Coral Reef Exploration Affirmative - CDL 2014

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 IndexCoral Reefs Case AFF

Coral Reef Exploration Affirmative

Coral Reef Exploration Affirmative 1

Coral Reefs 1AC [1/13]........................................................................................2

Coral Reefs 1AC [2/13]........................................................................................4

Coral Reefs 1AC [3/13]........................................................................................5

Coral Reefs 1AC [4/13]........................................................................................6

Coral Reefs 1AC [5/13]........................................................................................7

Coral Reefs 1AC [6/13]........................................................................................9

Coral Reefs 1AC [7/13]......................................................................................10

Coral Reefs 1AC [8/13]......................................................................................12

Coral Reefs 1AC [9/13]......................................................................................13

Coral Reefs 1AC [10/13]....................................................................................14

Coral Reefs 1AC [11/13]....................................................................................15

Coral Reefs 1AC [12/13]....................................................................................17

Coral Reefs 1AC [13/13]....................................................................................18

2AC Inherency: A/T #1 “Not Inherent” [1/2].....................................................19

2AC Inherency: A/T #1 “Not Inherent” [2/2].....................................................21

2AC Harms: A/T #1 “Private Sector Solves” [1/1]............................................22

2AC Harms: A/T #2 “Reefs Resilient” [1/1].......................................................23

2AC Solvency: A/T #1 – “Alternative Causes” [1/1]..........................................24

2AC Solvency: A/T #2 – “Technology Fails” [1/1].............................................25

2AC Solvency: A/T #3 – “Discourse Fails” [1/2]................................................27

2AC Solvency: A/T #3 – “Discourse Fails” [2/2]................................................29

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1ACCoral Reefs Case AFF

Coral Reefs 1AC [1/13]

Contention One is Inherency:

1. Ocean acidification is human-induced, occurring now, and represents an existential threat.

Bienkowski 2013[Brian. Writer at the Daily Climate. “US Effort on Ocean Acidification needs Focus on Human Impacts” The Scientific American, 1/11/13 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-effort-on-ocean-acidification-needs-focus-on-human-impacts]

A federal plan to tackle ocean acidification must focus more on how the changes will affect people and the economy, according to a review of the effort by a panel of the National Research Council.¶ "Social issues clearly can't drive everything but when it's possible they should," said George Somero, chair of the committee that wrote the report and associate director at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station. "If you're setting up a monitoring station, it should be where there's a shellfish industry, for example."¶ Acidification is one of the larger problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions, as oceans serve as a giant sponge for carbon dioxide. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater, water chemistry changes and acidity increases. More acidic seawater can hurt ocean creatures, especially corals and shellfish, because it prevents them from properly developing their skeletons and shells. Shrinking coral reefs could dent eco-tourism revenue in some coastal areas. It also could trigger a decline in fish populations dependent on those reefs.¶ Decreasing shellfish populations would harm the entire ocean food chain, researchers say, particularly affecting people who get their protein or paycheck from the sea. Globally, fish represent about 6 percent of the protein people eat. ¶ The acidification blueprint was drafted by nine federal agencies in March 2012. It establishes guidelines for federal research, monitoring and mitigation of ocean acidification. In reviewing the plan, the research council, which advises the government on science policy, recommended that federal research and action be focused on issues with human and economic consequences. ¶ Pacific Northwest¶ The panel cited the Pacific Northwest as an economic example, where high acidity levels have hampered oyster hatcheries, worth about $270 million and 3,200 jobs to coastal communities there. It is unclear if ocean acidification is the culprit, but it could be a harbinger of things to come, according to the report.¶ In 2011, U.S. commercial fishers caught 10 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.¶ The panel also suggested the plan should have a clearer mission, prioritized goals and ways to measure progress.¶ "This plan would cost a lot of money so there needs to be priorities and ways to prove impact," Somero said. "The federal budget simply won't allow for everything that needs to be done."¶ In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, creating a federal program to deal with ocean acidification. ¶ Somero said the agencies will take the recommendations and "tune up" the plan.¶ Ocean acidification is an "emerging global problem," according to NOAA. Over the past 250 years, about one third of the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels has ended up in oceans, according to a 2010 study. Over that time, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent, according to the National Research Council.¶ Ocean advocacy groups supported the panel's recommendations.¶ "Ocean acidification is one of the greatest threats to marine life and fisheries," said Matthew Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist at Oceana. "We are encouraged that the Council has suggested communicating this issue to policy makers and the public to increase awareness and hopefully lead to solutions."¶ Julia Roberson, a director at the Ocean Conservancy, said the original plan was a good first step and she hopes government will use the council's suggestions.¶ Amid recommendations, the panel also offered praise for the federal effort, saying the plan does "an excellent job of covering the breadth of


current understanding of ocean acidification and the range of research that will be required to advance a broadly focused and effective National Ocean Acidification Program."



2. Unsustainable oceanic practices are the key reason

Fathima 7-18[A. Environmental Correspondent for the International Business Times. “Coral Reefs Face Threat Due to Underwater Excavation Activity” The International Business Times, 7/18/14. Available via Lexis-Nexis]

A study found that underwater excavation activites near coral reefs can impact light and food needed for their survival, doubling chances of frequency of diseases in them. Dredging has been known to suffocate corals for a very long time, but this is the first instance researchers have found a link between dredging activities and diseases in corals.¶ ¶ Lead of the study and marine scientist from the Coral Reef Studies Centre of Excellence of Australian Research Council, Joe Pollock, stressed on the fact that to survive corals need both light and food. Dredging causes increase in turbidity, which means the reefs receive less light for the process of photosynthesis, and an increase in the amount of sediment that falls on the coral affecting their ability to feed.¶ ¶ The researchers said the corals are mostly suffering from a condition called "white syndrome," which Pollock explained is like having flesh fall off the fingertips of humans, leaving the bone exposed and the same happeing to rest of the body. In the case of just bleaching incidents, the coral turns white and recovery is still possible as they are still alive. But white syndrome affects the tissue, so there is no way of recovery. Hence, it is a major threat to these corals.¶ ¶ The study involved comparison of 11 reefs and thousands of corals near Barrow Island. In this area, a sevel million cubic metre dredging project had happened in a span of 18 months to help ships transport liquified petroleum gas. Pollock and his team found that at the dredging site, there was double the amount of coral diseases in comparison to the corals in the control site. ¶ ¶ Pollock explained that more energy must be spent by the corals to clean the sediment that falls on their surface due to dredging. This imbalance in terms of energy could possibly lead to chronic stress. He continues that chronic stress could be a major reason for the rise in levels of diseases in the corals. In addition, climate change, crown-of-thorns starfish and cyclones are also contributing factors.



