aquaculture negative - debateus.org€¦ · web viewi think the environment da is pretty strong...

Earliest Bird ’14 Aquaculture Neg

Aquaculture Negative

1


FYI

I think the Environment DA is pretty strong against this aff and can easily turn economy and food-related advantages.

The Vagueness T arg is just in case you debate a plan later in the season that only affects “sustainable aquaculture”- I wouldn’t read it against the packet aff, which specifies its methods.

2


T

3


T- “It’s”

4


1NC- “Its” is USFGA. Interpretation- “its” refers to ownership from the preceding subject, which is the

US federal governmentMacMillan Dictionary ’14 [http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/its]

1belonging or relating to a thing, idea, place, animal, etc. when it has already been mentioned or when it is obvious which one you are referring to

B. Violation- the plan has producers do the developing, not the government

Producers own aquaculture Pittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President for Marine Operations and Arctic Research Coordinator for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, former Chief of Staff to the

U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, and Oceanographer of the Navy, Bruce Anderson, PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Hawaii, is president of the Oceanic Institute, holds an M.P.H. in epidemiology from Yale University, Daniel Benetti is Associate Professor and the Director of Aquaculture at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, has over 25 years experience in aquaculture worldwide, “Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks,” January, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf]

The FAO has defined aquaculture as “the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production as well as ownership of the stock being cultivated” (FAO 2000).

C. It’s a voter

1. Limits- there are countless non-government forms of development and exploration- we can’t prepare for every unpredictable company that would do the plan which makes it impossible to be neg

2. Ground- all our links are based on federal government action- they could spike out of DA links and CP competition which steals our core neg ground

3. Precision- grammatical precision is key to topic education which mandates a discussion of federal action- ignoring one word in the topic justifies ignoring the rest, which kills the value of precise debate

5

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf


2NC- Its=ownership“Its” refers to the preceding subjectManderino ‘73 [Justice for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Sigal, Appellant, v. Manufacturers Light and Heat Co., No. 26, Jan. T., 1972, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 450 Pa. 228; 299 A.2d 646; 1973 Pa. LEXIS 600; 44 Oil & Gas Rep. 214, lexis]On its face, the written instrument granting easement rights in this case is ambiguous. The same sentence which refers to the right to lay a 14 inch pipeline (singular)

has a later reference to "said lines" (plural). The use of the plural "lines" makes no sense because the only previous reference has been to a "line" (singular). The writing is additionally ambiguous because other key words which are "also may change the size of its pipes" are dangling in that the possessive pronoun "its " before the word "pipes" does not have any subject preceding , to which the possessive pronoun refers. The dangling phrase is the beginning of a sentence, the first word of which does not begin with a capital letter as is customary in normal English [***10] usage. Immediately preceding the "sentence" which does not begin with a capital letter, there appears a dangling [*236] semicolon which makes no

sense at the beginning of a sentence and can hardly relate to the preceding sentence which is already properly punctuated by a closing period. The above deviations from accepted grammatical usage m ake difficult, if not impossible, a clear understanding of the words used or the intention of the parties . This is particularly true concerning the meaning of a disputed phrase in the instrument which states that the grantee is to pay damages from ". . . the relaying, maintaining and operating said pipeline. . . ." The instrument is ambiguous as to what the words ". . . relaying . . . said pipeline . . ." were intended to mean.

“Its” means it belongs to the federal governmentCompact Oxford English Dictionary ‘09 [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/its?view=uk]

its • possessive determiner 1 belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. 2 belonging to or associated with a child or animal of unspecified sex.

“Its” is exclusive- means solely the USFG’sBrent ’10 [Douglas F., legal attorney, “Reply Brief on Threshold Issues of Cricket Communications, Inc.,” June 2, http://psc.ky.gov/PSCSCF/2010%20cases/2010-00131/20100602_Crickets_Reply_Brief_on_Threshold_Issues.PDF]

AT&T also argues that Merger Commitment 7.4 only permits extension of “any given” interconnection agreement for a single three year term. AT&T Brief at 12. Specifically, AT&T asserts that because Cricket adopted the interconnection agreement between Sprint and AT&T, which itself was extended, Cricket is precluded from extending the term of its agreement with AT&T. Id. This argument relies upon an inaccurate assumption: that the agreement (contract) between Sprint arid AT&T, and the agreement (contract) between Cricket and AT&T, are one and the same. In other words, to accept AT&T’s argument the Commission must conclude that two separate contracts, i.e. the interconnection between Sprint and AT&T in Kentucky (“Sprint Kentucky Agreement”) and the interconnection between Cricket and AT&T in Kentucky (“Cricket Kentucky Agreement”), are one and the same. Upon this unstated (and inaccurate) premise AT&T asserts that “the ICA was already extended”; id. at 14, and “the ICA Cricket seeks to extend was extended by Sprint . . . .”; id. at 15, and, finally, “Cricket cannot extend the same ICA a second time . . . .” Id. (emphasis added in all). Note that in the quoted portions of the AT&T brief (and elsewhere) AT&T uses vague and imprecise language when referring to either the Sprint Kentucky Agreement, or the Cricket Kentucky Agreement, in hopes that the Commission will treat the two contracts as one and the same. But it would be a mistake to do so. The contract governing AT&T’s duties and obligations with Sprint is a legally distinct and separate contract from that which governs AT&T’s duties with Cricket. The Sprint Kentucky Agreement was approved by the Commission in September of 2001 in Case Number 2000-00480. The Cricket Kentucky Agreement was approved by the Commission in September of 2008 in Case Number 2008-033 1. AT&T ignores the fact that these are two separate and distinct contracts because it knows that the merger commitments apply to each agreement that an individual telecommunications carrier has with AT&T . Notably, Merger Commitment 7.4 states that “AT&T/BellSouth ILECs shall permit a requesting telecommunications carrier to extend its current interconnection agreement . . . . As written, the commitment allows any carrier to extend “its” agreement . Clearly, the use of the pronoun “its” in this context is possessive, such that the term “its” means that particular carrier’s agreement with AT&T (and not any other carrier’s agreement ). Thus, the merger commitment applies to each agreement that an individual carrier may have with AT&T. It necessarily

6


follows then, that Cricket’s right to extend its agreement under Merger Commitment 7.4 is separate and distinct right from another carrier’s right to extend its agreement with AT&T (or whether such agreement has been extended).

7


Vagueness

8


1NC “Sustainable”=vagueA. Interpretation- the plan text should specify its method of “sustainable” aquaculture-

“Sustainable” could mean anything- it’s an intent, not a methodPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President

for Marine Operations and Arctic Research Coordinator for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, former Chief of Staff to the U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, and Oceanographer of the Navy, Bruce Anderson, PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Hawaii, is president of the Oceanic Institute, holds an M.P.H. in epidemiology from Yale University, Daniel Benetti is Associate Professor and the Director of Aquaculture at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, has over 25 years experience in aquaculture worldwide, “Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks,” January, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf]

Throughout the Task Force’s investigation,¶ we have made a considerable effort to¶ identify issues related to the sustainability of¶ aquaculture. The Task Force has reviewed¶ environmental, social and economic considerations¶ related to the long-term contribution¶ of marine aquaculture to the nation’s¶ welfare and to the health of its marine¶ ecosystems. Sustainability itself is a slippery term, and leaves much to interpretation. At the end of the day, the Task Force has come to think of sustainability as a direction instead of a particular place or data point. Some practices are clearly unsustainable , at least from an environmental standpoint, but given the many inputs and outputs associated with aquaculture it is exceedingly difficult to establish objectively when “sustainability” has been achieved .

B. It’s a voter-

1. Limits- they explode the topic to hundreds of potential affs and could claim unfair advantages from vague solvency mechanisms

2. Moving target- they could sever out of our best links or CP competition that are specific to different tech and practices- kills the best neg ground

3. Precision- specifying is key to topic-specific education- otherwise we’re confined to generic discussions of aquaculture

9


Case

10


Solvency Answers

11


1NCIMTA won’t solve- too undevelopedOgden ’13 [Lesley Evans Ogden, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology from Simon Fraser University, M.Sc. in Biological Sciences from York University, former wildlife ecologist, freelance science writer, “Aquaculture’s Turquoise Revolution,” BioScience 63: 697–704, http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/articles/files/Evans%20Ogden%202013%20Aquaculture's%20Turquoise%20Revolution%20BioScience.pdf]

“Canada has a small population compared¶ to [that of the United States],”¶ remarks Rensel, “but they are doing¶ much more IMTA development [than] other places.” Still, “IMTA is not a silver bullet ,” he cautions, adding that, “it doesn’t always work, and its success, at present, is very site specific.” IMTA in New Brunswick has reached¶ critical mass and is on the leading¶ edge of this work, explains Rensel, but on North America’s West Coast,¶ he suggests, “IMTA should perhaps¶ be targeted for less optimally located¶ fish farms, where there is a buildup¶ of sediments on the bottom,” adding¶ that it’s likely to be more useful and¶ more viable at those sites. Washington¶ State fish farms have for decades been¶ required to monitor sediments and to¶ locate in non-nutrient-sensitive areas,¶ but IMTA may be a useful addition to¶ West Coast sites where benthic nutrient¶ pollution remains a problem.¶ The future of IMTA IMTA is an emerging science and practice¶ and, as yet, it’s not a sustainable aquaculture panacea . What Robinson,¶ Chopin, and their colleagues have¶ learned recently is that the amount of seaweeds required to soak up 100 percent of the inorganic nutrients being released by farmed fish probably¶ exceeds the amount of seaweed that can be located at their IMTA site . Seaweeds, as photosynthetic organisms,¶ need to be cultivated near the¶ surface, where there is sufficient light,¶ whereas salmon can exist in a greater¶ depth range within the water column.¶ “There’s not going to be a one-species¶ solution to the nutrient issue,” says¶ Robinson. Much of the organic waste is too big for filter feeders such as mussels to assimilate , although they¶ do take up some of the fine particles¶ and may play other roles at IMTA¶ sites, such as helping control disease¶ and parasites such as sea lice. Research¶ in New Brunswick suggests that about¶ 80 percent of the waste material that comes from the fish farms is settling to the bottom , with only 20 percent¶ remaining suspended in the water column.¶ In China, however, studies suggest¶ that IMTA seaweeds are effective¶ at reducing nutrients, perhaps because¶ of that country’s magnitudes-larger¶ and more developed scale of seaweed¶ cultivation.

Offshore aquaculture won’t work- too costly and no frameworkAquaSol ’14 [AquaSol is a US-based aquaculture consulting company, “AquaSol, Inc. is Going Offshore,” http://fishfarming.com/aquasol-inc-going-offshore.html]

Why has the transition not occurred sooner? A number of reasons come to mind. First, we can describe what we refer to as the "low hanging fruit" theory. People naturally gravitate to doing what's easiest first using locally available resources on land, where they are more comfortable. A parallel can be drawn to the oil industry which started on land, then moved offshore, then moved further offshore, and now is tapping into the hardest and most expensive reserves to access like oil sands. We believe a similar trend will emerge in the aquaculture industry whereby the industry will eventually be forced to go offshore due to increasingly greater competition for scarce freshwater resources, while simultaneously developing more sustainable yet typically more expensive forms of production like recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). A second reason is it's expensive to build offshore platforms and to access these platforms with sophisticated and specialized vessels and it takes a sizeable investment to rationalize these high fixed costs. A third reason is mother nature. Offshore aquaculture is exposed to the forces of nature and the fury of the seas and it is rarely an easy place to work. A final reason is technology. A strong argument can be made that we simply have not imagined or built the type of robust offshore aquaculture structure that can withstand the forces of nature over time.

12


Regulatory confusion means the plan can’t solveSmith ’12 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law graduate, “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]

While the United States has made strides in regulating aquaculture over the last several decades,285 the current regulatory framework is too complex and, ultimately, too lenient, to realize aquaculture’s full potential and mitigate aquaculture’s environmental problems in light of the challenges the industry will face in the coming century. Without cooperation and coordination among federal agencies,286 perhaps achievable a single piece of federal legislation devoted to aquaculture development,

aquaculture’s role as the creator of polluting and exploitative tragedies of the commons will continue. Many federal agencies with very different missions and jurisdictional reaches govern aquaculture in disparate, often overlapping, and often inconsistent ways, including the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the FDA, NMFS/NOAA Fisheries, the FWS, the Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), and the United States Coast Guard. This Section briefly discusses each agency’s role in aquaculture regulation.

However, this section is not intended to provide a complete list of regulatory jurisdiction over aquaculture operations; rather, it serves to demonstrate the complexity, uncertainty, and inadequacy characterizing the regulatory field in a select few areas of aquacultural impacts. A plethora of state laws and regulations pursuant to and independent of the federal laws delineated below also complicate the sphere

of aquaculture regulation,287 but are beyond the scope of this paper.288

Incentives fail due to marketplace confusionPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


No one kind of demand-side program is a “silver bullet” for the marketplace . Corporate¶ purchasing standards, such as those adopted¶ by Wegmans and Ahold, provide a strong¶ economic incentive for suppliers to improve¶ their production practices. They can be¶ established relatively quickly and can be tailored¶ to suit the needs of particular buyers¶ and suppliers. Nevertheless, the proliferation of numerous, disparate corporate purchasing programs could result in a difficult marketplace for some suppliers, who have to implement different production standards to meet the needs of different customers, as well as result in a confusing marketplace for consumers .

13


2NC- IMTA failsIMTA fails- causes siting controversiesCosta-Piercel et al ’12 [B.A. Costa-Pierce, Department of Fisheries, University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, D.M. Bartley and M. Hasan are with the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Farming the Waters for People and Food,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2734e/i2734e.pdf]

Increasing technological efficiencies in the use of land, water, food, seed and¶ energy through sustainable intensification such as the widespread adoption of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) and integrated agricultureaquaculture farming ecosystems approaches will not be enough, since these will improve only the efficiency of resource use and increase yields per unit of inputs and do not address social constraints and user conflicts . In most developing countries, an exponentially growing population to 2050 will require aquaculture to expand rapidly into land and water areas that are currently held in common. Aquaculture expansion into open-water freshwater and marine waters raises the complex issues of access to and management of common pool resources, and conflicts with exiting users that could cause acute social, political and economic problems. The seminal works of 2009 Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom¶ could provide important insights for the orderly expansion of aquaculture into a more crowded, resource-efficient world striving to be sustainable, and rife with user conflicts.

IMTA is too complex and costlyThomas ’11 [Susan A. Thomas, PhD, Workshop for Peninsula College, “INTEGRATED MULTI-TROPHIC AQUACULTURE: A WORKSHOP,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/imta/imta_white_paper.pdf]

Possible weaknesses of IMTA seem to center on its complexity at various levels, such as the difficulty in ¶ explaining the technical aspects to the public and to regulators; operational challenges; and extra costs for setup and maintenance. Up to the present time, factors that appear to have hindered the expansion of US aquaculture are the public concern about coastal zone use for the production of food, rather than for other purposes, the lack of social acceptance of aquaculture, and the absence of a regulatory framework that would allow aquaculture, including IMTA, to develop in a responsible way.

IMTA fails- lack of dataŽupan et al ’12 [Ivan Župan, University of Zadar, Department of Agronomy and Aquaculture, Melita Peharda, Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, Lav Bavčević ; Croatian Agricultural Chamber, Department of Fisheries, “POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED MULTI-TROPHIC AQUACULTURE (IMTA) IN THE ADRIATIC SEA,” Abstract, http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=143924&lang=en]

Over recent years, scientific interest for investigating ecological, economical and social effects of Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) has increased worldwide. Its development in the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic Sea, is still in the early stages. The main obstacle preventing IMTA to be commercially adopted is the lack of scientific information on choosing compatible species, knowing the carrying capacity of a production area and interactions between species feeding at different trophic levels, as well as its socio–economic impacts. Current experience in the area is based on smaller experimental studies of local importance but they generally give a good insight into potential of IMTA and its interactions with the environment. The aim of this paper was to overview current literature and experiences worldwide and to review the potential for adopting IMTA principles in the Adriatic Sea.

14


2NC- Offshore failsEEZ production is too untested- plan can’t solveUpton and Buck ’10 [Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional Research Service, Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the CRS, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” August 9, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf]

The future of aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ is still an open question. Setting a regulatory¶ framework might be necessary but not necessarily sufficient to spur development of an open ocean aquaculture industry. Aquaculture in other countries may have advantages related to lower costs and superior sites . Although it might be argued that a highly regulated U.S. industry is¶ unlikely to be competitive with aquaculture in other countries, minimal regulation does not¶ guarantee that the U.S. aquaculture industry will succeed. A complex and unpredictable mix of technological, biological, and economic factors will also determine the future profitability of open¶ ocean aquaculture. Although government may play a role in funding research and pilot projects, large-scale production will likely depend on private initiatives and innovation.

