and none
opposing it. In 2009, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman23 surveyed all the climate scientists who were familiar with the data.
They found that 95 99% agreed that global warming is real and that humans are the reason. In
2010, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study that showed that 98% of the
scientists who actually do research in climate change are in agreement with anthropogenic
global warming.24 Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the
conclusion of anthropogenic climate change as well. This is a rare degree of agreement within such an
independent and cantankerous group as the worlds top scientists. This is the same degree of scientific
consensus that scientists have achieved over most major ideas, including gravity, evolution, and relativity. These
Americans think global warming is real or that we are to blame.21 As in the debate over evolution and creationism,
and only a few other topics in science can claim this degree of agreement among nearly all the worlds leading scientists, especially
among everyone who is close to the scientific data and knows the problem intimately. If it were not such a controversial topic
politically, there would be almost no interest in debating it, since the evidence is so clear-cut. If the climate science community
speaks with one voice (as in the 2007 IPCC report, and every report since then), why is there still any debate at all? The answer has
been revealed by a number of investigations by diligent reporters who got past the PR machinery denying global warming, and
uncovered the money trail. Originally, there was no real dissenters to the idea of global warming by scientists who are actually
forces with vested interests in denying global climate

change (the energy companies, and the free-market advocates) followed the strategy of tobacco
companies: create a smokescreen of confusion and prevent the American public from
recognizing scientific consensus. As the famous memo25 from the tobacco lobbyists said Doubt is our product.
involved with climate research. Instead, the
The denialists generated an anti-science movement entirely out of thin air and PR. The evidence for this PR conspiracy has been well
documented in numerous sources. For example, Oreskes and Conway revealed from memos leaked to the press that in April 1998
ExxonMobil, met in
planned a $20 million
campaign to get respected scientists to cast doubt on climate change , get major PR
efforts going, and lobby Congress that global warming isnt real and is not a threat. The right-wing institutes and
the right-wing Marshall Institute, SEPP (Fred Seitzs lobby that aids tobacco companies and polluters), and
secret at the American Petroleum Institutes headquarters in Washington, D.C. There they
the energy lobby beat the bushes to find scientistsany scientistswho might
disagree with the scientific consensus. As investigative journalists and scientists have documented over and over
again,26 the denialist conspiracy essentially paid for the testimony of anyone who could be
useful to them. The day that the 2007 IPCC report was released (Feb. 2, 2007), the British newspaper The Guardian reported that
the conservative American Enterprise Institute (funded largely by oil companies and conservative think tanks) had offered $10,000
plus travel expenses to scientists who would write negatively about the IPCC report.27 We are accustomed to the hired-gun
experts paid by lawyers to muddy up the evidence in the case they are fighting, but this is extraordinarybuying scientists
With this kind of money, however, you can

always find a fringe scientist or crank or someone with no relevant credentials who
will do what theyre paid to do. The NCSE satirized this tactic of composing phony lists of scientists with their
outright to act as shills for organizations trying to deny scientific reality.
Project Steve.28 They showed that there were more scientists named Steve than their entire list of scientists who dispute
scientists
who actually do research in climate change are unanimous in their insistence that
anthropogenic global warming is a real threat. Most scientists I know and respect work very hard for little
pay, yet they still cannot be paid to endorse some scientific idea they know to be false. The climate deniers have a lot of
evolution. It may generate lots of PR and a smokescreen to confuse the public, but it doesnt change the fact that
other things in common with creationists and other anti-science movements. They too like to quote someone out of context (quote
finding a short phrase in the work of legitimate scientists that seem s to support
their position. But when you read the full quote in context , it is obvious that they have
used the quote inappropriately. The original author meant something that does not support their goals. The
Climategate scandal is a classic case of this. It started with a few stolen emails from the Climate Research
mining),
Unit of the University of East Anglia. If you read the complete text of the actual emails29 and comprehend the scientific shorthand of
climate scientists who are talking casually to each other, it is clear that there was no great conspiracy or that they were faking
data. All six subsequent investigations have cleared Philip Jones and the other scientists of the University of East Anglia of any
there is no
reason to believe that the entire climate science community is secretly working
together to generate false information and mislead the public. If theres one thing that is clear about
wrongdoing or conspiracy.30 Even if there had been some conspiracy on the part of these few scientists,
science, its about competition and criticism, not conspiracy and collusion. Most labs are competing with each other, not conspiring
together. If one lab publishes a result that is not clearly defensible, other labs will quickly correct it. As James Lawrence Powell
wrote31: Scientists.show no evidence of being more interested in politics or ideology than the average American. Does it make
sense to believe that tens of thousands of scientists would be so deeply and secretly committed to bringing down capitalism and the
American way of life that they would spend years beyond their undergraduate degrees working to receive masters and Ph.D.
degrees, then go to work in a government laboratory or university, plying the deep oceans, forbidding deserts, icy poles, and torrid
jungles, all for far less money than they could have made in industry, all the while biding their time like a Russian sleeper agent in
an old spy novel? Scientists tend to be independent and resist authority. That is why you are apt to find them in the laboratory or in
the field, as far as possible from the prying eyes of a supervisor. Anyone who believes he could organize thousands of scientists into
a conspiracy has never attended a single faculty meeting. There are many more traits that the climate deniers share with the
creationists and Holocaust deniers and others who distort the truth. They pick on small disagreements between different labs as if
scientists cant get their story straight, when in reality there is always a fair amount of give and take between competing labs as
when all these competing labs

around the world have reached a consensus and get the same answer, there is no longer any
reason to doubt their common conclusion. The anti-scientists of climate denialism will also point to small
they try to get the answer right before the other lab can do so. The key point here is that
errors by individuals in an effort to argue that the entire enterprise cannot be trusted. It is true that scientists are human, and do
make mistakes, but the great power of the scientific method is that peer review weeds these out, so that when scientists speak with
consensus, there is no doubt that their data are checked carefully. Finally, a powerful line of evidence
that this is a purely political controversy, rather than a scientific debate, is that the membership lists of the creationists and the
climate deniers are highly overlapping. Both anti-scientific dogmas are fed to their overlapping audiences through right-wing media
such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Just take a look at the intelligent-design creationism website for the Discovery
Institute. Most of the daily news items lately have nothing to do with creationism at all, but are focused on climate denial and other
right-wing causes.32 If the data about global climate change are indeed valid and robust, any qualified scientist should be able to
look at them and see if the prevailing scientific interpretation holds up. Indeed, such a test took place. Starting in 2010, a group led
physicist Richard Muller re-examined all the temperature data from the NOAA,
East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, and the Goddard Institute of Space Science
sources (see Figure 5 below). Even though Muller started out as a skeptic of the temperature
data, and was funded by the Koch brothers and other oil company sources, he carefully checked and
re-checked the research himself. When the GOP leaders called him to testify before the House Science and
Technology Committee in spring 2011, they were expecting him to discredit the temperature data.
Instead, Muller shocked his GOP sponsors by demonstrating his scientific integrity and telling the truth: the
by U.C. Berkeley
temperature increase is real , and the scientists who have demonstrated that the
climate is changing are right. In the fall of 2011, his study was published, and the conclusions were
clear: global warming is real, even to a right-wing skeptical scientist . Unlike the
hired-gun scientists who play political games, Muller did what a true scientist should do: if the data go against your biases and
preconceptions, then do the right thing and admit iteven if youve been paid by sponsors who want to discredit global warming.
Muller is a shining example of a scientist whose integrity and honesty came first, and did not sell out to the highest bidder.33
theres science, and then theres the anti-science of

global warming denial. As we have seen, there is a nearly unanimous consensus among
climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real and that we must do
something about it. Yet the smokescreen, bluster and lies of the deniers has created enough doubt that only half of the
Science and Anti-Science The conclusion is clear:
the
American public is convinced the problem requires action. Ironically, the U.S. is almost alone in their denial of this scientific reality.
International polls taken of 33,000 people in 33 nations in 2006 and 2007 show that 90% of their citizens regard climate change as a
serious problem34 and 80% realize that humans are the cause of it.35 Just as in the case of creationism, the U.S. is out of step with
much of the rest of the world in accepting scientific reality. It is not just the liberals and environmentalists who are taking climate
change seriously. Historically conservative institutions (big corporations such as General Electric and many others such as insurance
companies and the military) are already planning on how to deal with global warming. Many of my friends high in the oil companies
tell me of the efforts by those companies to get into other forms of energy, because they know that oil will be running out soon and
that the effects of burning oil will make their business less popular. BP officially stands for British Petroleum, but in one of their ad
campaigns about 5 years ago, it stood for Beyond Petroleum.36 Although they still spend relatively little of their total budgets on
alternative forms of energy, the oil companies still can see the handwriting on the wall about the eventual exhaustion of oiland
they are acting like any company that wants to survive by getting into a new business when the old one is dying. The Pentagon
(normally not a left-wing institution) is also making contingency plans for how to fight wars in an era of global climate change, and
strategic threats might occur when climate change alters the kinds of enemies
we might be fighting, and water becomes a scarce commodity. The New York Times reported37 that in December
2008, the National Defense University outlined plans for military strategy in a greenhouse world. To the Pentagon, the big
issue is global chaos and the potential of even nuclear conflict . The world must
prepare for the inevitable effects of abrupt climate change which will likely come [the only question is
what kinds of
when] regardless of human activity. Insurance companies have no political axe to grind. If anything, they tend to be on the
conservative side. They are simply in the business of assessing risk in a realistic fashion so they can accurately gauge their future
insurance policies and what to charge for them. Yet they are all investing heavily in research on the disasters and risks posed by
climatic change. In 2005, a study commissioned by the re-insurer Swiss Re said, Climate
change will significantly

affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic
consequences.38 Some people may still try to deny scientific reality, but big businesses like oil and insurance, and
conservative institutions like the military, cannot afford to be blinded or deluded by ideology. They must plan for the real world that
we will be seeing in the next few decades. They do not want to be caught unprepared and harmed by global climatic change when it
threatens their survival. Neither can we as a society. END
Internals Biod A2: Fishing not Key

Overfishing kills biodiversity
AIBS 5 American Institute of the Biological Sciences (Overfishing in
inland waters reduces biodiversity and threatens health 12/2/05,
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2005/12/02/overfishing_in_inland_water
s_ reduces_biodiversity_and_threa tens_health.html )
Systematic overfishing of fresh waters occurs worldwide but is largely unrecognized
because of weak reporting and because other pressures can obscure fishery declines ,
according to an article in the December 2005 issue of BioScience. Although the status of inland waters
and their fish species should be of broad concern, threats to freshwater fisheries
and associated biodiversity have received scant attention from conservation groups and the
media, according to author J. David Allan of the University of Michigan and his colleagues. Allan and colleagues
freshwater
ecosystems are by some accounts more threatened than marine ecosystems. Fishing is
refer to the relative lack of attention to fresh waters as a "dangerous" imbalance, since
a crucial source of livelihoods in developing nations, and in 2000 constituted an estimated 15.3 percent of human
1 billion people rely on fish as their primary protein

source. Landings from inland waters have increased more than fourfold since 1950, mainly in developing nations,
consumption of animal protein. About
though in developed countries, in contrast, catches have decreased. But catch statistics are difficult to interpret for
inland species because they may exclude recreational and illegal fisheries, and because landings are dispersed.
Moreover, overfishing may not immediately cause declines in the total catchand its weight may even transiently
increase. Overfishing leads to numerous changes in both the target species and other species. Larger individuals
and species are often successively replaced in the catch by smaller ones. At the same time, some fish populations
respond to fishing pressure with reductions in mean size at maturation. Allan and colleagues identify two main
types of overfishing. One leads to marked declines in catch per unit effort and size of individuals captured. The
second type is characterized by sequential declines of species and depletion of individuals and species of large size,
especially piscivores. These types are illustrated by case studies of fish declines in Australia, in the lower Mekong
River of Southeast Asia, in the Great Lakes of North America, and in the Oueme River of the Republic of Benin. Allan
overfishing of inland waters has the potential for severe

impacts on human health, particularly in developing countries. For example, fish consume
the vectors of important diseases such as schistosomiasis. The authors also conclude that there is ample
evidence of the global importance of overfishing as a threat to inland water
biodiversity. They recommend that management of inland fisheries should be
guided by sustainability of yields, maintenance of biodiversity, protection from
habitat degradation and other anthropogenic stressors, and provision of
socioeconomic benefits to a broad spectrum of consumers.
and his coauthors warn that
Impact Biod A2: No Impact

Extinction
Mittermeier 11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D.
from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at
Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in
mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on
biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British
environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is

irreversible. Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to
a thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995). What are
the consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity for future resource use.
Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earths species (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and
As species vanish, so too does the

health security of every human. Earths species are a vast genetic storehouse that may
harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen cures waiting to be discovered.
understood the biology of even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002).
Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all commercial medicines even more
in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints
and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and other innovations
(Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared to burning down the worlds libraries without
With loss of species, we lose the ultimate

source of our crops and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience , the inspiration
for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems that
knowing the content of 90% or more of the books.
support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond material
welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and actions
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and
moral costs inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake, and wild plants and
animals are integral to the fabric of all the worlds cultures (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even
more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and
economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly
exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and
Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East
Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other
consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earths natural
capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500
billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human
communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer
less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earths climate changes,
the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009). In many
respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live.
They also depend upon these ecosystems the most and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have
the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and
every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of
Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond
nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of
setting global priorities?
countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget
perhaps 90% originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that
those globally flexible funds available in the hundreds of millions annually be guided by systematic priorities if
we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss.
Biodiversity loss causes climate change and pollution

University of Michigan 12 (Ecosystem effects of biodiversity loss could
rival impacts of climate change, pollution 5/2/12,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502133106.htm)
Loss of biodiversity appears to impact ecosystems as much as climate change,

pollution and other major forms of environmental stress, according to a new study
from an international research team. The study is the first comprehensive effort to directly compare
the impacts of biological diversity loss to the anticipated effects of a host of other human-caused environmental
The results highlight the need for stronger local, national and
international efforts to protect biodiversity and the benefits it provides,
changes.
according to the researchers, who are based at nine institutions in the United States, Canada and Sweden. "Loss of
biological diversity due to species extinctions is going to have major impacts on our planet, and we better prepare
ourselves to deal with them," said University of Michigan ecologist Bradley Cardinale, one of the authors. The study
is scheduled for online publication in the journal Nature on May 2. " These
extinctions may well rank as

one of the top five drivers of global change ," said Cardinale, an assistant professor at the U-M
School of Natural Resources and Environment and an assistant professor in the Department of Ecology and
more biologically diverse

ecosystems are more productive. As a result, there has been growing concern that the very
high rates of modern extinctions -- due to habitat loss, overharvesting and other human-caused
environmental changes -- could reduce nature's ability to provide goods and services like
food, clean water and a stable climate. But until now, it's been unclear how biodiversity losses stack
Evolutionary Biology. Studies over the last two decades have demonstrated that
up against other human-caused environmental changes that affect ecosystem health and productivity. "Some
people have assumed that biodiversity effects are relatively minor compared to other environmental stressors," said
biologist David Hooper of Western Washington University, the lead author of the Nature paper. " Our
new
results show that future loss of species has the potential to reduce plant production
just as much as global warming and pollution ." In their study, Hooper and his colleagues used
combined data from a large number of published studies to compare how various global environmental stressors
affect two processes important in all ecosystems: plant growth and the decomposition of dead plants by bacteria
and fungi. The new study involved the construction of a data base drawn from 192 peer-reviewed publications
about experiments that manipulated species richness and examined the impact on ecosystem processes. The
global synthesis by Hooper and his colleagues found that in areas where local species loss this century falls within
the lower range of projections (loss of 1 to 20 percent of plant species), negligible impacts on ecosystem plant
growth will result, and changes in species richness will rank low relative to the impacts projected for other
environmental changes.
In ecosystems where species losses fall within intermediate

projections (21 to 40 percent of species), however, species loss is expected to reduce plant growth by 5 to
10 percent, an effect that is comparable in magnitude to the expected impacts of climate
warming and increased ultraviolet radiation due to stratospheric ozone loss. At
higher levels of extinction (41 to 60 percent of species), the impacts of species loss ranked
with those of many other major drivers of environmental change, such as ozone
pollution, acid deposition on forests, and nutrient pollution. "Within the range of expected
species losses, we saw average declines in plant growth that were as large as changes seen in experiments
simulating several other major environmental changes caused by humans," Hooper said. "I think several of us
working on this study were surprised by the comparative strength of those effects." The strength of the observed
policymakers searching for solutions to other pressing

environmental problems should be aware of potential adverse effects on
biodiversity , as well, the researchers said. Still to be determined is how diversity loss and other large-scale
biodiversity effects suggests that
environmental changes will interact to alter ecosystems. "The biggest challenge looking forward is to predict the
combined impacts of these environmental challenges to natural ecosystems and to society," said J. Emmett Duffy of
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a co-author of the paper.
Biodiversity key to survival loss results in extinction

Daz S et al. 08/15/06 Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040277
Human societies have been built on biodiversity . Many activities indispensable for human
subsistence lead to biodiversity loss, and this trend is likely to continue in the future. We clearly benefit from the
diversity of organisms that we have learned to use for medicines, food, fibers, and other renewable resources. In
biodiversity has always been an integral part of the human experience, and
there are many moral reasons to preserve it for its own sake. What has been less recognized is that
biodiversity also influences human well-being , including the access to water and basic materials
for a satisfactory life, and security in the face of environmental change, through its effects on the
ecosystem processes that lie at the core of the Earth's most vital life support systems
addition,
Add-On Economy
Overfishing spurs economic collapse by costing billions in lost
resources
Reuters 10 (World pays high price for overfishing, studies say
9/14/10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/14/us-overfishingidUSTRE68D4J020100914)
(Reuters) - Decades of overfishing have deprived the food industry of billions of dollars
in revenue and the world of fish that could have helped feed undernourished
countries, according to a series of studies released on Tuesday . The Canadian, U.S. and
British researchers behind the studies also said that overfishing is often the result of government
subsidies that would have been better spent conserving fish stocks. Fisheries
contribute $225 billion to $240 billion to the world economy annually, but if fishing
practices were more sustainable, that amount would be up to $36 billion higher ,
according to the four papers published in the Journal of Bioeconomics. The researchers said the data demonstrate
reasons for protecting world's ocean fish stocks from unsustainable fishing
are more than just biological. "Maintaining healthy fisheries makes good economic sense, while
that the
overfishing is clearly bad business," said Rashid Sumaila, an economist at the University of British Columbia in
Vancouver, who led the research. The researchers estimated that from 1950 to 2004 ,
36 to 53 percent of
the fish stocks in more than half the exclusive economic zones in the world's oceans
were overfished, with up to 10 million tonnes of fish catch now lost. They said many
governments underestimate the financial impact of overfishi ng, such as the affect on related
industries, and, as a result, they have less incentive to protect fish stocks. It is the poor in developing nations who
are hurt the most by overfishing because they cannot replace through imports the nutrition and revenue that is lost,
Fish that would have been available had it not been for past
overfishing could have helped feed nearly 20 million undernourished people a year
in poorer counties, the researchers estimated. The researchers used international data on ocean fish stocks
the researchers said.
in their studies, and did not include data from aquaculture and fresh water fisheries, although they said they hope
to include that information in future studies. Governments around the world provide up to $27 billion in subsidies
annually to the fishing industry, but about 60 percent of that goes to supporting unsustainable fishing practices, the
studies said. "Taxpayer money is directly contributing to the decline of worldwide fish stocks," Sumaila said. The
counties are also missing economic opportunities by not promoting

alternative uses of fisheries, such as whale watching and other marine recreational
activities.
researchers said
Economic decline causes global war

Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department
of Defense, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of
Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political
Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of
economic decline may increase the likelihood of external
conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that
rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As
such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power
(see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
(Feaver, 1995). Alternatively,
increasing the risk of miscalculation
even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a
permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner.
1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among
major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions
future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they
have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for
difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states
will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external
armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a s trong
correlat ion between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during
remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that '
periods of
economic downturn . They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
presence of a
recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been
linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004),
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.
"Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic
decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and
Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for

democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from
office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the
political science scholarship links economic decline

with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection
frequency of economic crises, whereas
between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Internals Econ A2: Fishing not Key