Contention Two is Harms:

1. Coral reef extinction is likely in the status quo and will occur in the next few decades.

Plumer 7-7[Bradley. “Caribbean coral reefs could disappear "within a few decades” 7/7/14 http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5876909/caribbean-coral-reefs-could-disappear-within-a-few-decades]

Coral reefs in the Caribbean are on track to "virtually disappear within a few decades," a major new report warns. But there's also a way to slow decline. Protecting just a single fish — the brightly colored parrotfish — could help save the reefs from doom.¶ There's little doubt that the Caribbean's coral reefs have declined sharply since the 1970s, under heavy stress from invasive pathogens, overfishing, coastal pollution, tourism, and now global warming that's heating up the oceans.¶ It's reached the point that many conservation groups have given up hope for the Caribbean and are shifting their attention to protecting coral reefs elsewhere.¶ But it may be too early to give up altogether. The new report, from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, takes an in-depth look at the decline of the Caribbean coral reefs between 1975 and 2012. While the authors find that the situation is indeed bleak, they also outlines a series of steps that could halt the destruction.¶ Crucially, the report recommends new protections for the region's parrotfish, which has long played a vital role in eating up algae that threatens to overrun the reefs (the parrotfish's feeding habits also help replenish coral sand). In recent decades, the parrotfish has been a victim of overfishing — and coral reefs have suffered as a result.¶ Reversing that trend, the report notes, would be a crucial step, not least given the central role that reefs play in the region — from supporting tourism to nurturing fisheries to protecting against hurricanes and other storms.



2. Coral reefs are the rainforests of the ocean. Their destruction dooms the ocean as a whole and threatens life on Earth

Peel 2013[Alex. “Scientists call for Global Action on Coral Reefs” Planet Earth Online, 8/13/13. Available via Lexis-Nexis]

A new paper, published in the journal Current Biology, says Caribbean reef growth is already much slower than it was 30 years ago. Its authors say that without serious action on climate change, the reefs may stop growing and begin to break down within the next 20–30 years.¶ “The balance between reef growth and reef erosion is changing as we alter the environment,” says Dr Emma Kennedy of the University of Exeter, who led the study.¶ “This means that increasingly, some reefs are breaking down faster than they can replace themselves—essentially they’re being worn away.”¶ As corals grow they produce limestone skeletons which build up over time into vast reefs. They provide a natural breakwater and a complex three-dimensional habitat, making an ideal home for a vast array of marine species.¶ “Healthy reefs are the rainforests of the sea,” says Kennedy. “They provide habitat for over a quarter of all marine species, including many colorful fish and corals.” “They also provide a range of vital benefits to humanity, like food, jobs and protection from the sea. Globally, over half a billion people rely on reef services to some¶ extent.”¶ In the Caribbean alone, coral reefs are thought to be worth $3.1–4.6 billion every year. But serious local and global pressures are causing corals around the world to fall into ill health.¶ Locally, they’re suffering from nutrient pollution, overfishing and an influx of reef-smothering sediments from coastal developments.¶ Pacific reefs have also fallen victim to plagues of coral-eating starfish, whose larvae thrive in nitrogen washed into the sea from farms on land. Australian authorities estimate that 35 percent of the Great Barrier Reef ’s coral cover has been lost to crown-of-thorns starfish in the past 25 years. They’re warning that a new outbreak could be on the way this year.¶ Carbon emissions pose a variety of dangers to corals. Rising sea levels threaten¶ to leave them stranded in darker waters, starving them of the light they need to survive.¶ As the oceans absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, they are also becoming slightly more acidic, and less favorable to corals.¶ Perhaps most seriously, warming ocean temperatures are causing a breakdown in the vital give-and-take relationship between corals and the algae that live in their tissues. This leads to coral bleaching, where whole coral colonies become lighter in color or completely white, and many go on to die.¶ Kennedy and her team used their own observations and information from more than 300 academic papers to build computer simulations of Caribbean reef growth and erosion.¶ Taking over 116 different factors into account, they were able to predict the effect of various conservation measures and climate scenarios on reef health.¶ They found that local policies and conservation measures, like protecting key species and preventing agricultural run-off, could buy reefs an extra decade or so. But the study suggests that it’s going to take global action if Caribbean reefs are to survive beyond the end of the century.¶ “We’re all responsible for looking after our planet to a certain extent, and as individuals we can help out by trying to reduce our carbon footprint in any way we can,” says Kennedy.¶ “But unless governments can work together at an international level, then our research suggests that the future looks grim for reefs.”¶ “Under business-as-usual climate scenarios we found Caribbean reefs eventually all degraded well before the end of the century. At the moment, we’re still following this trajectory.”



3. Independently, acidification threatens keystone species and will destroy the food chain

Johnson and White 2014[Ashanti and Natasha. Professors of Earth and Environmental Sciences at UT-Arlington. “Ocean Acidification: the Other Climate Change Issue” The American Scientist, Vol 102, N1. 2014. Available via JSTOR]

Within Earth’s vast oceans exists a diverse population of beautiful creatures that depend on a delicate balance of chemistry to remain viable. The tiniest animals are often the most important and underestimated species in any environment; they also are among the most vulnerable.¶ In the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean, off the coast of Antarctica, one such creature is the pteropod, Limacina helicina antarctica. These pea-sized marine snails, popularly known as sea butterflies because they appear to be using two “wings” when they swim, serve as a major food source for commercial fishes such as pink salmon. Yet this crucial resource is on the wane, as increasing levels of acid in the ocean threaten to dissolve its aragonite shell and impair its normal development.¶ More than 200 years ago, people developed a variety of machines to accomplish tasks traditionally completed by hand. These great advances in technology, however, have come at a steep price: the industrial and agricultural activities that drive our global economy have added significantly to the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Most carbon dioxide remains in the air, but as much as 25 percent is absorbed by the world’s oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration (NOAA). Once in the water column, carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts with water (H2O) to yield carbonic acid, which releases hydrogen ions (H+), effectively increasing acidity.¶ Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH level of the world’s oceans has dropped by 0.1 unit, which amounts to a 30-percent increase in acidity. Es- timates based on business-as-usual scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that if current trends persist, oceanic pH could drop by another 0.5 unit by the end of this century. That is a huge change: a 150-percent increase in acidity. Such an alteration in the marine environment could have devastating results both for ocean organisms and for the people who depend on them.¶ Metals occur naturally in many coastal and estuarine environments and are essential for the growth and survival of microorganisms that live by means of photosynthesis. A balance of trace metals, such as iron, nickel, copper, zinc, and cadmium, is crucial. If trace-metal concentrations fall too low, photosynthesis falters; if they rise too high, the excess of metal may prove toxic. For any given substance (metal, nutrient, or even a contaminant), the amount that may be readily metabolized is known as bioavailable.¶ The potential of ocean acidification to influence the bioavailability of metals comes down to basic chemistry. Increasing influxes of CO2 cause a decrease in pH, which results in an increase in H+ and thus a decrease in hydroxide and carbonate ions in most surface waters. Normally, both hydroxide and carbonate form strong complexes with divalent and trivalent metals, effectively sequestering those compounds from uptake by photosynthetic organisms; under acidified conditions, however, hydroxide and carbonate remain as free metals that are bioavailable.¶ Recent environmental models suggest that hydroxide and carbonate ions will decrease consistently—as much as 82 and 77 percent, respectively—by the end of the century. Such a decrease is expected to change the speciation of a number of metal ions. Most organic macromolecules in seawater are negatively charged; therefore, as a result of lowered pH, the surface of the organic macromolecules is less available to form complexes with metals.¶ A number of studies have predicted that ocean acidification might exacerbate the potential effects of other anthropogenic stressors, thereby raising the bioavailability of environmental contaminants,