15

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf


2NC- No regulationAquaculture regulation is too chaotic and uncertainWheeler ’13 [Garrett, Research Editor and Editorial Board Member for the GGU Environmental Law Journal, Doctor of Jurisprudence, Golden Gate University School of Law, “A Feasible Alternative: The Legal Implications of Aquaculture in the United States and the Promise of Sustainable Urban Aquaculture Systems,” http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gguelj]

The regulatory framework currently associated with aquaculture production in the United States is a confusing patchwork of statutory and agency overlaps. The situation is due largely to the fact that aquaculture operations take a myriad of forms, each posing unique environmental concerns with the potential to trigger a host of legal violations . Ocean net pens, for instance, are placed in the open ocean miles from land, while pond farms are located in coastal or inland areas. Shellfish are cultivated in marine hatchery

systems in bays along the ocean bottom,61 and RAS utilize indoor tanks.62 This diverse array of aquaculture techniques translates into equally diverse

legal regulation, with the United States ¶ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers ¶ (Corps), the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National ¶ Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States ¶ Department of Agriculture (USDA),

and the Food and Drug ¶ Administration (FDA) each assuming a portion of jurisdictional ¶ oversight. ¶ Regulating potential pollution from aquaculture facilities, the EPA ¶ restricts the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters and oversees a ¶ national permit program via the Clean Water Act (CWA).63 The CWA ¶ further charges the Corps with the responsibility of issuing dredge and ¶ fill permits.64 The EPA also regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal ¶ of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste under the Resource ¶ Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), although regulatory authority ¶ is generally administered by the states.65 RCRA places “hazardous” ¶ waste into both specifically “listed” and general “characteristic” ¶ categories.66 Therefore, waste generated from fish farms, including fish ¶ feces and discharges of ammonia-nitrogen, as well as water treatment chemicals, may be regulated under RCRA insofar as they are stored, ¶ treated, and disposed. ¶ With respect to potential impacts on species and ecosystems, both ¶ FWS and NOAA administer the Endangered Species Act (ESA), ¶ protecting threatened and endangered species through the designation of ¶ critical habitat areas for listed species.67 Freshwater species are listed by ¶ the Secretary of Interior, while marine species are listed by the Secretary ¶ of Commerce.68 Aquaculture operations with potential to affect critical ¶ habitat areas of threatened or endangered species must pay close ¶ attention to ESA regulation. In some instances, compliance must be ¶ achieved by submitting a habitat conservation plan and obtaining permits ¶ for the incidental “take” of threatened or endangered species.69 ¶ Additionally, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 provides for the ¶ regulation of vessel traffic and dictates safety and navigation measures ¶ for ocean-based aquaculture structures.70 The Act delegates enforcement ¶ responsibilities to the United States Coast Guard under the oversight of ¶ the Corps.71 Ocean-based facilities are prohibited from depositing ¶ “floating craft of any kind . . . whereby navigation shall or may be ¶ impeded or obstructed.”72 ¶ Finally, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery ¶ Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSA), the primary law ¶ governing fishery management in the United States, the New England ¶ and Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Councils exercise ¶ regulatory oversight over ocean-based farms.73 In New England, the ¶ Council established evaluation criteria for ocean aquaculture proposals,74 ¶ while the Gulf of Mexico Council developed and implemented an ¶ offshore aquaculture fishery management plan in 2009.75 ¶ Moreover, NOAA recently announced its authority to regulate ¶ aquaculture under the MSA.76 NOAA released its official policy in June ¶ 2011 in an ambitious document that seeks to “integrate environmental, ¶ social, and economic considerations in management decisions concerning aquaculture.”77 The policy’s purpose is “to enable the ¶ development of sustainable marine aquaculture” in the oceans of the ¶ United States,78 illustrating heightened governmental focus on the ¶ expansion of ocean-based aquaculture within the EEZ.79 Despite ¶ language indicating that NOAA’s policy is concerned with active ¶ stewardship and sustainability,80 there is no discussion of the prospect of ¶ alternative land-based aquaculture systems, a major oversight given the ¶ tumultuous history of open-ocean aquaculture. ¶ To make matters even more complicated, because farmed fish are ¶ ultimately sold as food, the USDA offers its own reports and monitoring. ¶ The FDA is also evaluating the production of genetically modified fish81 ¶ and is charged with approving the use of antibiotics and other drugs on ¶ farmed fish.82 ¶ This regulatory patchwork has resulted in a notable few attempts at ¶ comprehensive regulation. In 1980, for example, Congress passed the ¶ National Aquaculture Act (NAA) to promote the development of the ¶ United States aquaculture industry and establish a national policy.83 The ¶ NAA recognized that annual harvests of wild fish and shellfish were ¶ operating beyond optimum sustainable yield, “thereby making it more ¶ difficult to meet the increasing demand for aquatic food.”84 The Act ¶ further emphasized that the United States’ dependence on imported ¶ seafood “adversely affects the national balance of payments and ¶ contributes to the uncertainty of supplies.”85 At the center of the Act’s ¶ substantive policy was the placement of the Department of Agriculture as ¶ the lead federal agency responsible for collecting and analyzing ¶ “scientific, technical, legal, and economic information relating to ¶ aquaculture, including acreages, water use, production, marketing, ¶ culture techniques, and other relevant matters.”86 Although the NAA aimed to create a comprehensive aquaculture ¶ strategy, it did little in the way of regulation or enforcement and instead ¶ acted merely as an impetus for further study of industry growth potential. ¶ For example, the Act created no regulatory oversight authority, assigning ¶ the Department of Agriculture the responsibility only to “consult with the ¶ Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Interior, other appropriate ¶ Federal officers, States, regional fishery management councils . . . and ¶ representatives of the aquaculture industry.”87 Moreover, although the ¶ NAA directs the Department of Agriculture to identify “regulatory ¶ constraints” on the aquaculture industry and formulate a corresponding ¶ “regulatory constraints plan,”88 the subcommittee responsible for these ¶ actions has done little to address these constraints in a concrete way.89 ¶ Instead, actions such as the 2012 issuance of a draft National ¶ Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan provide guidance ¶ for agencies to develop “new approaches for accelerating technology ¶ commercialization” of the United States aquaculture industry.90 ¶ The lack of a comprehensive regulatory aquaculture policy has ¶ given way to efforts like the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture ¶ Act of 2011, the latest Congressional effort concerning aquaculture ¶ regulation, proposed by Representative Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara.91 ¶ The bill, which failed to pass Congressional approval and was referred to ¶ the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular ¶ Affairs in July of 2011, would have set an unprecedented regulatory ¶ framework for offshore fish farm operations by addressing ¶ environmental, social, and economic concerns.92 Central to the bill was a ¶ new permitting process mandating would-be ocean fish farmers to obtain ¶ authorization from the Secretary of Commerce after meeting a series of ¶ requirements aimed at minimizing potentially adverse impacts on marine ¶ ecosystems.93 The requirements included identifying appropriate ¶ locations for farms, complying with site inspections, limiting where ¶ certain fish species may be farmed, and preventing escapement, disease, ¶ and harmful waste discharge.94 In addition, the bill attempted to initiate a research program designed to solve significant data quandaries and ¶ address concerns with the ecological sustainability of further aquaculture development and expansion.95 Although the bill did not become law, its ¶ potential impact on the United States aquaculture industry as a whole ¶ was substantial, and

it may represent a trend toward more comprehensive regulation. At the moment, however, uncertainty abounds and aquaculture operators are left to sift through a seemingly endless array of federal and state regulatory laws .

16


Food Security Answers

17


1NCAquaculture won’t solve food securityCosta-Pierce ’10 [Barry A. Costa-Pierce, Department of Fisheries, Animal & Veterinary Science, Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program, University of Rhode Island, “Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems: The Need for a New Social Contract for Aquaculture Development,” http://www.ecologicalaquaculture.org/Costa-PierceMTSJ.pdf]

To meet seafood demands due to projected population growth to 2030, FAO (2009) has estimated that at least an additional 40MMTof aquatic food will be required to maintain the current¶ per capita consumption. This forecasts that world aquaculture production will exceed 90 million tons and surpass¶ global capture fisheries production. I argue that such an expansion of aquaculture globally in the rich and poor countries outside of China might not occur because of the following: (1) The current industrial aquaculture development paradigm is inadequate¶ at all levels of government and that without major government subsidies, aquaculture will not spread as rapidly in the next two decades as it has in the past two unless ecological aquaculture as an alternative development model for aquaculture becomes the dominant development model. (2) Most national decision makers are unaware of and are not planning for the magnitude of the world’s coastal urban, land, energy, and water crises, and the implications on food production of these vast societal challenges that need to occur—Brown (2009) calls this “mobilizing to save civilization”— and are continuing to be duped by “20th century thinking” into believing that there are vast areas of a virgin ocean planet and adequate¶ feedstuffs just waiting for a large expansion of “fed aquaculture” developments, which there are not. (3) Professional, regulatory “ decisionmaker communities” in aquaculture and fisheries are so separate structurally and functionally in many countries to the point that they have lost track of their common goal of delivering environmentally friendly, safe, sustainable seafood to the people they serve. Professional fisheries managers are working everywhere to recover damaged capture fisheries in both developed and developing nations. Recovered fisheries will add price and volume competition to aquaculture in many regions of the world, in some cases making aquaculture development not economically feasible , a fact which may not be captured in global statistics. The world will need all the fish it can produce sustainably from capture fisheries as well as develop aquaculture. Management conflicts and educational deficiencies between fisheries and aquaculture managers will need to end as products¶ that sustain livelihoods will¶ be needed from both.

No resource wars- best studies provePinker ‘11 [Steven, Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” Google Books]

Once again it seems to me that the appropriate response is "maybe, but maybe not." Though climate change can cause plenty of misery and deserves to be

mitigated for that reason alone, it will not necessarily lead to armed conflict. The political scientists who track war and peace, such as

Halvard Buhaug, Idean Salehyan, Ole Theisen, and Nils Gleditsch, are skeptical of the popular idea that people fight wars over scarce resources . Hunger and resource shortages are tragically common in sub-Saharn countries such as

Malawi, Zambia, and Tanzania, but wars involving them are not . Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tsunamis (such

as the disastrous one in the Indian Ocean in 2004) do not generally lead to armed conflict. The American dust bowl in the

1930s, to take another example, caused plenty of deprivation but no civil war. And while temperatures have been rising steadily in Africa during the past fifteen years, civil wars and war deaths have been falling . Pressures on access to land and water can certainly cause local skirmishes, but a genuine war requires that hostile forces be organized and armed, and that depends more on the influence of bad governments , closed economies, and militant ideologies than on the sheer availability of land and water . Certainly any connection to terrorism is in the imagination of the terror warriors: terrorists tend to be underemployed lower-middle-class men, not subsistence farmers. As for genocide, the Sudanese government finds it convenient to blame violence in Darfur on desertification, distracting the world from its own role in tolerating or encouraging the

ethnic cleansing. In a regression analysis on armed conflicts from 1980 to 1992, Theisen found that conflict was more likely if a country was poor , populous, politically unstable, and abundant in oil , but not if it had suffered from droughts, water shortages , or mild land degradation . (Severe land degradation did have a small effect.)

Reviewing analyses that examined a large number (N) of countries rather than cherry-picking one or two, he concluded, "those who foresee doom, because of the relationship between resource scarcity and

18


violent internal conflict, have very little support in the large-N literature ." Salehyan adds that relatively inexpensive advances in water use and agriculture practices in the developing world can yield massive increases in productivity with a constant or even shrinking amount of land, and that better governance can mitigate the

human costs of environmental damage, as it does in developed democracies. Since the state of the environment is at most one ingredient in a mixture that depends far more on political and social organization , resource wars are far from inevitable , even in a climate-changed world .

Status quo solves food insecurityLewis 1-10-14 [Kim, international broadcaster for VOA News, “Expanded Research Puts Global Food Security on the Horizon,” http://www.voanews.com/content/cgiar-agriculture-food-africa-asia-maize-rice-nutrient-crops-research-scientists/1827211.html]

Scientists and food experts have high hopes in achieving global food security as the Cinsultatvie Group on Internnational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) recently announced a billion-dollar funding milestone.¶ The world’s largest agriculture research partnership says funding for research and development went from $500 million dollars in 2008 to $1 billion dollars in 2013.¶ CGIAR partners around the world conduct research to reduce poverty in rural areas to overcome complex challenges in areas such as climate change, water scarcity, land degradation and chronic malnutrition. The new funding allows the consortium to expand their focus on their 16 global research programs in developing policies and technologies. ¶ The increased funding has also allows the partnership to commit to provid ing 12 million African households with sustainable irrigation; saving 1.7 million hectares of forest from destruction; and providing 50 million poor people with access to highly nutritious food crops . Two major crops that have already been improved upon due to expanded research are maize and rice.¶ “Results of those changes, for example, have allowed for a large expansion in the work on drought tolerant maize, particularly in Africa, and in Asia on flood tolerant rice, where the fruits of research have gotten into the hands of farmers in a very, very rapid way,” says Jonathan Wadsworth, executive secretary of the CGIAR Fund Council.¶ He uses rice as an example. Four years after the release of new types of rice that withstand temporary flooding in Asia, he said over four million farm families are reaping the benefits.¶ “In Africa, on drought tolerant maize, hundreds of thousands of farmers are now using varieties which give them a harvest even in times of drought,” says Wadsworth.¶ In severe drought conditions of sub-Saharan Africa and in the Sahel region, agroforestry is being incorporated into the production of maize production. ¶ In looking ahead into the year 2014, Wadsworth sees challenges throughout the agriculture production cycle. However, scientists are already meeting these challenges head on.¶ “I think one thing which we have shown in the CGIAR is that food security is not only a question of the amount of food, it’s also to do with the quality of the food which is produced and available both to rural households, and to urban population," he explains.¶ He points out that one of the areas that CGIAR has been developing over the last few years and will expand on this year is increasing the nutritional value of staple crops to ensure higher levels of protein, micro-nutrients, and vitamins that are essential to the health of the population, particularly for pregnant and lactating women, and children.¶ He highlights new research done in Latin America that has yielded new types of sweet potato. Now more nutrient-enriched, this crop has been introduced in Africa, and the high levels of vitamin A in the sweet potato will improve the vitamin A deficient diets in many African countries.

19


AT: DiseaseExtinction impossible and ahistoricalPosner 05 [Richard A., Judge U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, Professor at the Chicago School of Law, “Catastrophe: Risk and Response,” 1-1-05 http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4150331/Catastrophe-the-dozen-most-significant.html#abstract]

Yet the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues , such as the Black Death, smallpox , and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire human race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality ; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly . The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race. The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease. The reason is improvements in medical science. But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and resist prevention and cure: the lesson of the AIDS pandemic. And there is always a lust time. That the human race has not yet been destroyed by germs created or made more lethal by modern science, as distinct from completely natural disease agents such as the flu and AIDS viruses, is even less reassuring. We haven't had these products long enough to be able to infer survivability from our experience with them. A recent study suggests that as immunity to smallpox declines because people am no longer being vaccinated against it, monkeypox may evolve into "a successful human pathogen," (9) yet one that vaccination against smallpox would provide at least some protection against; and even before the discovery of the smallpox vaccine, smallpox did not wipe out the human race. What is new is the possibility that science, bypassing evolution, will enable monkeypox to be "juiced up" through gene splicing into a far more lethal pathogen than smallpox ever was.