Overfishing collapses Gulf economy
Tresaugue 12 environment reporter for the Houston Chronicle (Overfishing has
hurt the Gulf's economy, report says 9/4/12, http://www.chron.com/news/houstontexas/article/Overfishing-has-hurt-the-Gulf-s-economy-report-3838577.php)
Decades of overfishing in the Gulf of Mexico have stripped the five-state region of
tens of millions of dollars in economic activity in recent years, according to a report released
Tuesday. The study by Ecotrust, a Portland, Ore.-based conservation group, found that Gulf states, including
Texas, lost $13 million annually between 2005 and 2009 because of fewer
recreational fishing trips targeting severely depleted red snapper . The amount represents
money that was not spent on boat rentals, charter fees, tackle and bait and other direct expenses. The group
estimated the losses increased to $33 million a year when spending on restaurants, hotels and other related
The Gulf region also lost millions each year because of overfishing
of gag, gray triggerfish and greater amberjack , the study found. The Pew Environment Group,
which paid for the study, said the findings make the economic case for extending federal law
that requires science-based annual catch limits to rebuild fisheries stocks . The
businesses is included.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is up for reauthorization this year. The group said the
analysis underscores the benefit of allowing stocks to grow to a sustainable level by showing how much additional
money anglers would spend. "These
limits could help deliver robust fish populations, create

jobs and put money back into our coastal communities," said Lee Crockett, director of Pew's
fisheries program. Some fishermen are seeking a change in the law after the National Marine Fisheries Service set
the shortest snapper season in Gulf history, just 40 days, despite the healthiest population of red snapper since the
1970s. A decade ago, the season lasted as long as 194 days. "They have removed fishermen from the water, and
they do not want us to go back," said Capt. Tom Hilton, who owns and operates Hilton's Fishing Charts in Arcola. The
Fisheries Service has said the catch limits under the Magnuson-Stevens law have been successful elsewhere, with a
record six stocks of fish returning to healthy levels in the last year. They include the Bering Sea snow crab, the
haddock in the Gulf of Maine and the Chinook salmon along the Northern California coast. In all, 27 fish stocks have
recovered since 2000.
Even if fishing isnt key Biodiversity loss collapses the

economy
James Tulloch 05/05/11 Dr. James Tulloch is a psychiatrist in Colorado Springs,
Colorado and is affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area Biodiversity loss spells
economic crisis http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?
1486/conservation-biodiversity-loss-economic-crisis-ecosystem
Biodiversity includes not just species but the genes that make species and the ecosystems that support them. Therefore
Whats gone
unnoticed until recently is how expensive biodiversity loss can be, between 2 and
4.5 trillion dollars in 2008, according to a landmark UN report The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
biodiversity loss ranges from the eradication of ancient seed varieties to the destruction of coral reefs.
(TEEB). Thats more than the 1.7 trillion dollars in economic costs that the Stern Review calculates will result from the same years
biodiversity loss will hit the global economy

harder than climate change. Thats because biodiversity provides us with vital ecosystem
services like fertile soil and freshwater. Forests, for example, provide flood prevention and drought control services, as well as
planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. In other words:
nutrients and freshwater for farming, fuel wood for cooking, fodder for cattle, construction materials and foods. Over a billion of the
world's poorest people depend on these services, which are generally available free. And therein lays the problem. The economic
invisibility of natures flows into the economy is a significant contributor to the degradation of ecosystems and the loss of
biodiversity, writes Pavan Sukhdev, leader of the UN's Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative, in the foreword to TEEB.
Markets simply dont value natures bounty accordingly.
The consequences can be catastrophic.
Add-On Fish Wars

Overfishing causes fish shortages those escalate to global
war and instability
Pomeroy 7 (Robert, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of Connecticut, et al, Fish Wars: Conflict and Collaboration in Fisheries

Management in Southeast Asia, Marine Policy, 31(6), p. 647)
The result of overfishing and multiple sources of fishing pressure in Southeast Asian coastal waters is the reduction or
collapse of important fishery populations, leading to high levels of conflict among
different users over remaining stocks [12]. A complex, negative feedback cycle is
created in this situation, whereby rapid population growth paralleled by fewer economic opportunities and access to land increases the number of
people living in the coastal zone dependent on fishery resources and thus the number of fishers. Increased fishing pressure results in fish population
The
result is reduced income and food security, increased poverty, and a lower overall
standard of living and national welfare. This in turn drives users to employ more destructive and overefficient fishing
declines and stock collapses and increased resource competition, both between fishers and scales of fishing operation (e.g., small vs. commercial).
technologies in the rush to catch what remains, thereby further depleting fishery populations. These factors lead to further increased user competition,
and thus higher rates and probabilities of human conflict, over remaining stocks. This destructive cycle leads to a pattern of self-reinforcing fish wars
with deteriorating social and environmental consequences. Decreasing fish stocks combined with increasing conflict are driving some people out of the
. This is leading to increasing unemployment in many rural areas. This added

level of instability is thought to fuel national levels of social unrest and political
instability, thereby acting as a powerful and destabilizing risk factor to regional and
global security concerns.
fishery
Add-On Poverty
Overfishing guarantees poverty and famine 1.5 billion
depend on fish
Discovery 10
{Oceans' Fish Could Disappear by 2050, AFP via Discovery News, 5/17,
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-fish-fishing-industry.htm#THUR}
Collapse of fish stocks is not only an environmental matter . One billion
people , mostly from poorer countries, rely on fish as their main animal protein
source, according to the UN. The Green Economy report estimates there are 35 million
people fishing around the world on 20 million boats. About 170 million jobs depend
directly or indirectly on the sector, bringing the total web of people financially linked
to 520 million . According to the UN, 30 percent of fish stocks have already
collapsed, meaning they yield less than 10 percent of their former potential, while
virtually all fisheries risk running out of commercially viable catches by 2050.
Poverty threatens global security. It breaks down the

infrastructure necessary to solve terrorism, civil conflict,
proliferation, disease, and environmental degradation.
Rice 06 (Susan Rice. Senior Fellow @ Brookings and Former Asst. Secretary of
State. The Threat of Global Poverty The National Interest 30 October 2006)
Global poverty is not solely a humanitarian concern. In real ways, over the long term, it can threaten[s] U.S.
national security. Poverty erodes weak states' capacity to prevent the spread of disease and protect the world's
forests and watersheds--some of the global threats Maurice Greenberg noted in the Winter 2005 issue . It also
creates conditions conducive to transnational criminal enterprises and terrorist activity, not only by making
desperate individuals potentially more susceptible to recruitment, but also, and more significantly, by undermining
the state's ability to prevent and counter those violent threats. Poverty can also give rise to the tensions that erupt
in civil conflict, which allows transnational predators greater freedom of action. Americans can no longer
realistically hope that we can erect the proverbial glass dome over our homeland and live safely isolated from the
killers--natural or man-made--that plague other parts of the world. Al-Qaeda established training camps in conflictridden Sudan and Afghanistan, purchased diamonds from Sierra Leone and Liberia, and now targets American
soldiers in Iraq. The potential toll of a global bird-flu pandemic is particularly alarming. A mutated virus causing
human-to-human contagion could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Today, more than half
the world's population lives on less than $2 per day, and almost 1.1 billion people live in extreme poverty, defined as
less than $1 per day. The costs of global poverty are multiple. Poverty prevents poor countries from devoting
sufficient resources to detect and contain deadly disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), lowand middle-income countries suffer 90 percent of the world's disease burden but account for only 11 percent of its
health care spending. Poverty also dramatically increases the risk of civil conflict. A recent study by the UK's
Department for International Development showed that a country at $250 GDP per capita has on average a 15
percent risk of internal conflict over five years, while a country at $5,000 per capita has a risk of less than 1
percent. War zones provide ideal operational environments for international outlaws. If in the old days the
consequences of extreme poverty could conveniently be confined to the far corners of the planet, this is no longer
the case. The end of U.S.-Soviet competition, the civil and regional conflicts that ensued, and the rapid pace of
globalization ha[s]ve brought to the fore a new generation of dangers. These are the complex nexus of
transnational security threats: infectious disease, environmental degradation, international crime and drug
syndicates, proliferation of small arms and weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism. Often these threats emerge
from impoverished, relatively remote regions of the world. They thrive especially in conflict or lawless zones, in
countries where corruption is endemic, and in poor, weak states with limited control over their territory or resources.
The map of vulnerable zones is global--including parts of the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, the
Caucasus, and Central, South and East Asia. Fifty-three countries have an average per capita GDP of less than $2
per day. Each is a potential weak spot in a world in which effective action by states everywhere is necessary to
reduce and combat transnational threats.
A2: Overfishing Turn

SQ solves advances in feed tech
Muir 13 Emeritus Professor in the Department of Aquaculture @ University of
Sterling, UK
Jonathan, Fish, feeds, and food security Animal Frontiers Vol. 3 No. 1
[http://www.animalfrontiers.org/content/3/1/28.full] January//
However, while feed is widely considered to be a major constraint to further expansion , some
20 million tonnes of current aquaculture output, one-third of the total, is not fed . This
includes oysters, mussels, clams, scallops and other bivalve species feeding on
planktonic feeds, and fish such as silver and bighead carp feeding on plankton in fertilized ponds or water bodies, or using
wastes and leftover feed materials of fed species grown in the same multispecies systems (FAO, 2012a, 2012b). However, the
percentage of non-fed species in world production has declined from more than 50% in 1980, strongly influenced by intensification
In terms of fish input,

up to 25% of fish meal is now derived from fish processing waste,
and ingredient substitution is also increasing the efficiency of fish meal and oil
utilization. Compared with theoretical trophic level conversions of 10:1 in the wild (fish intake to fish
output, FIFO), input/output ratios for salmon improved from 7.5 to 4.9, trout from 6.0 to 3.4,
marine fish from 3.0 to 2.2, and shrimp from 1.9 to 1.4 . Herbivorous and omnivorous finfish and
in Asia, with faster growth of production of fed species, and wider availability of formulated feeds.
Bostock et al. (2010) note that
some crustacean species show net gains in output, with ratios in 2006 of 0.2 for non-filter feeding Chinese carp and milkfish (Figure
5), 0.4 for tilapia, 0.5 for catfish, and 0.6 for freshwater crustaceans. Quoted FIFO values for the global aquaculture industry include
Based on lowest current FIFO values

of 0.52, an additional 100 million tonnes of output would require more than 50
million tonnes of extra fish; more realistically the average FIFO for an expanded level of 160 million tonnes, using
no more fish than at present, would need to fall to around 0.2 . Much of the future direction in
0.7 (Tacon and Metian 2008), 0.63 (Naylor et al. 2009), and 0.52 Jackson (2009).
feed use for aquaculture will depend on future consumer preferences, with tradeoffs between cost of production based on lower cost
species such as carp, tilapia, or catfish using mainly terrestrially derived feeds, and higher market and/or nutritional quality, with
With a distinct shift toward lower food-chain species and

more terrestrial feed sources and the possible use of genetically modified
technologies to enhance options for key nutrients (McAndrew and Napier, 2010), expanded
production could be viable. Though sourcing terrestrial feeds would have to compete with other parts of the livestock
marine species using fish-based diets.
sector, the quantities are not overwhelming, and the efficiency of feed used would make aquaculture an effective user of these raw
materials.
No impact aquaculture is self-correcting

Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on
United States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task
Force, http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
Long before large-scale salmon farming, feed fish stocks were being exploited to
make fish meal and fish oil for use in agriculture Salmon farming has resulted in
substitution of fish meal and fish oil from agricultural uses to use as fish feed.
Salmon farming has not resulted in large increases in catches of feed fish. Salmon
farming uses fish meal and fish oil being in a way that produces MORE value.
Ending salmon farming would result in fish meal and fish oil being used in a way
that produces LESS value. Not farming carnivorous fish to reduce demand for fish meal and fish oil is a strategy to
reduce the value of major wild fisheries. Growth in carnivorous fish farming will increase demand
for feed fish. Catches of feed fish depend not just on demandbut also on how feed fish stocks are managed. If feed fish
stocks are well-managed then increasing demands will not lead to irresponsible catches. If feed fish stocks are not well-managed,
Increasing the value of fish meal and fish oil

has the potential to increase the value of many wild fisheries The greater the
value of fish meal and fish oil, the greater the extent to which we will be able to
then what is needed are policies to strengthen management.
make economic use of large volumes of unutilized wastes from processing of wild
fish (including wild Alaska salmon)
General Add-Ons
2AC Food Security

Food shortages coming aquaculture key to solve
Rubin et al. 14
Aquaculture is now recognized as one of the most efficient ways to produce
protein.18 Aquatic species are highly resource-efficient , with feed conversion
rates (amount of feed needed to produce a product) for fish and shrimp that compare very
favorably with terrestrial animal production.19 For example, mollusks and
seaweeds take up nutrients from the surrounding water and require no
supplemental feed. The U nited N ations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projects that
aquaculture will be critical to feeding a growing world

population .20
Shortages cause resource wars escalates to extinction
Brown 9 (Lester R, Founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy
Institute Can Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization? Scientific American, May,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages)
The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to
cause government collapse. Those crises are brought on by ever worsening
environmental degradation One of the toughest things for people to do is to
anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much
of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply
blindsided by events such as today's economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could
disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete
departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire--and how
would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are
virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos-and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For many years I have studied global agricultural, population,
environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political
tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that
food shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization. I can no longer
ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food
economy--most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures--forces me to conclude that
such a collapse is possible. The Problem of Failed States Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current
world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our
third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single
one. In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown
in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new
harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and
summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever .
As demand for food rises faster than

supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the
governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or
grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices
in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problem's stem from a
entire nations
will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the
20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict;
today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk. States
fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and
failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate,
basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When
governments lose their monopoly on power , law and order begin to disintegrate . After a point,
countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in
Failing states
are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs, weapons and
refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of
Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in jeopardy.
failing states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan,
number seven, is the world's leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda,
refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them, helped to destabilize neighboring
Our global civilization depends on a functioning

network of politically healthy nation-states to control the spread of infectious
disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control international
terrorism and to reach scores of other common goals. If the system for controlling
infectious diseases--such as polio, SARS or avian flu--breaks down, humanity will be in
trouble. Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside
lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of
global civilization itself .
Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six).
A2: No Impact
Famine kills billions
Brown 5
(Lester, President Earth Policy Institute, , People and the Planet, Falling Water
Tables 'Could Hit Food Supply', 2-7, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?
id=2424)
Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water
shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion
people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food, even a
modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening . For them, it is the next meal
that is the overriding concern."
A2: No War
Food shortages escalate
Klare 6 (Michael, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies Hampshire
College, The Coming Resource Wars, 3-11,
http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?
linkid=53710&keybold=water%20 land%20conflict)
As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many
countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for
human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive
aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling
to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to
its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the
"
planet , as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between
resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate
resulting risk of state collapse, civil

war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate
capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the
change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world,
the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off
unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to
conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could
"In this world of warring states,"

"nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable."
easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons.
the 2003 Pentagon report predicted,

As oil and natural gas disappears, more
and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment
and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the
calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects.
Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and
shelter. As Reid's comments indicate,
no society , however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms
of conflict .
Food shortages lead to World War III

William Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington,
Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 4764
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful

countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking
food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to
use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources,
driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating
competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
-- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas,
drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million
people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming
from the North Atlantic.
A2: T Development
Frontline
We meet and Counter-Interpretation Aquaculture and
associated R and D is development our evidence has the best
intent to define
Rubin et al. 14
For purposes of this plan , aquaculture is defined as the propagation and

rearing of aquatic organisms (for commercial, recreational, or public purpose) in controlled or selected
environments. Commercial aquaculture contributed half of the worlds seafood in 2012.16 Aquaculture, both private and
public, helps restore endangered, threatened, and depleted commercially and recreationally fished species and addresses essential
fish habitat, shoreline protection, and water quality concerns (such as oyster restoration and aquatic plant and seaweed recovery
activities).
Regional planning approaches can support future
marine
aquaculture development, in harmony with other resource use

issues, as described in the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan for the
National Ocean Council.17 A compelling case can be made for increasing
scientific and technical knowledge for aquaculture to produce safe and nutritious seafood
in the United States, create new jobs from the coastal communities to the agricultural heartland, foster sustainable aquaculture
practices, and enhance or restore wild fisheries and habitats. An increase in aquaculture and wild-harvest fisheries will help meet
the growing demand for seafood, a food source high in healthful protein and omega-3 fatty acids with many essential vitamins and
minerals. Aquaculture provides new ways to generate prosperity while conserving and enhancing the Nations natural resources.
A2: Obama Good DA
Link Thumper
Zero link uniqueness US just increased aquaculture efforts
either makes DA inevitable or disproves unpopularity
Rebecca Burton 5/27/14, U.S. Expected to Allow Fish Farms in Federal Waters,
The New York Times Student Journalism Institute, http://nola14.nytimesinstitute.com/2014/05/27/u-s-expected-to-allow-fish-farms-in-federal-waters/

For the first time, commercial fish farms could be allowed to operate at least three
miles offshore in waters administered by the federal government. The move comes as climate change and
overfishing have decimated United States fish stocks, making it harder for commercial fishermen to meet domestic demand. Other countries, particularly in Asia, now supply most of the
Under a new aquaculture program, expected to be approved by years

end, up to 20 offshore fish farms would be allowed in the Gulf of Mexico over the
next decade. The Gulf Aquaculture Plan would enable farmers to produce as much as 64 million pounds of fish species native to the Gulf, such as red snapper, which could
seafood eaten in this country.
generate an estimated $256 million in profit. The type of fish farming under consideration involves submerged cages that can be as big as half a football field and hold up to a million
fish. Currently, between 84 and 91 percent of seafood sold in the United States comes from elsewhere up 63 percent from 10 years ago and China is the biggest supplier. As a
result, the country is facing a $10.4 billion seafood trade deficit and is playing catch-up as it attempts to build its own aquaculture industry. This country has to get into the aquaculture
business it really does, said Harlon Pearce, the owner of Harlons LA Fish & Seafood, a wholesale supplier in Kenner, La. The nations entire commercial fishing industry brought in
$5.3 billion worth of catches in 2011, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Louisiana brought in $331.1 million worth of seafood in 2012, more than any
other Gulf state, according to the United States Department of Commerce. Fishermen from Gulf states brought in an overall total of $763 million that same year. Federal officials think
the Gulf of Mexico, with its broad continental shelf and existing oil-drilling developments, is an ideal place to begin commercial farming. The NOAA is calling for a five-fold increase in
domestic fish farming by 2025, said Holly Binns, an ocean conservation advocate for The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit based in Philadelphia. Aquaculture has become the fastestgrowing segment of the worlds food production, said Ms. Binns, whose organization works to promote sustainable fishing practices. About half of all fish eaten by consumers is from
the program has drawn criticism from fishermen who bring in wild catches as well as
environmentalists. Their opposition has been a big reason the plan, first proposed by
NOAA in 2009, has not been implemented. One issue is how fish farming could affect traditional fishermen who sell wild catches.
aquaculture operations. But
Prices for those fish have already been pushed down by cheap imports, and they could fall further as farming increases supply. Fishermen also say the plan, which prohibits fishing near
farming pens to protect the stock from poachers, will deprive them of prime trawling grounds. John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group, said that
though a rule the NOAA has proposed to prohibit cages in shrimping areas would help protect his industry, he remained fearful that the farms might affect wild schools, especially if the
two populations accidentally mix. What happens when a hurricane hits? Mr. Williams said.What happens when pens get damaged? Brian O Hanlon, chief executive officer of Open
Blue Cobia, a deepwater fish farming operation in Panama, said the risk from hurricanes is exaggerated. When you dive down and see these pens, its a very calm environment, Mr. O
Hanlon said. There is still a lot of current and movement but nothing like you see on the surface. Theyre protected. The plan is also opposed by groups like Food and Water Watch.
Some environmentalists cite research at near-shore fish farms that show how keeping large populations of fish in an enclosed area can contribute to the spread of disease, contamination
from fish waste and overuse of wild bait for feed. But aquaculture advocates claim that the areas being opened by the federal government would mitigate some of those problems
aquaculture advocates
themselves are skeptical of starting this kind of program in the Gulf of Mexico. Daniel Benetti,
director of the aquaculture program at the University of Miami, who for 30 years has sought to bring fish
farming to the Gulf, said he had recently come to view aquaculture as uneconomical for the
area and preferred simply restocking the Gulf. Anyone here would need incentives because the Gulf of
Mexico is not competitive, Dr. Benetti said. Theres too many issues. We shouldnt do aquaculture in the Gulf. Its not a good place.
because water flows are stronger farther out in the ocean.The brisk current would help, for instance, to dilute fish waste. Some
The rest of the world has made all the mistakes for us, said Mr. Pearce, the fish and seafood supplier, who is also the commissioner-at-large for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council. As long as we kind of follow their lead in some respects and not make the same mistakes that theyve made in the past with all the water quality, then we should be fine and
the Gulf of Mexico, particularly off the coast of Louisiana, is perfect for doing this.
A2: Oceans DA
Frontline
Zero uniqueness there have been decades of aquaculture
development
John S. Corbin May/June 2010, President, Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC
and Guest Editor, Marine Technology Society Journal, Sustainable U.S. Marine
Aquaculture Expansion in the 21st Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol
44 Number 3, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion, A Necessity,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture
%20MTS%2044.3.pdf
Leasing federal waters for commercial aquaculture has been a controversial subject in
recent years, raising a variety of issues for discussion and consensus building among opponents and proponents. Among the
most difficult to address has been the potential for negative environmental impacts
of large-scale marine farming in the open ocean setting of the EEZ. The most frequently mentioned
concerns by opponents include escapes of farmed species and mixing with wild populations, disease and parasite management and
the potential for infection of wild populations, use of fishmeal as a major protein source in fish feeds impacting the source fisheries,
and pollution potential and the need for standards for acceptable change in the quality of the water column and substrate in and
The research community and the industry have made

significant efforts to study these recurring concerns and how they can be
successfully managed. There have been documented positive reports of negligible
environmental impacts from several multiyear offshore research and commercial
marine farming projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire, with combined
operating experience of over 20 years (Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy, 2009; Kona Blue Water Farms,
2009; Alston et al., 2005; Langan, 2007). Proponents believe that the results from these projects,
which include comprehensive environmental monitoring (e.g., water column and substrate quality,
feeding and feed conversion, stock health and escapes), and others from around the world (Ryan, 2004)
support the conclusion that the potential for negative environmental impacts from
offshore and open ocean aquaculture is very manageable through proper siting and
farm operation (e.g., application of well-known industry best management practices). It is suggested that sufficient
empirical and scientific information exists to select open ocean sites with
appropriate oceanographic conditions (e.g., sufficient current for mixing and substrate for anchoring) and
operate a finite number of large-scale farms to demonstrate that todays off the
shelf technologies and available native-to-the-region species are scalable and can
be sustainably managed. For example, work by Renzel et al. (2007) and the Scottish Association of Marine Science
around farms (Lubchenko, 2003; MATF, 2007).
(2009) on modeling potential site impacts of ocean farming and by Nash et al. (2005) and Rust (2007) on ecological risk
management can be highlighted for guidance.
No link they dont assume IMTA systems theyre extremely

efficient and produce no waste meaning no environment
impact
Dr. Thierry Chopin et al. 12/10 Professor in the Biology Department at the
University of New Brunswick in Saint John, Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Part
II. Increasing IMTA Adoption http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Chopin-Nov10.pdf
Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)
systems not only produce valuable biomass, but also