particularly that of waterborne metals. Acidification also modifies the interactions between marine organisms and metals. Ambient trace-metal concentrations in the open ocean are low; marine organisms have evolved efficient mechanisms to compensate for this, many of which are yet to be characterized. Not surprisingly, small increases in the concentration of normally scarce metals often prove toxic.¶ Individual metal species have different fates and cause varied impacts, depend- ing on their function in the environment. For example, should ocean acidification increase the available concentration of free ionic copper, productivity in photosynthetic organisms may decrease.



Johnson and White continue, no text deleted…The resulting increase in free ionic copper in the environment can cause physiological damage to some aquatic species. Copper affects the activation of olfactory receptor neurons by competing with natural odor- ants for binding sites; such an effect has been shown to impair the sense of smell in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). These fish depend on olfaction to find food, avoid predators, and migrate. According to one study, even low levels of copper produced a physiological stress response, characterized by hyperactivity, elevated blood levels of the stress hormone cortisol, and an increase in the synthesis of metallothionein, a metal-detoxifying protein.¶ On the other hand, antagonistic (decreased) toxicities have been observed between carbon dioxide and free ionic copper in a small coastal crustacean, Amphi- ascoides atopus. Metal toxicity was likely antagonistic because of the presence of increasing H+ and the competition for binding sites between CO2 and copper for H+. Alternatively, the observed antagonistic effect could be due to the animal’s sup- pressed metabolism, which would reduce its rate of metal transport. If acidified conditions should cause the concentration of dissolved iron to rise, this may stimu- late photosynthesis, giving rise to a negative feedback mechanism. This mechanism has a potential positive effect: Ocean acidification may actually make more iron bioavailable, thanks to both the increased fractionation of dissolved iron and elevated iron (Fe2+) concentrations in coastal systems.¶ The effects of ocean acidification fall not just on certain species or particular regions, but throughout the food webs of the globe. According to the NOAA Ocean and Great Lakes Acidification Research Plan, changes in ocean chemistry probably exert several indirect effects: shifting predator-prey interactions, increasing the prevalence of invasive species, modifying the distribution of pathogens, or altering the physical structure of ecosystems. Naturally, some organisms are expected to experience greater effects than others. Among those most likely to take a hit are the calcifying organisms, such as corals, clams, scallops, oysters, and other shellfish. Conversely, some photosynthetic zooxanthellae (the symbionts that live on coral and provide its nutrition) or shallow nearshore seagrasses may be individually stimulated by an increase in carbon dioxide. Their stimulation is expected to change the dynamics of the ecosystem by disrupting nutritional transfer from zooxanthellae to corals and by interfering with the efficient use of carbon by thriving seagrasses, leading to overpopulation.¶ Initial studies focused on the negative effects of decreased calcium carbonate (CaCO3) saturation and on the inability of calcifying organisms to produce protec- tive shells; more recent studies show that acidification may also take a toll on species growth, behavior, and survival. Noncalcareous species such as fish have shown impaired development and decreased olfactory ability, as well as some evidence for changes in body composition and a decrease in growth rate. Bacterioplankton may also be affected by acidification, exhibiting longer bloom times, increased growth rate, and increases in nitrogen fixation. A secondary impact for humans and wildlife may arise from the extended bloom of certain bacterioplankton, which can secrete substances that are toxic to some humans and wildlife.¶ When carbonate concentrations decrease in the oceans and bivalves become less able to extract it effectively, they form thinner shells that make them more susceptible to predators. A computer simulation of future ocean conditions showed that three ecologically and commercially important bivalve species—the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians), and the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)—would suffer delayed metamorphosis and reduced growth in response to lower levels of carbonate. The impaired ability of each species to form a calcified skeleton appeared likely to translate into prolonged predation on the more vulnerable species and a decrease in the survival rate of their larvae.[CONTINUES…]¶ The effects of ocean acidification are far from uniform. Coastal regions are likely to be disproportionately affected by compounding carbon input sources such as runoff from agriculture, industry, and urban populations.


Moreover, certain marine species are vulnerable to acidification whereas others are relatively resilient. Using current legislation—in particular, the U.S. Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act—to enforce more stringent emissions standards may offset some of the harm caused by the rising acidity of the oceans. Confronting this threat will require broader public awareness, clear interpretation of data, and reasoned predictions. Ultimately, more sustainable practices, including reducing anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, must be adopted globally to offset the harm already done and to ensure that marine ecosystems remain viable.


4. Oceanic destruction constitutes the greatest threat to life on the planet.

Mittermeier et al 2011[Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Biodiversity Hotspots, 2011. Pg 4-6. Available via GoogleBooks]

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible. Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). As species vanish, so too does the health security of every human. Earth’s species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen—cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines—even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration for¶ manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶ and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found


to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about trhe biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most—and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities? Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget—perhaps 90%—originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available—in the hundreds of millions annually—be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss.



Mittermeier continues, no text deleted…The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, where should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first? The field of conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region—if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers described ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶ >¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region—the East Melanesian Islands—which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the “less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.



Thus the Plan: The United States federal government should increase its development of mineral accretion technologies for coral reefs in the Earth’s oceans.



Contention Three is Solvency.

A. Mineral accretion technology grows corals by using electricity to accrete minerals. Large-scale application of mineral accretion technology is cost-effective and restores the health of coral reefs.

Goreau 2012[Thomas J. Goreau is a biogeochemist and marine biologist. He earned degrees in planetary physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in planetary astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, and in biogeochemistry at Harvard University (Ph.D.). He is currently President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. (“Marine Electrolysis for Building Materials and Environmental Restoration”, http://ebookbrowsee.net/gdoc.php?id=658818242&url=536af85d7ecd21e4db8e72674019e832, 2012]