Disease extinction claims are hypeFitzpatrick ’10 [Michael Fitzpatrick, General Practitioner at Barton House Health Center, “Pandemic Flu: Public Health and the Culture of Fear,” November, http://www.rsis.edu.sg/NTS/resources/research_papers/NTS%20Working%20Paper2.pdf]

Projections by leading public health officials of rates of disease and death from pandemic flu on a catastrophic scale had a major impact. While WHO experts such as Keiji Fukuda speculated that global death rates would be in the millions, if not tens of millions, television reports featured images of the 1918-19 pandemic and accounts of the devastating effects of that (historically unprecedented) viral pestilence.10 Patients fearful for their own healtn and that of their children, their elderly relatives, and family members with chronic illnesses sought medical advice and whatever preventative measures were available. There is however little evidence that raising awareness of the emerging threat of swine flu had any protective value. Given the rapid spread of the virus, it appears than none of the measures taken in the early 'containment' phase of the outbreak, such as more assiduous hand-washing, face masks, social distancing measures (school closures, etc.) and the provision of prophylactic antivirals to contacts had an appreciable effect on its spread. Pregnant women, deemed to be particularly at risk, were particularly susceptible to pandemic fears - and their anxieties were subsequently compounded by the development of vaccines that rival scaremongers claimed were unsafe. It soon emerged that early reports from Mexico provided unreliable figures for deaths resulting from swine flu and an uncertain number of cases of infection to use as a denominator with which to calculate the mortality rate. As it also became clear that most cases were mild, projections for the impact of the pandemic were steadily scaled down ." In July, British authorities anticipated that 30 per cent of the population (19 million people) would become infected, with a complication rate of 15 per cent, a hospitalisation rate of 2 per cent and a death rate between 0.1 per cent and 0.35 per cent (between 19,000 and 65,000 people). By September the figure of 19,000 had become the worst-case scenario; the following month this was reduced to 1,000. In December, the official report on the mortality statistics for the first six months of the pandemic in England estimated a mortality rate of 0.026 per cent (138 confirmed deaths, and cases of swine flu in 1 per cent of the population), a rate substantially lower than the most optimistic scenario of six months earlier.12 The contrast with earlier influenza pandemics was dramatic: the death rate in 1918-19 was 2-3 per cent, and that in the less severe pandemics of 1957-58 and 1967-68 around 0.2 per cent. In the judgement of the Hine Report, ministers and officials placed excessive faith in mathematical modelling. They had come to regard this as ' hard, quantitative science' that could provide 'easily understandable figures' which had the aura of appearing 'scientifically very robust' .13 Though the mathematicians had warned, at the first pandemic planning meeting in April, that in the absence of reliable data their modelling capability was low , they were under pressure from the politicians to 'produce forecasts'. The high level of uncertainty surrounding these projections does not seem to have

20


deterred the modellers from producing them or the politicians from projecting them into the public realm. The Hine Report observes that by the end of the first wave of swine flu cases in September, sufficient data were available to guarantee accurate modelling of the second wave. However, official statements still sought to warn against complacency about future dangers and did nothing to allay the anxieties provoked by earlier doomsday scenarios. The Hine Report is critical of the public promotion of 'reasonable worst-case scenarios', which imply 'a reasonably likely event', focusing in particular on CMO Professor Liam Donaldson's July statement. The report says: The English CMO's citing of the 'reasonable worst-case' planning assumption of 65,000 fatalities on 16 July 2009 was widely reported in headlines in somewhat alarmist terms.14 It seems unfair to blame the media for the alarmist tone of their reports, when it was echoed by the newly appointed health minister Andy Bumham, who told parliament that the swine flu pandemic could no longer be controlled and that there could be 100,000 cases a day by the end of August. It is striking that British authorities chose to promote such gloomy projections at a time when other prominent health figures had already declared such figures improbable. A month earlier, on the occasion of declaring the swine flu outbreak a global pandemic, WHO chief Margaret Chan had already recognised that most cases were mild and that she did not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in severe or fatal infections.15 While the Hine Report is generally highly congratulatory of the UK response to the swine flu pandemic, it suggests that the authorities may have adhered too strictly to the contingency plan they had developed over the previous decade to cope with the emergence of an influenza pandemic on the scale of the 1918-

19 outbreak. As a result they 'did not consider sufficiently the possibility that a pandemic might be far less

severe' than the one envisioned in that contingency plan . Their response was 'tailored to the plan, not the nature of the virus' and thus lacked flexibility. The report tentatively suggests that the authorities might consider as an alternative approach, a policy of

preparing for the most likely outcome, while being prepared to monitor and change tack as necessary. The alarmist response to the

swine flu outbreak reflects the wider trend of the past decade in which 'crying wolf has emerged as the appropriate official response to diverse real and imaginary threats, from the millennium bug to bioterrorism, obesity to global warming.'5 For the authorities, the over-riding principle is to avoid blame for unforeseen disasters, by always proclaiming the worst-case scenario and repeating the mantra 'prepare for the worst, hope for the best'. From this perspective, rational contingency planning gives way to scaremongering. Instead of making discreet preparations for probable, predictable emergencies (snow in winter, drought in summer), the authorities engage in speculation about the grimmest possible eventualities (massive loss of life resulting from disease or climate change) with the aim of promoting more responsible behaviour and healthier lifestyles.17 Rather than communicating realistic assessments of risk to the public, the authorities engage in sharing their anxieties and promoting fears. Instead of guiding practical professional interventions in response to real social problems, politicians and public health officials engage in dramatic posturing.

21


AT: TerrorismZero risk of terrorism- their impact is alarmism Mueller ’12 [John, Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Mark G. Stewart is Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia, The Terrorism Delusion, International Security, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 81–110, Summer 2012]

Over the course of time, such essentially delusionary thinking has been internalized and institutionalized in a great many ways. For example, an extrapolation of delusionary proportions is evident in the common observation that, because terrorists were able, mostly by thuggish means, to crash airplanes into buildings, they might therefore be able to construct a nuclear bomb. In 2005 an FBI report found that, despite years of well-funded sleuthing, the Bureau had yet to uncover a single true al-Qaida sleeper cell in the United States. The report was secret but managed to be leaked. Brian Ross, “Secret FBI Report Questions Al Qaeda Capabilities: No ‘True’ Al Qaeda Sleeper Agents Have Been Found in U.S.,” ABC News, March 9, 2005. Fox News reported that the FBI, however, observed that “just because there’s no concrete evidence of sleeper cells now, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” “FBI Can’t Find Sleeper Cells,” Fox News, March 10, 2005. Jenkins has run an internet search to discover how often variants of the term “al-Qaida” appeared within ten words of “nuclear.” There were only seven hits in 1999 and eleven in 2000, but the number soared to 1,742 in 2001 and to 2,931 in 2002. 47 By 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was assuring a congressional committee that what keeps every senior government leader awake at night is “the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.” 48 Few of the sleepless, it seems, found much solace in the fact that an al-Qaida computer seized in Afghanistan in 2001 indicated that the group’s budget for research on weapons of mass destruction (almost all of it focused on primitive chemical weapons work) was $2,000 to $4,000. 49 In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, officials now have many more al-Qaida computers, and nothing in their content appears to suggest that the group had the time or inclination , let alone the money, to set up and staff a uranium-seizing operation, as well as a fancy, super-high-technology facility to fabricate a bomb. This is a process that requires trusting corrupted foreign collaborators and other criminals, obtaining and transporting highly guarded material, setting up a machine shop staffed with top scientists and technicians, and rolling the heavy, cumbersome, and untested finished product into position to be detonated by a skilled crew—all while attracting no attention from outsiders. 50 If the miscreants in the American

cases have been unable to create and set off even the simplest conventional bombs, it stands to reason that none of them were very

close to creating, or having anything to do with, nuclear weapons —or for that matter biological, radiological, or chemical ones . In fact, with perhaps one exception, none seems to have even dreamed of the prospect; and the exception is José Padilla (case 2), who apparently mused at one point about creating a dirty bomb—a device that would disperse radiation—or even possibly an atomic one. His idea about isotope separation was to put uranium into a pail and then to make himself into a human centrifuge by swinging the pail around in great arcs. Even if a weapon were made abroad and then brought into the United States, its detonation would require individuals in-country with the capacity to receive and handle the complicated weapons and then to set them off. Thus far, the talent pool appears, to put mildly, very thin. There is delusion, as well, in the legal expansion of the concept of “weapons of mass destruction.” The concept had once been taken as a synonym for nuclear weapons or was meant to include nuclear weapons as well as weapons yet to be developed that might have similar destructive capacity. After the Cold War, it was expanded to embrace chemical, biological, and radiological weapons even though those weapons for the most part are incapable of committing destruction that could reasonably be considered “massive,” particularly in comparison with nuclear ones.

22


Terrorists don’t have the means or motive for major attacksChapman ‘12 [Stephen, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, “The Implausibility of Nuclear Terrorism,” May 17, http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/17/the-implausibility-of-nuclear-terrorism]

Given their inability to do something simple — say, shoot up a shopping mall or set off a truck bomb — it’s reasonable to ask whether they have a chance at something much more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a presentation at the University of Chicago, “the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be vanishingly small .” The events required to make that happen

comprise a multitude of Herculean tasks . First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from

Russia’s inventory of decommissioned warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing . Besides, those devices are probably no longer a danger, since weapons that are not maintained quickly become what one expert calls

“radioactive scrap metal .” If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a bomb to an ally — for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. Then comes the task of building a bomb. It’s not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment — plus people with specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. Assuming the jihadists vault over those Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in contraband all the time — but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion . This, like every other step in the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what’s going on, multiplying the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up. That has heartening implications. If al-Qaida embarks on the project, it has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the formidable odds, it probably won’t bother .

23


2NC- Can’t solve food securityFarmed fish don’t solve food securityMcCutcheon 3-27-14 [Jody McCutcheon is an editorial assistant for Eluxe Magazine, which focuses on issues of environmentally sustainable products and markets, “SOMETHING FISHY? AQUACULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT,” http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/]

–Farmed fish isn’t as healthy as wild, and doesn’t deliver as many nutrients either¶ –There’s a danger of farmed or even genetically modified fish escaping into the wild and contaminating wild stock –Farms don’t solve issues of increased demand. The Jevons Paradox states that as production methods grow more efficient, demand for resources actually increases – so as aquaculture makes fish production increasingly efficient, and fish become more widely available and less expensive, demand increases across the board. This drives more fishing, which hurts wild populations. Thus, despite what fish farmers claim, fish farming cranks up the pressure on already-depleted populations of wild fish around the world.

Plan doesn’t solve food crises- most countries opt for fisheriesHall ’13 [SJ Hall, The World Fish Center, “Fish—more than just another commodity,” http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF-2013-27.pdf]

Fish supply in nutrition insecure developing countries The phenomenal rise in aquaculture production has been championed as a new ‘blue revolution’, and a solution to the ¶ stagnant or declining fish yields from wild capture fisheries. ¶ Although this is the fastest growing food production sector, and ¶ farmed fish production may soon exceed the catch from the wild, it is not a panacea for all problems, nor a replacement for current ¶ fisheries. In particular, for those countries that are most dependent on fish for food security, the available data and research show that wild capture fisheries remain the dominant source of supply.

24


2NC- No impactFood shortages don’t cause warAllouche ’11 [Jeremy, professor at MIT, Research Fellow, Water Supply and Sanitation at the Institute for Development Studies, “The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade,” Food Policy, Vol. 36, S3-S8, January, online]

The question of resource scarcity has led to many debates on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will lead to conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from the Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural resources and population growth since while food production grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these limits are exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that most empirical studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments . Technological change and greater inputs of capital have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More generally, the neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries humankind has breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable. Lessons from history: alarmist scenarios, resource wars and international relations In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level. In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’ (Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration, but rather to what extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak. Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have been followed up by military action. The governance of transboundary water has gained increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems. None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli. Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18). As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event database, more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related ‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 water-related treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international basins have been negotiated since 1945 (FAO, 1978 and FAO, 1984). The fear around water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary conflict. Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between the different riparian states (see for example Allouche, 2005, Allouche, 2007 and [Rouyer, 2000] ). Water rich countries have been involved in a number of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality, perceptions of the amount of available water shapes people’s attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of co-operation among riparians (Dinar and Dinar, 2005 and Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006). In terms of international relations, the threat of water wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale expects conflict to occur over water, and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an argument which is highly contestable. The debates over the likely impacts of climate change have again popularised the idea of water wars. The argument runs that climate change will precipitate worsening ecological conditions contributing to resource scarcities, social breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn cause greater political instability and conflict (Brauch, 2002 and Pervis and Busby, 2004). In a report for the US Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the consequences of a worst-case climate change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars

25


(Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p. 15). Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to instability and violent conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is thin ( [Barnett and Adger, 2007] and Kevane and Gray, 2008).

No food wars- empirics proveSalehyan ‘07 [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]

First, 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 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 instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 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 l ed 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.

26


2NC- No food crises nowEmpirics prove- food security is stableFPD ’13 [Food Product Design, multi-media brand focused on the application of science based ingredients that drive innovative & compliant food and beverage products for the consumer market, “Despite Challenges, Global Food Security Stable,” http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2013/07/despite-challenges-global-food-security-stable.aspx]

Global food security has remained largely stable over the past year despite challenges, including food price volatility, new areas of political unrest, the ongoing European economic crisis, and a severe summer drought in the Midwestern U.S. and Eastern Europe, according to the Global Food Security Index 2013 Report from Economist Intelligence Unit.¶ While the global average food security score remained virtually unchanged in the latest index (53.5) compared with a year ago (53.6), some notable trends emerged. Developing countries made the greatest food security gains in the past year. Ethiopia, Botswana and the Dominican Republic led the way, rising eight places on average in the global food security rankings, based largely on greater food availability and income growth.¶ High-income countries still dominate the top 25% of the index, but falling national incomes hurt food security in many cases, especially in countries on the periphery of Europe. The United States retained the top ranking in the 2013 GFSI, with some shifts in the Top 10 group resulting in Norway taking the second spot, and France the third.¶ “Prices for some key food crops, especially grains, spiked last year, raising food costs globally," said Leo Abruzzese, global forecasting director for the Economist Intelligence Unit. “Fortunately, those prices have retreated in the last six months, although they remain higher than they were just a few years ago. The EIU expects the prices of wheat and other grains to fall further during 2013, which is good news for global food security."¶ The GFSI, developed by the EIU and sponsored by DuPont is intended to deepen the dialogue on food security by examining the core issues of food affordability, availability and quality across a set of 107 developed and developing countries worldwide. The dynamic benchmarking model evaluates 27 qualitative and quantitative indicators which collectively create the conditions for food security in a country.¶ The 2013 Global Food Security Index builds on the insights from last year’s assessment and includes two new indicators—corruption and urban absorption capacity, and two new countries—Ireland and Singapore.¶ Key findings from this year’s index include:¶ Overall average food security remained consistent with last year. No region’s score improved dramatically, but Sub-Saharan Africa showed the biggest gain, climbing by around one point in the index. Last year’s drought in some key growing regions will have reduced food security for a period of time, as grain prices rose, although that trend eased later in the year.

Global food systems are stabilizingSchwab 4-29-14 [Charles Schwab is a financial services firm with a 40-year history, “3 Factors Helping Food Stocks,” http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/3-Factors-Helping-Food-Stocks]

In 2013, investors were hungry for food companies as record-low interest rates led them to seek out dividend-paying stocks. This

interest in food stocks helped the sector to a 22% gain for the year as of mid-October,1 outpacing the S&P 500® Index’s 19% increase. But with interest rates possibly on the rise, will food stocks lose their appeal?¶ Not necessarily, says Brad Sorensen, Director of Market and Sector Analysis at the Schwab

Center for Financial Research. Three factors are leaning in food stocks’ favor :¶ Stable prices. Global commodity prices may be nearing the end of an extended upward trend, so any resulting price stability could boost food makers’ profits. “These companies operate in a pretty low-margin environment, so any cost savings certainly benefits them,” Brad says.¶ Low sensitivity to interest rate changes. Historically, food stocks haven’t been as affected by higher interest rates as

other consumer staples because demand for food stays relatively constant.¶ Long-term outlook. The United Nations expects the world population to add almost one billion people over the next 12 years.2 Given how closely food sales are linked with population growth, Brad believes equity investors should consider food companies as part of their long-term core portfolio.

27


Economy Answers

28


1NCUS economy will reboundKurtz 4-30-14 [Annalyn, analyst for CNN Money, “U.S. economy slows to stall-speed,” http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/30/investing/gdp-economy/]

Economists think the slowdown is merely a temporary phenomenon due to harsh winter weather. If that theory holds true, the economy should bounce back in the spring.¶ "Take this report with a grain of salt," said Brett Ryan, U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank. "It's certainly not a good report, but there's plenty of evidence of a weather impact."¶ Slumps in exports, housing and business investment, especially on equipment, were the main drivers behind the weak performance. All those things can be slowed by snow, hail and other winter storms as shipments are delayed or construction is put

on hold.¶ In contrast, people are still buying things. Consumer spending continues to be a bright spot, growing at a 3% annual pace.¶ Consumers shelled out more money on health care, in particular. The Bureau of Economic Analysis noted that the health care increase was driven

primarily by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.¶ Consumers also spent more on utilities probably because of the cold temperatures, but they cut back on clothing, household furnishings and eating out at restaurants.¶ Today's GDP figures are based on incomplete data, and will be revised at least three times in the next few months.¶ Bring on the spring comeback¶ Looking ahead, this week brings the first glimpse at how the economy fared in April, and the

numbers should finally be clear of weather-related distortions.¶ A separate report released Wednesday showed the private sector added 220,000 jobs this month, according to payroll processor ADP (ADP, Fortune 500). That's the strongest job growth since November.¶ The

government's official jobs report, due out on Friday, is also expected to show hiring at its highest since November. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney predict the U.S. economy added 205,000 jobs in April. They also expect the official unemployment rate to fall to 6.6%, down a notch from 6.7% in March.¶ In the meantime, the Federal Reserve is widely expected to remain in "wait-and-see" mode, in the hopes of getting a clearer picture of U.S. economic strength. So far this year, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has blamed much of the weak economic data on the weather.¶ The central bank's top officials met this week and will release their latest statement on the economy this afternoon. Aside from a minor reduction in bond

purchases, economists aren't expecting any major announcements.¶ The Fed has been buying bonds to stimulate the U.S. economy on and off since 2008, but the central bank is now gradually bringing that program to an end. The wind-down process is known as "tapering," and the latest round is expected to reduce bond purchases to around $45 billion a month.