provide waste reduction services. Once nutrients enter coastal ecosystems, the use of extractive species in IMTA
is one of the few cost effective options for treatment With an appropriate composition of co-cultured species, IMTA can
reduce the amounts of organic and inorganic nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus,
making extractive aquaculture a good candidate for nutrient trading credits (NTCs).
Preliminary calculations for a relatively small-scale IMTA project on the eastern coast of Canada, for example, indicated that the
annual harvesting of kelp would equate to the removal of 35.75 mt of nitrogen from the ecosystem, representing an NTC of U.S.
$357,504 to 1,072,512. The same could be applied to another key nutrient, phosphorus. With a removal of 4.09 mt and a value of
U.S. $4/kg removed, this would represent another contribution to the NTC of $16,343 a much smaller amount, but it could also
be an important way of extracting phosphorus at a time when some are predicting a shortage of the element.
Link turn Squo aquaculture will trash the environment R

and D from the plan advances systems and solves the DA
Rubin et al. 14
The need for
practices to increase seafood production in a way that avoids or minimizes harm to the
environment, native species, and habitats resonates globally in all agricultural
production sectors, including aquaculture. Successful aquaculture depends on healthy
ecosystems that provide clean water and nutrient cycling to process or reuse wastes and co-products. In the
United States, aquacultures environmental performance has improved
dramatically during the past 20 years, driven by the need for more efficient
use of resources and inputs due to rising costs of fuel and feed, public awareness of environmental
issues, application of science-based best management practices, technological
innovation , knowledge about proper siting of facilities, and evolving aquaculture-specific
environmental regulations at the State and Federal levels. Commercial aquaculture production in the
United States operates under some of the most stringent environmental
requirements in the world. Similarly, Federal agencies adhere to sound science and best
management practices when fulfilling their recovery and restoration missions.
Aquaculture production, like any human activity, can have a variety of potential impacts
Strategic Goal 1: Advance Understanding of the Interactions of Aquaculture and the Environment
beyond minimally adverse effects on the environment, depending on species, production system, and location. In
some cases, pathogens and parasites may be transferred from wild to farmed fish and vice versa, and protected
New technology
and management approaches are now in use and are required to
minimize or eliminate negative environmental interactions including
marine mammals or migratory waterfowl may interact with aquaculture activities.
impacts to water quality, benthic geochemistry, biodiversity, and interactions with

protected species.
Extn No Link General

Marine aquaculture is environmentally friendly and sustainable
NOAA 12/18/13, National Ocean Service, NOAA: Coastal ocean aquaculture can
be environmentally sustainable,
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131218_aquaculture.html
Specific types of fish farming can be accomplished with minimal or no harm to the coastal
ocean environment as long as proper planning and safeguards are in place, according to a new report from researchers
at NOAAs National Ocean Service. The study, led by scientists at National Ocean Services National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science (NCCOS), evaluated the environmental effects of finfish aquaculture, including interactions with water quality, benthic
habitats, and marine life across various farming practices and habitat types. We did this study because of concerns that putting
marine finfish farms in the coastal ocean could have adverse effects on the environment, said Dr. James Morris, NCCOS ecologist.
We found that,
in cases where farms are appropriately sited and responsibly managed,

impacts to the environment are minimal to non-existent. This report provides coastal and farm managers
with a global perspective on a range of potential environmental effects and their relative intensity, said Dr. Michael Rubino, director
of NOAA Fisheries Office of Aquaculture. It is a tool that can be used when evaluating proposed or operational farming sites and
gives them a factual basis to make decisions. In the report, scientists said that continued development of regional bestmanagement practices and standardized protocols for environmental monitoring are key needs for aquaculture managers. As
aquaculture development increases in the coastal ocean, the ability to forecast immediate or long-term environmental concerns will
provide confidence to coastal managers and the public. This
report contributes to the growing body of

evidence supporting marine aquaculture as a sustainable source of safe, healthy
and local seafood that supports jobs in coastal communities , said Sam Rauch, acting assistant
NOAA administrator for NOAA Fisheries.
IMTA solves all environment sustainability questions

Kelly Barrington et al., 2009, University of New Brunswick. Bachelor of
Science Department of Biology, Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in
marine temperate waters http://aansonline.ca/archives/doi/barrington-et-al-2009fao-imta-review.pdf
IMTA is the practice which combines, in the appropriate proportions, the cultivation of fed aquaculture
species (e.g. finfish/shrimp) with organic extractive aquaculture species (e.g. shellfish/herbivorous fish)
and inorganic extractive aquaculture species (e.g. seaweed) to create balanced systems
for environmental sustainability (biomitigation) economic stability (product diversification and risk
reduction) and social acceptability (better management practices). In summary, Canada, Chile, China, Ireland, South
Africa, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (mostly Scotland) and the United States of America are the only
countries to have IMTA systems near commercial scale, or at commercial scale, at present. France, Portugal and Spain have
ongoing research projects related to the development of IMTA. The countries of Scandinavia, especially Norway, have made some
individual groundwork toward the development of IMTA, despite possessing a large finfish aquaculture network. All countries
discussed have enormous potential for IMTA growth and development. Genera of particular interest and those with high potential for
development in IMTA systems in marine temperate waters include: Laminaria, Saccharina, Sacchoriza, Undaria, Alaria, Ecklonia,
Lessonia, Durvillaea, Macrocystis, Gigartina, Sarcothalia, Chondracanthus, Callophyllis, Gracilaria, Gracilariopsis, Porphyra,
Chondrus, Palmaria, Asparagopsis and Ulva (seaweeds). Haliotis, Crassostrea, Pecten, Argopecten, Placopecten, Mytilus,
Choromytilus and Tapes (molluscs). Strongylocentrotus, Paracentrotus, Psammechinus, Loxechinus, Cucumaria, Holothuria,
Stichopus, Parastichopus, Apostichopus and Athyonidium (echinoderms). Nereis, Arenicola, Glycera and Sabella (polychaetes).
Penaeus and Homarus (crustaceans). Salmo, Oncorhynchus, Scophthalmus, Dicentrarchus, Gadus, Anoplopoma, Hippoglossus,
Melanogrammus, Paralichthys, Pseudopleuronectes and Mugil (fish). These genera have been selected due to their established
husbandry practices, habitat appropriateness, biomitigation ability and economic value. In order to ensure the expansion of IMTA in
these regions several steps should be taken where appropriate. These include: Establishing the economic and environmental
value of IMTA systems and their co-products. Selecting the right species, appropriate to the habitat, available technologies, and
the environmental and oceanographic conditions, complementary in their ecosystem functions, growing to a significant biomass for
efficient biomitigation, and for which the commercialization will not generate insurmountable regulatory hurdles. Promoting
effective government legislation/regulations and incentives to facilitate the development of IMTA practices and the
commercialization of IMTA products. Recognizing the benefits of IMTA and educating stakeholders about this practice.
IMTA can be used as a valuable

tool towards building a sustainable aquaculture industry. IMTA systems can be
environmentally responsible, Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine temperate waters profitable and
Establishing the R&D&C continuum for IMTA. Taking all these factors into account,
sources of employment in coastal regions for any country that develops them properly, especially when government, industry,
academia, communities and environmental non-governmental organizations work in consultation with each other.
A2: Link Biodiversity

Offshore aquaculture solves environmental issues
Bill Frezza 11/26/12, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Regulatory
Uncertainty Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters, Real Clear Markets,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_
fish_farmer_to_foreign_waters_100008.html
Yet farmed fish still carries a bad rap, both from environmentalists concerned about
the pollution caused by on-shore and near-shore farms, and from food snobs who
favor the more robust taste of wild caught fish. Enter a firm called Open Blue, a
novel deep-water fish farm founded by entrepreneur and lifetime fish fancier Brian
O'Hanlon. Brian figured that if he could solve the technology and logistics problems
required to anchor a fish farm 10 or 20 miles offshore, where swift currents carry
away and disperse the waste produced by concentrated fish stocks, it would allow
the farmed fish to swim in the same fresh water as their wild cousins-the best of
both worlds. Open Blue farms a fish called Cobia, also known as black salmon, ling,
or lemonfish. It's a tasty, fast-growing species especially amenable to being raised
under controlled conditions. The economics are compelling-a mere 1.85 pounds of
feed can yield a pound of Cobia. Compare this to the 2:1 ratio for poultry and
anywhere from 5:1 to 20:1 for cattle, not to mention the thousands of gallons of
water it takes to grow a pound of beef
A2: Link Hypoxia

No observed causal linkage to algae blooms
Price and Morris 13 researchers @ Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research
Carol Seals and James A., Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first
Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry
[http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/detail.aspx?
resource=lS+q3d4eICvFWKFlXBYmz48uUqIGeFF871rIXjLV1/Y=]
At some farm sites, a phytoplankton response to nutrient loading was reported, but generally this
is a low risk and causal linkages to algal blooms are not evident . Because a change
in primary productivity linked to fish farm effluents would have to be detected
against the background of natural variability, it is difficult to discern effects unless they are
of great magnitude and duration . At larger scales, the occurrence of many anthropogenically derived nutrients in
coastal marine waters, also make it difficult to attribute increased primary productivity directly to aquaculture. Hydrology of farms
located near shore or in semi-enclosed water bodies which may be poor farm sites must be carefully examined to prevent
eutrophication and increased primary productivity in coastal areas and habitats. A knowledge gap continues to be how dissolved
nutrients are dispersed and assimilated over large marine areas, and how ecosystem productivity may be affected under increasing
production from multiple farms.
A2: Link Invasive Species

Aquaculture net-good for biodiversity protects endangered
species
Rubin et al. 14
Aquaculture yields public benefits that extend beyond producers to directly impact
consumers, and provides diverse ecosystem services. A sector of agriculture, aquaculture offers
alternative farming in a variety of aquatic environments , from inland freshwater
ponds to marine coastal and offshore waters. Aquaculture also provides an
important tool used to enhance commercial and recreational fisheries, and to
restore threatened and endangered species and habitats .

No impact to invasive species
Arnold 11
[Carrie, syndicated science writer, are all invasive species bad? 8/31,
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/08/31/are-all-invasive-species-bad]
Examples of the damages caused by these so-called "invasive species" are seemingly as endless as the amount of battles waged
against them.
Biologist Mark Davis says no. Davis, a professor from Macalester College in St. Paul,
believes it's time to raise the white flag against non-native species. Most
non-native species, he said, are harmlessor even helpful. In a letter published in the journal
Nature this past June, Davis and 18 other ecologists argued that these destructive invasive speciesor
those non-native species that cause ecological or economic harmare only a tiny
subset of non-native species, and that this tiny fraction has basically given all new
arrivals a bad name. Take Devil's clawa plant that produces hooked pods for increased seed dispersalwhich
was imported to the Australian outback during the 19th century as a horticultural oddity. Despite research failing to
show that the species has any significant effects on local biodiversity or nutrient cycling, the
government has spent the last 20 years trying to remove this plant from the
Australian landscape. Efforts that according to Davis are an unwise use of scarce resources that
automatically target non-native species simply because they're newly arrived
immigrants. "What's native and non-native is quite arbitrary," Davis said. "It depends on what time in the
past a species has to have been there to be considered native, and everything after
that is non-native. Unless a species evolved in a particular site, all species are
ultimately introduced." Many of the species we see as part of the quintessential American landscapehoneybees,
But are all non-native species bad?
Minnesota,
earthworms, and even the amber waves of grain celebrated in songare actually imports from Europe. Davis said that most species
arrive from somewhere else, so someone's definition of "native" depends on how far back they turn the clock. Turn it back far
enough, and essentially every living organism could fit the definition.
A2: Australia CP
Frontline
Australia sucks regulatory uncertainty, capital investment,
lack of tech
Gibson et al. 5
(TS, GL, G, JD, H, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Priorities and Principles
for Investment in Aquaculture Research, Economic Research Report No. 36,
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/economics-research/reports/err36)
Australian aquaculture growth has been slower than that in Asia and is concentrated in Tasmania (salmon), South Australia (tuna)
aquaculture growth has been much less than in

other States, and while still significant, it is from a very small base for most species. NSW has also had the additional
and Queensland (prawns and barramundi). In NSW,
pressures of increasing coastal urbanisation and recreational use which have placed limits on the growth of some forms of
There is uncertainty about why aquaculture growth in Australia has been

slower than earlier predictions indicated. Insufficient or inappropriate capital
investment, regulatory restrictions, a general lack of knowledge and skills and a
small and highly competitive domestic market have all contributed.
aquaculture.
CP fails legislative and regulatory problems

Q.A.I.F. 13
[Queensland Aquaculture Industries Federation, The Further Development of the

Aquaculture Industry in Queensland,
http://www.aquaculturequeensland.com/about/industry-strategy.html]
With a growing population, changing eating habits, and severe limits on global wild caught fish stocks, aquaculture
is a rapidly developing industry both globally and in Australia. In Queensland, there has been significant
The Queensland Government has given a

significant commitment to the development of the industry. The industry is
growing. But, the rate of expansion is much slower than experienced in some other
states. There are reasons for this slow rate of growth, and the QAIF Industry Development Strategy seeks to
investment in land based aquaculture operations.
address those problems. The Strategy sets out eight key areas for action and calls for a commitment to a
Queensland Aquaculture Development Agenda that will enable Queensland to be a leader in the development of
this new industry. It may well be an industry much different from other States, with a different mix of species,
different technology, and much of it land based. But, it should be an industry that forms a major part of the total
Australian aquaculture industry. Industry is looking for all areas of government with an interest in the regulation
and development of aquaculture to play a role in the implementation of a development strategy. 1. Policy and
Despite recent efforts to streamline the approval process, industry still

finds the regulatory requirements to be changeable and difficult. Regulation is
seen to be administered by bureaucrats with personal agendas without sufficient
basis in scientific analysis or independent review. Principal amongst the tangle of
regulations facing the industry is the environmental management requirements.
Regulation
The Draft Productivity Commission Research Paper: Assessing environmental regulatory arrangements for
aquaculture also confirmed the extremely high and complex regulatory arrangements impacting on aquaculture.
A consequence of the intense and uncertain regulation is the general perception

that aquaculture is too risky for the return to be expected. Site identification for new
projects both land based and marine based is major problem. This is having a
serious impact on investment confidence and the growth of the industry. The
problem remains both a Federal one (GBRMPA and EA) and a Queensland one (DPI, EPA). The
problems need to be negotiated and solved between the State, the Commonwealth and the industry. Resolution of
these problems would be helped by the right policy framework is developed. Industry needs from Government an
enabling approach to regulation, not just the current restrictive approach.
Extn Cant Solve Regulations

Regulations trash the CP
ABARE 3 (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian
Agriculture, Graham Love,
http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99000981/PC12573.pdf)
experts considered the multilayered complex of government bureaucracy and
environmental regulation involved in the approval process to be a significant impediment to
further investment. Marine aquaculture was perceived to have particular problems in this regard because it usually
involved the use of public waters, was often conducted around coastal and urban areas that had many
alternative competing uses (such as residential, conservation, recreational boating and fishing, and so on), and
Many
could potentially involve some level of waste discharge into public waters. In contrast, freshwater aquaculture was perceived to be
relatively less hindered by bureaucracy because it tended to be conducted on private property in the less populated areas, with
there had been some modest progress toward

in recent years. However, this modest progress had
taken many years to achieve, and new layers appeared to be being added just as
quickly as the old ones were being removed . The experts suggested that for a typical new aquaculture
little or no offsite discharge. Most experts were of the view that
reducing the multiple layers of government bureaucracy
project in the $25 million range, the cost of seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals could stretch to several hundred
This added to the cost and the risk of new

projects, and reduced their attractiveness for potential investors.
thousand dollars, with no guarantee of final success.
A2: Land-Based CP
Frontline
Zero solvency and turn Continental aquaculture is
unsustainable, bad for the environment, and spurs zoonotic
disease spread
Edward French, 5/9/14, Professor at Wells College and taught Latin, literature,
chemistry, and mathematics, Pros, cons of land-based fish farming debated,
http://quoddytides.com/atlantic_salmon_federation5-9-2014.html
Halse, vice president for communications at Cooke Aquaculture, says there are a number of reasons
why the company doesn't use closed containment systems for growing salmon for their
entire life cycle: the operation cost is too high; the environmental impact and energy
costs are much greater; and there isn't enough land on the coastlines or freshwater
sources available to handle the tank farms that would be required to move all of the
company's production on land. Halse observes that the company is already using recirculation closed
Nell
containment facilities in most of its hatcheries and also grows a percentage of its fish for their entire life cycle for its broodstock
program. She states, "That means we know the technology, the cost, the stocking density and feeding requirements to keep the fish
healthy for their entire growout period in freshwater, land-based facilities." "If it were to become economically and biologically
feasible to grow Atlantic salmon entirely in tanks, these factory farms would be located in major urban centres, in industrial parks
near the marketplace, not in isolated coastal communities," she points out, noting the benefits that aquaculture has brought to the
coast of Maine and New Brunswick. According
to Halse, animal welfare also is a concern. She says

the highest stocking density that Cooke has on its land -based farms for broodstock
is 40 kilograms per cubic meter, while proponents of land -based farms are talking
about 100 to 120 kg/cubic meter. "This is a very intense kind of farming that could
lead to major disease and animal welfare issues. We clean and disinfect our tank
farms between crops, but an operation that has to operate continuously with high
densities to be economical will have difficulty with this protocol . Our experience is that
disinfection between crops is critical for disease management ." Halse also points to the issue of
taste with closed-containment fish. She says salmon raised entirely in freshwater have a muddy taste and need to be depurated or
rinsed for more than 10 days before they can be marketed. "Even then, the taste is of no comparison to the salmon that are grown
The amount of fresh water that is required for this

depuration process is also enormous ." She adds, "The challenge of managing
environmental impacts and fish health exists on all farms where animals are raised.
It doesn't matter if you are farming in a barn, a tank or in the ocean or open field -animals can get sick." Halse observes that even when closed-containment systems
recirculate more than 95% of their water they still have to release water into the
environment and get rid of their solid waste. "Land -based facilities do not eliminate
environmental or disease concerns."
in their natural environment, the ocean.
Zoonotic diseases cause extinction

Stambakio 7 (Drug Web Blog Columnist, 12-4,
http://web.archive.org/web/20071206160857/ http://drugweblog.com/
pub/zoonosis.html) *Gender Modified
Those enemies are everywhere: they can camouflage themselves in the bushes and sand, and fly around
the world; they can intoxicate food; they can survive the unbearable conditions of the deepest ocean and intense
those small warriors, the invisible microorganisms, are on the mission

to extinct [hu]mankind . The crisis is coming. The exhaustion of the natural resources,
heat of Sahara. And
pollution and global warming, vanishing forests, overpopulation, drugs, murders, the ecological catastrophes and
meaningless wars, the unexplored epidemics in the third-world countries and unstable economical situation ruined
zoonosis-"the action of the

pathogen that can cross to people from other species"- is one of the most
the fragile balance of the planet and caused the nature's attack. Surely,
destructible weapons against humanity . Some zoonotic diseases such as malaria,

sleeping sickness, rabies, and bubonic plague are known for centuries. Michael Finkel, the National Geographic
journalist, states that malaria "has been with humans since before we were human". The marks of the disease were
found in the cells of the Egyptian mummies; even some American presidents were infected with malaria as well as
the soldiers in the U.S. Civil War. The infamous epidemics of the bubonic plague took millions of lives back to the
Middle Ages; rabies is still a threat for the humans despite all the scientific studies and useless tries to stop the
the new wave of the deadly infections is coming; Ebola virus, Rift Valley
West Nile virus, yellow fever, bird flu - those are the names of the
ruthless and faceless assassins. According to the WHO researches, the pathogens of those
diseases are transmitted from the animals or insects to the humans, and that
transmission occurs because of the close contact between the infected species and
Homo sapiens himself. But why weren't the new "assassins" known before? What are the suitable
disease. However,
fever, Marburg, Nipah, Hendra, Lyme disease,
conditions for catching the lethal virus? Who is the one to blame for? After years of the intense and dangerous
exploration, after thousands of scientific experiments, after millions of deaths, the hero of the occasion was
discovered. He has unleashed the fatal bacteria and parasites and created the environment for their proper
reproduction and existence; he has rebuilt the Frankenstein, the ideal weapon against himself. He is the human,
who reaps the fruits of civilization and uses the natural reserves without a limit, who doesn't care about
"mythological" global warming, who is surprised about massive forest fires in California and hurricanes in India; he
is the human who is seeking safety and comfort literally destroying his future well being. Modern scientists confirm
human intervention into the ecosystems, which is reveals itself in the mass forest
destruction, global warming, and extinction of the endangered species, is a main cause of the zoonosis
phenomenon.
the view that the
Links to the net-benefit IMTA comparatively best for

environmental problems
Spalding '13 (7/11/2013, Mark Spalding, President of the Ocean Foundation,
"Sustainable Ancient Aquaculture",
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/11/sustainable-ancientaquaculture/)
IMTA systems allow the uneaten feed and waste products of a desirable, marketable species, such as shrimp or
finfish, to be recaptured and converted into fertilizer, feed and energy for farmed plants and other farm animals.
IMTA systems are not only economically efficient; they also mitigate some of the
most difficult aspects of aquaculture, such as waste, environmental harm and
overcrowding. In ancient China and Thailand, a single farm might raise multiple species, such as ducks,
chickens, pigs and fish while taking advantage of anaerobic (without oxygen) digestion and waste recycling to
produce thriving terrestrial husbandry and farming that in turn supported thriving
aquaculture farms.
CP fails no industry buy-in