Biorock applications involve low voltage and low current densities, and so do not use much electricity, in fact they usually cannot be felt even when one short circuits the system by grabbing the anode and cathode simultaneously with bare hands, since the electrons flow through much more conductive seawater. Using Biorock technology, coral reefs can be grown in front of hotels, which grow the beaches back using about as much electricity as the beach lights, or one or two air conditioners. This is a negligible amount of electricity for places that may be running hundreds of air conditioners at a time, and so the benefits far outweigh the costs. Biorock structures cost a small fraction of the cost of concrete or rock structures with the same dimensions. Reinforced concrete construction first assembles a framework of reinforcing bar, which is a negligible portion of the total structure cost. The concrete poured around it, and the labor, cost many times more than the steel. Biorock construction assembles a steel framework, but instead of purchasing concrete simply wires it to a power source and grows the material over the steel. Since steel is the cheapest and most available construction material, Biorock costs are largely dependent on the price of electricity. Since most electricity is produced from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, it is the largest source of greenhouse gases causing the global warming that is now the major killer of corals worldwide. For this reason we work very closely with the pioneers in sustainable energy systems, in particular wave, tidal, wind, and solar power, so that untapped renewable local energy sources can be used that do not generate CO2. We are especially focused on use of the development of new wave energy generators that work in waves of less than 10 cm amplitude, which will allow energy to be made along almost any coastline most of the time. Generation of electricity on-site from renewable energy also avoids power losses in transmission, and will allow much larger structures to be grown with less energy. This will open the possibilities of very large environmental electrolysis projects to save entire coastlines from the effects of global sea level rise and restore their collapsing coral reefs, oyster reefs, and fisheries, while at the same time promoting the development of sustainable energy sources that do not produce produce CO2 and cause global warming and sea level rise. Biorock reefs grown in front of severely eroding beaches, with trees and buildings collapsing into the sea, have grown back up to 15 meters (50 feet) of new beach back in a few years, by reducing wave impacts a the shoreline. Therefore they will have major applications as global sea level rise accelerates in the future. Artificial islands can be grown that keep pace with sea level rise, if Biorock technology was used on a large scale.



B. The plan moves US ocean policy toward biocentrism. Instead of viewing coral reefs and the ocean as valuable for reasons related to human interests, we should instead recognize and protect the unique beauty and inherent importance of the reefs.

Needham 2010[Mark. Professor of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State. “Value orientations toward coral reefs in recreation and tourism settings: a conceptual and measurement approach” The Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2010. Available via Taylor&Francis]

Coral reefs are one of the most ecologically diverse, valuable and productive systems on¶ this planet, and the global decline in the health of coral reefs is an important conservation¶ concern (Bellwood, Hughes, Folke, & Nystrom, 2004; Dearden, Bennett, & Rollins, 2006,¶ 2007; Friedlander et al., 2005). Threats to coral reefs and reef species include climate¶ change and coral bleaching, disease, coastal development and runoff, pollution, trade in¶ coral and live reef species, ship groundings and anchor damage, overharvesting, marine¶ debris and trash, aquatic invasive species and oil and gas exploration (Bellwood et al., 2004;¶ Briggs, 2005; Friedlander et al., 2005; Hodgson, 2000). Underlying many of these threats¶ is the reality that immediate social and financial returns from destructive practices often¶ outweigh potential long-term benefits of coral reef conservation and protection (Dearden¶ et al., 2006).¶ A number of studies have demonstrated that recreation and tourism activities such as¶ scuba diving and snorkeling are another threat to coral reefs because touching and standing¶ on reefs can cause damage such as coral breakage, abrasion and mortality (e.g. Barker & Roberts, 2004; Hawkins et al., 1999; Rodgers & Cox, 2003; Rouphael & Hanafy, 2007;¶ Tratalos & Austin, 2001). Many of these and other studies have discussed the need for fu-¶ ture research to examine why some recreationists and tourists engage in these depreciative¶ behaviors and if these individuals understand and care about the fragility of reefs and other¶ aspects of the marine environment (e.g. Leujak & Ormond, 2007; Rouphael & Inglis, 2002;¶ Uyarra, Watkinson, & Cote, 2009). User awareness and behavior in recreation and tourism¶ settings can be influenced by evaluations of specific conditions and experiences, which¶ are shaped by value orientations, norms, attitudes and other cognitions (Manfredo, Teel, &¶ Bright, 2004; Needham & Rollins, 2009). It is important to understand and measure cogni-¶ tions such as value orientations (e.g. protection–use, biocentric-anthropocentric) because¶ they can influence behavior such as coral trampling and predict support of, and receptivity¶ toward, management responses for mitigating impacts. Little is known, however, about¶ value orientations toward coral reefs in recreation and tourism settings. This paper, there-¶ fore, examines recreationist and tourist value orientations toward reefs, tests the reliability¶ and validity of a scale for measuring these orientations, groups individuals based on their¶ value orientations and examines demographic and activity differences among these groups. Recreationists and tourists are heterogeneous, exhibiting a range of skills, attitudes and¶ behaviors (Needham, Vaske, Donnelly, & Manfredo, 2007). Given this diversity, researchers¶ have emphasized the importance of grouping individuals into meaningful homogeneous¶ subgroups to improve understanding of behavior and responses to natural resources (Bright,¶ Manfredo, & Fulton, 2000; Vaske, Beaman, Stanley, & Grenier, 1996). Studies, for example,¶ have differentiated between consumptive and nonconsumptive users (e.g. anglers versus¶ wildlife viewers; Duffus & Dearden, 1990), experienced and less experienced users (Cole¶ & Scott, 1999; Needham et al., 2007) and different demographic groups (e.g. male versus¶ female, urban versus rural residency; Cordell, Bergstrom, Betz, & Green, 2004; Dougherty,¶ Fulton, & Anderson, 2003; Zinn & Pierce, 2002). Studies have also grouped the public based¶ on competing views among interest groups and citizen


advocacy organizations (Needham¶ & Rollins, 2005).¶ Participants in recreation and tourism activities have also been grouped according to¶ their value orientations toward general objects or natural resources (Bright et al., 2000;¶ Vaske & Needham, 2007). Value orientations (Kluckholn, 1951) refer to general classes of¶ objects (e.g. wildlife, forests, coral reefs) and are revealed through the pattern, direction and¶ intensity of basic beliefs (Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999.)