The plan’s economic benefits are too uncertain- several reasonsKnapp ’08 [Gunnar, Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University, Director and Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, former member of an evaluation team for the Moore Foundation’s Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, “Chapter 8: Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture,” http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/people/knapp/personal/pubs/Knapp_Economic_Impacts_of_US_Offshore_Aquaculture.pdf]

There are several major challenges in assessing potential economic impacts of United States offshore aquaculture, which are similar to the challenges in assessing economic potential for U.S. offshore aquaculture which we noted in Chapter 2. ¶ ¶ First, potential United States offshore aquaculture is very diverse. The United States has ¶ a very large exclusive economic zone with waters ranging from arctic to tropical. There are ¶ many different species which could be farmed in the U.S. EEZ, using many different types of ¶ technologies. The economic impacts of offshore aquaculture may vary widely for different regions, species, and technologies. ¶ ¶ Second, the economic impacts of United States offshore aquaculture will depend on how ¶ it is regulated. Regulations for offshore aquaculture will directly affect what technologies may ¶ be used, where aquaculture might develop, what species might be farmed, the scale of potential ¶ projects, how long it takes for projects to be permitted and developed, costs of taxation, costs of ¶ environmental monitoring, the extent of local hire and control, and so forth. Thus part of the ¶ answer to the question to “what kind of economic impacts will offshore aquaculture have?” ¶ depends on the answer to the question “what kind of economic impacts do we want offshore ¶ aquaculture to have?” ¶ ¶ A third challenge is that the U.S. offshore aquaculture industry is still in its infancy. ¶ Although we can speculate about what future U.S. offshore aquaculture may look like, we do not yet know what technologies may evolve, which species and regions will have the most economic potential, what inputs the evolving U.S. offshore aquaculture industry may purchase, what the markets for its products will be, or what prices those products may command. ¶ ¶ Perhaps most importantly we do not know what the scale of future U.S. offshore ¶ aquaculture may be, or how fast it will grow to achieve that scale. Most (although not all) ¶ economic impacts of offshore aquaculture would be roughly proportional to the scale of ¶ production. Depending on the scale of production, the economic impacts of offshore aquaculture ¶ could be very small—or very large.

29


No impact to the economyBrandt and Ulfelder ‘11 [Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas, Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, “Economic Growth and Political Instability,” April, Social Science Research Network, online]

These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 2008–2010 reflect a widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries’ political stability. When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with their governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries’ economic growth rates strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great deal of careful empirical analysis, and evidence from social science research to date does not unambiguously support it . Theoretical models of civil wars, coups d’etat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events, but empirical studies on the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in recent years , as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic growth. To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this relationship to simultaneously address the possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity. As such, we believe this paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this argument to date . As the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these relationships, our findings do suggest that the relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform nor as strong as the conventional wisdom (s) presume (s) . We think these findings also help explain why the global recession of 2008–2010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of coups and regime failures that some observers had anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.

Plan can’t solve the trade deficitKite-Powell ‘11 [Hauke Kite-Powell, aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood?” Sept. 21, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood]

What conclusions did you reach about the U.S. seafood trade deficit? Kite-Powell: Two key facts were highlighted in the colloquium discussions. First, the U.S. seafood trade deficit is important to the seafood industry, but it's not a big contributor to our national trade picture—it's swamped by our trade in petroleum and manufactured goods. So eliminating the seafood trade deficit is not going to make a noticeable dent in our nation’s overall trade situation . And second, trade in seafood is not necessarily a bad thing. If there are other countries that can produce high-quality seafood much more efficiently than we can, it makes sense for us to buy it from them. There are species that we may not want to grow in large quantities in the U.S.—possibly shrimp, which comprises a big chunk of our seafood trade deficit. Shrimp are farmed most efficiently in coastal ponds, and we don't have a lot of spare coastal real estate for ponds in the U.S. So it may not make sense to try to become self-sufficient in shrimp.

30


No impact to trade deficitsFolsom and Gonzales ‘12 [Nils and Rodolfo, both professors who teach in the Department of Economicsat San Jose State University, “U.S. Trade Deficits Aren’t a Problem,” 7-11-12, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/us-trade-deficits-arent-a-problem/]

Won’t we have to pay back the foreign investments now being made in the U.S.? No. Foreigners are buying many kinds of real and financial assets. If they buy real estate, they own it now, so we won’t have to pay anything back . If they buy equities in businesses, they own those equities now, so again we have nothing to pay back. if they buy private debt, for example General Motors bonds, General Motors will have to pay neither more nor less than if the bondholders were Americans, if foreigners buy U.S. government debt, the U.S. government will have to pay neither more nor less than if the debt were owned by Americans. If foreigners hold U.S. bank accounts (denominated in either dollars or foreign money), the bank’s liabilities are no greater than if these accounts were owned by Americans. All of these assets pay a return (an implicit return in the case of non-interest bearing bank accounts) to whoever owns them, but there is nothing additional to be paid back, paid off, or paid out. Admittedly, foreign willingness to lend to Americans may induce us to borrow more than we would otherwise. In this sense, some of our trade deficit is being financed by new borrowing. But new borrowing from foreigners should cause no more problems than would new domestic borrowing . If some Americans borrow and waste the proceeds, they become worse off (as do the lenders if the borrowers default), but whether the lenders are domestic or foreign makes no real difference. Of course, if exchange rates change, speculators who hold portfolios of net assets denominated on balance in moneys that unexpectedly depreciate, or net liabilities denominated on balance in moneys that unexpectedly appreciate, will lose, but those losses will be balanced by others’ gains. (Even a growing international debt wouldn’t imply impoverishment because the proper measure of wealth is assets minus liabilities, not assets or liabilities alone . U.S. wealth continues to rise, because U.S. domestic saving—even after deducting all government budget deficits—remains positive.) Where will the output come from to pay the returns on the assets in the U.S. now owned by foreigners? This is an irrelevant question, since, if a foreign-owned asset is productive, its return accrues to its foreign owner; if it isn’t productive, that is the foreign owner’s problem, not ours. And the foreign investment was accompanied by enormous inflows of resources (remember our huge trade deficit) resulting from exchanges to which we would not have agreed unless we expected to benefit, presumably by increasing our productive capacity or at least our economic welfare. No other society coerced us to import more than we export and to accept huge volumes of foreign investment. We aren’t a pre-perestroika Eastern European nation “trading” with the Soviets. Voluntary foreign investments accompanied by resource inflows can pay their own returns. Foreign purchases of U.S. assets aren’t a zero-sum activity, since increases in foreign-owned assets require neither a decline in U.S.-owned assets nor a rise in U.S.-owed liabilities. Descriptions of the U.S. as a “debtor nation” are unwarranted.

31


2NC- No econ collapseNo econ collapse nowAmadeo 3-4-14 [Kimberly Amadeo, President of WorldMoneyWatch.com, has 20 years senior-level experience in economic analysis and business strategy, holds an M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College, “10 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Won't Collapse,” http://useconomy.about.com/b/2014/05/04/10-reasons-why-the-u-s-economy-wont-collapse.htm]

Things have gotten slower in 2014, but last year the U.S. economy is poised had one of its best years since 2007. The stock market set new records, housing prices were headed in the right direction, GDP was be in the healthy 2-3% growth zone. Although this year is a little shakier, that's a far cry from a collapse. Maybe all the gloom-and-doomers who make money by selling gold (which is dropping), guns and canned food -- not to mention their own books on how to survive -- are worried because things ARE ACTUALLY OK.¶ Anyway, here's 10 reasons why the U.S. economy, and the dollar, won't collapse:¶ The U.S. debt, though high, won't cause a collapse. Unlike Greece, the U.S. prints its own money.¶ The U.S. could possibly run a much higher debt to GDP ratio than it does now and still not face economic collapse.¶ Obama Added to the Debt to get us out of recession, not send us toward collapse.¶ The U.S. won't Default on Its Debt.¶ China Isn't Selling Its Dollar Holdings.¶ China and Japan won't cause a Dollar Collapse.¶ The Dollar Is Slowly Declining, not collapsing.¶ The dollar won't be replaced as the World's Global Currency.¶ The Fed's Quantitative Easing program can't cause Hyperinflation.¶ There are too many failsafe measures that will prevent a U.S. Economic Collapse.

32


2NC- No econ impactEcon decline doesn’t cause warJervis ’11 [Robert Jervis, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425]

Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies . While these dangers are real , it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis , an optimist could reply (correctly , in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict , it will not make war thinkable .

No war impactKatoch ‘09 [Rajan Katoch, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi The Global Economic Crisis Some Strategic Implications, First Published: August 2009]

Despite the above factors, the situation is not the same as in the 1930s, and in today’s world, it is highly improbable that the global economic crisis could lead to a world war as it did then . The international order is relatively more stable, with all major powers working with greater coordination, and mostly seeking to stick to the status quo. Learning from experience, the current national economic policy responses are better formulated, and therefore the economic crisis is unlikely to reach the severity of and linger on for as long as the Great Depression. The greater role being played by fora like the G20 in seeking solutions to the crisis indicates the recognition amongst the key players from both industrialised and developing countries that a broad consensus is needed to move forward. And finally, all this is backed by the hard fact of the overwhelming military dominance of the US; this acts as a force for stability. Localised conflicts remain possible; perhaps a serious threat arising out of collapse of critical states at worst, but a world war—most unlikely.

33


2NC- No deficit reductionPlan won’t solve the deficitFishSite ’08 [Citing a report by the Food & Water Watch, “Ocean Aquaculture Will Not Tackle Seafood Deficit,” http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/6632/ocean-aquaculture-will-not-tackle-seafood-deficit]

Fish Story examines seafood trade patterns and the track record of existing ocean fish farms to demonstrate how an expanded US ocean fish farming industry is not likely to reduce US dependence on seafood imports. According to the report, the United States exports more than 70 percent of its seafood to countries where it fetches the best prices . In turn, US retailers buy their seafood from wherever they can get it cheapest , oftentimes in places with lower quality and health standards, such as China and Thailand. Human Cost of Bottom Line Benefit “These trading patterns benefit the bottom lines of global seafood companies, and unfortunately, we consumers are the ones who lose out,” stated Hauter. “We are importing cheaper seafood that may have been produced in conditions that would not be legal in the United States. Add this to an inadequate food inspection program that inspects less than two percent of all imports, and we’re looking at a potential human health disaster.” FWW says that it is more likely that fish grown in offshore aquaculture cages would follow the current export pattern. The small quantity of newly farmed fish that would stay in the US would not offset the vast amount of fish that is imported. To help reduce this deficit, Food & Water Watch recommends reducing US reliance on imports by decreasing exports, and increasing domestic consumption of home caught and produced seafood. US fishermen already harvest enough fish to satisfy more than half of domestic consumption. “Instead of using tax dollars to promote a new industry with known risks and questionable benefits, our government should focus its resources on protecting consumers from unsafe imports,” added Hauter. “Our government needs to invest in a stronger import inspection program and promote safe and sustainable seafood for American consumers.”

34


Fisheries Industry Turn

35


1NC Fisheries TurnUS fisheries are strong- fishers are improving and its key to the economyTinning 5-6-14 [Matt, Senior Campaign Director for the Environmental Defense Fund Oceans program, “Congress Take Note: New Reports Show Progress for US Fisheries,” http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/2014/05/06/congress-take-note-new-reports-show-progress-for-us-fisheries/]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last week released two reports pointing to continued improvements in US fish stocks. Taken together, they send a clear message: that fisheries nationally are turning the corner as sustainable and more innovative management approaches take hold. Congress should take note. The first report, the so-called Status of Stocks report to Congress revealed that seven stocks were removed from the overfishing list last year and four from the overfished list. Two more stocks were declared “rebuilt,” bringing the total number of rebuilt stocks to 34 since 2000. Twenty-eight species are still on the report’s overfishing list, reminding us that there is still work to be done. But after decades of mismanagement that depleted fisheries and hurt coastal communities, the positive momentum of recent years is unmistakable. The second report released concurrently by the agency, Fisheries Economics of the US 2012, underscored the critical role that healthy fisheries play in our nation’s economy. According to the report, U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales in 2012, a gain of 7% over the previous year. It also found that the economic impact of fishing jobs increased 3% from 2011 to 2012. Such year-on-year growth is to be welcomed.

Aquaculture is net bad for the industry- destroys wild fisheries and economic growthBuck ‘12 [Lisa E. Buck, Master of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_10741.pdf?sequence=1]

At both the global and national levels, however, questions have been raised regarding the ¶ potential for competition between wild-caught fisheries and aquaculture products in the ¶ seafood market (Upton and Buck, 2010). Upton and Buck(2010) note that increased aquaculture production could have social and economic impacts on both wild-caught fisheries and the communities that have strong ties to the industry. While aquaculture could potentially supplement wild-caught fisheries products and provide larger quantities ¶ of seafood at lower prices to the consumer, this could also lead to a loss of employment in the fisheries sector. Increased supply of seafood products could lower the market cost, leading to lowered income for wild-capture fishermen, and subsequent changes to fishing communities reliant on the industry for livelihoods (Upton, 2010). This type of impact has been shown to occur in both the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery and the Alaska salmon fishery, where aquaculture products were introduced to the market and prices fell . Upton (2010) points out, however, that neither of these industries was entirely replaced ¶ by aquaculture, and offers the opinion that the additional competition could provide ¶ incentives for improvement of the quality of wild products, management institutions for ¶ wild-caught fisheries, and marketing techniques. The degree of competition with wild-caught fisheries also depends on whether new markets are created by the addition of ¶ aquaculture products to the global market, and the speed and size of production outputs ¶ from aquaculture facilities (DOC, 2010). Competition largely hinges on whether seafood ¶ products introduced to a market will supplant the existing products, or whether they will ¶ create a new market, leaving the existing wild-caught products relatively unaffected by ¶ introduction of a new product.

36


UQ- Industry strongUS seafood industry is recoveringStewart 4-30-14 [Jeanine, writer for Undercurrent News, a news service covering the seafood industry, “US fishermen lost out on seafood industry’s growth in 2012,” http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/04/30/us-fishermen-lost-out-on-seafood-industrys-growth-in-2012/]

Amidst talk of cutting out the middleman and automating systems in manufacturing facilities, the US seafood industry has managed to add employment in recent history.¶ According to NOAA data from 2003 to 2011, employee numbers increased 0.025%. Although a small percentage, these jobs have grown in value, with the total annual payroll having increased 7.4%; and the number of seafood industry establishments has increased 1.4%.¶ On top of that, the number of non-employer firms engaged in seafood increased 69% over the same time period, to 1,757. The number is greatest in Florida, which has 294 firms; followed by California and New York.

Fishers are recovering and stocks are rebuildingNOAA ’13 [“Status of Stocks 2013,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf]

When it is determined that a stock is ¶ overfished, the relevant Council must ¶ implement a rebuilding plan. A typical ¶ rebuilding plan allows fishing to continue, ¶ but at a reduced level so that the stock ¶ will increase to its target level and can ¶ produce the maximum sustainable yield ¶ (MSY)—the largest long-term average ¶ catch that can be taken from a stock ¶ under prevailing environmental and ¶ fishery conditions. Fifty stocks and stock ¶ complexes currently are under rebuilding plans, including 13 stocks that are no ¶ longer on the overfished list because they ¶ have increased in abundance and are not ¶ yet at the target level that supports MSY.¶ Black sea bass, a Southern Atlantic ¶ stock managed by the South Atlantic ¶ Fishery Management Council, is a recent ¶ rebuilding success story. This popular ¶ stock, which ranges from Cape Hatteras, ¶ North Carolina, to the Florida Keys, was ¶ declared overfished and a rebuilding ¶ plan put in place in 2006. Management ¶ measures such as a constant catch plan, ¶ as well as changes in the recreational ¶ bag limit and fish size limits for both the ¶ commercial and recreational fisheries led to an early recovery of the stock. As a result of rebuilding, annual catch limits have more than doubled. This is important to recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial ¶

fishermen alike. According to the latest ¶ Fisheries Economics of the U.S. report, in ¶ 2012 recreational marine anglers in the ¶ South Atlantic states spent more than $6.5 ¶ billion, generating over 34,000 jobs in east ¶ Florida alone. Black sea bass is also an ¶ important commercial species and many ¶ fishermen expect to see incomes rise with increased catch limits for this stock.