Shore '13 (Randy Shore, 3/8/13, "Time to move fish farms onto land? Federal
report says it should be explored (with video)",
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Time+move+fish+farms+onto+land+Federal+re
port+says+should+explored+with+video/8065939/story.html)
Industry members testified that a forced or legislated transition from ocean-based farming to
closed containment systems that are not yet proven to be profitable would be a
disaster for the industry in Canada and the 15,000 direct and indirect jobs it already
supports. It is physically impossible to move 40,000 tonnes of production on to
land, according to Ruth Salmon, executive director of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. The industry would look at
operations elsewhere if that were mandated, she told the committee.
No Solvency Water, Land, and Energy requirements too high

CBC News 5/1 (5/1/2014, CBC News, News agency based in Canada, "Land-
based aquaculture isn't commercially viable", http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newbrunswick/land-based-aquaculture-isn-t-commercially-viable-says-cooke-1.2628219?

cmp=rss)
the fresh water required to recirculate in a tank system amounts to
approximately 8,000 litres per minute for a single, commercial-scale farm. And
any disease that enters the system would spread immediately , he says. "You can't guarantee
Dickie said
there's no disease in a recirculated land based system so it's good to prepare for that," said Dickie. The New Brunswick government
said aquaculture sales were worth $192 million in 2012 and the sector created about 1,150 jobs. (CBC) Neil Halse, Cooke's vicepresident for communications, said the company has 20 years experience with land-based recirculating aquaculture systems. Cooke
Aquaculture grows salmon in sea cages in Canada, the United States, Europe and South America. For the most part, its land-based
operations involve small-scale hatcheries for breeding purposes, however, Halse points to its hatchery in Oak Bay that also raises
thousands of breeding stock to full size, on land, in freshwater tanks. "It's not just [about] the technology, we know how to do it,"
Halse said to put all of its New Brunswick operations on land would require
between 4,000 and 5,000 indoor tanks. "So you have to imagine where you will find
the land to do all this tank farming," said Halse. "And the water supply is even more
important." Halse said land systems also require a tremendous amount of energy to
power recirculating pumps. She says her company's experience has shown
consumers would not be willing to pay a premium on the price of fresh salmon
raised on land.
Halse said.
Extn No Solvency Requirements too High

IMTA way more efficient
Siskey and Baldwin '11 (May 2011, Matt Siskey, Faculty Research Assistant
at University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and James Baldwin,
Research Technician at Duke University, "Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture",
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/nhu/nhut11004.pdf)
use of multiple organisms from different trophic levels is possible and extremely
productive in aquaculture. Integrating these organisms into the same system is an
extremely efficient use of space, one of the largest limiting factors for aquaculture
(Barrington et al. 2009). It also leads to increased growth for each species used in our
study due to the nutrient cycling done by autotrophs and heterotrophs which both
cleans the system and keeps nutrient levels from reaching dangerous levels as well
as leading to growth of other organisms (Table 1 and Figures 1 & 2). When forming an aquaculture
system it would be extremely advantageous to utilize multiple species to minimize
costs and maintenance while increasing production and eventually profit.
The
IMTA vastly superior to traditional bottom aquaculture

Abreu 09 (Maria Helena, 3/21, Research and Development Manager at ALGAPLUS
in Portugal, "Traditional vs. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture",
www.researchgate.net%2Fpublication
%2F225084461_Traditional_vs._Integrated_MultiTrophic_Aquaculture_of_Gracilaria_chilensis_McLachlan__E.C._Oliveira_Productivity_a
nd_Physiological_Performance%2Ffile
%2F72e7e51cf042c5e1bb.pdf&ei=fH_GU_WsC5CUyASxzYKoBg&usg=AFQjCNGk5roU
6KIB9qU8qqG-ndkw9CE-IA)
The interest in G. chilensis biomass production is likely to keep increasing. Agar industry will continue to be the
basis for the exploitation of this natural resource; nevertheless, promising new market application for Gracilaria
species, such as the extraction of MAAs for sunblock cosmetics (Cardozo et al., 2007), or as alternative protein
source in fish feeds, (Valente et al., 2006), have come to light. It is thus crucial to pay a closer look to the
an IMTA
system was proven more advantageous than in the traditional bottom culture ; this
seaweed's productivity and physiological performance were greatly improved .
management of this resource and improve its profitability. Cultivation of G. chilensis in long-lines within
Production and profitability are normally the main factors taken into account before making an economic
investment. Simple calculations based on this work and on the current commercial value of G. chilensis biomass
point to an expected income of nearly 6 times more the initial

investment necessary for a 100 ha G. chilensis seaweed farm. The maintenance of an
(Buschmann et al., 2008b)
environmental balance, although still not legislated and with no money costs, is already being used as a marketing
approach by several companies and is currently under public debate (www.contralacorriente.cl,
This study confirms the biofiltration efficiency of G. chilensis and

suggests that a 100 haG. chilensis farm will effectively (ca. 100%) reduce the
inorganic N inputs of a 1500 tonnes salmon farm. Nevertheless, in order to estimate the
www.salmonchile.cl).
importance of some factors that may lower this system's performance (e.g. horizontal/vertical nutrient dilution), it is
necessary to establish a full scale seaweed farm. In a perfect scenario, the inclusion of organic filter organisms (e.g.
IMTA system. This information is now available for the localfish farms and might
regulations. Our main objectives were achieved,
demonstrating the net benefits from a Gracilaria-based IMTA system, potentially
available for traditional seaweed farmers as well as to fish farmers.
mussel) would complete this
help in the development of environmental
Extn Links to Net-Benefit

IMTA is better for the environment with the least amount of
environmental impacts
Valero '12 (April 2012, Salvador Guerrero Valero, Doctor in Biology for Marine
Research Centre under the Regional Government of Galicia, "Integrated MultiTrophic Aquaculture" ,
http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/fileadmin/arquivos/publicacions/MAR/2012/Acui
cultura/AMTI-Galicia_EN.pdf)
IMTA, in general, optimizes the performance of installations on land and in the
marine environment of farms while promoting diversification of cultures. The presence of
effective biofilterers, algae and molluscs, in different combinations, guarantees a significant reduction
of the environmental impacts of these activities.
Negative
A2: Economy Advantage
Frontline
1) No impact to economic decline prefer new data
Daniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic
Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1,
January 2014, pp. 123-164
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the
Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of
the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to
increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine
concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict
whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a
ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in
the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled
impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest
otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that
"the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in
2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the
financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other
studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent
conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular
decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.
Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in
protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43
2) Economy resilient debt ceiling and gridlock prove even if crises

hinder growth, they dont prevent it
Perez 13
{Tom, US Secretary of Labor, former law professor (Maryland), M.A. Public Policy
(Harvard), Ph.D. in Law (Harvard), The Resilience of the American Economy, US
Department of Labor, 11/8, http://social.dol.gov/blog/the-resilience-of-the-americaneconomy/#THUR}
The American economy is resilient . Octobers jobs report demonstrates

continued steady growth , with the addition of 212,000 total private sector jobs in October. The
unemployment rate, which fell in September to a nearly-five year low of 7.2 percent, remains
essentially unchanged at 7.3 percent, while American manufacturers added 19,000
jobs in the month of October. But while American businesses continue to add jobs 7.8 million
over the last 44 months of private sector job growth they do so in spite of Congress , not
because of it. Octobers job growth was undoubtedly restrained by the brinksmanship
and uncertainty created by the federal government shutdown and the near-default
on the nations debt. The American economy is resilient, but it is not immune to
manufactured crises. We see signs that suggest the shutdown had a discouraging effect on
Americas continued recovery. We remain concerned about the drop in the labor force participation rate,
and American workers on temporary layoffs rose by nearly 448,000, the largest monthly increase in the history of
that series of data. The American people deserve leadership that focuses on growing the
economy not holding it hostage. Lets keep our eye on the ball by passing immigration reform, which has
bipartisan support and would inject a trillion dollars into the economy, and investing in infrastructure upgrades that
would create thousands of middle class jobs right now. Instead of erecting political roadblocks, lets work together
to pave bipartisan roads to full recovery. Todays
employment numbers are a reminder that while
the economy continues to grow and create new jobs , it remains on

uncertain footing. Too many Americans still find the rungs on the ladder of opportunity beyond their reach.
We need to move forward with common-sense proposals that will create jobs, strengthen the middle class, reduce
our deficit and expand opportunity for American families. The president and I stand ready to work with Congress to
do just that.
3) No chance manufacturing decline Obama boosting

Hudak, 12 (Fellow Governance Brookings Institute, 9-23-12 (John, A strategy to
rebuild manufacturing Las Vegas Sun,
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/sep/23/strategy-rebuild-manufacturing/)
Obama issued an ex ecutive o rder intended to spur job
creation in manufacturing. Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency recognizes that
Late last month, President Barack
energy costs can substantially limit a companys ability to be productive and grow and that there has been an
under-investment in industrial energy efficiency. This order seeks to aid manufacturers nationwide, but the politics
and policy of the order provide an opportunity for the Mountain West region that state and local leaders must seize.
The executive order requires that federal agencies bring together state and local
officials, private sector leaders, and others to help address the problem of energy
efficiency and motivate private investment in manufacturing. The Obama administration
wants to provide technical assistance to states and manufacturers and mount a
public information campaign about the cost-saving benefits of making industry more
energy-efficient. Part of the order also directs federal agencies to use existing federal authorities, programs and policies to support investment in industrial energy
efficiency. In effect, the president wants more funding funneled to manufacturers and he has told his hand-picked appointees to begin delivering that funding. Specifically, the executive
order will mean that existing energy- and manufacturing-related federal grant programs will support Combined Heat and Power, an energy system that captures excess or emitted
energy (such as secondary heat) and converts it into usable energy on site for factory climate control. With CHP, manufacturers will not need to purchase additional energy to heat or
cool their facility, a savings that drives down production costs and provides opportunities to expand employment and productivity. This White House priority may not, at first glance, have
deep appeal to the Mountain West. The states in this region are not industrial mammoths like those in the Midwest or Mid-Atlantic, but this regions manufacturers have suffered
tremendously in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2010, the eight states in the Mountain West lost 160,718 manufacturing jobs or 23.3 percent of the manufacturing workforce.
These industrial losses and the political environment in the region provide an opening for strategic and forward-thinking state leaders to capitalize. State and local governments must
respond to this priority and craft relevant federal grant requests to expand investment in CHP. States will be more successful in securing funds by aligning grant proposals with explicit
presidential priorities. The outcome will mean industrial innovation, manufacturing efficiency and private sector growth. Whats more, states in this region are prime candidates to
benefit from presidential politics and its influence on federal funding. Presidents frequently use federal funding to bolster state and local economies, but they must pay specific attention
to swing states. My own research illustrates that swing states receive disproportionately more federal grant dollars than other states, particularly around election time. Nevada, New
Mexico, Colorado and, increasingly, Arizona are highly competitive in presidential elections and are ideal White House targets for programs such as energy efficiency investment. These
This alignment of policy and political forces can

benefit not just states in the Mountain West region, but their leaders . However, they can
states need manufacturing help, and presidents need these states.
only realize such benefits if leaders take action, chase opportunities and make the system work for them. This issue
is not an ideological one, either. States need help; manufacturers need relief; communities need support. Pursuing
federal funds will not expand deficits because the money has already been appropriated by Congress. If the funds
dont go to Nevada, Colorado or Arizona, they will go elsewhere. Regardless of state and local leaders opposition to
the president or to the size of government, these manufacturing investment programs are a reality and so is
voter discontent in this economy. Democrats and Republicans at the state and local levels can use these funds to
help cities, sectors and citizens, and you can be sure those citizens be grateful at the ballot box.
4) Dollar is resilient
EH 8 (Economics Help, US Dollar Predictions 2009, 12-18,
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/us-dollar-predictions-2009/)
It is difficult to predict the dollar because there are few different factors pulling the dollar in different
the dollar has been surprisingly resilient since the US slipped into its worst
recession and US interest rates tumbled to near 0%. The resilience of the dollar is not based on economic
fundamentals but, a general unwinding of positions and the dash for cash Firstly, the
dollar benefit from hedge funds and investment trusts deciding to get out of emerging
economies. As they sold securities in emerging economies they generally were sold for dollars increasing
demand for dollars. Secondly, the prospect of deflation means that people are wanting to
hold more cash. In many economies it is the dollar which is seen as the reserve currency, so there has been
an increase in demand for dollar holdings as security against deflation and falling curencies.
directions. Firstly,
5) Data disproves hegemony impacts

Fettweis, 11 (Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane
University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy,

Comparative Strategy, 30:316332, EBSCO)
there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between
U.S. activism and international stability . In fact, the limited data we do
have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense
spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on
defense in real terms than it had in 1990 .51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in
It is perhaps worth noting that
the relative level of
hegemonic stability, this irresponsible peace dividend endangered both national and global security. No serious
analyst of American military capabilities, argued Kristol and Kagan, doubts that the defense budget has been cut
if the pacific
trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against
interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and
violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while
the U nited S tates cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was
endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that
would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power
vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional
balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished .
much too far to meet Americas responsibilities to itself and to world peace.52 On the other hand,
The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United
States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under
President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to
reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S.
actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and
that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability
should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in
even if it
is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends,
bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However,
then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even
there is in fact a level of

engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing
international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting
back on engagement and spending until that level is determined . Grand strategic
decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic
if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that
logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking
the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no
increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an
increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states
had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then
internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled .
If increases in conflict
would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies,
then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem.
As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more
restrained U nited S tates suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated
to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively
without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their
view on faith alone.
6) U.S hegemony is unsustainable- economic problems,

military overstretch, and rising powers
Snyder 10 (PhD, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, Quddus
Z. Snyder, Systermic theory in an era of declining US hegemony,
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/irworkshop/papers_fall09/snyder.pdf)
At the turn of the century it appeared as if we were living through a hegemonic
age. But recent developments might justify a reevaluation of this conclusion.With
its armed forces over-extended, and resources stretched, the US appears much
weaker today than it did five years ago. The classic Gilpinian dilemma provides
insight into the present predicament the US finds itself in: This three-way struggle
over priorities (protection, consumption, and investment) produces a profound
dilemma for society. If it suppresses consumption, the consequence can be severe
internal social tensions and class conflictIf the society neglects to pay the costs of
defense, external weakness will inevitably lead to its defeat by rising powers. If the
society fails to save and reinvest a sufficient fraction of its surplus wealth in industry
and agriculture, the economic basis of the society and its capacity to sustain either
consumption or protection will decline. Thus far the US has maintained a massive
defense budget while consumption and investment have been sustained by deficit
spending. It is unclear how long this formula will work. The problem does not only
stem from fact that the US is bogged down in two wars, it is also in the throes of a
serious economic downturn. Of course, everyone is getting hit. Because all are
suffering, the US is still a giant in terms of relative power differentials. Relative
power is important, but so is the hegemons ability to actually do things. It is
unlikely that the US will have either the political will or capability to take on major
international undertakings. It is unclear when the US will fully withdraw from Iraq
and Afghanistan; however, these projects will gobble up massive amounts of
resources and treasure at a time when Americas own recovery is being partly
bankrolled by foreign powers like China.43 The point is simply that Americas
unilateral assertiveness on the international scene is changing. US security
guarantees may prove less credible than they once were, leading allies to enhance
their own military capabilities. The US may still be a giant, but one that, for now at
least, seems more bound.
Extn Econ Decline Doesnt Cause War

No econ decline war---best and most recent data
Drezner, 12 (Daniel W. Drezner, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, The Irony of Global Economic
Governance: The System Worked, http://www.globaleconomicgove rnance.org/wpcontent/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-EconomicGovernance.pdf
The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great Recession on
cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted
that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for
staying in power.37 Whether through greaterinternal repression, diversionary
wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine
concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East,
border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of
surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. The
Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a Global Peace Index annually since 2007. A key conclusion
they draw from the 2012 report is that The
average level ofpeacefulness in 2012 is approximately

the same as it was in 2007. 38 Interstateviolence in particular has declined since the
start of the financial crisis as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other
studies confirm thatthe Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent
conflict; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39
Rogers Brubaker concludes, the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist
nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.40 None of these data
suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly
slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a
drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to
the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world
have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind;
expecting a standard V-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008
Given the
severity, reach and depth of the2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with
Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look
global economy as in a state of contained depression.41 The key word is contained, however.
impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: that its
macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II and not even worse
must be regarded as fortunate.42
No impact
Barnett 9 (Thomas, Senior Strategic Researcher Naval War College, The New
Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, Asset Protection Network, 825, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financialcrisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with
all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of
the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and
recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over
the past year and realize how globalization's first truly
worldwide recession has had virtually no
impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than threeongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global
dozen
recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine)
predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last
century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war"
begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the
opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S.
presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two
breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil
Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dustthe only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both
tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global
conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements.
up,
economic trends. And with the U nited S tates effectively tied down by its two ongoing major
interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the
planet has been quite modest , both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the
usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with
pirates off Somalia's coast).
Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it
burn , occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for
example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: No significant
uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece,
Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single
state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises
even triggered); No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the
emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing
efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any
rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's
occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United
States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in
Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the
late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented
"stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-
Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to

radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies
remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both
markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from
immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no
great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade O rganization is functioning as it was
designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic
radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the
Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as alQaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as
power dynamic caused by the crisis.
political
disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening
to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and
much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary
reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in
it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world
of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly
constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes
undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the
great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses
along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I
expect the fantastic fear-
mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.
Extn Resiliency
2014 economy particularly resilient
Mantell 14
{Ruth, syndicated economic reporter, Leading Data Signal Resilient Economy in
2014, Market Watch via Wall Street Journal, 2/20,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/leading-data-signal-resilient-economy-in-20142014-02-20#THUR}
The economy will likely remain resilient in the first half of 2014, with underlying
conditions improving , the Conference Board said Thursday as it reported monthly
growth and stable trends for its gauge of leading economic indicators. The LEI rose 0.3%
in January, following no change in December, signaling an economy that is expanding
moderately , although the pace is somewhat held back by persistent and severe inclement weather, said Ken
Goldstein , a board economist. Effects from the harsh winter have also shown up in recent data on retail sales and housing .
Unfortunately, the poor weather makes it tough for economists to clearly identify trends underlying month-to-month economic
volatility.
Some of the economic activity that has been delayed by poor weather,
such as home construction,
could spring back in coming months . Elsewhere Thursday, reports were mixed on
how poor weather is impacting manufacturers. A gauge from the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia signaled that a sharp drop in February for its regional manufacturing
gauge was largely due to winter storms . Meanwhile, a separate barometer that covers U.S.
manufacturing showed that growth picked up this month to the highest level since 2010,
indicating a rebound from the winter slowdown. The LEI is a weighted gauge of 10 indicators
designed to signal business cycle peaks and troughs. Among the 10 indicators tracked by the
Conference Boards index, five made positive contributions in January, led by the
interest rate spread. The largest negative contribution came from building permits. Meanwhile, core capital goods orders
these are the sort of big-ticket investments companies make when they are confident about their future were neutral last
month. If the economy is going to move on to a faster track in 2014 compared to last year, consumer demand and especially
investment will need to pick up significantly from their current trends, Goldstein said.
On a brighter note,
trends for the LEI reflect stability . Over the six months through January, the LEI
rose 3.1%, close to a gain of 3.2% for the six-month period that ended in December.
Extn Manufacturing High

Even if its not high, its resilient newest data
Mallaby 1/8 (Sebastian, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
"American industry is on the move," http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6709cc5c-58ed11e2-b59d-00144feab49a.html#axzz2ILjNAQfA)
The
more important
technological jolt comes under the heading of big data . On Friday an
exhaustive survey of management practices at 30,000 US manufacturing establishments was released. Two of the authors, Nick
Bloom and John Van Reenen, had previously shown that
US companies were, on average, better managed
than foreign rivals. A striking conclusion of their study is that US manufacturers continue to get
better ,
particularly
when it comes to capturing and analysing data
on everything from
customer behaviour to production-line efficiencies. And there is plenty of scope to improve further. A minority of survey respondents
embraced most state-of-the-art management incentives and monitored performance against clear targets. But a quarter of
respondents adopted fewer than half of these practices. So
the stage is
manufacturing revival, even if obstacles
at least half
set for a US
poor education, poor infrastructure
remain.
But what might a revival mean? Not, unfortunately, a cure for unemployment .
Since a trough in January 2010, the US has generated just over half a million new manufacturing jobs but the bounce mostly reflects
the collapse during the recession. For an advanced economy to create manufacturing employment independently of a cyclical
rebound is almost unheard of. Even as it boosted manufacturing as a share of output between 1993 and 2007, Sweden lost almost a
because
manufacturing workers can be displaced by machines , it is factories that
drive productivity: in the US, manufacturing accounted for about 17 per cent of output between 1995 and 2005, yet
10th of its manufacturing jobs. But a manufacturing turnround is clearly desirable. Precisely
contributed 37 per cent of economywide productivity gains, according to McKinsey. Higher productivity means higher pay for
surviving employees: American manufacturing workers are on average paid better than American service workers. And consumers
benefit from the productivity windfall. Since 1985 the quality-adjusted price of US durables has scarcely budged while the cost of
services has more than doubled.
Squo solves long-term sustainable manufacturing growth**