Needham continues, no text deleted…Value orientations toward wildlife, for example, have been reliably measured by asking¶ individuals how strongly they identify with biocentric or protectionist belief statements¶ (e.g. “wildlife should have equal rights as humans”) and utilitarian or use beliefs about¶ wildlife (e.g. “wildlife should be used by humans to add to the quality of human life”;¶ Bright et al., 2000; Fulton et al., 1996). In most studies, these basic beliefs have reliably¶ and consistently factored into value orientation continuums such as the protection–use¶ continuum (Bright et al., 2000; Dougherty et al., 2003; Fulton et al., 1996; Vaske &¶ Needham, 2007) and the biocentric-anthropocentric continuum (Shindler, List, & Steel,¶ 1993; Steel, List, & Shindler, 1994; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). An anthropocentric or use¶ orientation reflects human-centered or utilitarian views of the nonhuman world (Eckersley,¶ 1992). This approach assumes that providing for human use and benefit is the primary¶ goal of natural resource allocation and management regardless of whether uses are for¶ commodity (e.g. timber), aesthetic or physical (e.g. recreation) benefits. Natural resources re viewed as materials to be used by humans, and there is little recognition that nonhuman¶ aspects of nature are valuable in their own right or for their own sake (Scherer & Attig, 1983).¶ A use orientation emphasizes the instrumental value of natural resources for humans rather¶ than any inherent worth of these resources (Vaske, Donnelly, Williams, & Jonker, 2001).¶ A biocentric or protectionist value orientation is a more nature-centered approach.¶ The value of ecosystems, species and natural resources is elevated to a prominent level¶ (Eckersley, 1992). Human needs and desires are still important, but are viewed within a¶ larger perspective. This approach assumes that environmental and natural resource objects¶ have instrumental and inherent worth, and that human uses and benefits are not always the¶ most important. In a natural resource management context, these inherent values are to¶ be respected and preserved even if they conflict with human-centered values (Thompson¶ & Barton, 1994; Vaske et al., 2001). Protectionist and use orientations are not mutually¶ exclusive; they can be arrayed along a continuum with protectionist orientations at one¶ end and use orientations at the other end; the midpoint represents a mix of these two¶ extremes (Shindler et al., 1993; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). Users arranged along this value¶ orientation continuum can then be grouped into more meaningful homogeneous subgroups¶ (Bright et al., 2000; Vaske & Needham, 2007).¶ Value orientations can predict higher-order cognitions such as attitudes and behavioral¶ intentions (Fulton et al., 1996; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). Although value orientations are¶ related to these other cognitions, they are conceptually different. Like value orientations,¶ for example, attitudes are also evaluations of an object. Attitudes, however, differ from¶ value orientations in at least three ways. First, attitudes focus on positive or negative¶ evaluations (i.e. affect, emotions), whereas value orientations are derived from basic beliefs¶ (i.e. cognitions, thoughts). Second, an individual may hold thousands of attitudes, whereas¶ value orientations are limited in number (e.g. protection–use, biocentric-anthropocentric).¶ Third, attitudes have a more focused object than orientations. If the object, for example, is¶ “favor or disfavor toward black bears in urban proximate areas”, the evaluation is an attitude.¶ By comparison, the object of a value orientation is more general, such as all wildlife in¶ general (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).



C. Finally, the method of the 1AC is meaningful – public discourse on ocean acidification and coral reefs can change mindsets and create real improvements.

Shipley 2014[David. An Editor at the Bloomberg View. “Climate Change Goes Underwater” The Bloomberg View, 6/29/14 Available via Lexis-Nexis]

When it comes to climate change, almost all the attention is on the air. What's happening to the water, however, is just as worrying - although for the moment it may be slightly more manageable.¶ It's not just the Pacific oyster farmers who are finding high pH levels make it hard for larvae to form, or the clam fishermen in Maine who discover that the clams on the bottom of their buckets can be crushed by the weight of a full load, or even the 123.3 million Americans who live near or on the coasts. Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the Earth, and changes to the marine ecosystem will have profound effects on the planet.¶ Stopping acidification, like stopping climate change, requires first and foremost a worldwide reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. That's the bad news. Coming to an international agreement about the best way to do that is hard.¶ Unlike with climate change, however, local action can make a real difference against acidification. This is because in many coastal regions where shellfish and coral reefs are at risk, an already bad situation is being made worse by localized air and water pollution, such as acid rain from coal-burning; effluent from big farms, pulp mills and sewage systems; and storm runoff from urban pavement. This means that existing anti-pollution laws can address some of the problem.¶ States have the authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act, for instance, to set standards for water quality, and they can use that authority to strengthen local limits on the kinds of pollution that most contribute to acidification hot spots. Coastal states and cities can also maximize the amount of land covered in vegetation (rather than asphalt or concrete), so that when it rains the water filters through soil and doesn't easily wash urban pollution into the sea. States can also qualify for federal funding for acidification research in their estuaries.¶ Such research can hardly happen fast enough. It's still not known, for instance, exactly to what extent acidification is to blame for the decline of coral reefs. And if the chemical change in the ocean makes it harder for sea snails and other pteropods to survive, will that also threaten the wild salmon and other big fish that eat them?¶ Better monitoring of acidification would help scientists learn how much it varies from place to place and what makes the difference. This calls for continuous readings, because pH levels shift throughout the day and from season to season. Engineers are designing new measuring devices that can be left in the water, and it looks like monitoring will eventually be done in a standardized way throughout the world. In the meantime, researchers are finding small ways to give local populations of shellfish their best chance to survive - depositing crushed shells in the mudflats where clams live, for instance, to neutralize the sediment, or planting seagrass in shellfish habitats to absorb CO2. Such strategies, like pollution control, are worthwhile if only to help keep shellfish populations as robust as possible in the short term, perhaps giving natural selection the opportunity to breed strains better suited to a lower-pH world.¶ These efforts also give humans more time to learn about ocean acidification. And maybe they will help their political leaders better understand the urgency of international cooperation on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2AC Inherency: A/T #1 “Not Inherent” [1/2]

1. The affirmative is inherent. Coral reefs are dying off, ocean acidification is rapidly increasing, and flawed human interactions with the ocean are the key reason. There’s also no widespread federal mineral accretion program in the status quo. That’s our 1AC Bienkowski, Fathima and Goreau evidence.

2. Technology to save coral reefs exists, but large scale federal deployment is necessary.

Agardy 2013[Tundi Agardy has a PhD in Biological Sciences and Marine Affairs from the University of Rhode Island and a BA in Biology and Biological Sciences from Wellesley College. She is currently the Executive Director of Sound Seas, a DC-based marine science and policy order group. “America’s Coral Reefs: Awash with Problems” Issues in Science and Technology, November 2013. http://issues.org/20-2/agardy-2/]

Poor use of cutting-edge science and the at-large scientific community. Although the United States is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, it has not adequately harnessed science to address the coral reef crisis. In a 1999 article in the journal Marine and Freshwater Research, Michael Risk compares the response of the scientific community to the coral reef crisis with its response to two other crises affecting the United States: acid rain in the Northern Hemisphere and eutrophication of the Great Lakes. Risk argues that whereas there was effective engagement of the scientific community in tackling the latter two issues, neither U.S. nor international scientists have helped craft an effective response to the large-scale death of reefs. Risk is right to ask why science has failed coral reefs, but I take issue with his assessment of the nation’s inadequate response to the crisis. It is not the fault of the scientific community that the government has been slow to act to save reefs, but rather the fault of government in not knowing how to use science and scientists effectively. Decisionmakers have not engaged the scientific community and have failed to heed what scientific advice has been put forward. For instance, the government did not fully mobilize nongovernmental academic institutions and conservation organizations to help draft its National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, and as a result the plan has been criticized as lacking in rigor and ambition. It is telling that a World Bank project to undertake global coral reef-targeted research, which assembles international teams of leading researchers to address critical issues of bleaching, disease, connectivity, remote sensing, modeling, and restoration, has a paucity of U.S. government scientists in all six of the working groups. This targeted research project is crucial: It intends to identify the key questions that managers need to have answered in order to better protect reefs, and it aims to do intensive applied research to answer those questions. The costs of managing reefs are far outweighed by the net benefits provided by reefs. The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs was produced by the USCRTF and published on March 2, 2000. It is a general document describing why coral reefs are important and what needs to be done to protect them. There are two main sections: understanding coral reef ecosystems and reducing the adverse impacts of human activities. The first section discusses four action items: (1) create comprehensive maps, (2) conduct long-term monitoring and assessment, (3) support strategic research, and (4) incorporate the human dimension (undertake economic valuation, etc.). The second section is a bit more ambitious: (1) create and expand a network of marine protected areas (MPAs), (2) reduce impacts of extractive uses, (3) reduce habitat destruction, (4) reduce pollution, (5) restore damaged reefs, (6) reduce