37

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf


Links- Hurts wild fisheriesAquaculture empirically destroys fisheriesUpton and Buck ’10 [Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional Research Service, Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the CRS, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” August 9, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf]

Some Members of Congress, especially those from coastal areas with strong fishing communities,¶ are interested in better understanding the social and economic effects of open ocean aquaculture¶ development. If open ocean aquaculture supplied a significant level of production at lower cost, it¶ could supplement commercial fishery production and provide greater quantities of products at¶ lower prices. Lower prices would benefit U.S. consumers, who would likely increase¶ consumption.¶ However, aquaculture production could supplant commercial fishery production. The lower prices (and revenues to fishermen) for commercial landings could result in the failure of least efficient businesses, loss of commercial fishery-related employment, and disruption of fishing communities . However, the degree of displacement would depend on the similarity of products,¶ the scale of aquaculture production, and the characteristics of associated markets for seafood¶ products.¶ Imports of shrimp and salmon have resulted in lower prices and greater consumption. Over the¶ last 30 years, domestic shrimp production from the wild fishery has remained relatively constant¶ while imports of aquaculture shrimp have increased. In 2007, over 90% of all shrimp consumed¶ in the United States were imported.19 Prices and associated vessel revenues have also decreased¶ resulting in fewer active commercial fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico fishery.20¶ During the last two decades, the salmon industry has also experienced major changes related to aquaculture. Farmed fish production has significantly increased total salmon supply and been responsible for much of the observed decline in prices.21 Because of lower prices, the value of Alaskan wild salmon landings decreased from approximately $800 million per year in the late¶ 1980s to approximately $300 million per year for the period from 2000 to 2004.22 The income of many Alaska fishermen also declined, as well as permit and boat values. From 2000 to 2004¶ about two-thirds of U.S. salmon consumption was farmed and one-third was from capture¶ fisheries targeting wild stocks.23

Aquaculture expansion devastates fishersKnapp ’08 [Gunnar, Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University, Director and Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, former member of an evaluation team for the Moore Foundation’s Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, “Chapter 8: Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture,” http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/people/knapp/personal/pubs/Knapp_Economic_Impacts_of_US_Offshore_Aquaculture.pdf]

Total benefits to society increase from areas A + B + C to areas A + B + C + D + E. ¶ Areas D + E represent an increase in net benefits to society from aquaculture, which are ¶ respectively the consumer surplus and producer surplus from aquaculture. However, there is a redistribution of the benefits of the wild fishery from fishermen to consumers by an amount represented by area B. Put simply, in the short run, if aquaculture depresses the price of wild fish, fishermen lose and consumers gain by an equivalent total amount. Note that the relative scale of these effects on fishermen, consumers and fish farmers depend upon the assumptions we make about the shape of the supply and demand curves. Because there are far fewer fishermen than consumers, the effects upon individual ¶ fishermen are far greater than the effects on individual consumers. As the price falls, an ¶ individual fisherman may see a very large drop in his income. An individual consumer will ¶ experience a correspondingly large drop in the price of the fish she buys--but this will not be anywhere as significant for her overall welfare as the loss of income is for the fisherman.

38



Environment DA

39


Shell/OV

40


1NCOffshore aquaculture devastates ecosystems- mismanagement is inevitableWheeler ’13 [Garrett, Research Editor and Editorial Board Member for the GGU Environmental Law Journal, Doctor of Jurisprudence, Golden Gate University School of Law, “A Feasible Alternative: The Legal Implications of Aquaculture in the United States and the Promise of Sustainable Urban Aquaculture Systems,” http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gguelj]

New technologies are allowing operators to cultivate fish and other seafood in exposed, open-ocean environments that were inaccessible only twenty years ago.40

However, the rise of offshore aquaculture poses significant threats to sensitive marine environments and “represents a fundamental transition in the human claim on the Earth’s surface .”41 Open-ocean aquaculture facilities operate in largely pristine areas and are intimately connected with their surrounding aquatic ecosystems.42 Common species cultivated in the open ocean include mostly finfish such as salmon, cod, and tuna.43 Large underwater cages are placed in the water, and as ocean currents

flow through the cages, the spread of waste and chemical byproducts can implicate the health of the seafloor and the surrounding water column.44 Escaped fish also pose a threat to marine ecosystems by introducing non- indigenous species, compromising the genetic fitness of native populations through interbreeding, and disease translocation.45

Disease and parasites may also spread to nearby native populations, and attempts by operators to apply drugs and chemicals to

contain those threats can damage the surrounding ecosystem.46 Predatory fish and marine mammals are also drawn to cages full

of captive fish, leading to injury, death, and harassment by operators trying to protect their stocks.47 Finally, operational failures are all but

inevitable: in at least one instance, an entire fish cage broke free from a tow vessel and was sent floating adrift in the open ocean, endangering marine species as well as any ocean-going vessels unfortunate enough to cross its path. 48

Ecosystem collapse causes extinction Coyne and Hoekstra ‘07 [Jerry and Hopi, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying]

But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine . Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows

41

http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying

http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying


what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water . In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction . Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature : not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all .

42


OverviewDA outweighs the case-

Magnitude- ecosystem collapse has a cascade effect that contaminates the oceans and destroys the resiliency of the Earth- collapses the oxygen cycle and causes extinction

Probability- our impact is linear- more ecological destruction puts us closer to the brinkDiner ’94 [David, Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, Military Law Review, Winter, Lexis]

Why Do We Care? -- No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. 68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, 70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. 71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. 72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. 73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems . "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction , with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings , 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

43


UQ

44


UQ- No enviro collapse nowOcean protection is strong and increasing- we’re on the right pathIUCN ’13 [International Union for Conservation of Nature, “World nearing 3% of ocean protection,” 10-24-13, https://www.iucn.org/?13912/World-nearing-3-of-ocean-protection]

Marine protected areas now cover 2.8% of the global ocean – an area larger than Europe – according to the official map released today based on data provided by the World Database on Protected Areas, run by IUCN and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).¶ The map shows an increase of 0.6% in the ocean area protected since 2012. In 2010, most of the world governments agreed to protect at least 10% of the world’s marine and coastal

zones by 2020. “It’s encouraging to see the progress we’ve made so far,” says Carl Gustaf Lundin, Director of IUCN’s Global Marine and Polar Programme. “Protecting less than 3% of the ocean is still not enough to ensure its sustainable conservation. However, if we continue to increase this

area by one percent each year, we should be able to reach the agreed 10% by 2020. We’re hoping that this map will make this process much more efficient.” The map makes global marine protected areas easily accessible to marine specialists and the public for the first time. It offers the possibility to track progress towards protecting the ocean and identify those protected areas that have not yet been

included in the map.¶ The map clearly shows how progress in the last few years has been boosted by the addition of large offshore marine protected areas, complementing the many smaller sites that exist in inshore waters of many countries. Such developments are visible around the national waters of Australia, France and West Africa.¶ “Countries that are doing well should help others that are having difficulties in protecting their marine heritage due to overpopulation or lack of capacity and resources,” says Dan Laffoley, Principal Advisor on Marine

Science and Conservation of the IUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme. “This map should make it easier for countries to collaborate with others. It provides a new level of transparency drawing from the official statistics to track progress against the 10% target.”¶ The oceans cover more than 70% of the earth’s surface. More than 3.5 billion people depend on them for food, energy and income. By protecting the

ocean’s natural and cultural resources, marine protected areas play a central role in addressing some of the global development challenges of today, such as food and energy security, poverty and climate change.

The environmental tipping point is avoidable now- data provesMorello ’12 [Lauren, writer for The Scientific American, “Is Earth Nearing an Environmental "Tipping Point"?” June 7, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-earth-nearing-environmental-tipping-point]

U.N. report points to 'irreversible changes'¶ Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University who did not contribute to the analysis, questioned the way Barnosky and his colleagues presented their results.¶ But Pimm agreed that the possibility of rapid, large- scale change is real .¶ "When you cut through all the unnecessary jargon and hype of tying this to obscure mathematics, they are saying we could be experiencing some significant changes, and they could be rapid. And they could be quite devastating," he said. "I think it's entirely plausible that could happen."¶ The new analysis comes as the U.N. Environment Programme issued its own report warning that Earth is undergoing unprecedented changes.¶ "As human pressures on the Earth system accelerate, several critical global, regional and local thresholds are close or have been exceeded," UNEP's fifth Global Environmental Outlook says. "Once these have been passed, abrupt and possible irreversible changes to the life-support functions of the planet are likely to occur, with significant adverse implications for human well-being."¶ The analysis, released ahead of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development later this month in Rio de Janeiro, examines the world's progress toward achieving 90 environmental goals that have broad international agreement.¶ Humanity has made significant progress on just four of those goals , the report found. Climate change is among those for which no progress has been made.¶ Meanwhile, there are signs of "complex, non-linear changes" already at work in parts of the world, the report says -- such as increased incidence of malaria in areas where average temperatures have crossed the threshold that encourages the spread of mosquitoes that carry the disease.¶ But the situation is not hopeless, the UNEP analysis finds. It says the world is capable of meeting sustainability targets by the middle of the next century to improve human well-being and protect the environment.

No biodiversity crisis nowSt. Andrews 4-17-14 [University of St. Andrews publication, “New research challenges understanding of biodiversity crisis,” http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2014/title,241670,en.php]

A University of St Andrews study has found that, despite fears of a biodiversity crisis, there has in fact not been a consistent drop in numbers of species found locally around the world. Instead, in a study of 100 communities and a total of

45


35,000 species that span from trees to starfish, scientists found a consistent change in which species are found in any one place. The researchers, who were surprised by the findings, say that the study should not detract from the threat many of the world’s species are under, but that policy-makers should focus on changes in biodiversity composition as well as loss.¶ The findings, published by the leading journal Science this week, are the result of research led by Dr Maria Dornelas and Professor Anne Magurran of the Centre for Biological Diversity and Scottish Oceans Institute at the University of St Andrews. The full text of the paper is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1248484.¶ An international research team studied over 6 million

observations in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats from the poles to the equator. Instead of finding a loss in biodiversity, they discovered that the species inhabitance of different locations has been systematically changing over time .¶ Dr Dornelas said, “Contrary to

expectations, we did not observe consistent loss of species through time – indeed we found as many surveys with a systematic loss as

well as gain in the number of species recorded through time. This is surprising given current concerns of a biodiversity crisis and abnormally high extinction rates.”¶ Proboscis monkeys - Borneo¶ The team studied everything from trees, birds and mammals, to fish and invertebrates.¶ Professor Magurran commented, “We observed consistent change in species composition of communities. This surprising finding could be due largely to invasive species, which have been rapidly spreading around the globe, and the shifting ranges of species in response to climate change.”

46


Links

47


Link WallAquaculture spreads disease mutations- destroys ecosystemsBates and Leung ’13 [Amanda E. Bates, PhD, BSc, Research Fellow, University of Tasmania, Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, Australia, Dr. Tommy Leung, Lecturer at the School of Environmental & Rural Science at the University of New England, “More Rapid, Severe Disease Outbreaks for Aquaculture at the Tropics: Implications for Food Security,” http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1660/more-rapid-severe-disease-outbreaks-for-aquaculture-at-the-tropics-implications-for-food-security]

There are also important ecological ramifications associated with our findings that should be considered in future risk assessments. Aquaculture operations may be an increasing threat to wild stocks , a problem that may be global in scope and particularly so in tropical nations if disease is not considered in the implementation of open aquaculture facilities. Certain rearing methods, such as cage systems in marine or freshwater systems, can facilitate pathogen exchange between farmed and wild populations (Johansen et al. 2011), leading to pathogen spillover (Krkosek et al. 2006) or spillback (Kelly et al. 2009).¶ As well as reducing the profitability and sustainability of farming (Salama & Murray 2011; Jansen et al. 2012), pathogen exchange can result in epizootics that threaten a range of wild species , a phenomenon that has been well documented from terrestrial systems (Gottdenker et al. 2005; Colla et al. 2006). Aquacultural settings also have the potential to select for the evolution of more virulent pathogens (Pulkkinen et al. 2010; Mennerat et al. 2012).¶ The introduction of such pathogens into the surrounding environment via introduced aquaculture species can consequently have devastating impacts on wild fish populations and pose a significant threat to local biodiversity , especially to those species that may be facing a range of threats or occur at low population numbers (e.g. Gozlan et al. 2005).¶ Coupled with our findings that more severe outbreaks occur at lower latitudinal regions – where biodiversity reaches a maximum (Gaston 2000) – makes the exchange and potential amplification of disease between farmed and nature populations a considerable concern not only for aquaculture sustainability but also its impact on local aquatic fauna and ecosystems.

Fish escapes are likely- causes species extinctionUgoala ’14 [Emeka, senior research scientist at the National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries, “Aquaculture Research Issues, Opportunities and Current Priorities in Nigeria,” IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences, Vol. 9, Issue 1, January, 25-39, http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jpbs/papers/Vol9-issue1/Version-1/E09112539.pdf]

Naturally, there is genetic variability within species population. By contrast, farmed species have been ¶ selectively bred and have a low genetic variability. Unfortunately, farm-raised species have frequently escaped into the wild in vast numbers . Here they can compete with wild species for food and space putting pressure on wild populations. Moreover, they can interbreed with wild fish . This is problematic because of their genetic ¶ differences. Their lower genetic variability can lead to loss of unique gene pools in offspring , thereby potentially reducing their long-term adaptability to the environment. From literature, the offspring of wild species crossed ¶ with farmed species have been shown to be less fit than their parents (Naylor

et al., 2005). This demonstrates ¶ how interbreeding could drive vulnerable species populations to extinction . It is therefore of great concern that ¶ significant numbers of escaped farm species are surviving long enough to breed in the

wild (Hindar and ¶ Diserud, 2007). Continuing escapes may mean that the original genetic profile of the population will not re-assert itself (Goldburg et al., 2001). Species escapees arise routinely due to poorly maintained or damage culture ponds. Because farmed species may be reproductively inferior to wild species, their chances of survival in the ¶ wild may be poor. If they bred, natural selection should terminate their maladapted domestic traits. However, the sheer numbers of escaped fish, together with depleted wild species populations may mean that natural populations may be dwarfed by the escapees such that inter-breeding could lead to reduced fitness in a population and increase mortality of offspring (Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2002). There is also the potential for direct competition for food and habitat.

48


Aquaculture pollution causes lasting ecological damagePittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


Several studies correlated the presence of seabass and seabream cage farming operations¶ in the Mediterranean Sea with the decline of seagrass meadows around the fish farms (Pergent et al. 1999, Ruiz et al. 2001). Impacts on seagrass meadows are of concern because of their importance in the structure¶ and functioning of coastal ecosystems. In the areas around the fish farms, the authors¶ observed an increase in turbidity in the water¶ column and enrichment of the sediments with organic matter and nutrients. In some¶ cases, directly below farms there was complete loss of seagrass and in nearby areas there were declines in shoot biomass and¶ leaf growth. The authors concluded that the declines in seagrass observed in the studies could be explained by the discharges from the nearby fish farms . Another study reported on the long-term effects of fish farming on seagrass meadows in the Mediterranean and showed that even after cessation of fish farming, environmental impacts can continue and the environment can be slow to recover . Delgado et al. (1999) examined a range of sites, from a disturbed¶ area close to a former fish farm site to undisturbed¶ areas. Although the fish farm had¶ stopped operating several years earlier, effects¶ on seagrass were still observed. Water quality had recovered so the authors proposed that the persistent impact on the seagrass- including reduced shoot density, biomass,¶ and photosynthetic capacity—was a result of the persistence in the sediment of excess¶ organic matter discharged by the fish farm.

49


Links- Damages environmentAquaculture destroys the environment- turns every advantageKlinger and Naylor ’12 [Dane Klinger, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Rosamond Naylor, Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course,” http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aquaculture.pdf]

Although aquaculture has the potential to feed millions of people, some types of aquaculture production may severely degrade aquatic ecosystems, pose health risks to consumers, reduce incomes and employment in the capture fisheries sector, and diminish food resources for poor populations. The negative environmental impacts of freshwater and marine aquaculture have been reviewed extensively (e.g.,¶ 23–27).Major environmental problems include pollution of nearby aquatic and benthic

ecosystems¶ with excrement and metabolites, uneaten feed, herbicides, antibiotics, and other chemicals (28–30);

destruction of coastal habitat and ecosystems to build aquaculture infrastructure (31); salinization of groundwater and aquifers (32); use of large quantities of freshwater (33); disease and parasite transmission to wild populations¶ (34–36);

escaped or introduced organisms that interbreed with wild organisms of¶ the same species or compete for resources with¶ other wild animals (37–

39); overfishing of wild¶ fish populations that are caught to produce fish meal (FM) and fish oil (FO) used in aquaculture¶ feeds (26, 40, 41); and depletion of wild¶ fish populations to stock aquaculture operations¶ (42). The severity of these problems varies depending¶ on the type and location of the

aquaculture¶ in question (24, 25), but all can harm fishery resources and thus the livelihoods of¶ fishing communities—some of which may also¶ be

affected adversely by price competition from¶ the aquaculture sector (43, 44). In addition, the¶ use of wild fish in aquafeeds can have food security implications for low-income households¶ (particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America) that depend on low¶ trophic-

level (LTL) fish as a key constituent of their diets (45). Finally, farmed seafood may be contaminated with natural and man-made toxins as a result of certain types of aquaculture practices (46, 47).

Open ocean aquaculture destroys endangered speciesUpton and Buck ’10 [Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional Research Service, Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the CRS, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” August 9, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf]

Some are concerned that offshore and underwater facilities may harm or disturb marine mammals¶ and other wildlife. To address these concerns, current cage designs avoid the use of small¶ diameter or loose lines or loosely hung netting to prevent the entanglement of sea turtles and¶ marine mammals in net-pens and associated gear. Since net-pens would be under tension, the¶ possibility that a turtle flipper or whale fluke would get tangled in lines or nets is

unlikely.¶ However, experience has shown that dolphins and other marine mammals do get entangled in fish¶

farms.46 In addition, some types of shellfish farms may use ropes/longlines for settling and growout¶ that could be problematic. Sound

devices at farms to keep animals away could harass or harm¶ marine mammals. Open ocean facilities could potentially affect

some endangered species, such as¶ North Atlantic right whales as they migrate, or alter essential habitat for

feeding, breeding, and¶ nursing. Also, there could be renewed interest in killing “nuisance” animals, as has been the case¶ with salmon farmers killing seals and sea lions. There could be problems with other predatory¶

animals, such as sharks, as well.