Blank, 12 (US Secretary of Commerce, 10-1-12 (Rebecca, Department of
Commerce Efforts to Increase U.S. Competitiveness, Business Investment and Job
Growth Interviewed by Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado- Partner at The Livingston Group,
Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/departmentcommerce-efforts-increase-us-competitiveness-business-investment-jobgrowth/p29189)
I've spent a lot of time at Commerce thinking about -- and talking to a whole variety of groups and experts about -America's long-term competitiveness. Today I want to talk about one topic that I think is crucial to our
competitiveness, namely, increasing the level of business investment in the United States. Now, business
investment can occur in many sectors, but I'm going to focus particularly on manufacturing because outsourcing
and lost manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has been such a major public concern over the last several decades. As you
manufacturing has been one of the bright spots of the economic recovery.
Manufacturing has grown faster than the overall economy over the last couple of
years, and we've had the creation of a half million new jobs since 2009 in
manufacturing. Now, that's a real turnaround. If you look at the manufacturing job picture through the first
may know,
decade to 2009 of the 2000s, we actually lost 6 million manufacturing jobs. And more than half of those were lost
before we went into the Great Recession. I mean, we just had a steady downward trend in manufacturing jobs that
just happened for that whole decade. So seeing this turnaround is actually exciting and promising. America's going
to have to retain and strengthen its manufacturing base only if we are going to be the global place-to-be for highend and advanced manufacturing, that is, manufacturing that relies on high-tech new processes or makes new
products. That's what is going to keep us -- keep us competitive and keep us attractive as a place to invest. So
how do we lead the world in manufacturing ? There's a single-word answer to that: innovation.
The president gets that. It's why this administration has been pursuing multiple
policies designed to keep the United States at the front end of research and
innovation and, through that, among other things, supporting American manufacturing. This
includes working to reverse the erosion we've seen since the early 1980s in federal
support for basic R&D, much of which supports our manufacturing base. President Obama set a goal of
doubling federal dollars in R&D in a set of research-intensive agencies , including the
National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce. And we've made a good
start towards that doubling, but we certainly aren't there yet. We've launched the pilot for the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, an effort to speed up the tech transfer process through public-private partnerships and
the president
continues to advocate for investments in infrastructure as well as crucial
investments in education and training to ensure that we have the skilled and
flexible workforce for America's businesses, and that includes manufacturing as
well. Better infrastructure, skilled labor, and advanced research and innovation are
all critical investments that build a stronger environment for manufacturers to
thrive. And a major reason that these investments are so crucial right now to build the environment in which
regional collaborations, something I'd be happy to discuss during our follow-on conversation. And
manufacturing businesses can thrive is because I thing we're at a rather unique moment in time. I believe we have
a unique opportunity to attract business investment into the United States in the immediate future, particularly in
manufacturing. And I want to focus the rest of my talk today on that opportunity, why I think it's fair for -- at the
particular moment, and then, you know, we'll go into a conversation about this, right? Now, there is two things we
should think about when we think about attracting business investments in the United States. First,
we want
U.S.-based firms to expand here at home, if they are looking at different options, to make the option
they choose the United States, or, if they have plants overseas and they're looking at what they're going to do next
with those plans, to potentially bring some of that manufacturing production back to the U.S., often referred to as
We want foreign-owned firms that are looking at where to locate

their next plant, their next investment, to come to America through foreign direct investment, socalled FDIs, as the economists (call it ?). Now, I'm very optimistic we're going to see substantial
increases in both of these areas over the next several years . I in my travels spend a lot of
insourcing or reshoring.
time talking to CEOs and talking to business owners. And one of the questions that I almost always ask them is,
where are you thinking about making your next investment? What are you thinking about, right? Are you going to
make it -- when you're going to make it, where is it going to be? And again and again, particularly in the last six to
I am hearing both overseas and in the U.S. people saying, well, the U.S. is
where we have to be. It is the place where everyone's going right now. This is consistent with a study
nine months,
released by the Boston Consulting Group just a week ago today where they also point to this particular trend and
say that business investment in the U.S. really has an enormous potential to grow in the next several years. Now,
business leaders, when you say, why the U.S., list a number of reasons as to why this country looks so attractive for
business investment right now. The first thing almost all of them list, particularly in manufacturing, is the energy
outlook in the U.S. This is crucial for companies that rely on energy for production, including foreign-based
manufacturers, which have accounted for the largest proportion, about 40 percent, of all FDI flow into the United
States over the last three years. We will be meeting more than half of our oil needs with domestic production by
2014, leading to more stable and lower costs of oil. In addition, we've seen a very dramatic 14-fold increase in
natural gas production from shale in recent years. For example, from just 2009 to 2011, Pennsylvania quadrupled its
natural gas production. So it's no surprise our natural gas prices overall have dropped fourfold just since June of
2008. This provides us with an enormous advantage as our natural gas costs drop relative to other countries. For
example, right now natural gas in the U.S. costs about one-quarter of the price in Europe. Finally, many alternative
energy sources, as you know, are reaching the tipping point in terms of cost-benefit, in part due to the fact that
we've doubled the generation of many renewable energy sources since 2008. So the energy outlook is a highly
the U.S. is gaining a stronger competitive

edge in labor, in both costs and in productivity . In recent years wages have gone up and
the middle class have grown in many of those rapidly developing countries who
have been strong competitors with the U.S. for investment . In China, for instance, the labor
important aspect of why U.S. investment. Secondly,
cost advantages of being in China, particularly in the cities, which is where a lot of people were locating, have
diminished really substantially over the last several years. And again, there's really a much-discussed BCG report on
this that came out about a year ago really projecting out the fact that the -- you know, if you're looking at labor cost
comparisons between China and the U.S., if you take any sort of shipping into account, it's beginning to look like a
U.S.
manufacturing workers are producing about 9 percent more each hour than they did
before the recession. It's notable we're now seeing increasing investment flows from Asia to the U.S. Asia
wash in the next several years, as opposed to a major advantage to China. At the same time,
accounted for less than 4 percent of the entire world's business investment in the U.S. in 2009. It now accounts for
more than 20 percent. A third major reason why the U.S. is becoming a more attractive investment location is
because other developed countries' economies have been looking less robust . And you
know this story as well. After the global slowdown, this administration took hard steps to put our financial sector
and our economy on a stronger footing, and many observers believe that our banks have restructured more fully
than in other countries and our recovery is stronger and more stable. In contrast,
the eurozone remains in
crisis. If you had told me a year ago in the summer when we were first talking about, you know, so this emerging
crisis in the eurozone, we'd still be talking about it with the same degree of unsettlement almost a year and a half
later, I would have said, no, you know, this is going to get settled. It hasn't been settled. The IMF projects a decline
in growth this year, with only .7 percent growth in 2013. Elsewhere, growth is also slowing, in countries like China
and India. So I could keep going. The list of reasons that CEOs give me when I sort of say, why the U.S., is longer.
We have a strong rule of law and a good regulatory environment. People mention
intellectual property protection. Our patent system , housed at the Census -- at the Commerce
Department is only getting better due to the America Invents Act that is a piece of legislation
passed a year ago in September that we are working with to modernize our patent office. Overall, the U.S.
ranks fourth of 183 economies in the World Bank's ease of doing business index. And not -- you know, last but
certainly not least, we have the best universities in the world, producing graduates that drive entrepreneurship and
speed innovation in our private sector. Finally, we have the largest consumer-driven economy in the world. On
Tuesday I was at the Virginia Beach plant of STIHL, a German-based company that makes outdoor power equipment
like chainsaws and lawn edgers. They've expanded their presence in Virginia Beach in recent years, in fact, in the
last two years were going to do a major plant expansion, looked at locations around the world and decided that
Virginia Beach was the place to be. They've built this huge new facility there, hired 50 more workers, largely due to
strong demand from U.S. customers. More than ever before, companies need to be near their customers to respond
to their changing tastes and demand, and changing technology, changing shipping costs also make this important.
Consumer spending is growing here in the U.S. at a moderate but a steady pace. And if the president's middle-class
tax cuts go through, we will ensure that it continues to grow. Overall, domestically, it's difficult to track the
increased number of U.S. businesses that are engaging in some form of insourcing. You know, I've actually tried to
go back and look at the data and see, well, what do the data say? I mean, I have this impression from talking with
people (what ?) can I actually see out there in census data or other sorts of data. We just don't collect the
information in a way that lets us measure insourcing or reshoring. In January the president held a summit with
about 20 U.S. businesses that are bringing jobs back to America. And this year, if you -- one thing I had my people
do is look through major U.S. newspapers over the last couple of months, and they very quickly came up with
literally dozens of stories, just in the feature stories, typically about manufacturers, both U.S. and foreign-based,
choosing to make their products in America. So I admit, I'm an economist. I can't give you the hard numbers on
reshoring. But I can sure tell you it's what everyone's talking about. It's a little easier to measure growth in foreign
direct investment, foreign-owned firms investing here. We do collect that data. Unfortunately, we collect it with
quite a bit of a lag; our last data is 2011. FDI flows into businesses in the U.S. have jumped from 144 billion (dollars)
in 2009 to 227 (billion dollars) in 2011. The U.S. already attracts about one-fifth of all of the FDI flows coming out of
other countries, and, you know, those are numbers that we would like to see increase as we look past 2012 and
2013. To the policy question, if we have a moment of opportunity, I don't know how long it's going to last -- two
years, three years, five years? Depends a little on what happens in other countries, how our energy situation
evolves, how the banks' stability and the U.S. recovery continues. You know, we got a moment of opportunity. How
do we build on that? What can we do in the Department of Commerce and elsewhere in the administration to add to
that momentum and to make sure that investments that come to the U.S. stay here, that we retain them, that they
become sticky? So first, the president has called on Congress to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs
overseas and instead to give tax breaks to companies that bring jobs back. That's common sense and something
we're been implementing a new program at

Commerce over the last about year and a half now called SelectUSA , which the president
launched last year. SelectUSA's mission is to promote investment in the U.S. using the full
power of the federal government. As the former director of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service,
we should all be able to agree on. Secondly,
Lauri will appreciate the fact that SelectUSA involves some of Commerce's most dedicated public servants: our
commercial service officers around the world.
Extn Heg Doesnt Solve War

Heg collapse doesnt cause global nuclear war conflicts would
be small and managable
Haas, 8 (Richard Haas (president of the Council on Foreign Relations, former
director of policy planning for the Department of State, former vice president and
director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz
visiting professor of international studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a lecturer in public policy at
Harvard Universitys John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a research
associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies) April 2008 Ask the
Expert: What Comes After Unipolarity?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16063/ask_the_expert.html)
Does a non polar world increase or reduce the chances of another world war? Will
nuclear deterrence continue to prevent a large scale conflict? Sivananda Rajaram, UK Richard
Haass: I believe the chance of a world war, i.e., one involving the major powers of the day , is remote
and likely to stay that way. This reflects more than anything else the absence of disputes or goals that
could lead to such a conflict. Nuclear deterrence might be a contributing factor in the sense that no
conceivable dispute among the major powers would justify any use of nuclear
weapons, but again, I believe the fundamental reason great power relations are relatively
good is that all hold a stake in sustaining an international order that supports trade
and financial flows and avoids large-scale conflict . The danger in a nonpolar world is
not global conflict as we feared during the Cold War but smaller but still highly
costly conflicts involving terrorist groups, militias, rogue states, etc.
Heg doesnt solve war US lacks influence it used to have to

influence conflicts
Mastanduno 9 (Michael, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, World Politics
61, No. 1, Ebsco)
During the cold war the United States dictated the terms of adjustment. It derived
the necessary leverage because it provided for the security of its economic partners
and because there were no viable alter natives to an economic order centered on
the United States. After the cold war the outcome of adjustment struggles is less certain because the United
States is no longer in a position to dictate the terms . The United States, notwithstanding its
preponderant power, no longer enjoys the same type of security leverage it once
possessed, and the very success of the U.S.-centered world economy has afforded
Americas supporters a greater range of international and domestic economic
options. The claim that the United States is unipolar is a statement about its cumulative economic, military, and
other capabilities.1 But preponderant capabilities across the board do not guarantee effective influence in any given
U.S. dominance in the international security arena no longer translates into

effective leverage in the international economic arena . And although the United States
remains a dominant international economic player in absolute terms, after the cold war it has found itself
more vulnerable and constrained than it was during the golden economic era after
World War II. It faces rising economic challengers with their own agendas and with
greater discretion in international economic policy than Americas cold war allies
had enjoyed. The United States may continue to act its own way, but it can no
longer count on getting its own way.
arena.
Extn Heg Unsustainable

Heg collapsing now debt growth will crush us in less than 6 years
Condon, 10 (Scott Aspen Times Correspondent, July 6, Professor says recession
has put U.S. on the edge of chaos'
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20100706/VALLEYNEWS/100709935/1083&
ParentProfile=1074)
Even before the crisis, Goldman Sachs predicted that China would overtake the U.S. as the world's economic superpower by 2027,
according to Ferguson. The
financial crisis has unquestionably hit the U.S. much harder than China,
politicians don't have a sense of urgency, Ferguson contended. They feel the
country can limp along for another 20 years or so in its current financial health without making tough decisions about
fiscal policy. He believes they are wrong. The federal government's debt has grown so large
in the last decade that the U.S. will inevitably devote an increasing amount of taxes
to it. Meanwhile it's facing a greater burden through the Medicare and Social
Security programs as Baby Boomers grow old and frail. It's also currently fighting
two wars. All that while revenues have plummeted in the recession. If you really
want to see when an empire is getting vulnerable, the big giveaway is when the
costs of serving the debt exceed the cost of the defense budget, Ferguson said. He predicted
that's coming in the U.S. within the next six years
he said. American
Hegemony is low now --- nations are already soft balancing to balance
against the US
Newmann 08 (William W. Newmann, political analyst, L. Douglas Wilder School of
Government and Public Affairs, Hegemonic Competition, Hegemonic Disruption,
and the Current War, All Academic, April 3, 2008,
http://www.allacademic.com/one/prol/prol01/index.php?
click_key=1&PHPSESSID=7d0a614d8092e39f85db5e5258663110)
As the cold war ended, scholars and policy makers alike turned their attention to the meaning and uses of a
unipolar world led by the US. In most cases, unipolarity was viewed as a temporary phenomenon.5 Neorealist
theory predicts that nation-states will balance against a unipolar power. In an anarchic structure, the unmatched
power of the US will be seen as a threat to second-tier powers, who will act to balance against it to protect
themselves and maximize their power in the international system.6 As nations failed to balance against the US in
the predicted manner, proponents of neorealist theories and its critics began an important debate concerning two
issues. The first debate concerned whether nations would begin to balance against US preponderance. Offensive
realists argued that balancing behavior would begin;
in an anarchic world nations balance against
concentrations of power.
The end of the cold war did not bring a change in the basic structure and
processes of international affairs.7 Defensive realists argued that balancing against the US depended on US
if nations perceived US unipolar or hegemonic power as a threat to their

interests, they would balance against that threat .8 The second debate included a defense of
policies;
neorealist theories, perhaps even a neo-neorealist revision of the theory accepting that balancing behavior would
begin, but speculated on reasons why it had not. Scholars argued that balancing is inevitable, but not immediate;
nations
essentially hedge against hegemonic power by increasing their ability to act
independently of the hegemon, while carefully avoiding the direct challenges hard
balancing that balance of power theory predicts.9 From the perspective of soft
balancing, nation-states are already balancing against US hegemony in a cautious,
but identifiable way.
nations need time to catch up. Several scholars developed a model of soft balancing, in which
U.S. is in decline multiple reasons

Task 9 (10/20/09, Aaron, "Niall Ferguson: U.S. Empire in Decline, on Collission
Course with China," http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/357319/NiallFerguson:-U.S.-Empire-in-Decline,-on-Collision-Course-with-China)
The U.S. is an empire in decline, according to Niall Ferguson, Harvard professor
and author of
The Ascent of Money. "People have predicted the end of America in the past and been wrong," Ferguson concedes.
let's face it: If you're trying to borrow $9 trillion to save your financial
system...and already half your public debt held by foreigners, it's not really the
conduct of rising empires, is it?" Given its massive deficits and overseas military adventures , America
today is similar to the Spanish Empire in the 17th century and Britain's in the 20th ,
he says. "Excessive debt is usually a predictor of subsequent trouble." Putting a finer
"But
point on it, Ferguson says America today is comparable to Britain circa 1900: a dominant empire underestimating
"When
China's economy is equal in size to that of the U.S., which could come as early as 2027...it
means China becomes not only a major economic competitor - it's that already, it
then becomes a diplomatic competitor and a military competitor," the history
professor declares. The most obvious sign of this is China's major naval construction
program, featuring next generation submarines and up to three aircraft carriers,
Ferguson says. "There's no other way of interpreting this than as a challenge to the hegemony of the U.S. in
the Asia-Pacific region." As to analysts like Stratfor's George Friedman, who downplay China's
naval ambitions, Ferguson notes British experts - including Winston Churchill - were similarly
complacent about Germany at the dawn of the 20th century. "I'm not predicting World War
III but we have to recognize...China is becoming more assertive, a rival not a partner," he
the rise of a new power. In Britain's case back then it was Germany; in America's case today, it's China.
says, adding that China's navy doesn't have to be as large as America's to pose a problem. "They don't have to
have an equally large navy, just big enough to pose a strategic threat [and] cause trouble" for the U.S. Navy.
A2: Overfishing Advantage
Frontline
1) Massive overfishing now and alt causes
Milstein 11 Moran Office of Maritime and Port Security (Overfishing Ourselves
out of the Maritime Industry and Defense of the Homeland 12/16/11,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gcaptain/2011/12/16/overfishing-ourselves-out-of-themaritime-industry-and-defense-of-the-homeland/)
On August 2nd, 1939 Albert Einstein wrote a letter to then President Roosevelt stating, A single bombcarried by boat and exploded in a port, might very
well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. This threat remains as real today as it was in 1939. The majority of the public
and even Congress fear the threat of a major attack will come hidden inside one of the thousands of boxes that arrive via container ships into our ports
every day. In response to this fear, we create many different container security initiatives and trade partnerships against terrorism in order to limit our
exposure and screen as much as possible before the vessel even arrives on our shores. Unlike a container ship, where there are many hoops to jump
through to hide something nefarious in a box, the engine room of an oil tanker is a much easier place to hide the nefarious box as it would be much less
scrutinized and much harder to keep track of. That being said, tankers are obviously part of many inspected and scrutinized programs. One might suggest
however, that tankers provide more of a threat than container ships as they are part of a tramp shipping market (tramp trade is a market which does not
have a fixed schedule, itinerary or published ports of call) where routes and schedules cant be analyzed by think tanks. More often than not, cargo may
not even be sold on a tramp ship or discharge orders given until weeks after a vessel leaves the load port. Even more unpredictable than a tankers route
would be a commercial fishing vessels route, which may rely upon the good feeling for which location a fishing boat captain might take. While the
Fishing vessels have the

ability to go uninspected and unhindered in their daily operations which make them
the perfect threat vector to the fragile state of the maritime industry. In addition to the fragile
state of the maritime industry, a recent study completed at Oxford University reports: Fish, sharks, whales and other
marine species are in imminent danger of an unprecedented and catastrophic
extinction event at the hands of humankind, and are disappearing at a far faster
rate than anyone had predicted. Overfishing has cut some fish populations by more
than 90 percent. The threat vector, the history on port security, terrorism, piracy and how it all relates to the U.S. maritime industry and
methodology of fishing routes is likely easier to figure out than the schedule of a tanker, one thing is for sure:
the reasons why such threats are not being addressed were spelled out in Part 1, Terrorism, Pirates, and blowing the whistle on Commercial Fishing Before
it Causes the Next Big Attack. In part 2, the goal is to explain what happens if this threat continues not to be ignored, as well as how we can start to solve
this by being proactive, rather than reactive after a devastating attack to the nation. What happens if the threat continues is not addressed? After the
terrorist attack of 9/11, the airline industry went into a financial tailspin. By 2005, four of the nations five largest carriers Delta Airlines, Northwest
Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection. The nations 10 largest airlines combined lost an estimated $29 billion between
9/11 had nothing

actually impacted the maritime industry more than any other event
in the history of maritime including the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and subsequent OPA 90 regulations. After 9/11 the
U.S. demanded the International Maritime Organization (IMO) set forth regulations
for securing vessels and facilities, which ultimately gave birth to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) code.
2001 and the first six months of 2011, and the cost and convenience of airline travel for all were grossly impacted forever. While
directly to do with our ports, it
This was developed in response to the perceived threats to ships and port facilities in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, now known as the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) regulations. Its full provisions came into effect on July 1, 2004 after what was an unbelievably fast and comprehensive
implementation process for an industry that rarely saw the likes of vulnerability assessments, development of security plans that included passenger,
vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures;
and/or installation of surveillance equipment, fencing and increase in guards. US Flag New York Harbor The driving force behind all of this change was not
an attack on the Maritime Transportation System (MTS), but actually a perceived threat. Now imagine if an attack actually took place in the maritime
domain within the U.S. interior that directly affected the citizens of our nation, not just economically but with considerable loss of life as it happened when
the planes crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. How would the industry and government react to the
future handling of operations and how maritime security is conducted if an actual Transportation Security Incident (TSI) were to happen within the one of
our 361 U.S. ports? More importantly, how would the citizens of our country react? Aviation is a necessity for travel and it was heavily impacted by a fear
of people to fly securely even though it was often their only choice. The effect on the publics faith in the cruise industry, which is not a necessity for
vacation and transit, would be devastating if there were an attack in maritime that translated to a realistic perceived threat against the cruise industry.
Ultimately the industry would rebound, however it would likely suffer from a significant reduction in attendance for quite some time. One could only
speculate how cost-prohibitive security measures would become and how much of an impact a nationwide sustained heightened Maritime Security Level
the U.S.
maritime transportation system adds $700 billion to the U.S. economy annually ,
calling it the lifeblood of our economy. He later cited as an example that when a labor dispute
shut down the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in 2003, the American economy
suffered losses estimated at $1 billion per day. With a terrorist attack you would have to add the possible costs in
(MARSEC) 2 or 3 condition would have on our economy and to the global markets. In 2008, USCG Admiral Thad Allen told us that
infrastructure damage and relative expenses for a recovery in order to reconstitute trade and commerce to that $1 billion per day loss to truly see how
we continue on the same path, and a Transportation Security