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFFglobal threats to coral reefs, (7) reduce impacts from international trade in coral reef species, (8) improve federal accountability and coordination, and (9) create an informed public. All well and good, but despite its moniker the action plan provides almost no guidance on how to do these things. It called for each federal agency to develop implementation plans (required by Executive Order 13089) by June 2000. However, those plans were only to cover fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and the plans were never formalized or made public.


2AC Inherency: A/T #1 “Not Inherent” [2/2]

Agardy continues, no text deleted…The USCRTF recognized that a greater investment needed to be made to figure out how each agency was going to contribute to carrying out the action plan and pushed agencies to develop post-2002 strategies. To date, only the Department of Defense and NOAA have completed such strategies. NOAA’s plan is embodied in its National Strategy for Conserving Coral Reefs document published in September 2002. Both the action plan and the NOAA strategy are available on the USCRTF Web site (www.coralreef.gov). The plans put forward by the USCRTF, however, place far too much emphasis on monitoring and mapping and far too little emphasis on abating threats and effectively managing reefs. The focus of research has been to monitor existing conditions rather than to set up applied experiments that would tell us which threats are most critical to tackle. This is not to say that all government research has been worthless. Regular monitoring in the Florida Keys allowed NOAA to understand the alarming “blackwater” event in January 2003 (in which fishermen noticed black water, later found to be a combination of a plankton bloom and tannins, moving from the Everglades toward the reefs) and reassure the public that it was a natural event, because they had several years of monitoring information with which they could hindcast. Similarly, the mapping investment, although too high a priority, has led to some interesting revelations: There are newly discovered reefs in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico that are now on the public’s radar screen, for instance.


2AC Harms: A/T #1 “Private Sector Solves” [1/1]

1. The private sector doesn’t solve the harms of the 1AC. Your evidence just says the private sector has a lot of money and is interested in investing it in innovative technologies. It doesn’t make a conclusive statement that said funds will go toward coral reefs.

2. A robust federal commitment is key – otherwise, states and the private sector will fall back into old habits.

JOCI 2008[The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. “Changing Oceans, Changing World” Ocean Policy Priorities for a New Administration and Congress: Recommendations from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. 2008 //www.floridaoceanalliance.org/documents/JOCI-Transition-Paper.pdf]

America is a nation intrinsically connected to and immensely reliant upon our oceans. In fact, our economy, national security, environment, recreation and health are all dramatically affected by our coasts and oceans. Despite their importance to our everyday lives and well-being, however, we have been neglecting our oceans for decades and ignoring the growing threats from climate change and pollution. The new administration must lead Congress and the states toward immediate action and real solutions to the challenges facing our coasts and Great Lakes, reestablishing the United States as the preeminent steward of ocean health and vitality. Our oceans are in crisis. We must act soon to avoid putting our oceans, health and economy in further jeopardy. Massive coral reef loss, the destruction of coastal wetlands, severe decreases in some major fish populations, an increase in the size and frequency of dead zones and the contamination of seafood are some of the major warning signs. Climate change is further exacerbating the decline of our ocean and coastal economies. Warming temperatures and increased acidity of ocean water is melting Arctic sea ice, accelerating sea level rise and increasing the frequency of coastal storms. Although states and regions have shown leadership in implementing ocean-focused initiatives, their capacity to respond to these challenges is being compromised by the lack of coordination among federal ocean programs, as well as a chronic underfunding of ocean science and management at all levels of government. It is imperative that the next administration pursue a coherent strategy for managing federal ocean programs and substantially increase investment in ocean science so that our public and private leaders have the knowledge and resources necessary to make informed decisions. Finally, given the global scope of ocean problems, and their importance to our national and economic security, it is essential that the United States reclaim its role as a leader in international ocean issues. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative—a bipartisan collaborative effort of the US. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission—makes the following recommendations to catalyze meaningful ocean policy reform. We strongly urge the incoming administration as one of its earliest initiatives to adopt the following agenda for action.


2AC Harms: A/T #2 “Reefs Resilient” [1/1]

1. Coral reefs may be resilient, but that doesn’t make them invincible. Ocean acidification and decades of human exploitation has pushed them to the brink, to the point that their extinction is immanent in the next 30 years – that’s our 1AC Plumer evidence.

2. Coral reefs can no longer be considered resilient – many have already died off, and the rest are in grave danger.

Agardy 2013[Tundi Agardy has a PhD in Biological Sciences and Marine Affairs from the University of Rhode Island and a BA in Biology and Biological Sciences from Wellesley College. She is currently the Executive Director of Sound Seas, a DC-based marine science and policy order group. “America’s Coral Reefs: Awash with Problems” Issues in Science and Technology, November 2013. http://issues.org/20-2/agardy-2/]

Government must acknowledge the magnitude of the crisis and fully engage the scientific and conservation communities in efforts to solve it. America’s coral reefs are in trouble. From the disease-ridden dying reefs of the Florida Keys, to the overfished and denuded reefs of Hawaii and the Virgin Islands, this country’s richest and most valued marine environment continues to decline in size, health, and productivity. How can this be happening to one of our greatest natural treasures? Reefs are important recreational areas for many and are loved even by large portions of the public who have never had the opportunity to see their splendor firsthand. Coral reefs are sometimes referred to as the “rainforests of the sea,” because they teem with life and abound in diversity. But although only a small number of Americans have ever had rainforest experiences, many more have had the opportunity to dive and snorkel in nearshore reef areas. And in contrast to the obscured diversity of the forests, the gaudily colored fish and invertebrates of the reef are there for anyone to see. Once they have seen these treasures, the public becomes transformed from casual observers to strong advocates for their protection. This appeal explains why many zoos have rushed in recent years to display coral reef fishes and habitats, even in inland areas far from the coasts (such as Indianapolis, site of one of the largest of the country’s public aquaria). Coral reefs have local, national, and even global significance. Even when one looks below the surface (pun intended) of the aesthetic appeal of reefs, it is easy to see why these biological communities command such respect. Coral reefs house the bulk of known marine biological diversity on the planet, yet they occur in relatively nutrient-poor waters of the tropics. Nutrient cycling is very efficient on reefs, and complicated predator-prey interactions maintain diversity and productivity. But the fine-tuned and complex nature of reefs may spell their doom: Remove some elements of this interconnected ecosystem, and things begin to unravel. Coral reefs are one of the few marine habitats that undergo disturbance-induced phase shifts: an almost irreversible phenomenon in which diverse reef ecosystems dominated by stony corals dramatically turn into biologically impoverished wastelands overgrown with algae. Worldwide, some 30 percent of reefs have been destroyed in the past few decades, and another 30 to 50 percent are expected to be destroyed in 20 years’ time if current trends continue. In the Caribbean region, where many of the reefs under U.S. jurisdiction can be found, coral cover has been reduced by 80 percent during the past three decades.

http://issues.org/20-2/agardy-2/


2AC Solvency: A/T #1 – “Alternative Causes” [1/1]

1. The plan overcomes the alternative causes – some coral reefs have been harmed by natural events, but the vast majority of the damage is human-induced. The next few decades are crucial, but reefs can be restored to full health with a concentrated effort. That’s our 1AC Plumer evidence.