Aquaculture causes disease, overfishing, and pollutionMcCutcheon 3-27-14 [Jody, editorial assistant for Eluxe Magazine, which focuses on issues of environmentally sustainable products and markets, “SOMETHING FISHY? AQUACULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT,” http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/]

One benefit of aquaculture is it can be less energy-intensive than land-based farming. Compared to land animals, fish are more efficient at converting feed to mass. Farmed Atlantic salmon are said to be most efficient, with a feed conversion ratio (FCR) close to 1:1, although that’s at the lower end of the spectrum compared to tilapia and catfish, both of which have FCR’s around 2:1. To compare, poultry’s FCR is roughly 2.5:1, while that of beef cattle is over 6:1. Less energy-intensive doesn’t mean more eco-friendly, though, as we’ll soon see.¶ For consumers, farmed

50



fish provides a cheap alternative to wild fish, but they aren’t quite the same as their wild cousins. Due to a relatively sedentary lifestyle, farmed salmon tend to contain higher fat and lower protein levels, as well as lower percentages of omega-3 fatty acids and a less favourable ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids, which mitigates omega 3’s cardiovascular benefits. And awful truth be told, farmed salmon fillets usually are usually a dull grey until chemically dyed pink.¶ And while farmed fish don’t contain high levels of ocean pollutants like many wild fish do—especially those living in industrial areas like North America’s Great Lakes—they almost always do contain various antibiotics, hormones and pesticides used in the farming process. Plus, farmed fish are usually crowded into their pens or ponds, creating fertile breeding grounds for diseases like infectious salmon anemia and parasites like sea lice—hence the use of antibiotics and pesticides.¶ 800px-School_of_big_eye_scad¶ Food Industry Lies¶ Impassive and duplicitous, the industrial agricultural that’s raping the planet’s land has now infiltrated our oceans. If aquaculture’s primary purpose is, as they claim, to relieve pressure on the world’s wild fisheries, then why are wild stocks being depleted to feed farmed fish?¶ Farmed Atlantic salmon may have an ideal FCR of 1:1 (or thereabouts), but that just means it takes one pound of wild fish to produce one pound of farmed salmon. Yes, high-protein fishmeal is made of wild, low-on-the-food-chain, pelagic (open-ocean) fish. As much as 4.5 kilograms of pelagic fish go into a single kilogram of fishmeal. For fish with higher FCR’s, the whole skewed dynamic of feeding farmed fish with wild represents a constant overdraft on the ocean bank. This practice steals essential food sources from higher-on-the-food-chain marine life, which further skews the ecosystem. Overall, about 37% of the global seafood catch is used for feed, up from a mere 7.7% back in 1948. Under current trends, demand for fishmeal will exceed supply by around 2050.¶ In addition, although aquaculturalists claim the contamination of their farms is contained within their ponds, the truth is that industrial scale aquaculture destroys coastal habitats when waste, disease, antibiotics and pests are flushed out of farming ponds into local waters, where they infiltrate wild populations. In fact, waste from fish farms can oversaturate coastal waters with nutrients, creating dead zones that suffocate marine life. A poorly run farm of 200,000 salmon can pollute the coastal environment with amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus similar to that in the sewage of a town of 20,000. Even more alarming, the antibiotics being released are creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens that wreak havoc on farmed and wild fishery stocks alike.¶ Another concern is the potential escape into local waters of exotic, possibly genetically modified species that may eventually replace indigenous species. Massachussetts-based company AquaBounty, for example, is bioengineering fish to grow faster, an advantage that would help them outcompete fellow fish. But according to Time magazine, it is very easy and common for farmed fish to escape into the wild, thus just one GMO fish could do irreparable damage to a species.

51


Links- IMTAIMTA spreads diseaseKlinger and Naylor ’12 [Dane Klinger, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Rosamond Naylor, Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course,” http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aquaculture.pdf]

Despite improved system designs, IMTA still faces difficult constraints. First, the placement of different species in close proximity to each other can amplify pathogen exposure. Pietrak et al. (112) found that mussels bioaccumulate¶ and shed harmful bacteria.Other studies¶ show that some bivalves are not hosts; they can¶ consume parasites (113) or inactivate pathogens¶ (114).More studies are

clearly needed to understand¶ the disease risks of IMTA. In addition,¶ understanding water currents is a key obstacle to IMTA development in the ocean. IMTA relies on currents to move nutrient-rich water¶ from fed species to extractive species.

Coastal¶ and pelagic currents can be variable and difficult to predict , depending on the location¶ and time of year (105). Better oceanographic¶ modeling could help improve IMTA siting and¶ operation.

IMTA still causes disease and waste- not sustainableCAAR no date [Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, group promoting safe fish industry practices, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA),” http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/markets-certifications/integrated-multi-trophic-aquaculture/]

IMTA integrates raising plants and/or animals (which are usually lower on the food chain), with salmon in the same enclosure in an attempt to reduce organic

waste. Waste is mostly fish feces, uneaten food pellets and the dust or “fines” from food pellets broken during shipping and handling

that are released into the water from open net-cage salmon farms. Species like seaweed, mussels and other invertebrates are able to take up some of these organic wastes and therefore potentially reduce their accumulation.¶ IMTA is an interesting effort at lessening some waste-related impacts of salmon farming.

However, IMTA fails to address some of the key environmental impacts like sea lice and disease that are causing so much trouble for wild salmon, nor does it stop escapes of farmed fish into the wild.¶ As such, IMTA farms do not automatically rank as more sustainable than other types of open net-cage salmon farming and do not qualify for preferential treatment by

consumers or seafood companies. To date, there has been no formal and publicly transparent assessment of the overall sustainability of these farms. The few efforts to award “eco-certification” labels to companies that have some IMTA farms have been industry-developed programs that do not have transparent criteria or participation from independent science or conservation stakeholders. Such certifications simply don’t qualify as credible.¶ Currently, the major user of IMTA in Canada, Cooke Aquaculture, only uses this method on less than 1% of their total farmed salmon production. This small innovation does not warrant claims of sustainability being broadly applied to Cooke’s farmed salmon products.¶ While we are supportive of efforts to find better ways to farm salmon, CAAR’s position is that only the separation of farmed and wild fish through some form of closed containment can sufficiently reduce the

risk to wild salmon and the environment. IMTA may have a role to play in closed containment projects that recycle wastes into salable products, but IMTA use

in open net-cages does not make open net-cage farming any more appropriate or sustainable.

52


Links- Offshore productionOffshore expansion destroys the environmentKlinger and Naylor ’12 [Dane Klinger, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Rosamond Naylor, Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course,” http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aquaculture.pdf]

Offshore systems fail to fully resolve many of the environmental concerns associated with¶ conventional coastal systems, including the risk¶ of escaped fish interbreeding or competing for resources with wild fish, aggregation of other¶ animals around offshore structures, and disease and parasite transmission to wild fish (reviewed¶ in References 122 and 128). These problems,¶ and the effects of releasing even diluted quantities¶ of uneaten feed, wastes, and therapeutants,¶ are likely to be reduced when farms move¶ away from the coast and into oligotrophic environments,¶ but to an uncertain degree (128).¶ Although offshore seaweed and shellfish operations¶ do not require feed (7, 123), resource efficiency remains an issue with offshore finfish operations because the high cost of building and operating offshore currently favors production of high-value carnivorous fish (11,¶ 128). The high cost of production is also likely¶ to rely on economies of scale for profitability,¶ and thus favor large-scale operations or suites¶ of operations that have not been evaluated for¶ their impacts on marine ecosystems. Moving offshore increases the distances that support vessels must travel to reach aquaculture farms and therefore increases the fuel use and carbon ¶

intensity of production. Finally, the cost of¶ labor may increase asmanaging offshore vessels¶ and equipment requires skilled employees.

53


Links- DiseasesAquaculture causes disease spread- devastates endangered speciesPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


Farmers have long been concerned about the spread of disease, parasites, and pests among farm animals and from wild animals to livestock. Only recently, however, has attention been paid to the role that farm animals play in the introduction and spread of diseases to wildlife. Scientists have increasingly found evidence of disease “spillover” from agriculture into the ecosystem and the associated impacts on wild organisms (Power¶ and Mitchell 2004). Several important examples have been found that highlight the role of terrestrial agriculture practices in the introduction of new diseases or the amplification of existing diseases and their transmission and retransmission to wild organisms, including some threatened and endangered species. Marine aquaculture, as a relative newcomer to the world of agriculture has not been studied as extensively in terms of its role in disease spread, but one would expect that the same mechanisms for disease amplification and transmission exist, especially given the open nature of many aquaculture systems. Disease has been a problem with some forms¶ of freshwater aquaculture. For example whirling disease has spread from fish culture operations and stocking efforts to populations¶ of trout throughout North America (Nickum 1999). There are indications of disease transfer problems in marine aquaculture, including diseases of shrimp, oysters, and most recently evidence that salmon farms can act as reservoirs for parasitic sea lice, which can infect wild fish that migrate past farms . In a recent study of the increase in diseases in ocean organisms, Harvell et al. (2004)¶ suggest that aquaculture is likely a source of new pathogens entering wild populations in the ocean. Assessing the role of aquaculture¶ and other modes of introduction of¶ pathogens in the ocean is difficult, however,¶ because of the paucity of information on the¶ presence and distribution of pathogens in¶ aquatic ecosystems. For example, very little¶ is known about the distribution and role of¶ pathogens in wild populations of fish (Blazer¶ and LaPatra 2002). In contrast to aquaculture¶ systems, where diseased fish are easily¶ observed and diagnosed, sick fish in the wild¶ are rarely observed. Additionally, since so¶ little is known about diseases in wild populations¶ it is often difficult to determine¶ whether diseases have been introduced, by¶ aquaculture or other means, to wild populations¶ of organisms.

54


Links- EscapeesIMTA causes fish escapes- safety measures failChopin ’10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, “Chapter 9: Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture,” http://www.i-mar.cl/extension/aportes2010/Chopin%20et%20al%202010%20OECD%20paper.pdf]

IMTA has never been portrayed as the solution to and for everything! For ¶ example, IMTA does not address the

issues of escapees from open-water fish farms. It is, of course, in the interest of everybody, especially the industry (to not lose money) to reduce the number of escapees. This is, however, a question of ¶ engineering of the rearing systems (cages, netting material, etc.) and the suitability ¶ of the environment to

survival should escapes occur. To solve the escapee issue, it has been suggested that fish farms should be pulled from the open water and placed on land or in closed containment. Moving on land is, however, not a guarantee for ¶ zero escapees. There are well-known escapee cases from land-based operations, with serious consequences. For example, the bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys ¶ nobilis) and the silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) were brought from Asia ¶ to the southern USA in the 1970s to help control algal proliferation in channel ¶ catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) farms. There are reports of escapees into the lower ¶ Mississippi River system, especially associated with flood episodes in the early ¶ 1990s. Self-sustaining populations have been able to move northward to enter the ¶ Upper Mississippi River system and the Illinois River system. Presently, there are ¶ fears that these fish could enter the Great Lakes system through the Chicago ¶ Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River to finally reach Lake Michigan, ¶

after an escape of around 2000 km in approximately 20-30 years. Electric fish barriers have been put in place, but their efficiency has been questioned. The use of ¶ rotenone, a biodegradable piscicide, was authorized but seemed to have killed more common carps (Cyprinus carpio; itself an introduced species from Europe in the ¶ 1830s) than bighead and silver carps. On April 26, 2010, the US Supreme Court decided not to get involved in a dispute over how to prevent these carps from ¶ making their way into the Great Lakes; it turned down a new request by the State ¶ of Michigan to consider ordering permanent

closing of the Chicago-area shipping ¶ locks. What the impacts on the ecosystems could be, should these fish get into the ¶ Great Lakes systems, is unknown, but

they are well-known for their ability to ¶ consume large amounts of algae and zooplankton, eating as much as 40% of their ¶ body weight per day, and they are fierce competitors when it comes to securing their food needs. The silver carp is also a danger to recreational fishers, water-skiers and boaters because of its habit to jump out of the water when startled by ¶ boat motors or other noises, creating life-threatening aerial hazards with high speed ¶ impacts.

Fish will escape and devastate biodiversity- expansion magnifies the linkNaylor ’13 [Rosamond L. Naylor, the Julie Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University, “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,” 11-27-13, http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/]

Opening far-offshore waters to aquaculture could lead to substantial commercial benefits, but it also poses significant ecological risks to the ocean—a place many U.S. citizens consider to be our last frontier. Some of the species now farmed in open-ocean cages, such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, and Atlantic halibut, are becoming increasingly depleted in the wild. Proponents of offshore aquaculture often claim that the expansion of farming into federal waters far from shore will help

protect or even revive wild populations. However, there are serious ecological risks associated with farming fish in marine waters that could make this claim untenable. The ecological effects of marine aquaculture have been well documented, particularly for near-shore systems, and are summarized in the 2005 volumes of the Annual Review of Environment and

Resources, Frontiers in Ecology (February), and BioScience (May). They include the escape of farmed fish from ocean cages, which can have detrimental effects on wild fish populations through competition and interbreeding; the spread of parasites and diseases between wild and farmed fish; nutrient and chemical effluent discharge from farms, which pollutes the marine environment; and the use of wild pelagic fish for feeds, which can diminish or deplete the low end of the marine food web in certain locations.¶ Because offshore aquaculture is still largely in the experimental phase, its ecological effects have not been widely documented, yet the potential risks are clear. The most obvious ecological risk of offshore aquaculture results from its use of wild fish in feeds, because most of the species being raised in open-ocean systems are carnivorous. If offshore aquaculture continues to focus on the production of species that require substantial quantities of wild fish for feed—a likely scenario because many carnivorous fish command high

market prices—the food web effects on ecosystems that are vastly separated in space could be significant. ¶ In addition, although producers have an incentive to use escape-proof cages, escapes are nonetheless likely to occur as the offshore industry develops commercially. The risks of large-scale escapes are high if cages are located in areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, that are prone to severe storms capable of destroying oil rigs and other sizeable marine structures. Even without storms, escapes frequently occur. In offshore fish cages in the Bahamas and Hawaii, sharks have torn open cages, letting many fish escape. In addition, farming certain species can lead to large-scale “escapes” from fertilization. For example, cod produce fertilized eggs in ocean enclosures, and although ocean cages are more secure than near-shore net pens, neither pens nor cages will contain fish eggs. The effects of such events on native species could be large, regardless of whether the farmed fish are within or outside of their native range. At least two of the candidate species in the Gulf of Mexico (red drum and red snapper), as well as cod in the North Atlantic, have distinct subpopulations. Escapes of these farmed fish could therefore lead to genetic dilution of wild populations, as wild and farmed fish interbreed. The main problem with the proposed legislation is the broad discretion given to the secretary of Commerce to promote offshore aquaculture without clear legal standards for environmental protection.¶ Offshore aquaculture also poses a risk of pathogen and parasite transmission, although there is currently

little evidence for disease problems in offshore cages. In general, however, large-scale intensive aquaculture provides opportunities for the emergence of an expanding array of diseases. It removes fish from their natural environment, exposes them to pathogens that they may not naturally encounter, imposes stresses that compromise their ability to resist infection, and provides ideal conditions for the rapid transmission of infectious agents. In addition, the production of high-valued fish often involves trade in live aquatic animals for bait, brood stock, milt, and other breeding and production purposes, which inevitably results in trans-boundary spread of disease. The implications of open-ocean farming for pathogen transmission between farmed and wild organisms thus remains a large and unanswered question. Moreover, pathogen transmission in the oceans is likely to shift in unpredictable ways in response to other human influences, particularly climate change.¶ Even the claim that open-ocean aquaculture provides “a dilution solution” to effluent discharge may be disputed as the scale of aquaculture operations expands to meet economic profitability criteria. The ability of offshore aquaculture to reduce nutrient pollution and benthic

55

http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/


effects will depend on flushing rates and patterns, the depth of cage submersion, the scale and intensity of the farming operations, and the feed efficiency for species under cultivation. Scientific results from an experimental offshore system in New Hampshire indicate no sedimentation or other benthic effects, even when the cages are stocked with more than 30,000 fish. However, commercial farms will likely have 10 or more times this density in order to be economically viable; commercial salmon farms commonly stock 500,000 to a million fish at a site. It is not a stretch to imagine a pattern similar to that of the U.S. industrial livestock sector, with large animal operations concentrated near processing facilities and transportation infrastructure, and in states with

more lenient environmental standards.¶ An essential question in the debate thus remains: What is the vision of the Department of Commerce in developing offshore aquaculture? If the vision is to expand offshore production to a scale sufficient to eliminate the $8 billion seafood deficit, the ecological risks will be extremely high.