Incident (TSI) is caused with significant loss of life or economic impact directly
resulted from a fishing vessel, both the fishing industry and the maritime industry
will be grossly impacted. Fishing vessels would no longer have access to docks in and around ports, security zones would be
established affecting fishing vessels ability to continue to operate. It is even possible all commercial fisheries within the U.S.
EEZ would be temporarily halted. At first, it sounds unlikely, however look at the temporary and permanent impacts to drilling
devastating an attack would be. If
after BPs Deepwater Horizon disaster, and to vessel crew shore leave after 9/11, and to single hull vessels after the Exxon Valdez spill, etc. While this
would be great for our oceans to get some time to regenerate and repopulate, the economic stability in our country would suffer a critical blow because of
job losses and massive inflation of food costs. The unfortunate state of Congress and the federal government today is that rules and regulations for
security are often not endorsed or pushed through until a significant amount of people die first. This means in order for the majority of our bills,
regulations, and guidelines to be written and threats to be taken seriously by our legislators, they have to be written in the blood of those who died
because of an incident. Strangling the Maritime industry After the events of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, OPA 90 increased the commitment that industry had
to make to be prepared for an oil spill response. By increasing the industrys accountability, many important steps were made in establishing a more
environmentally sensitive maritime environment. Three major items that came out of this incident were the implementation of the USCG document
Certificate of Financial Responsibility (COFR), requirement for Vessel / Facility Response plans, and the establishment and identification of Qualified
Individuals (QI). It took many years for the proper requirements and safety measures to fall into place after the Exxon Valdez spill and for them to not be
considered a nuisance or cost prohibitive measure by the maritime industry. At this point, those same measures that the industry pushed back on that
provided a cleaner and safer environment are now a standard part of doing business and have been streamlined with everyday activities. This being said,
the USCG, with the implementation of MTSA, made a large step in the same direction with security measures as OPA 90 did with safety measures, but
many still feel push-back in relation to costs for implementation and upgrades in security. It is extremely rare for organizations to invest money into
securing themselves against something that they may themselves see as a perceived threat if there are no regulations requiring them to do so. One of the
main contributing factors for this is the constant fear of what will come next and how that will affect ship owners and facilities in a market that is already
suffering some of the lowest shipping rates in the past few decades. If an attack were to happen now, causing more stringent regulations, it might just be
almost impossible for many companies to bounce back from given the state of the industry today. Considering the state of the Euro, countries like Greece,
which have a significant stake in the maritime world, would not be in any position to start reorganizing or investing into new equipment or requirements.
Because charter rates are so low in some sections of the industry, we are seeing things we never saw before like traders chartering Very large Crude
Carriers (VLCC) and anchoring them offshore for a year fully laden with cargo rather than entering into new tankage agreements at facilities. We have
even seen what some considered graveyards of ships anchored in Indonesian ports waiting for cargos. The industry needs an environment for ship
owners to want to go over and above and be willing to try innovative methods for security rather than living in the current state of fear waiting for the next
set of restrictive regulations or event to be written that will cost excessive amounts of money to comply with. Ship owners, facility operators and the crew
who effectively have their boots on the ground everyday more often than not, know how to better secure their interests than the legislators writing these
bills and using them to attach ear marks that are in most cases laughable. How we can start to solve this? As a port agents, we see gaps every day that
potentially leave the door open for a myriad of plausible scenarios for a terrorist planning attacks on our country. But what we dont see is the regulations
and laws to close many of the gaps that actually already exist. No one wants to reinvent the wheel, they just want to put their name on something that
doesnt cost billions, doesnt impact voters and doesnt take long to achieve. Theres no such thing as proactive, just reactive, even when the requested
result is not possible. For example, the 9/11 commission recommendations act of 2007 requiring 100 percent screening will likely not be achieved unless
a box blows up and then somehow or another it will be achieved, even if it slows the maritime transportation system to a screeching halt. MTSA as
described earlier was in response to 9/11 and we achieved 100 percent total transformation of all U.S. ports in six months from the date of
implementation. Thats historic, but that was in reaction to the events of 9/11, 100 percent screening wasnt. The concept of 100 percent screening came
from the 9/11 commission report which was completed three years after the attack and it didnt become a priority until it hit the congressional floor 3
. In the case of commercial and recreational fishing, it is an industry that is

already exposed and already has laws and regulations governing them, yet
overfishing, poaching, and unenforced regulated fishing continue to be an open
threat vector and continue to bring us closer to an extinction event. Commercial
fishing vessels are given quotas and specific instructions to what they can fish, how
they can fish, when they can fish, and with whom they can fish. Are we inspecting
these vessels when they arrive on the dock to confirm they are doing what we
license them to do? Do we track their routes, and do we ensure everything is on
par? To take it a step further and possibly a bit overboard, do we know if they are
going offshore and meeting with foreign vessels or going to foreign ports or being
hijacked or being used to run guns and weapons, drugs, or other nefarious
purposes? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO. But, what we do have is laws in
years later
place allowing us to inspect, search and penalize these same vessels for breaking the rules. We already have a system in place to take the fear of threat
e have a system in place to fine and penalize those breaking the

rules, which would subsidize the force needed to enforce the regulations. There are
people breaking the laws, we know this because our oceans are emptying at
catastrophic rates. These vessels should be a part of the system, they should be
required to carry AIS regardless of their size and be monitored by a fisheries
enforcement agency. They should have to report their arrivals through a system similar to the electronic notification of arrivals (ENOA) to
the USCG National Vessel Movement Center (NVMC); they should have to be boarded by a DHS agency upon arrival. They should have to
pay an inspection fee and be penalized if they are breaking the laws that were
created to protect bio-diversity and the oceans that cover the majority of our planet .
The DHS Small Vessel Security Strategy (SVSS), which provides a clear picture that we do not know how to defend against
the small vessel security threat, is currently posted on the internet for potential terrorists to see in a 57-page document on
out of an entire industry; w
DHSs website. This strategy harmonizes related strategies into a multi-layered, unified approach for the component agencies within DHS, and lays the
groundwork for DHS cooperation across the broad small vessel stakeholder base. The problem with this strategy is there is no clear concise way to deal
with or resolve this issue. We must stop trying to address all small vessels as the same and start identifying ways to take pieces out of the equation little
by little in order to whittle down this massive undertaking. There is a significant difference between the threat posed by a standard recreational vessel and
a commercial fishing vessel. Commercial fishing vessels are crewed with several experienced people who are prepared to handle rough weather, be
offshore for long periods of time, and are willing to take chances. While some recreational boaters may be much more experienced than commercial crew,
the reality is that most recreational boaters go out for the day, the weekend, or a specific time period as a vacation and they can be tracked and patterns
can easily be identified as to what might be a threat or not. However, commercial fishing vessels and even private chartered party boats and day trip
vessels are not as easy to track. The ease at which a person can join one of these private vessels to fish for the day is startling. While the vessel crew is
required to have a Transportation Workers Identification Card (TWIC) with background checks by the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), there is no
requirement for ID checks, record keeping or vetting of guests who board. This allows for a great starting point for would-be terrorists to collect intel on our
Many of
these daytrip fishing vessels pass through ports, choke points and regions where
someone could pretend to fish for the day or for a few weeks and get into regions
nations ports. Intel can easily be collected on the vector of fishing vessels but also on the shipping patterns in a given port as well.
where they otherwise could not see the flow of traffic from the water instead of
behind a fence and scrutiny from the land.
2) Turn Plan causes more overfishing

PETA, 2014 - PETA is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the
largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members
and supporters. It is a non-profit organizationRead more:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factoryfarming/fish/aquafarming/#ixzz37dfcisJT
Many species of
farmed fish are carnivorous, which means that fish must be caught from our
already-exhausted oceans to feed the fish on aquafarms. It can take more than 5
pounds of fish from the ocean to produce just 1 pound of farmed salmon or sea bass .
Aquafarmers have even begun to feed fish oil and fish meal to fish who naturally eat
only plants in an effort to make them grow faster. Whats more, fish farmers lace fish feed
with powerful chemicals and antibiotics to help fish survive the deadly diseases caused by the
crowding and filth. Its likely that these fish pellets are the cause of the higher PCB and dioxin
contamination levels found in farmed fish, which are seven times higher than the
already-dangerous levels found in their wild counterparts.
3) No solvency plan too quickly scales up aquaculture guts

the benefits
University of York 13
{University of York Environment Department, Is Aquaculture the Solution to

Overfishing? September 24, http://www.york.ac.uk/environment/postgraduate/mscdip-marine-environmental-management/aquaculture/#THUR}
With overfishing now endemic throughout the world, aquaculture might seem like
the obvious way to ensure that people can carry on eating fish . Indeed, aquaculture is the
fastest growing sector in the world food economy. It continues to expand by nearly 10% a year, and one third of the
Asia is by far the biggest centre of production ,

In this region
aquaculture has been practised for thousands of years and many farms still operate
along traditional lines. If aquaculture is practised at small-scales using
relatively simple technology , it can produce much needed seafood and the
benefit of jobs, without badly affecting the environment. However, problems begin
worlds fish supply is now derived from fish farming.
with China alone accounting for around 70% of the worlds total productivity in 2002.
to escalate as the process becomes industrialised and geared

towards the production of high-value carnivorous fish .
4) Oceans resilient means no marine biodiversity impact

Kennedy, 2 (Environmental science prof, Maryland. Former Director, Cooperative
Oxford Laboratory. PhD.. Victor, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate
Change, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects /marine.cfm)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems are resilient to
environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the biological components
of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to respond
quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically
adaptable. Some species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range,
which may allow for adaptation to climate change
5) No extinction mitigation and adaptation will solve

Mendelsohn, 9 (Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis
Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June
2009, Climate Change and Economic Growth, online:
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf)
These statements are
largely
alarmist and misleading . Although climate change is a
societys immediate behavior has an extremely
serious problem that deserves attention,
low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and

economics
of climate change
is quite clear that emissions over the next few
decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists
require a century (or two
in the case of Stern 2006)
of no mitigation. Many of the
predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation . The net economic
impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of
the more severe
impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and
many of these
potential
impacts will never occur because people will
adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies

need to be developed to thwart longrange climate risks . What is needed are long
run balanced responses.
6) No warming most recent evidence

Happer 3-27 (William, Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University,
Fellow American Physical Society, Member National Academy of Sciences,
Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again, Wall Street Journal, 2012,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.
html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for
more than 10 years . Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower
atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the
website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global
was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the

average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979. The lack of any statistically
temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere
significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric
gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an
increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of
about 280 ppm.
CO2 is not a pollutant . Life on earth flourished for hundreds of
millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels
will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels,
and because
warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly
exaggerated . Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those
The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be
calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models
predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume
without.
changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational
evidence suggest that this
"positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated . There has
indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the
early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the
a substantial fraction of
the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with
warmingmuch of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciablysuggests that
[hu]mankind . Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC
supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common
because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011
(December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia
and Alaska. Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht
encountered the formidable forces of "General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had. Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters
have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters
of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder. Nightly television pictures of the tragic
destruction from tornadoes over the past months might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due to the increasing levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere. But as one can read at Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, dotearth, "There is no evidence of any trend in the number of
potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even as global temperatures have risen markedly." Like winter
temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in ways that are correlated with the complicated
fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Nio or La Nia conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc. As long as
the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes. But we can save many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directlyfor example, with
improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered areasthan by credulous support of
schemes to reduce "carbon footprints," or by funding even more computer centers to predict global warming. It is easy to be confused about climate,
because we are constantly being warned about the horrible things that will happen or are already happening as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels.
ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to

distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models
predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with
model predictions.
But these
Extn Alt Causes Overfishing

Alt causes to overfishing
EJ, 8 (Edmonton Journal, Elaine OConnor, World's oceans at risk of becoming
soupy swill; Rising temperatures, runoff toxins creating 'dead zones' 9/15/2008,
www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/ news/story.html?id=3c40fbee-40e4-443a-b736c70c6072649e)
VANCOUVER - Sally Cole came home from a sailing trip in August looking forward to a hot shower. But when she turned on her tap, all she got was
slime. "I turned on the tap and it just flooped. Just a bit of viscous gloop came out. It was really horrible," said the resident of B.C's Saltspring Island
between the mainland and Vancouver Island. The culprit was an algae bloom on the nearby lake that had choked the water pipes of hundreds of the
toxic slime -algae feasting on pollutants and fertilizers, and starving the ocean of oxygen -- is
killing off sea life at an alarming rate. A new study published in August reveals the world's "dead zones" have doubled
in size every decade since 1960. Coastal waters with once rich marine life -- Chesapeake Bay,
the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and off Peru, Chile and Namibia -- are rapidly losing
species. According to the report by two U.S. scientists, there are 405 asphyxiating dead zones in our
oceans. The cause, predictably, is pollution. The culprits are fertilizer runoff in estuaries, sewage,
global warming, overfishing and industrial waste . Millions of tonnes of "nutrient pollution" -- chemical
area's residents. It took three days to clear. The incident is one example of how seas and lakes are suffocating in slime. That
fertilizer that adds phosphates and nitrogen to the water -- feed algae blooms. Some zones are vast -- the Baltic Sea's 70,000-square-kilometre
aquatic graveyard is the largest. The Gulf of Mexico harbours North America's giant dead zone: A 22,000-square-km sea morgue, or something
dead zones have been discovered off California, in Lake Erie,

around the Florida Keys, in North and South Carolina creeks and in Washington's
Puget Sound. Together, they have turned 246,048 square kilometres of the seas -- an area the equivalent of all five of the Great Lakes -- into marine wastelands.
roughly the size of New Jersey. Other
Robert Diaz, a Virginia Institute of Marine Science professor and co-author of the study, says the problem is already evident in Canadian waters. In B.C., a dead zone was first
spotted in the Saanich Inlet in 1960. Dead zones have been recorded in P.E.I. fish-farming bays since 2000. If fish swim into a dead zone, they often become unconscious and
cannot escape. Shellfish and bottom-dwellers move too slowly, so a stew of rotting marine life is left behind. Even when fish survive in low-oxygen water, research shows their
reproduction suffers, which could jeopardize wild fish stocks. Diaz says this could be catastrophic for our local marine life and aquaculture. He says zones are likely to intensify as
their contributing factors of algal blooms and intensive fish-farming are "problems that will continue into the future." Already, the impact of ocean deterioration is being felt all
along the Pacific coast. Fishermen are bringing up cages of dead Dungeness crabs and salmon researchers have found low oxygen from the Columbia River on Oregon border's to
northern Washington. As fish stocks fall, seabird populations are dying of starvation.
Deadly algae are also becoming common
on the Pacific West Coast.
They have been blamed for the erratic behaviour and mass die-offs of sea mammals since some
algae act as neurotoxins and impair brain function. Some 14,000 seals, sea lions and dolphins have washed up sick or dead in California in the last 10
years, and 650 grey whales have beached. Deadly algae have been a problem in the region since the 1980s, but scientists say they're increasingly
frequent and intense. Algae is also storming international seas and claiming human victims. Near Sweden, cyanobacteria blooms at times turn the
Baltic Sea into a brown slush that makes residents' eyes burn. On Florida's Gulf Coast, toxic tides have killed hundreds of manatees and caused
breathing problems for area residents. Algae has smothered 80 per cent of coral reefs in the Caribbean and ruined 75 per cent of California's fish-rich
kelp forests. Poison day-glo-green caulerpa algae is killing fish off the coasts of 11 countries. What will become of our oceans? One U.S.
Jackson, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor, released a

warning of "mass extinction" in oceans due to dead zones, global
warming, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, ecosystem destruction and
invasive species.
oceanographer has a succinct answer: slime. Jeremy
report in August
Extn Overfishing Turn

Aquaculture depletes fish stocks
Bliss, 6/24
[Sam, environmental reporter, Aquaculture: Opening up a Can of Worms, MoJo,
2014, http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/mojo/aquaculture-opening-up-a-can-ofworms/]
Despite these strengths, the aquaculture industry is working hard on its
environmental image. Concerns include the levels of fishmeal required to feed
carnivorous farmed fish, damaging natural ecological systems, waste, viruses and
how farmed fish are obtained or bred. Disease outbreaks are recognized as a
significant constraint to aquaculture production . In 1995, a herpes virus hit southern
Australian tuna farms. As these were offshore, the virus caused a sea of dead fish. On top of that, local
seabirds, from Australasian gannets to penguins, starved. In 1999, sardines were wiped out in South Australia. And
sea lice have been found in Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout in Tasmania. Unfortunately,
disease can
naturally occur when fish are stressed . But Australia has implemented strict
compliances, such as quarantining new stock, maintaining water quality and regular monitoring. As a result, no
fish feed is paradoxical, with world
aquaculture production currently adding to net global fish supplies, although much results in
a net loss of fish. University of Melbourne researcher and sustainability advocate John Ford highlights how
aquaculture systems can use two to five times more fish protein than is present in the
farmed fish. The reason they use so much fish content is because the fish grow faster. You can feed
them mostly vegetable matter, soy based protein and such, but its simply not as
economic. Theres a real economic driver, to give them high protein feed, Ford says. Others support high ratios
major outbreaks have occurred in recent years. The issue of
of fishmeal to maximise omega-3 levels. Omega-3 is not actually produced by the fish itself. It comes from
plankton originally and basically works it way up the food chain to sardines, which are made into fishmeal, he says.
Back in Werribee, Musa has moved from the hatchery to the production facility, which raises and harvests
barramundi for restaurants and markets. Mainstream Aquaculture places emphasis on sustainability. On the
question of fish feed, Musa says Mainstream Aquaculture makes use of biological levers so that fish in their
broodstock population often convert at around 1:1. For every kilo of food they eat, they add a kilo of weight, which
is incredibly efficient, he says. From our selective breeding programme, we produce fish that demonstrate a
higher appetite with a more efficient conversion ratio. The production facility is full of circular tanks that look like
giant versions of those inflatable kiddie pools found in backyards across Australia. The din of circulating water is
constant. Musa finds a handheld net and casually scoops it into one of the tanks. At least a dozen barramundi
flounder about as he highlights their size and girth. Our facility here uses a renewable, geothermal aquifer for its
water supply. We have no direct contact with the natural environment. We carefully manage all of our inputs and
Aquaculture is
working hard to maximise fish feed ratios, the environmental impacts of fish feed
depend of which species are being cultivated. WWF and other conservation groups list shrimp,
tuna and salmon as species with bad conversion fish feed ratios. Salmon, for example, requires 4kg of
wild-caught fish to produce 1kg of farmed salmon . Ford says Australians could help reduce these
outputs. Were completely organic and dont use vaccinations, he says. While MainStream
bad fish feed ratios by not eating from the top of the food chain. In his opinion, this affects market dynamics and
dictates supply and demand of fish species, which results in profitable high-end fish being cultivated.Although
people pay a lot of money, you cant feed the world that way, he (Ford) says.
Likelihood is magnified by terrible energy conversion rates

Jordan 12 (http://see-the-sea.org/AboutUs/AboutUs-container.htm) Jason and
Shannon Jordan are two co authors and designers of the "See-the-Sea" website
which is an organization devoted to reducing the human impact on the ocean)
To produce one pound of farmed salmon, 2.4 to 4 pounds of wild sardines,

anchovies, mackerel, herring and other fish must be ground up to render the oil and
meal that is compressed into pellets of salmon chow. (George Meteljan Foundation,
2005) Resulting in a 58 percent to 75 percent loss of protein and food energy.
Extn Oceans Resilient

Climate change proves Oceans and marine bioD are resilient
alarmist predictions empirically denied
Taylor, 10 (James M. Taylor is a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute and
managing editor of Environment & Climate News., Ocean Acidification Scare
Pushed at Copenhagen, Feb 10
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment
%20climate/article/26815/Ocean_Acidification_Scare_Pushed_at_Copenhagen.htm
l)
alarmists at the U.N.
spent considerable time claiming carbon dioxide emissions will cause catastrophic
ocean acidification, regardless of whether temperatures rise. The latest scientific data, however,
With global temperatures continuing their decade-long decline and United Nations-sponsored global warming talks falling apart in Copenhagen,
talks
show no such catastrophe is likely to occur . Food Supply Risk Claimed The United Kingdoms environment
secretary, Hilary Benn, initiated the Copenhagen ocean scare with a high-profile speech and numerous media interviews claiming ocean acidification threatens the worlds food
The fact is our seas absorb CO2
supply.
. They absorb about a quarter of the total that we produce, but it is making our seas more acidic,
said Benn in his speech. If this continues as a problem, then it can affect the one billion people who depend on fish as their principle source of protein, and we have to feed
Benns claim of oceans becoming more acidic is

misleading, however. Water with a pH of 7.0 is considered neutral. pH values lower than
7.0 are considered acidic, while those higher than 7.0 are considered alkaline. The worlds oceans have a pH of
8.1, making them alkaline, not acidic. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations would
make the oceans less alkaline but not acidic . Since human industrial activity first
began emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a little more than 200 years ago, the pH of the oceans has fallen merely
0.1, from 8.2 to 8.1. Following Benns December 14 speech and public relations efforts, most of the worlds major media outlets produced stories claiming ocean acidification is
another 2 to 3 billion people over the next 40 to 50 years.
threatening the worlds marine life. An Associated Press headline, for example, went so far as to call ocean acidification the evil twin of climate change. Studies Show CO2
Benefits Numerous recent scientific studies show higher carbon dioxide levels in the worlds oceans have the same beneficial effect on marine life as higher levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide have on terrestrial plant life. In a 2005 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists examined trends in chlorophyll concentrations, critical
building blocks in the oceanic food chain. The French and American scientists reported an overall increase of the world ocean average chlorophyll concentration by about 22
percent during the prior two decades of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. In a 2006 study published in Global Change Biology, scientists observed higher CO2 levels are
correlated with better growth conditions for oceanic life. The highest CO2 concentrations produced higher growth rates and biomass yields than the lower CO2 conditions. Higher
CO2 levels may well fuel subsequent primary production, phytoplankton blooms, and sustaining oceanic food-webs, the study concluded. Ocean Life Surprisingly Resilient In a
2008 study published in Biogeosciences, scientists subjected marine organisms to varying concentrations of CO2, including abrupt changes of CO2 concentration. The ecosystems
were surprisingly resilient to changes in atmospheric CO2, and the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total
grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2-induced effects. In a 2009 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
scientists reported, Sea star growth and feeding rates increased with water temperature from 5C to 21C. A doubling of current [CO2] also increased growth rates both with and
without a concurrent temperature increase from 12C to 15C. Another False CO2 Scare Far too many predictions of CO2-induced catastrophes are treated by alarmists as sure to
occur, when real-world observations show these doomsday scenarios to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities, said Craig Idso, Ph.D., author of the 2009 book CO2,
Global Warming and Coral Reefs. The phenomenon of CO2-induced ocean acidification appears to be no different.
Extn No Warming Impact