2. Their argument doesn’t assume the plan. It may be true that there aren’t enough reefs worth saving in the ocean, but mineral accretion technology promotes the creation of new coral reefs. That’s our 1AC Goreau evidence.

3. Mineral accretion technology specifically overcomes natural threats to coral reefs.

Wells et al 2010[Lucy Wells works as Reef Restoration Project Manager for the government of Turks and Caicos Islands. Dr. Fernando Perez has a PhD and is Coastal Environment Engineer for the Department of Environment and Coastal Resources for Turks and Caicos Islands Government. Marlon Hibbert works for the Department of Environment and Coastal Resources for Turks and Caicos Islands Government. Luc Clerveaux is an ecologist based in the UK. Jodi Johnson was an Environmental/Scientific Officer for Turks and Caicos Islands Government. She is now a Protected Areas Manager for the Anguilla National Trust. Thomas J. Goreau is a biogeochemist and marine biologist. He earned degrees in planetary physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in planetary astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, and in biogeochemistry at Harvard University (Ph.D.). He is currently President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. “Effect of severe hurricanes on Biorock Coral Reef Restoration Projects in Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos Islands”, http://www.globalcoral.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Effect-hurricanes-on-Biorock-Coral-Reef-Restoration-Projects.pdf, October 2010]

Artificial reefs are often discouraged in shallow waters over concerns of storm damage to structures and surrounding habitat. Biorock coral reef restoration projects were initiated in waters around 5m deep in Grand Turk, at Oasis (October 2006) and at Governor’s Beach (November 2007). Hemi-cylindrical steel modules, 6m long were used, four modules at Oasis and six at Governor’s Beach. Each project has over 1200 corals transplanted from sites with high sedimentation damage, and are regularly monitored for coral growth, mortality and fish populations. Corals show immediate growth over wires used to attach corals. Growth has been measured from photographs using a software program and is faster at Governor’s Beach. After hurricanes Hanna and Ike (September 2008) the Governor’s Beach structure was fully standing since the waves passed straight through with little damage, the Oasis structures which were tie-wired rather than welded had one module collapse (since been replaced with a new, welded structure). Hurricane Ike was the strongest hurricane on record to hit Grand Turk. Most cables were replaced following the hurricanes due to damage from debris and high wave action. The projects lost about a third of the corals due to hurricanes. Most of those lost had only been wired a few days before and had not yet attached themselves firmly. These projects have regenerated corals and fish populations in areas of barren sand or bedrock and are now attractive to snorkelers. High coral survival and low structural damage after hurricanes indicate that Biorock reef restoration can be effective in storm-impacted areas. Rev. Biol. Trop. 58 (Suppl. 3): 141-149. Epub 2010 October 01.


2AC Solvency: A/T #2 – “Technology Fails” [1/1]

1. The plan’s specific technology is effective. Marine accretion involves using electricity to create coral reefs in safe, easily-monitored areas at a low cost. This is an effective remedy to climate change, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise. That’s our 1AC Goreau evidence.

2. The plan is effective and sufficiently restores coral reef ecosystems.

Goreau and Hilberts 2005[Thomas J. Goreau is a biogeochemist and marine biologist. He earned degrees in planetary physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in planetary astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, and in biogeochemistry at Harvard University (Ph.D.). He is currently President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Wolf Hilbertz was a futurist architect, inventor and marine scientist. At the University of Texas, he founded the Responsive Environments Laboratory. His academic affiliations as an environmental educator and researcher included Southern University, McGill University, the University of the Arts Bremen, and The University of Texas, where he also held an appointment as Sr. Research Scientist in Marine Sciences. He founded the Symbiotic Processes Laboratory (UT). Hilbertz formed and directed The Marine Resources Co., and was Vice President of Research of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. He is called the father of mineral accreation, as he discovered the applications of this science. “Marine Ecosystem Restoration: Costs and Benefits for Coral Reefs” http://www.globalcoral.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/WRR_Goreau_Hilbertz_2005.pdf]

All marine ecosystems are being degraded by human activities. Destructive impacts include over-fishing, introduction of exotic species and parasites, new emerging diseases, chemicals with negative biological impacts, over-fertilization by nutrients from sewage, fertilizers, and wastes, deforestation and soil erosion, global warming, changes in ocean circulation driven by humaninduced climate change, and destruction of coral reefs and oyster reefs that create habitat for the richest marine ecosystems and wave-resistant barriers that protect coastlines. Coral reefs, the most vulnerable ecosystem to global warming and reduced coastal water quality, are rapidly vanishing worldwide, causing serious damage to biodiversity, fisheries, tourism, sand supplies, and coastal protection in over 100 countries. The sources of negative impacts are highly diverse, widespread, geographically remote from the ecosystems affected, and closely linked to population densities and fundamental economic activities (like energy use, industry, agriculture, land management, waste disposal, and fisheries). Unless they are all abated simultaneously there is little possibility for critical marine ecosystems and species to recover naturally. Therefore active global ecosystem restoration strategies are urgently needed to prevent crippling economic losses to marine biodiversity, fisheries, tourism, and coastal resources. Conventional reef restoration methods fail when water quality deteriorates or temperatures increase. Biorock electrolytic technology uniquely maintains healthy coral and fish populations under high temperatures and reduced water quality that are normally fatal. Low voltage direct electrical current provides calcareous substrate for corals (or oysters) to settle on and gives coral energy to grow it's skeleton, leaving the coral with more metabolic energy for growth, reproduction, and resisting environmental stress. Reefs can be restored in locations where they can no longer grow due to global warming and pollution, helping rebuild fisheries and protecting coastlines from erosion from sea level rise and increasing storm strength. Biorock methods are the best hope for preserving coral reef ecosystems, managing reef fisheries sustainably, and protecting tropical coastlines from erosion by accelerating global warming, sea level rise, emerging diseases, watershed erosion, coastal pollution, and eutrophication threats. Estimated costs for

http://www.globalcoral.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/WRR_Goreau_Hilbertz_2005.pdf

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFFglobally comprehensive emergency rescue operations are shown to be far cheaper than alternative restoration methods or "letting nature take its course".