Escapees destroy fish species- safeguards failSmith ’12 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law graduate, “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]

Another serious environmental problem caused by the aquaculture industry is genetic ¶ change in indigenous fish populations due to interbreeding with escaped farm fish. 243 Farm-raised ¶ fish are often different in genetic make-up than the natural populations of fish that live in nearby or ¶ contiguous waters, because fish in aquaculture facilities often interbreed and aquaculture operators ¶ often selectively breed

fish to produce a better product.244 This means that the “inevitable escape” of fish can result in degradation of the natural species, if the escaped fish are able to breed with the ¶ natural populations.245 By one account, as many as forty percent of Atlantic Salmon caught in the ¶ North Atlantic originated on fish farms.246 The development of genetically modified fish may ¶ make this issue even more serious. Even though the genetically modified

fish currently under ¶ review by the FDA, the AquAdvantage® Salmon, is designed to be sterile, the effective sterility rate is not quite 100%, leaving room for a “Trojan fish” to infiltrate natural populations if ever ¶ released into aquatic or marine environments.247 ¶ Apart from genetic transmission, improperly operated and maintained aquaculture ¶ facilities may also cause disease and parasite (sea lice) transmission between wild and domestic populations because “crowding, temperature fluctuations, [and] inadequate dissolved oxygen” ¶ stress the species, weakening their natural defenses to disease.248 Outbreaks of diseases and ¶ parasites have occurred in this country and abroad, with devastating effects on both culture and ¶ wild fish populations,¶ 249 raising serious economic, environmental, and animal welfare concerns. 250 ¶ Pollution of the product itself can also be a problem. For example, many farmed fish are ¶ carnivorous and eat smaller, wild-caught fish. The fish meal and fish oils in feed used on fish ¶ farms for carnivorous fish like salmon is made of fish from the open sea and thus often contain ¶ contaminants like persisting organic pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydro-carbons, and heavy ¶ metals like mercury as these toxins

accumulate in the natural aquatic or marine food webs.251 ¶ Thus, “aquaculture could be considered as a further step of accumulation of environmental ¶ contaminants compared to wild products ,” eliminating one of the most important nutritional ¶ benefits of aquaculture over wild-caught fish: the absence of heavy metals.252 Moreover, use of ¶ fertilizers recycled from other industries, like chicken manure, can contaminate aquaculture ¶ product with pathogens like salmonella.253 Thus, aquaculture operations can be a source of serious ¶ degradation of local, regional, and national environmental and public health commons by pollution.

56


Links- PollutionAquaculture pollutes ecosystemsPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


The dramatic expansion of salmon and¶ shrimp farming in recent decades has heightened concerns about pollution from marine aquaculture. As with any concentrated animal¶ rearing operations, aquaculture facilities produce a variety of wastes that are potentially harmful to the environment. Unlike terrestrial livestock operations, however,¶ marine aquaculture facilities discharge their untreated wastes directly into coastal and ocean waters . In the United States, aquaculture¶ discharges are currently small compared¶ to other sources of water pollution, but little¶ is known about the assimilative capacity of¶ the marine environment for these pollutants.¶ Additionally, marine aquaculture operations tend to cluster geographically, raising the potential for cumulative impacts. Wastes from marine aquaculture generally include dissolved (inorganic) nutrients, particulate (organic) wastes (feces, uneaten food and¶ animal carcasses), and chemicals.

57


Internal Links

58


Oceans keyOcean health is key to prevent extinctionThomas 2-12-14 [John Thomas is a program associate at the Rockefeller Foundation, focusing on revaluing ecosystems, fisheries and aquaculture, water, and agricultural development, “Ocean Health as a Wicked Problem,” http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/ocean-health-wicked-problem]

The world’s oceans cover 70% of our planet and provide countless benefits to people and societies—food, jobs, recreation, shipping, tourism, natural resources, and climate regulation in addition to their critical role in cultures, traditions, and well-being for those who live on or near coasts.¶ But there is an emerging consensus that our oceans are in poor and declining health, with implications almost too big to fathom for the billions of people who rely on fish for food and the hundreds of millions directly and indirectly employed in ocean-related industries. This declining health is due to our over-exploitation of these critical resources through overfishing, coastal development, shipping and mining, pollution, and myriad other threats. ¶ All together, these challenges amount to a classic wicked problem—a problem that involves an incredible diversity of people and sectors, with multiple (often competing) views of the problem and potential remedies, and few—if any—simple or elegant solutions. Wicked problems are messy, complex, confusing, and contentious, and – by definition – span economic, ecological, social, and political systems. Addressing them requires that we take a “bias towards action” and dive head-on into the muck and the mire, embrace complexity and ambiguity, re-frame and model to draw out areas of uncertainty or gaps in knowledge, and identify and negotiate between competing views and objectives across sectors and disciplines.¶ One step in this direction emerged recently from the Global Partnership for Oceans, a partnership as ambitious and wide-ranging as its name suggests. In their guidance to the GPO, Indispensable Ocean: Aligning Ocean Health and Human Well-being, a Blue Ribbon Panel of experts from industry, government, academia, and conservation make a strong case for re-framing ocean health as a “wicked problem”—one requiring integration across sectors:¶ “A paradigm shift is needed in how we use and conserve ocean resources to address current inadequacies… Some solutions have been found to halt and even reverse the decline in ocean resources, but they tend to focus on only a single sector or component of the socio-ecological system… To stem the ocean’s declining health, new and proven innovative solutions need to be scaled up, integrated, and improved to match the vastness and complexity of the ocean, the range of stakeholders, and the ocean’s multiple uses.”¶ Adapting proven solutions to new contexts, and identifying new innovations needed to catalyze global change at a systems level are critically important undertakings to address the crisis facing our world’s oceans and the people who depend on them.¶ But addressing our ocean’s health doesn’t begin or

end with solutions generated under our existing definition of the problem by existing actors because declining ocean health isn’t just a wicked problem, it’s what political scientists call a “super wicked problem”—one where time is running out, where decision makers lack agency, where incentives are in place that push us into a

short-termist downward spiral, and where all actors in the system are ourselves part of the problem.¶ In ocean health, we’re approaching ecological and likely social tipping points beyond which there is little to no recovery possible, where no one country or body is able to exert influence over a global commons, where market incentives are in place that encourage us to pull fish out of the sea as fast as possible, and where consumers of fish, almost every one of us around the globe, is generating the demand driving this negative cycle in the first place.¶ As these problems are bigger than any one individual or institution, building coalitions and global partnerships are a good place to start. But no one actor or set of actors has a monopoly on the right approach, intervention, or world view in all places; these problems are too complex and rapidly evolving to be tamed by no less than the very best of every sector with a stake in our ocean’s health. ¶ To meet that high bar, new voices and perspectives need to be brought to the table, including those often left out, namely community groups, cooperatives, and collectives who face the reality of our changing oceans every day; experts in economics and finance who can help us think about how to restructure capital flows and reshape incentives, and “heretical thinkers” who can push boundaries and encourage us to recombine old and new ideas into catalytic and possibly transformative interventions to help us realize sustainable and equitable use of our ocean resources.¶ At the Rockefeller Foundation, we are putting this approach into action by piloting a new collaborative model to systemic transformation in partnership with innovation hotbed Stanford University’s Center for Ocean Solutions and ChangeLabs, a project of the Design School looking to pioneer thinking about how to achieve large scale, sustainable transformation. We are placing a big bet that bringing the best expertise from a diversity of viewpoints—food security, mobile banking, seafood industry, community development, impact investing, marine science, to name a few—from a variety of geographies can help us break through to new soloutions.¶ Mobilizing these actors

may seem like a daunting, uncomfortable, and perhaps Sisyphean goal. Yet changes in our ocean’s health will affect everyone living on this giant blue marble. And as we’ve realized through our Innovation Lab, our common dependence on ocean resources can be a compelling motivator to mobilize us all towards action.

59


US keyUS ecosystems are globally important- unparalleled biodiverse regionsNatureServe ‘2 [NatureServe is a non-profit organization ¶ dedicated to providing the scientific ¶

knowledge that forms the basis for effective ¶ conservation action “States of the Union: ¶ Ranking America’s Biodiversity,” April 2002, http://www.natureserve.org/library/stateofunions.pdf]

Pride in place is a powerful impulse. And with its dazzling array of wild species and natural habitats, America has much to be proud of. Indeed, to find world-class biodiversity we need not look to foreign shores—it is right here in our own backyard.¶ But while the concept of biodiversity has global connotations, conservation is a¶ quintessentially local activity. To place conservation efforts in context, States of the¶ Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity offers new information on state patterns of¶ biological wealth and risk—where our wild plants and animals are found, and how they¶ are faring.¶ Each of America’s 50 states maintains an important part of the nation’s biological¶ heritage. Taking best advantage of conservation opportunities, however, requires an¶ understanding of the varying roles each state can play. States of the Union offers a¶ striking picture of the “state of the states,” based on an analysis of more than 21,000 plant¶ and animal species. Providing new insights into the scale of the nation’s conservation¶ challenges and opportunities, these analyses find that in one out of every four states,¶ more than ten percent of native species are at risk.¶ Our rankings of the 50 states and the District of Columbia focus on several key¶ biological characteristics: diversity of species; levels of rarity and risk; distinctiveness of¶ the flora and fauna, termed endemism; and number of species already lost to extinction.¶ The top-ranking states for these measures are:¶ RANK DIVERSITY RISK ENDEMISM EXTINCTIONS¶ 1 California Hawaii California Hawaii¶ 2 Texas California Hawaii Alabama¶ 3 Arizona Nevada Texas California¶ 4 New Mexico Alabama Florida Texas¶ 5 Alabama Utah Utah Georgia¶ Four states in particular emerge from these analyses as having exceptional levels of¶ biodiversity—California, Hawaii, Texas, and Alabama . Looking at specific groups of¶ plants and animals, however, reveals some surprising nuances. For instance, while¶ freshwater fishes are most diverse in the rain-drenched southeastern United States,¶ Arizona—a state more commonly associated with cacti—leads the nation in proportion of¶ at-risk fish species.¶ The condition of nature in America reflects an interplay between natural history and¶ human history. And it is the breadth and intensity of this interaction that tends to define a¶ geography of risk for wild species. As States of the Union demonstrates, each state has a¶ vital role to play in sustaining America’s plants and animals for future generations. But¶ for the many U.S. species that are at risk of extinction, time is running out. With¶ sufficient knowledge, resources, and commitment, the nation’s remarkable biodiversity ¶ can be safeguarded, leading to a more perfect union. State of the States State of the States¶ The United States harbors a dazzling variety of life. From Maine’s Great North¶ Woods to California’s giant redwoods, and from Hawaii’s tropical peaks to the¶ Florida Everglades’ “river of grass,” the 50 states feature an unparalleled spectrum of wild places and wild species . While efforts to protect America’s natural treasures began in earnest more than 130¶ years ago with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the pace of¶ environmental change over recent decades has sparked a renewed commitment to¶ conserving our remaining natural lands and waters. As a nation we have also achieved a¶ deeper understanding of the complexity and fragility of our ecosystems, and for the wild¶ species they sustain. Even the term biodiversity, which celebrates a scientifically¶ inclusive view of life on Earth, was coined within the past two decades. This improved¶ understanding is proving essential for increasing the effectiveness of conservation efforts¶ and for targeting actions towards areas of greatest ecological significance.¶ Although the concept of biodiversity has global connotations, conservation is a¶ quintessentially local activity. To place these conservation efforts in context, States of¶ the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity offers new information on state patterns of¶ biological wealth and risk—where our wild plants and animals are found, and how they¶ are faring. We rank the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on analyses of¶ several key species measures: diversity, risk, endemism, and extinctions. This newly¶ updated information from NatureServe’s scientific databases offers a striking picture of¶ the state of the states.¶ Riches in Our Backyard Riches in Our Backyard¶ Two years ago NatureServe and The Nature Conservancy published a comprehensive¶ assessment of the condition of America’s biological riches in the book Precious¶ Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States.¶ 1¶ This critically acclaimed¶ volume documented the full breadth and complexity of life in America, and considered¶ what will be needed to protect these living resources into the future.¶ Key findings from that study include:¶ • Scientist have documented more than 200,000 species from the United States,¶ representing more

than 10% of formally described species worldwide.¶ • The U nited S tates is a global center of diversity for many groups of organisms, especially those that rely on aquatic systems such as salamanders,

freshwater mussels, and freshwater turtles.¶ • About one-third of species in the best-known groups of plants and animals are at risk,¶ and more than 500 U.S. species are already extinct or are missing.¶ • Habitat destruction and degradation are the leading threats to U.S. biodiversity,¶ followed by the spread of harmful alien species.¶ Wild plants and animals are not distributed uniformly across the landscape, but rather¶ concentrations of species are found in certain regions, termed biodiversity hotspots.¶ Nonetheless, important species and ecosystems are found across the country, and each state has a crucial role to play in efforts to protect the nation’s rich biological heritage.¶ By considering the distribution and condition of more than 21,000 plant and animal¶ species—2,200 more than were included in our previous analyses—States of the Union¶ provides new insights into the scale of the nation’s conservation challenges and¶ opportunities.

60


Impacts

61


ExtinctionBiodiversity is key to all life on EarthScience Daily ‘11 [ScienceDaily, online science newsletter, “Biodiversity Key to Earth’s Life-Support Functions in a Changing World,” August, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm]

The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the basis for countless products and services provided by nature, including food, building materials, and medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water and protection against erosion . These so-called ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for humans . They are based on ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are asking the question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at least one case. The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land use intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.

Ecosystem collapse causes extinction- we’re playing Russian rouletteWarner ‘94 [Paul, American University, Department of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p177]

Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem . And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes .

Biodiversity is critical to all lifeBruckerhoff ‘08 [Joshua, Diamond McCarthy group Environmental Lawyer, February, “Giving Nature Constitutional Protection: A Less Anthropocentric Interpretation of Environmental Rights,” Texas Law Review, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 615]

Biodiversity is important to maintaining a healthy nonhuman environment, but it is also both directly and indirectly important to humans. Scientists have long recognized the importance of protecting the Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems.

62

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm


Biodiversity preservation and conservation are vital for an ecologically sustainable society. n24 Protecting biodiversity ensures that humanity will continue to have quality food sources . n25 Furthermore, preserving biodiversity is critical to medical research , including the discovery and development of important medicines . n26 For example, an anticancer drug, Taxol, was derived from the Pacific yew. n27 Humans also depend on a biologically diverse and ecologically balanced environment for atmospheric [*620] regulation of oxygen and greenhouse-gas levels, water purification, soil fertilization, and groundwater recharge . n28 For example, according to the World Health Organization, the destruction of water ecosystems has contributed to more than a million deaths a year . n29¶ A healthy, biologically diverse environment provides humans with important "social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic" benefits . n30 From a constitutional-rights perspective, the social and cultural benefits of biodiversity protection are the most salient. n31 Increasing evidence of environmental degradation in areas populated by indigenous peoples is leading not only to human rights violations but also to the loss of many distinct world cultures . n32 The U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, for example, has released several reports on the connection between environmental degradation and the rights of indigenous peoples. n33 These reports accentuate the importance of [*621] "protecting indigenous peoples' territories to protect their life, health, and cultural integrity." n34 Ultimately, for indigenous peoples, the right to a biologically diverse and healthy environment is more than just a right to life; it is a right to maintain their way of life. n35

63


Turns Case

64


Turns Food SecurityAquaculture diseases turn food securityBates and Leung ’13 [Amanda E. Bates, PhD, BSc, Research Fellow, University of Tasmania, Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, Australia, Dr. Tommy Leung, Lecturer at the School of Environmental & Rural Science at the University of New England, “More Rapid, Severe Disease Outbreaks for Aquaculture at the Tropics: Implications for Food Security,” http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1660/more-rapid-severe-disease-outbreaks-for-aquaculture-at-the-tropics-implications-for-food-security]

Food security is a pressing global issue as the human population is projected to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion by 2050 (UNPD 2006). With capture fisheries becoming increasingly unsustainable due to overfishing, aquaculture is expected to overtake capture fisheries in supplying the world’s protein requirements in the future (FAO 2012). Indeed, aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector in the world, with an average annual growth rate of 6.3% since 2000 (average 8.8% per year between 1980 and 2010) and currently accounts for approximately 47% of the world’s fish supply (FAO 2012). Although the precise impacts and direction of climate-driven change for particular fish stocks and fisheries are uncertain, in countries which depend heavily upon fisheries for their livelihood, climate change is expected to result in increased economic hardship or missed opportunities for development (Allison et al. 2009). These countries are also the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change as they have the least capacity to implement adaptive actions (Dulvy et al. 2011). Aquaculture is expected to contribute to food security and improving the socio-economic status of developing countries (Godfray et al. 2010) and thus provide adaptive capacity to the effects of climate

change and food shortages. However, aquaculture may not be a panacea for food security. As in other forms of intensive and semi-

intensive agriculture, infectious disease is a major problem. Waterborne pathogens can spread at faster rates than in terrestrial systems (McCallum, Harvell & Dobson 2003), and oceanographic transport processes have the potential to transmit disease across vast geographic regions, for example, pilchard herpesvirus was spread to >5000 km of Australian coastline at 30 km day 1 (Whittington et al. 1997). In fact,

infectious disease is by far the biggest killer of farmed fishes (Pillay & Kutty 2005); an outbreak can often wipe out entire stocks, requiring costly decontamination of the associated facilities and equipment (Pillay & Kutty 2005), and has been identified as a

potential limiting factor to aquaculture production (Jansen et al. 2012). The epidemiological issues associated with aquaculture will also be exacerbated by climate change (Karvonen et al. 2010). Extreme weather events are predicted to become more severe and more frequent in the future (IPCC 2007) favouring pathogen outbreaks following seasonal periods associated with changes in temperature and precipitation (Altizer et al. 2006). Additionally, increases in temperature are expected to lead to the introduction of pathogens to new regions by producing environmental conditions that favour pathogen growth and transmission (Harvell et al. 2002).