Experts agree
Hsu, 10 (Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinction-doomsday100719.html)
most experts , who don't view climate change as the
end for humans. Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream
His views deviate sharply from those of
climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity, catastrophic

scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at
Boulder. Humans have the technological tools to begin tackling climate change, if not quite enough yet to solve
the problem, Pielke said. He added that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of
politics is that the long-term, high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental
action," Pielke explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive."
Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon capture and
renowned climate scientist at

Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained
skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise of carbon dioxide
storage, according to Wallace
Broecker, a
geochemist and
(CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet.
" The
rise in CO2 isn't going to kill many people, and it's not going to kill
humanity ," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet, melt a lot of ice,
acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment
whose result remains uncertain."
Warming wont cause extinction

Barrett, 7 (Barrett, professor of natural resource economics Columbia
University, 7
(Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, introduction)
climate change does not threaten the survival of the human species .5 If
unchecked, it will cause other species to become extinction (though biodiversity is being depleted now
due to other reasons). It will alter critical ecosystems (though this is also happening
now, and for reasons unrelated to climate change). It will reduce land area as the seas rise, and in
the process displace human populations. Catastrophic climate change is possible, but not certain.
Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, large changes (such as sea level rise of, say, ten meters)
will likely take centuries to unfold, giving societies time to adjust. Abrupt climate
change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a decade or two. However, abrupt climate
change (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though potentially very serious, is unlikely to
be ruinous. Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions, and we cannot be sur of
its consequences. Even in a worse case scenario , however, global climate change is
First,
not the equivalent of the Earth being hit by mega-asteroid. Indeed, if it were as
damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this harmful, then our
incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming. The challenge would still be more
difficult than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now.
Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts--warming wont cause war
Singer et al., 11 (Dr. S. Fred, Research Fellow at The Independent Institute,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President
of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the International
Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook
University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia),
palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with
more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder and
chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada
Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011,
Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf)
Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being,
including the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and deaths due
reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth century,

notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on society's
adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and
human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain technologies
necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC
systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into
to extreme weather events,
account the greater wealth and technological advances that will be present at
the time for which impacts are to be estimated .
Even accepting the IPCC's and Stern Review's worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded
annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in developing
countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that
level in 2200. Thus, even developing countries' future ability to cope with
climate change would be much better than that of the U.S. today .
The IPCC's embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers
have found "even the best biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity" (Delucchi,
2010). Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops and wildlife
for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the world's demand for fuels.
The notion that global warming might cause war

but even backwards
- that is,
and social unrest
is not only wrong,
global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in
the past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace, prosperity, and
social
stability .
Extn No Warming
No warmingtheir evidence is alarmist rhetoric written for
monetary gain, growing scientific conclusion, 10 year lack of
warming, exaggerated computer models
Allegre et al., 12 (Claude Allegre former Director of the Institute for the Study
of the Earth at the University of Paris, J. Scott Armstrong cofounder of the Journal
of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting, Jan Breslow head of the
Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University, Roger
Cohen fellow at the American Physical Society, Edward David member of the
National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, William
Happer professor of physics at Princeton, Michael Kelly professor of technology
at the University of Cambridge, William Kininmonth former head of climate
research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen professor of
atmospheric sciences at MIT, James McGrath professor of chemistry at Virginia
Technical University, Rodney Nichols former President and CEO of the New York
Academy of Sciences, Burt Rutan aerospace engineer and designer of Voyager and
SpaceShipOne, Harrison H. Schmitt Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator,
Nir Shaviv professor of astrophysics at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Henk
Tennekes former Director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, Antonio
Zichichi President of the World Federation of Scientists, 1/27, No Need to Panic
About Global Warming, The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.
html)
candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to
do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that
nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.
In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree
that drastic actions on global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning
physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the
A merican P hysical S ociety (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership]
because I cannot live with the [APS policy ] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global
warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the
Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We
A
must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the
proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is
incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts
of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization,
large numbers of scientists, many very
prominent , share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is
growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most
inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is
known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of
climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models
lack of
warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections suggests that computer
models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.
where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The
Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from
warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate
to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant . CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas,
exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse
operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when
CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to
the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists
furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message,
they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted or worse. They have good reason
to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a
peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the
recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The
international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de
Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university
job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it beforefor example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked
biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from
their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue
become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by
many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many,

providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies
to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded
subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big
donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well,
and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists
and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we
the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific
argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts
inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control
policies are not justified
the
economically. A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved
for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of
material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming
that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate
with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated
human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment,
it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are
based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
but
Warming stopped over 15 years ago
Rose, 12 (David, Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report
quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it Daily Mail Online)
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released
last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of
1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global
temperatures. This means that the plateau or pause in global warming has now lasted for about the same
time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or
the 'pause' in
global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period
when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland The
new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was
issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare , and, until today, it has not been
declining for about 40 years. global temperature changes Research: The new figures mean that
reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the
end of 2010 a very warm year. Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since
1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased. More... Wettest
start to autumn for 12 years as South West continues to be battered by torrential rain Some climate scientists, such
as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed
the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at
Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the
computer models used to predict future warming were deeply flawed . Even Prof Jones admitted that
Others disagreed.
Americas prestigious
he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of natural variability factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said
he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two. Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia,
dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming
were deeply flawed Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland The regular data collected on global
temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Offices Hadley Centre and Prof Joness Climatic Research Unit. Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to
gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to
increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The new figures
were released as the Government made clear that it would bend its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts. At last weeks
Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary
people who need fuel for heat, light and transport energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions
in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms. Flawed science costs us dearly Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably wont find in your next pub quiz. First, how much
warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill? You may find the answers to the first two
Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world
has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius. From the start of 1997 until August
2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero : the trend,
derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide
measuring points, has been flat. Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as
surprising.
something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues
assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming
trend. The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of green subsidies being
provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind. They will cost the average household about 100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher yet
it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools,
that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the
Global
industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
end of the century when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher. Hence the significance of those first two answers.
And with
the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost
the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as
something of a shock. It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions
underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy . This plateau in rising
hundreds of billions,
temperatures does not mean that global warming wont at some point resume. But according to increasing numbers
the computer models that have for years been

predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, are flawed , and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert. The new data confirms the existence of a
of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that
pause in global warming, Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Americas Georgia Tech university, told me
yesterday. Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term
temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the
greenhouse warming effect. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change
needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance. Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the Climategate scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be
expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did. The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event the
sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather it could go on for a
while. Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: We dont fully understand how to input things like changes in the
oceans, and because we dont fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We dont know what
global warming may be happening

much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at
natural variability is doing. Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that
Westminster, pictured Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said. Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already
becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years
before we get worried. But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadnt changed his mind about the models gloomy predictions: I still think that the current decade
which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties. Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder
whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him worried, that
period has now become 20 years. Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very
misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. He said that for the plateau to last any more than
15 years was unlikely. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record he made no
comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote. Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economys
output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by
the statistics and the modelling are

extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding
private businesses. Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both
date three months hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast. Few people would be so foolish. But
decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still
being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century and this
despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of natural variability.
anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday

scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change denier, and accused of
jeopardising the future of humanity . So lets be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at
least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest
The most depressing feature of this debate is that
that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed a
conclusion with enormous policy implications .
A2: Add-Ons
A2: Food Scarcity

No food scarcity
Jalsevac 4 (Paul, Life site news a division of Interim Publishing, The Inherent
Racism of Population Control,
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf)
Economist Dennis Avery explained in 1995 that, food
production was more than keeping pace with population growth since the world had,
more than doubled world food output in the past 30 years. We have raised food
supplies per person by 25 percent in the populous Third World.4 The United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) also dispelled fears of shortages in the food supply
when, in preparation for the World Food Summit in Rome in November of 1995 it reported that,
Globally food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 yearsat a global
level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand.5 The
UNFAO also later estimated that, simply with the present available technologies fully
employed, the world could feed 30 to 35 billion people, i.e. roughly six times the
present world population.6 It also reported that the number of people considered
malnourished has declined from 36 percent in 1961-1970 to 20 percent in 1988-90
and later proclaimed that earlier fears of chronic food shortages over much of the
world proved unfounded.7 The World Bank joined in to predict in 1993 that the
improvement in the world food supply would continue, while pointing out that in
developing countries grain production has grown at a faster rate than population
since 1985. Grain production has slowed in the United States, but that is because stocks have grown so large
The pattern continues today.
that additional production could not be stored.8 A further wealth of evidence is available to remove any concerns
about resource shortage in the modern world.
Food wars are a myth theres zero empirical evidence

Salehyan 7 (Idean, Professor of Political Science University of North Texas, The
New Myth About Climate Change, Foreign Policy, Summer,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922)
aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that
resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies
have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to
conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased
First,
dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute,
Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100
armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming
causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the
crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For
5 million people in Malawi have been

experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet
to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands
of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food,
clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did
not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict
than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that
Australia CP
1NC Shell
The first/next off-case position is the Australia CP
Text: The Commonwealth of Australia should increase offshore
aquaculture development.
Solves best theyre pros at aquaculture
Australian Department of Agriculture 13
[10/22, The aquaculture industry in Australia,

http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/aquaculture/the_aquaculture_industry_in_australia]
Aquaculture production occurs throughout Australia, from the tropical north to the
temperate south. The industry is largely based in regional Australia and makes a
significant and positive contribution to regional development. Aquaculture is a
developing industry in Australia, in 2010-11 the gross value of aquaculture
production increased by $70.5 million to $948 million. The gross value of Australian
fisheries production (both wild catch and aquaculture) increased by 2 per cent to
$2.23 billion, while the total volume of production fell by 4 per cent to 234 164
tonnes.
Solvency Economy
Their entire advantage begs a question of whos key to the
global economy:
Its Australia their growth checks international collapse
only they can prop up sagging European markets
Martin Parkinson 2012
[Australia's place in the new global economy, Parkinson is the Secretary of the
Australian treasury, former IMF official, 6/18/12, available online at
http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Speeches/2012/Australias-placein-the-new-global-economy, accessed 7/24/12//Thur]
My first key message is that Australia is well-placed to cope with further global turmoil. This is
due both to the underlying strength of the economy and to the significant resilience
and flexibility we have across all arms of economic policy. The Australian economy is growing solidly and our expectation is
for it to grow close to trend over the next year. Importantly, this growth has not been accompanied by signs
of emerging economic imbalances. We have close to full employment and
aggregate wages and prices are in check. Indeed some imbalances that built up in the previous decade are
receding, albeit slowly for example, household balance sheets are strengthening on the back of higher private savings. While
In
contrast, the international economic outlook is marked by some areas of great
weakness, and a high degree of uncertainty . In particular, there are deep-seated and
deeply troubling problems in the Eurozone and there is little sign that they will be
resolved in the near future. The Eurozone's malaise reflects entrenched structural problems
in a common currency area, compounded by deep weaknesses in the financial
system, and in fiscal positions, and a lack of political will or accord to deal with them.
This view underpinned the relatively pessimistic projection of European growth included
in the Budget papers. The Eurozone crisis is unlikely to be resolved for some considerable
time to come. While the Greek election has been grabbing headlines and attention, we should not over-dramatize these
structural change is painful for some parts of the economy, this is happening in the context of overall economic strength.
events, but nor should we believe the election eliminates the risks emanating from Greece or from the Eurozone more broadly. The
the key
issue remains the absence of political will in Europe to implement policies better suited to
next challenge is, of course, the orderly creation of a new Greek Government. But even if this is achieved quickly,
the circumstances confronting the Eurozone member countries. The Treasurer covered these issues in his Ministerial Statement
earlier today. What I would emphasise, though, and as recently discussed at Senate Estimates,
Australia is well-placed
to cope with whatever emanates from Europe. Of course we would not be immune to negative impacts via
financial, trade and confidence channels, but we have significant flexibility and capacity at our
disposal to cope with a range of different global scenarios. Given the nature of the problems in
Europe, any sharp intensification of the crisis would likely be transmitted via the global financial system. As you would expect, a
a key conclusion of that

work is that Australia's financial system is well-placed to deal with shocks
emanating from Europe; indeed more so than at the onset of the GFC in 2008. Our banks are wellcapitalised and have sufficient resources to withstand a freeze in international
capital markets for several months. They are also well-regulated and, since the GFC ,
the regulatory framework has continued to be refined. Some 99 per cent of all deposit
accounts are protected through the Financial Claims Scheme. So on the direct and in some ways most dangerous
financial transmission channel, we are well-placed. Australia is also well-placed to respond to
demand and confidence shocks emanating from Europe. As everyone here knows, our main trade
normal part of our role is to undertake contingency planning for a range of events and
links are with the emerging Asian economies, not with Europe. (In the last two decades, the share of Australia's merchandise exports
going to emerging Asia increased from 13 per cent to 42 per cent.1 Over the same period, the share of Australia's merchandise
exports to advanced economies declined from 78 per cent to 50 per cent.) While these Asian economies, and particularly China,
have significant trade exposure to Europe, they also have, like Australia, significant policy capacity in the event of a crisis. In
the
event that a demand or confidence shock emanating from Europe affects us via our
Asian markets, macroeconomic policy is well-placed to respond and we would
expect the exchange rate to adjust in ways that help buffer the impacts . Importantly, as
discussed with the Senate committee, any new situation would not be just a replay of 2008. In the event of a new crisis, the mix of
the crucial point is that Australia

has room to respond if necessary. Obviously, we all need to be both vigilant and agile. However, there is
every reason to be confident that Australia is well-placed to respond to economic
volatility and to continue its relatively strong economic performance.
instruments the Government might utilize would depend on circumstances, but
Empirically Australia is key to prop up the global economy

AAP 2012
[No Dutch Disease in Australia: RBA, Australian Associated Press, News.Com.Au,
2/16/12, available online at http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/nodutch-disease-in-australia-rba/story-e6frfkur-1226272942927, accessed
8/21/12//Thur]
Dr. Lowe was confident that Australia's economic growth would continue to progress
well, with gross domestic product (GDP) and inflation expected to grow around trend over
the coming years. As a result, he said, the country was well-placed to deal with any
flow-on effects from Europe's sovereign debt crisis. "We have much more flexibility to
deal with unfolding events than almost any other developed economy ," he said.
Australian job figures released on Thursday seemed to confirm this, with unemployment falling to an
unexpected 5.1 per cent, with an additional 12,000 jobs added to the market.
Australia is the global economic leaderthey avoided the

recession and are the standout of the developed world
Sydney Morning Herald 2012
[Australian economy leads the world, Jessica Wright is a staff writer for the SMH,
4/18/12, available online at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politicalnews/australian-economy-leads-the-world-20120418-1x6ac.html, accessed
8/21/12//Thur]
Australia has the strongest economy in the developed world and it is expected to
outperform all comers for at least the next two years, according to the International Monetary Fund. The
Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said this update is consistent with the reasons he has given for bringing the budget back to surplus, and criticised Tony Abbott for
The IMF - which issued its World Economic Outlook in Washington overnight - said it expected the
Australian economy to expand by 3 per cent this year as fiscal tensions from Europe
and the United States continue to ease. The body stated that after a major setback last year with the Eurozone crisis, the global prospect of
far more stable financial conditions was gradually improving. Advertisement The update said that it expects the
Australian economy will outstrip growth over all other advanced economies over the next
two years, noting we live in a region where exposure to troubled European banks was
less than for other parts of the world. But it also warned that Australia was exposed to risk if economic conditions in the Middle East caused another
"talking down the economy".
oil price spike. The organisation revised up its global growth forecasts, with the global economy expected to grow by 3.5 per cent in 2012, up from 3.3
per cent in the January update. A forecast of global growth of 4.1 per cent in 2013 has also been revised up from 3.9 per cent. Global growth continues
to be underpinned by solid growth in Asia, the report said. China's economy was expected to grow 8.2 per cent in 2012 and 8.8 per cent in 2013, while
India was expected to grow 6.9 per cent in 2012 and 7.3 per cent in 2013. These forecasts were broadly unchanged from the IMF's January update. Mr
Swan will attend a meeting of the G20 finance ministers in Washington this weekend, with appointments scheduled with IMF managing director Christine
Lagarde, the outgoing president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, and the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. Mr Swan said the latest
The IMF also

forecasts Australia's unemployment rate to remain low at 5.2 per cent in both 2012
and 2013," he said. "With solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation,
strong public finances and a record pipeline of business investment, the Australian
economy is the standout performer of the developed world ." Mr Swan said that the
chance of the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates was greatly increased by a budget
global outlook update was consistent with the reasons he had consistently given for bringing the budget back to surplus. "
surplus. "The IMF's confirmation of Australia's strong economic fundamentals - with

solid growth and low unemployment - further underscores the importance of
returning the budget to surplus, and giving the Reserve Bank maximum flexibility to
cut interest rates if it considers that is necessary ," he said.
Solvency Overfishing
CP solves overfishing and environment Australia has sky-high
standards for aquaculture
Australian Department of Agriculture 13
[10/22, The aquaculture industry in Australia,
http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/aquaculture/the_aquaculture_industry_in_australia]
Australia has established a reputation as a supplier of safe, high quality seafood

which is produced using environmentally sustainable practices. Australian
aquaculture producers target high value domestic and overseas markets. The
increasing demand for Australian native species and the proximity to Asian markets,
together with world recognized seafood quality and standards, means Australian
aquaculture is competitively positioned to take on high value aqu aculture products.
Land-Based CP
1NC Shell
The first/next off-case position is the Land CP
Text: The United States federal government should invest in
land-based, closed-containment aquaculture.
CP Solves better land-based aquaculture is environmentally
safer, cheaper and more feasible
Suzuki 14
[David Suzuki, Canadian academic scientist and environmental activist, June 15
2014, Aquaculture, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/sustainablefisheries-and-aquaculture/what-is-aquaculture/]
We know that net-pen aquaculture threatens wild salmon, and we also know that the industry is a profitable one
that contributes significantly to local, provincial and national economic accounts. The good news is that an
land-based, closed-containment aquaculture is an

environmentally, technically and economically viable option to net-pen aquaculture.
It's generally accepted that closed containment aquaculture has the ability to
drastically reduce environmental impacts on the marine environment, but there is still debate
increasing body of evidence shows that
whether the TECHNOLOGY is adequate for commercial-scale production and if it economically feasible? At a
Speaking for the Salmon workshop on land-based closed-containment aquaculture, Dr. Andrew Wright presented his
study "Technologies for Viable Salmon Aquaculture: An Examination of Land-Based Closed Containment
Wright, an engineer by training who holds a handful of patents, demonstrated that

land-based closed containment is technically viable on a commercial scale by
designing a system using widely available, off-the-shelf components. Dr. Wright,
further demonstrated that his system is economically viable, with a capital investment
that is reasonable and in-line with new technology, and low operating expenses,
resulting in a healthy cash flow that materializes in the early years of the operation.
The study even finds that profits can be significantly increased when waste is used
as a feedstock for a secondary product, such as lettuce. The bottom line: for a $12-million
investment, you can expect anywhere from $5- to $13-million in yearly profits. Not a
bad investment!
Aquaculture". Dr.
Solvency Overfishing
Land Based Aquaculture provides more fish in the safest way
Shore and Sun 2012
[Randy Shore and Vancouver Sun, Leading Authors of Vancouver Sun.com, 11-172012, Salmon farming comes ashore in land-based aquaculture,
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Salmon+farming+comes+ashore+land+based+a
quaculture/7562924/story.html]
Despite the extra costs associated with land-based salmon farming, the product
neednt cost much more than net-pen Atlantic salmon. The carefully controlled
environment in an advanced closed-containment system allows the fish grow to
maturity twice as fast, in a smaller space with less feed than net-pen salmon.
Concerns about the spread of disease and sea lice between wild and farmed salmon
make a commercially viable land-based Atlantic salmon farm something of an
environmental Holy Grail.
A2: Links to Oceans Net-Benefit

CP solves the entire case without linking to the DA
Food Water Watch 08
[Food Water Watch, leading research company on aquacultures, 2008, Land-Based
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/landbased-recirculating-aquaculture-systems/]
RAS can likely provide a cleaner, greener, safer alternative to open-water farms that does
not compete with other ocean uses. These systems are usually land-based aquaculture reuse virtually all of
the water initially put into the system. As a result, land-based aquaculture can reduce
the discharge of waste and the need for antibiotics or chemicals used to combat
disease and fish and parasite escapes all serious concerns associated with
OOA and pond aquaculture. Land-based aquaculture can provide a diversity of production
options. Tilapia, catfish, black seabass, salmon, shrimp, clams and oysters are just a few examples of what can be raised in
these systems. Land-based aquaculture can also be operated in tandem with aquaponics
the practice of growing plants using water rather than soil to produce a variety of herbs, fruits
and vegetables such as basil, okra, lettuce, tomatoes and melons. RAS range from small-scale urban aquaculture systems in
individual homes to larger, commercial-scale farms that can produce fish and produce equaling millions
of dollars in sales each year. In recent years, the U.S. government has been shockingly insistent that development of openwater aquaculture, in particular ocean aquaculture, is the best way to have an increased seafood supply in the United States.
Given the many ecological concerns associated with OOA , rather, the United
States should be looking to explore more sustainable fish

production, such as RAS . This report challenges natural resource managers and consumers to be more
active in helping to promote a cleaner, greener, safer domestic seafood supply by learning more about RAS and
requesting grocery stores and restaurants carry land-based aquaculture products

rather than those from open-water aquaculture systems.
Oceans DA
1NC Shell
The first/next off-case position is the oceans DA
Open-ocean aquaculture trashes marine biodiversity, causes
hypoxia, and introduces invasive species like Sea Lice
Bland 13
[Alastair bland, lead author of npr.org, 5-2-2013, Can Salmon Farming Be
Sustainable? Maybe, If you Head Inland,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/02/180596020/can-salmon-farming-besustainable-maybe-if-you-head-inland]
Open-ocean salmon farms can also generate high densities of organic and inorganic
waste material which can cause toxic marine algae blooms and create low-oxygen "dead
zones." Residues from antibiotics and other chemical treatments can also drift from the
pens. And then there's sea lice. These pea-sized copepods cling to free-moving fish, and
under natural circumstances, they aren't usually a threat to salmon. But when many thousands of adult salmon swarm together in
often boom. When juvenile salmon exiting the rivers of

their birth pass near such infested pens, the smolts may be swarmed by the
parasites and quickly killed. By this process, salmon farms in water have caused
entire runs of wild fish to nearly disappear from streams in the Vancouver Island area, according
crowded net pens, sea lice populations
to Krkosek's research.
Ocean biodiversity loss causes extinction

Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of
Law, 2003, Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral
Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1289250)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial
ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism
values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and
dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally,
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements
that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less
human degradation of marine

ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life . Maintaining biodiversity is often
critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems . Current evidence shows that, in
abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore,
general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating
that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265]
Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on
coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued
components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef
system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the
ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of
marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine
wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for
conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such
arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine
ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic
harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or
about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit
that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness
whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be
if we kill the ocean we kill

ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its
unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much:
once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins,
emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black
Sea is not necessarily unique.
Hypoxia causes extinction and species die off

Michael Bernstein, American Chemical society, 2-29-2006 Ocean 'dead zones'
trigger sex changes in fish, posing extinction threat
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/acs-oz032906.php
Oxygen depletion in the worlds oceans, primarily caused by agricultural run-off and pollution, could spark the
development of far more male fish than female, thereby threatening some species with extinction, according to a study
published today on the Web site of the American Chemical Society journal, Environmental Science & Technology. The study is
scheduled to appear in the May 1 print issue of the journal. The finding, by Rudolf Wu, Ph.D., and colleagues at the City University of
that lack sufficient oxygen to

sustain most sea life. Fish and other creatures trapped in these zones often die. Those that escape may be more
vulnerable to predators and other stresses. This new study, Wu says, suggests these zones potentially pose a third threat to
these species an inability of their offspring to find mates and reproduce . The researchers found that low levels of
dissolved oxygen, also known as hypoxia, can induce sex changes in embryonic fish, leading to an overabundance of
males. As these predominately male fish mature, it is unlikely they will be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers to
maintain sustainable populations, Wu says. Low oxygen levels also might reduce the quantity and quality of the eggs
produced by female fish, diminishing their fertility, he adds. In their experiments, Wu and his colleagues found low levels
of dissolved oxygen less than 2 parts per million down-regulated the activity of certain genes that control the production of
sex hormones and sexual differentiation in embryonic zebra fish. As a result, 75 percent of the fish developed male
Hong Kong, raises new concerns about vast areas of the worlds oceans, known as "dead zones,"
characteristics. In contrast, 61 percent of the zebra fish spawn raised under normal oxygen conditions more than 5 parts per
million developed into males. The normal sex ratio of zebra fish is about 60 percent male and 40 percent female, Wu says.
the areas
affected by hypoxia are usually larger than the spawning and nursery grounds of fish. Even though some tolerant
species can survive in hypoxic zones, they may not be able to migrate out of the zone and their reproduction will be
impaired." Hypoxia is considered one of the most serious threats to marine life and genetic diversity, Wu says. It
"Reproductive success is the single most important factor in the sustainability of species," Dr. Wu says. "In many places,
occurs when excessive amounts of plant nutrients, particularly nitrogen, accumulate in oceans, freshwater lakes and other
waterways. These nutrients trigger the growth of huge algae and phytoplankton blooms. As these blooms die, they sink to the ocean
floor where they are decomposed by bacteria and other microorganisms. Decomposition depletes most of the oxygen in the
surrounding water, making it difficult for marine life to survive.
Invasive species planetary extinction

Nadol 99 (Viki, JD Candidate Valparaiso, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis &
Clark College, Summer)
invasion by nonnative species has always existed. It is arguably a natural process that
The problem with this theory is that it fails to take into
account the rate at which humans are responsible for accelerating the pace of
successful introductions, as compared to those that would occur naturally. 22 The last five hundred years or so demarcate an era of
human expansion that has resulted in the increasingly rapid disruption and
weakening of Earth's eco systems. 23 The fragile condition of these systems renders them vulnerable to the
The threat of
should be allowed to continue unheeded. 21
establishment of invasive species. 24 In addition, rates of introduc [*343] tion have escalated with the advent of new modes of conveyance by trade and
travel. 25 Airplanes, boats, and automobiles provide sufficiently quick and spacious travel, facilitating entry of a number of invasive species into habitat
zones otherwise out of reach. 26 In the late 1950s, Charles Elton, a renowned British ecologist, warned that modern society was witnessing great historical
the scope of invasion is alarming, as are its effects . 28

invasive species are now established in the U nited S tates. 29 These species greatly threaten
biological diversity 30 because they are often able to out-compete and displace
native organisms. 31 As would be expected, they also add to the stress already suffered by
endangered and threatened native species. 32 One study indicates that invasive species are second only to habitat destruction among the
leading causes of spe cies loss nationwide. 33 However, some experts fear that invasive species ultimately will
contribute to the demise of the human population by destroying natural
processes and ecosystems necessary to human survival . 34 [Continues To Footnote] n30. See infra
dislocations of the world's fauna and flora. 27 Indeed,
Over 4500
invasive species ultimately threaten survival
note 35 and accompanying text. In addition to threatening diversity,

of
species as well: As the total number of species declines, plants and animals that may be important food resources, that play a critical role in the food web,
Surviving species will have fewer buffers against

catastrophic fluctuations in the environment. If, for example, a fish species loses many or some of its food resources,
or that contain medicinal qualities may disappear.
any threat or damage to the remaining food resource can be far more detrimental to the fish because alternatives have been lost. Thus
homogenization of habitats and species can have far-reaching effects. Breaching Natural Barriers, supra
note 22, at 8.
n31. Quammen, supra note 25, at 66. As one specialist explains, invasive species outgrow, out-mature, and simply out-compete native
species. Telephone Interview with Neil Rich mond, Shellfish Fishery Biologist, Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife (Nov. 25, 1998) [hereinaf ter Richmond
Interview].
n32. Quammen, supra note 25, at 66 ("[A] report, from the U.N. Environmental Program, declares that almost 20 percent of the world's
endangered vertebrates suffer from pressures (competition, predation, habitat transformation) created by exotic interlopers.").
supra note 6, at 46.
n33. Westley et al.,
n34. See Quammen, supra note 25, at 68. We come to a certain fretful leap of logic that otherwise thoughtful observers seem
the ultimate consequence will be the extinction of us . By seizing such a

by killing off so
many species, they say, we will doom our own species to extinction.
willing, even eager, to make: that
huge share of Earth's landscape, by imposing so wantonly on its providence and presuming so recklessly on its forgivingness,
Link Must Read 2NC**

Industrial aquaculture trashes marine ecosystems litany of
warrants
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Habitat destruction (coral, forests)

Hypersalinization
Cross-breeding crushing genetic diversity
Insufficient living conditions
Water pollution
Overfishing
Invasive species release
University of York 13
{University of York Environment Department, Is Aquaculture the Solution to

Overfishing? September 24, http://www.york.ac.uk/environment/postgraduate/mscdip-marine-environmental-management/aquaculture/#THUR}
Modern aquaculture has resulted in a massive destruction of coastal
habitats . Most notable has been the removal of mangrove forests in the tropics to make
way for prawn and shrimp ponds. Problems of hypersalinization make these farms only viable
for a few years before they have to be abandoned and redeveloped at a new site.
In addition to causing great environmental harm , this necessity has also greatly
reduced the aesthetic appeal of many coastlines and left them highly exposed and vulnerable to
natural disasters like the Tsunami of 2004. Another great concern which surrounds aquaculture
is that accidental matings between wild fish and those that have escaped from farms will dilute
racially distinct gene pools. This is a problem because fish in aquaculture plants have primarily been bred
to be fat and fast growing, whereas wild stocks have evolved to survive local conditions. Loss of genetic
diversity can for example lower disease resistance among wild fish. Population
structure is being lost worldwide in species like salmonids and taken to its extreme this
could even
threaten the survival of entire species . In Norway
for example there are about 400 different races of salmon, but about a quarter of salmon in the sea there are now
Problems still remain, even when fish stay put in their

animals can suffer from deformities and ill health, that are probably
linked to their artificially high growth rates or poor living conditions. When salmon are kept at
unnaturally high densities they become overly aggressive and more prone to injury through fights. They
also become highly susceptible to parasites and diseases, which can then be
transferred to wild fish. A study in British Columbia, Canada, found that at one fish farm, sea-louse
estimated to have escaped from fish farms.
cages. For example
production was 30,000 times higher than is normal in the wild. In the vicinity of the farm, louse infestations were 73
Animals in fish farms

receive and are exposed to dozens of different chemicals including antibiotics, disinfectants,
anti-fouling agents and sometimes artificial colouring additives. These, together with the remnants of food
and faeces, create pollution both inside cages and in the wider environment. Scientists
have estimated that the amount of sewage waste created by fish farms in Scotland
is equivalent to that produced by a "dozen sizeable cities". Some of this is
times higher than normal and levels remained raised for 30 kilometres downstream.
particularly toxic
and can for example create the right conditions for toxic shellfish poisoning. Concerns
there
have been fears that levels of cancer causing dioxins in salmon can sometimes be
dangerously high . Aquaculture in action The final suite of problems surrounding
for public health have also questioned whether some farmed fish, are actually safe to eat. In particular
aquaculture relates to the food that animals are fed with. Exotic feeds can spread
disease through the introduction of exotic viruses. Similarly invasive species can enter
an area, both directly and via organisms associated with a foodstuff. Last but not least , feeding
is fuelling the problem of overfishing
rather than solving it. This is because typical farmed fish are carnivorous and are being
fed with species that occur lower down on food webs. In Mediterranean tuna for
example, it takes 25 kilos of wild fish to produce 1 kilo of farmed tuna. Until
we stop catching fish to feed fish and address the issues of environmental pollution
wild caught fish
to captive animals
aquaculture will continue to create more

problems than it solves.
and destruction,
Link Invasive Species

Fish escape causes native species crowd-out
Jordan 12 (Read more about the source: http://see-the-sea.org/AboutUs/AboutUscontainer.htm) Jason and Shannon Jordan are two co authors and designers of the
"See-the-Sea" website which is an organization devoted to reducing the human
impact on the ocean
There have been many large scale escapes introducing hundreds of thousands of
farm- raised fish into the wild. In one single incident in 2000, the population of
salmon in Maine was elevated by 1000 times when approximately 100,000 fish
escaped (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004).
Contrary to what some people may think this is not beneficial to the marine
environment, as it does not "just replace the natural number of fish" . The farmed
fish are often not native to the areas in which they are farmed. This practice often
displaces the native species. Many fish farms use antibiotics and genetically altered
fish, known as transgenic fish. They are altered to grow fast to a large size while
consuming less food. They often are not permitted to even live to sexual maturity.
Farmed fish may have diseases not found in the wild. The wild fish have no natural
resistance to these diseases. There have been studies which show that farm raised
fish are more aggressive breeders than their wild counterparts (Ananthaswamy,
Anil, 2003). Farmed fish now outnumber wild fish 48 to 1 in the North Atlantic.
(World Wildlife Federation Scotland, 2003)
Link Marine Biodiversity

Aquaculture trashes the ecosystem
impact on the ocean
Thousands of acres of mangroves are altered to make room for shrimp farms,
displacing those species which naturally exist there, thus forever altering the
ecologically important mangrove areas. To provide food for the farmed fish, trawlers
vacuum the sea for anchovies and mackerel to make fish meal, effectively removing
these fish from the ocean's food chain. The genetically altered farmed fish pose a risk to
the genetic quality of wild fish, as escaped farmed fish are now interbreeding with
wild fish. Rotting, uneaten food pellets from fish pens pollute surrounding areas.
These pellets, combined with the concentrated excrement from the farmed fish,
often contain antibiotics and dioxins which contribute to ecosystem destruction and ,
in some cases, "Dead Zones". Sea lice infestations from high concentrations of
farmed salmon have caused health problems to wild salmon.
Impact Overview
Marine biodiversity is the controlling impact for the debate
solves a laundry list of existential threats
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) 2010
Healthy Ocean, Healthy People
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002166/216651e.pdf
Covering more than two-thirds of the Earths surface, the ocean is at the origins of life on Earth and
makes the Earth habitable for people. It also provides us with a vital source of nourishment, especially to
people in the worlds poorest nations. Many depend on fish for their primary source of protein; fisheries and aquaculture support the
Marine and coastal

resources and industries also represent more than 5% of global GDP. The ocean
provides benefits to economic sectors such as fisheries, energy, tourism, and transport/ shipping, as well as non-market
benefits such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, habitat and biodiversity ,
among many others. The ocean also offers exciting opportunities for the development of
new drugs to treat all sorts of human ailments. Products based on marine organisms have already found
livelihoods of about 540 million people (8% of the worlds population) directly or indirectly.
their way onto the market and are now being prescribed for patients that have asthma, tuberculosis and cancer. Other industries,
such as those that produce oil or paper, are also bioprospecting the deep sea with promising results. While there is no consensus
on the financial benefits derived from worldwide sales of biotechnology-related products taken from all types of marine
The ocean also holds great

promise for developing new types of renewable energy , particularly marine renewable energies.
environments, these are estimated to represent a multi-billion dollar market.
Considering that the ocean and seas cover 70% of the earth, this could potentially be a considerable source of renewable energy.
The ocean and its resources are also a part of our common heritage and an important part of many cultures, whose beliefs and
practices are closely associated with the marine and coastal environment. The protection and valorization of these natural and
cultural marine heritage sites can foster sustainable development, especially for developing countries and Small Island Developing
States (SIDS).
Impact Bioaccumulation Add-On

Sea-based aquaculture spurs bioaccumulation
impact on the ocean
"Analysis of Fish Consumption Data Shows 800,000 U.S. Adults Eat Enough PCBs From Farmed
Salmon to Exceed Allowable Lifetime Cancer Risk 100 Times Over" . "The
Environmental Working Group bought the salmon from local grocery stores and
found seven of 10 fish were so contaminated with PCBs that they raise cancer-risk
concerns, relative to health standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)". (Environmental Working Group, 2003) The
toxin levels are believed to be higher as farmed fish are often fed ground-up junk
fish (fish with little other commercial value) captured close to shore where these
toxins levels are higher. "There's no doubt that fish is good for you, but these data suggest if you're going to eat farmed salmon
then eating it a little less frequently would be a good idea." (CBS News, 2004)
Bioaccumulation causes extinction

Montague 91 (Peter, Editor Rachel's Health and Environment Weekly, "Real
Hope For The Great Lakes: Local Groups Form 'Zero Discharge Alliance'," 3-20,
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn225.htm)
Bioaccumulative toxins are dangerous because amounts that seem harmless are
multiplied as they pass through the food chain; often the result is environmental destruction. The
adverse consequences of bioaccumulative toxins may become understood only after it
is too late . For example, human breast milk is now contaminated with hundreds of persistent,
bioaccumulative toxins (see RHWN #193), but the effects of these poisons upon breast-fed infants is not known
except in rare cases. Such dousing of infant children with persistent, bioaccumulative toxins is a massive
experiment; the full results may become known in the future, but one thing is known beyond any doubt today:
it
cannot help the human species to expose it from birth onward to a constant
bath of industrial toxins. (People who are tempted to think that the human species might be improved by
random meddling with our genetic structure should remind themselves that a human is something like a TV set
[though of course much more complex] and the hope of improving a human by randomly introducing poisons into
its diet at an early age is like splashing hot solder into a TV set's electronic circuits hoping to improve the picture.) It
is important to note that many of the most toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative chemicals are formed by the use
of the element chlorine. DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, and many pesticides are chlorine compounds. Most people know
of chlorine because it disinfects their drinking water, kills germs in the local swimming pool, or bleaches their
clothes in the washing machine. Unfortunately, when it is used by industry, chlorine produces a broad spectrum of
toxins that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate. In a very real sense, chlorine lies at the heart of the
toxics problem, world-wide. For two decades, government has tried to control toxic pollutants one at a time, by
establishing the exact amount that could be safely released into the environment, issuing "permits" giving industry
permission to discharge toxics into air and water, then trying to police the polluters to force compliance with the
permitted limits. The entire effort was foolish from the start: there are over 40,000 chemicals in use today and 1000
to 2000 new ones enter commercial channels each year. Meanwhile during its 20-year effort, government has
managed to establish "safe" limits for fewer than 100 chemicals. Meanwhile, government has gone ahead and
issued permits that ignored most chemicals entirely (because there was no basis for saying how much was safe).
government never showed any real interest (or ability) in enforcing these silly
permits. A classic house of cards. This wrong-headed effort at pollution control (instead of pollution
prevention) has led to massive damage to wildlife throughout the Great Lakes (see RHWN
#146) and, worldwide, a dangerous accumulation of toxics in creatures that eat at the
top of the food chain, like large birds, large fish, bears, and humans . It is now crystal clear
that the old way has been a complete failure, which, if it is continued, can only lead to the
Finally,
extinction of humans .
Anthropocentricism K
1NC Links
Aquaculture is a cruel punishment represents the apotheosis
of anthropocentric thinking
PETA, 2014 - PETA is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the
largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members
and supporters. It is a non-profit organization
Read more: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factoryfarming/fish/aquafarming/#ixzz37aTTuqoL
In the United States, there are no regulations to

ensure the humane treatment of fish . As many as 40 percent of farmed fish die
before the aquafarm operator is ready to slaughter them. Fish who survive are
starved before they are sent to slaughter in order to reduce waste contamination of the water during
transport. Salmon, for example, are starved for 10 full days. Fish slaughter plants in the U.S. make
no effort to stun the fish, who are completely conscious when they start down
the slaughter line. Their gills are cut, and they are left to bleed to death ,
convulsing in pain. Large fish, such as salmon, are sometimes bashed on the head with a
wooden bat called a priest, and many are seriously injured but still alive and
suffering when they are cut open. Smaller fish, such as trout, are often killed by simply
draining water away and leaving them to slowly suffocate or by packing them in ice while they
are still completely conscious. Because fish are coldblooded, allowing them to
suffocate on ice prolongs their suffering, leaving them to experience excruciating
pain for as long as 15 minutes before they die.
Fish Slaughter: Unregulated Suffering

Aquaculture Affirmative - SDI 2014

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aquaculture Affirmative - SDI 2014

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Affirmative

Federal agency and interagency

aquaculture development in the United States. Strategic Goals 1. Advance

multi-disciplinary research and coordination of

competitiveness, production efficiency, economic viability , and long-term

Plans federal spending is a pre-requisite to the privatization

These funds support core research capabilities in universities and Federal

research programs are needed to improve competitiveness,

The primary rationale for Federal investment in aquaculture research, science,

US action vital international CP fails because of human

Continued U.S. leadership in aquaculture science and technology

aquaculture research and technology development originates from

Research and extension scientists, private for-profit and non-profit

2AC Fed Key

if the government is indifferent or hostile to aquaculture, it will not

This is an initiative of the

Domestic marine aquaculture, particularly sustainable commercial farming in the

government indecision and the uncertainties of the political

permitting and leasing process to allow the siting, operation, and

funding for increased ma rine aquaculture research and de velopmcnt is needed to

Putting in place a positive NOAA

ocean aquaculture up the learning curve to a global leadership

Its feasible demonstration projects exist

FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION O F OFFSHORE

driven by annual Federal investments in research

Sustained trade deficit collapses the economy and

{James, syndicated economic columnist, U.S. Trade Deficit Fosters

In addition to hurting the economy, manufacturing collapse

Dollar collapse causes nuclear war

deep recession in the

Heg collapse spurs global nuclear war too

"offshore balancing" strategy, or an "over the horizon" military posture.

high levels of spending aren't needed to

Another argument for

any money freed up from dropping global commitments would

If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South

grand strategy acts as a hedge against the emergence regional hegemons.

the country's military dominance undergirds its economic leadership . In

geopolitical dominance also helps keep the U.S.

Shirking that responsibility would

There is little evidence that the U nited S tates

The results could well be disastrous .

The second internal link is economic growth Aquaculture

aquaculture has driven growth of the seafood sector, influenced product

impacting seafood-dependent businesses and consumers . The growing global

commercial aquaculture is relatively small and at an early stage of

It may seem small, but that marine sector is key to the US

The fact that

the ocean economy represents a range of goods produced and services

Current efforts to understand

necessitate economic analysis for policy-making purposes.

US key to global economy collapse causes global stagnation

'The world has become

If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to

the US will remain the engine of global

Economic decline causes global war

economic decline may increase the likelihood of external

increasing the risk of miscalculation

even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a

the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for

political science scholarship links economic decline

frequency of economic crises, whereas

That escalates to extinction

Internals Growth A2: Aquaculture Insufficient