65


Blocks

66


AT: Oceans already destroyedIt’s not too late- sustainable ocean protection is underwayGardner 2-6-14 [Michael, Senior Associate, Marketing & Communications at Oceana, “Scientific American Explains: How to Save the Oceans and Feed the World,” http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/02/scientific-american-explains-how-to-save-the-oceans-and-feed-the-world]

Last week, Bloomberg Philanthropies committed a historic $53 million over five years to improve international fisheries management. The project will help deliver healthy oceans to our future and ensure that 700 million people can eat a healthy seafood meal every day. It’s a necessary intervention for the oceans at a time when overfishing threatens our food supply and we face the challenge of feeding 9 billion people in the not-so-distant future. In a recent interview with Scientific American, Oceana CEO Andy Sharpless explored this idea a bit more. How will we protect the oceans and make sure there is enough food for our hungry planet? Just 25 countries and the European Union manage more than 90 percent of the world’s wild fish catch, he says. We’ll turn things around one country at a time. It’s manageable. And it’s not too late.

67


AT: No environment impactWe’re reaching an environmental tipping point- new disasters will be uniquely worse, cause extinctionVince ’12 [Gaia, science and environmental writer for BBC News, “Earth: Have we reached an environmental tipping point?” http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120615-global-tipping-point]

If there’s one thing I hope this column achieves, it’s illustrating just how pivotal a point this is in human history. We are now living in the Anthropocene: humans are the main driver of planetary change. We're pushing global temperatures, land and water use beyond anything our species has experienced before. We’re polluting the biosphere, acidifying the oceans, and reducing biodiversity. At the same time, our global population will grow from seven billion to nine billion by 2050, and all will need food, water and clean air.¶ As if to illustrate the point further, last month Arctic monitors showed the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed 400 parts per million (before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm). New data shows the rate of climate change could be even faster than thought.¶ Perhaps most worryingly of all, 22 scientists warned last week we are approaching a planetary tipping point, beyond which environmental changes will be rapid and unpredictable. Basing their alarming conclusion on studies of ecological markers from species extinction rates (currently 1,000 times the usual rate, and comparable to those experienced during the demise of the dinosaurs) to changes in land use (more than 40% of land is dominated by humans and we affect a further 40%), these scientists fear we will enter a new, unknown state , and one which threatens us all .

Their impact defense is wrong- we’re approaching the brink, try or die to prevent extinctionBlack ’10 [Richard, environmental correspondent at BBC News, 10/18/10, 'Ten years' to solve nature crisis, UN meeting hears,” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11563513?print=true]

The two-week gathering aims to set new targets for conserving life on Earth. Japan's Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto said biodiversity loss would become irreversible unless curbed soon. Much hope is being pinned on economic analyses showing the loss of species and ecosystems is costing the global economy trillions of dollars each year. Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), described the meeting in Nagoya, Japan, as a "defining moment" in the history of mankind. "[Buddhist scholar] Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki said 'the problem of nature is the problem of human life'. Today, unfortunately, human life is a problem for nature," he told delegates in his opening speech. Referring to the target set at the UN World Summit in 2002, he said: "Let's have the courage to look in the eyes of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made by 110 heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. "Let us look in the eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future." Earlier this year, the UN published a major assessment - the Global Biodiversity Outlook - indicating that virtually all trends spanning the state of the natural world were heading downwards, despite conservation successes in some regions. It showed that loss and degradation of forests, coral reefs, rivers and other elements of the natural world was having an impact on living standards in some parts of the world - an obvious example being the extent to which loss of coral affects fish stocks. In his opening speech, Mr Matsumoto suggested impacts could be much broader in future. "All life on Earth exists thanks to the benefits from biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air," he said. "We are now close to a 'tipping point' - that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity ." Climate clouds In recent years, climate change has dominated the agenda of environmental politics. And Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, suggested there is a lack of understanding at political levels of why tackling biodiversity is just important. "This is the only planet in this Universe that is known to have this kind of life," he said. "This fact alone should give us food for thought, But more importantly, we are destroying the very foundations that sustain life on this planet ; and yet when we meet in these intergovernmental fora, society somehow struggles to understand and appreciate what it is what we're trying to do here, and why it matters."

68

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11563513?print=true


AT: Plan solves overfishingPlan can’t solve overfishingWade ’12 [Lisa, PhD, associate professor and chair of the sociology department at Occidental College, “FISH FARMING NO SOLUTION TO OVER-FISHING,” Nov. 7, http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/11/07/fish-farming-no-solution-to-over-fishing/]

Fish farming, the raising of fish in captivity, is often seen as a more sustainable way to feed the increasingly global hunger for seafood. At least, the story goes, it doesn’t contribute to the over-fishing of our oceans. Right? The answer turns out to

be: not necessarily. Carnivorous species of farmed fish still need to be fed, so there is an entire secondary industry: fishing for fish food. Just about anything that can be caught will do; the mix of sea animals is simply ground up and made into pellets. So,

the fisherman typically catch absolutely everything that they can, sterilizing a small piece of the ocean. They don’t distinguish between

large and small fish (the large they can sell as human food, the small they sell as fish food) or adults and juveniles. By taking the larger fish, they’re taking out populations before they have a chance to reproduce. You can see how this is a system with a devastating expiration date.

Current measures solve overfishingRader 2-26-14 [Douglas, Environmental Defense Fund's chief ocean scientist, “Trending: Concern for ocean health and the resources to help,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/02/26/trending-concern-ocean-health-and-resources-help]

Programs and resources to help But this isn’t a post of doom and gloom. There are sustainable fishery management systems that are

helping to keep marine ecosystems balanced, fish on our plates and wages in the pockets of the fishermen and industry workers that rely on

healthy oceans. These management programs are called catch shares. To date there are about 200 programs managing more than 500 different species in 40 countries. Many studies tout the benefits of catch shares including one worldwide review which found that

catch shares significantly lower the incidence of overfishing compared to conventional management practices.

69

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/11/07/fish-farming-no-solution-to-over-fishing/


AT: It’s sustainableNo sustainability- profit motive means poor standardsDiana et al ’13 [James S. Diana, Professor of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Research Scientist, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, UM, Chairman, Resource Ecology and Management Concentration, SNRE, Hillary S. Egna, Research Center Director at Oregon State University and Director of the Aquaculture & Fisheries Collaborative Research Support Program, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Scientific Director at the Canadian Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Network, “Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success,” BioScience 63: 255–262, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf]

Certification of aquaculture products, BMPs decided on by ¶ groups of farmers and environmentalists, interdisciplinary ¶ research, and government involvement in outreach to design ¶ and implement more responsible aquaculture systems have ¶ been combined to make major improvements in environmental performance (Boyd et al. 2007). However, they can go only so far to promote more sustainable global aquaculture practices. Currently, products from more-sustainable aquaculture systems are poorly differentiated in the market, so farmers do not always receive financial benefits for their better stewardship, and consumers cannot easily make decisions about which products to buy (Jacquet and Pauly 2008). Standards that are commonly used to differentiate land-based crops, including fair trade, organic, and free range, do not currently exist for seafood. Although there are organizations that certify wild-caught and cultured seafood, it is most often done on an individual-business basis, not widely ¶ accepted by the industry. Seafood exported to the United ¶ States and to the European Union is required to be processed ¶ following certain standards of hygiene and public health and ¶ to have labels indicating the source (cultured or captured) ¶ and country of origin. However, there is no requirement to indicate capture or culture methods or any certifications achieved. Several companies, such as Naturland and ¶ Walmart, require compliance with their own certification ¶ standards in order for seafood to be sold in their stores, but ¶ such certification is not common throughout retail systems. Because many sustainable seafood evaluations rank products on the basis of their culture methods or certifications, ¶ consumers are often unable to verify the quality of their purchases. Until more detailed labeling standards are developed ¶ for seafood, this confusion is likely to continue. Not only are labeling standards important, but consistent nomenclature for product classes (i.e., organic seafood) and species must be enforced to properly allow consumers to more strongly encourage seafood sustainability.

Err on the side of caution- there’s no data for offshore environmental effectsUpton and Buck ’10 [Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional Research Service, Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the CRS, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” August 9, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf]

Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that open ocean finfish aquaculture systems may produce fewer and less severe environmental impacts than those caused by nearshore aquaculture¶ systems. This may be in part because dissolved and particulate waste products and excess feed¶ may be assimilated and recycled more efficiently in the open ocean environment. However, the scope of any effects may vary greatly, depending on the culture technique, location, size/scale, and species raised.29 The present lack of knowledge—owing to limited experience, lack of¶ research funding, and few studies focusing specifically on open ocean aquaculture—limits understanding of potential environmental concerns. Open ocean aquaculture pens would be open to the surrounding environment . Some critics of open ocean aquaculture cite concerns with the escape of fish, water pollution from uneaten feed and waste products (including drugs, chemicals,¶ and other inputs), use of antibiotics and other animal drugs, alteration of benthic30 habitat by¶ settling wastes, and the spread of waterborne disease from cultured to wild fish.31 Because of¶ these concerns, critics of open ocean aquaculture hope that regulation of this emerging industry¶ will be stringent.

70


http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf


AT: Vaccines solve diseaseVaccines are insufficient- are often worse for the environmentPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


The lack of disease treatments available for¶ aquaculture has been suggested as a possible¶ constraint on the industry (Duff et al. 2003;¶ NRC 1992). Though there is great interest¶ in increasing the number of available drugs,¶ currently only a limited number of aquaculture drugs are available for use in the U.S. Aquaculturists are primarily limited to 10 drugs that are approved by the U.S. Food¶ and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in¶ food-producing aquatic species (JSA 2004).¶ Each of these drugs is approved for specific¶ species, for specific disease conditions, and¶ at specific dosages. The Minor Use Minor¶ Species Act, enacted in 2004, created new¶ mechanisms to facilitate the availability of¶ drugs for “minor species” such as fish. One¶ drug, the antibiotic florfenicol, has been¶ approved for use in catfish under this law.¶ Also available are investigational new animal¶ drugs, which can be used in studies to collect¶ efficacy and safety data, as well as other animal¶ or human drugs that can be prescribed¶ by a veterinarian for “extra-label” purposes.¶ Aquaculturists may also use a variety of common¶ substances, such as ice, salt, and carbon¶ dioxide, which are considered unapproved¶ new animal drugs of low regulatory priority.¶ Meyer (1991) suggested that the use of¶ drugs or other chemicals to treat diseases in¶ aquaculture should be considered an emergency¶ or last resort measure. It is clear that there are environmental risks associated with the use of drugs in the aquaculture setting, especially in open systems . For example,¶ Cabello (2006) provides a review of the¶ human health, animal health, and environmental¶ problems created by the use of antibiotics¶ in aquaculture. According to the review,¶ the use of large amounts of antibiotics in aquaculture , often in a prophylactic manner,¶ “has resulted in the emergence of antibioticresistant¶

bacteria in aquaculture environments,¶ in the increase of antibiotic resistance¶ in fish pathogens, in the transfer of these resistance determinants to bacteria of land animals and to human pathogens, and in alterations of the bacterial flora both in sediments and in the water column” (Cabello¶ 2006). These problems are likely greatest in¶ developing countries where antibiotic use¶ often goes unchecked. In addition to antibiotics,¶ the drugs used to treat parasites, such¶ as sea lice, in marine aquaculture can cause ecological problems when they are released into the environment . Depending on the¶ compound, parasite treatments can be added¶ to food or used as a bath, but in either case there can be toxic effects on organisms in the surrounding environment . For a thorough¶ review of the effects of chemical use in¶ marine aquaculture see Chapter 6.

71


Misc

72


Econ turns aquacultureEconomic stress destroys aquacultureHishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf]

In addition to factors that are inherent and are endogenous to aquaculture, there will ¶ also be exogenous shocks. Aquaculture is a sector that, because of environmental repercussions and trade, is vulnerable to wider global and regional shocks . Hence, aquaculture governance cannot be divorced from international and inter-regional influences. Among these are climate change and the spread of animal diseases, the ¶ growing role of the retail sector in dictating standards, the public’s increasing interest ¶ in food safety and the environment, and financial imbalances as a result of the global recession. The latter could threaten public funding of aquaculture research, and the ability of producers to access credit from financial institutions .

73


Warming turns aquacultureWarming devastates aquacultureHishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf]

A future global shock to aquaculture governance could come from climate change and weather uncertainty (FAO, 2008b). Some effects may be beneficial. Global warming could allow the spatial expansion of cold-water aquaculture to areas that are currently too cold. Growing periods could shorten, with improved growth rates and feed conversion ratios. However, many effects will be negative, particularly as most ¶ aquaculture is in tropical and subtropical Asia. There could be increased virulence of pathogens and animal diseases, reduced ecosystem productivity in warmer waters, and adverse impacts on livelihoods (Soto and Brugere, 2008). Sea-level rise would damage onshore facilities and cause saltwater intrusion, while extreme weather conditions could cause destruction of cages, with escapees, possibly leading to loss of biodiversity.

Climate change destroys aquaculture benefitsFAO ’14 [FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific, “Sustainable intensification of aquaculture for food and nutritional security in the Asia-Pacific region,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/030/mj303e.pdf]

38. Because aquaculture is often located in coastal zones or low-lying areas that are unsuitable for agriculture, it is vulnerable to the impacts of climate changes. These impacts depend upon the location, but include rising sea levels, saline water intrusion and warming and more frequent extreme climate events associated with climate change, such as bad drought, serious floods and storms. 39. As aquaculture intensifies and the economic investments in operations increase, the vulnerability of farms to significant climate-related economic impacts can be expected to become more severe. There have been greater losses and uncertainties in the aquaculture business because of more frequent natural disasters, climate variability and the impacts of climate change in the Asia-Pacific region.

74


Privates solvePrivate measures solve aquaculture bestPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


Private sector initiatives, eco-labeling, and¶ certification have the potential to significantly improve the sustainability of aquaculture production practices . In addition to regulatory approaches outlined in other parts of this¶ report, such programs may lead to reduced environmental impacts from aquaculture. By harnessing the enormous power of the marketplace to reward good behavior with respect to the environment, demand-side programs provide incentives for environmental protection that governments cannot provide. These methods are not a substitute for good environmental regulation and¶ management, but they can complement and enhance the effectiveness of such measures.

Private action spurs innovation- solves sustainabilityPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


That said, the process for developing¶ strong, credible certification programs, with¶ requirements for transparency and broad¶ agreement on standards, can be quite¶ lengthy. Companies that profit by differentiating their brand and their products may wish to retain their own production standards.¶ If developed collaboratively with¶ conservation organizations, such standards often achieve considerable credibility. Product differentiation can be beneficial for¶ the environment as well as the bottom line.¶ Companies that wish to truly distinguish¶ themselves on the basis of their environmental¶ stewardship may push for more stringent¶ production standards than a consensus-based¶ certification program can achieve. Individual private sector programs are nimble and can be “laboratories” for innovation. In short, while the development of certification¶ systems for aquaculture is highly¶ desirable, other programs to differentiate environmentally preferable farmed seafood in ¶ the marketplace may prove valuable catalysts for better production practices. Different ¶ approaches can be bridged at least in part by ¶

encouraging representatives from individual private sector programs to bring their experiences to the development of broad¶ certification programs .

75


NGOs solveNGOs solve aquaculture sustainabilityHishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf]

However, NGOs can have a constructive role in aquaculture governance. They can be a useful counterweight, particularly where there is market governance of aquaculture . If policy-making is de facto dominated by business with short-term ¶ horizons, NGOs serve as environmental and social lobby groups. They may be part of aquaculture advisory boards, as in Chile, and publish scientific studies that are not available elsewhere. The latter is particularly important where academic research is ¶ limited because of capacity. They can pressure business to increase transparency and improve working conditions . Their impact on government policy can be important ¶ even if indirect.¶ An example of the constructive role of an NGO is the Salmon Aquaculture ¶ Dialogue funded by the World Wildlife Fund. Industry and NGO representatives meet to discuss issues regarding the farming of salmon with the aim is to enhance sustainability of the industry. Traditionally, the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue focused ¶ on environmental and ecological challenges but, recently, a technical committee ¶ composed of representatives from the major producing countries has been established ¶ to examine socio-economic issues. Other dialogues exist for other species.

76

aquaculture negative - debateus.org€¦ · web viewi think the environment da is pretty strong...

Documents