2AC Solvency: A/T #3 – “Discourse Fails” [1/2]

1. Our method is effective. The plan shifts ocean policy away from status quo anthropocentrism toward a more sustainable biocentrism in which coral reefs are valued NOT because they help humans but as a result of their innate importance. Even if the plan isn’t effective, the 1AC’s presenting importance knowledge about coral reefs and ocean acidification was meaningful and creates the conditions necessary to achieve real change. That’s our 1AC Needham and Shipley evidence.

2. Presenting the harms of the 1AC in existential terms was productive – discussing the magnitude of coral reef extinction is necessary to spur action.

Romm 2012[Joseph. Fellow at American Progress and the Founding Editor of Climate Progress. “Apocalypse Not: The Oscars, the Media, and the Myth of ‘Constant Repetition of Doomsday Messages’ on Climate” 2/26/12 http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/26/432546/apocalypse-not-oscars-media-myth-of-repetition-of-doomsday-messages-on-climate/#more-432546]

The two greatest myths about global warming communications are 1) constant repetition of doomsday messages has been a major, ongoing strategy and 2) that strategy doesn’t work and indeed is actually counterproductive!¶ These myths are so deeply ingrained in the environmental and progressive political community that when we finally had a serious shot at a climate bill, the powers that be decided not to focus on the threat posed by climate change in any serious fashion in their $200 million communications effort (see my 6/10 post “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?“). These myths are so deeply ingrained in the mainstream media that such messaging, when it is tried, is routinely attacked and denounced — and the flimsiest studies are interpreted exactly backwards to drive the erroneous message home (see “Dire straits: Media blows the story of UC Berkeley study on climate messaging“)¶ The only time anything approximating this kind of messaging — not “doomsday” but what I’d call blunt, science-based messaging that also makes clear the problem is solvable — was in 2006 and 2007 with the release of An Inconvenient Truth (and the 4 assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and media coverage like the April 2006 cover of Time). The data suggest that strategy measurably moved the public to become more concerned about the threat posed by global warming (see recent study here).¶ You’d think it would be pretty obvious that the public is not going to be concerned about an issue unless one explains why they should be concerned about an issue. And the social science literature, including the vast literature on advertising and marketing, could not be clearer that only repeated messages have any chance of sinking in and moving the needle.¶ Because I doubt any serious movement of public opinion or mobilization of political action could possibly occur until these myths are shattered, I’ll do a multipart series on this subject, featuring public opinion analysis, quotes by leading experts, and the latest social science research.¶ Since this is Oscar night, though, it seems appropriate to start by looking at what messages the public are exposed to in popular culture and the media. It ain’t doomsday. Quite the reverse, climate change has been mostly an invisible issue for several years and the message of conspicuous consumption and business-as-usual reigns supreme.¶ The motivation for this post actually came up because I received an e-mail from a journalist commenting that the “constant repetition of doomsday messages” doesn’t work as a messaging strategy. I had to demur, for the reasons noted above.¶ But it did get me thinking about what messages the public are exposed to, especially as I’ve been rushing to see the movies nominated for Best

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/26/432546/apocalypse-not-oscars-media-myth-of-repetition-of-doomsday-messages-on-climate/#more-432546

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/26/432546/apocalypse-not-oscars-media-myth-of-repetition-of-doomsday-messages-on-climate/#more-432546

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFFPicture this year. I am a huge movie buff, but as parents of 5-year-olds know, it isn’t easy to stay up with the latest movies.¶ That said, good luck finding a popular movie in recent years that even touches on climate change, let alone one a popular one that would pass for doomsday messaging. Best Picture nominee The Tree of Life has been billed as an environmental movie — and even shown at environmental film festivals — but while it is certainly depressing, climate-related it ain’t. In fact, if that is truly someone’s idea of environmental movie, count me out.


2AC Solvency: A/T #3 – “Discourse Fails” [2/2]

Romm continues, no text deleted…The closest to a genuine popular climate movie was the dreadfully unscientific The Day After Tomorrow, which is from 2004 (and arguably set back the messaging effort by putting the absurd “global cooling” notion in people’s heads! Even Avatar, the most successful movie of all time and “the most epic piece of environmental advocacy ever captured on celluloid,” as one producer put it, omits the climate doomsday message. One of my favorite eco-movies, “Wall-E, is an eco-dystopian gem and an anti-consumption movie,” but it isn’t a climate movie.¶ I will be interested to see The Hunger Games, but I’ve read all 3 of the bestselling post-apocalyptic young adult novels — hey, that’s my job! — and they don’t qualify as climate change doomsday messaging (more on that later). So, no, the movies certainly don’t expose the public to constant doomsday messages on climate. Here are the key points about what repeated messages the American public is exposed to:¶ The broad American public is exposed to virtually no doomsday messages, let alone constant ones, on climate change in popular culture (TV and the movies and even online). There is not one single TV show on any network devoted to this subject, which is, arguably, more consequential than any other preventable issue we face.¶ The same goes for the news media, whose coverage of climate change has collapsed (see “Network News Coverage of Climate Change Collapsed in 2011“). When the media do cover climate change in recent years, the overwhelming majority of coverage is devoid of any doomsday messages — and many outlets still feature hard-core deniers. Just imagine what the public’s view of climate would be if it got the same coverage as, say, unemployment, the housing crisis or even the deficit? When was the last time you saw an “employment denier” quoted on TV or in a newspaper?¶ The public is exposed to constant messages promoting business as usual and indeed idolizing conspicuous consumption. See, for instance, “Breaking: The earth is breaking … but how about that Royal Wedding?¶ Our political elite and intelligentsia, including MSM pundits and the supposedly “liberal media” like, say, MSNBC, hardly even talk about climate change and when they do, it isn’t doomsday. Indeed, there isn’t even a single national columnist for a major media outlet who writes primarily on climate. Most “liberal” columnists rarely mention it.¶ At least a quarter of the public chooses media that devote a vast amount of time to the notion that global warming is a hoax and that environmentalists are extremists and that clean energy is a joke. In the MSM, conservative pundits routinely trash climate science and mock clean energy. Just listen to, say, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe mock clean energy sometime.¶ The major energy companies bombard the airwaves with millions and millions of dollars of repetitious pro-fossil-fuel ads. The environmentalists spend far, far less money. As noted above, the one time they did run a major campaign to push a climate bill, they and their political allies including the president explicitly did NOT talk much about climate change, particularly doomsday messaging¶ Environmentalists when they do appear in popular culture, especially TV, are routinely mocked.¶ There is very little mass communication of doomsday messages online. Check out the most popular websites. General silence on the subject, and again, what coverage there is ain’t doomsday messaging. Go to the front page of the (moderately trafficked) environmental websites. Where is the doomsday?¶ If you want to find anything approximating even modest, blunt, science-based messaging built around the scientific literature, interviews with actual climate scientists and a clear statement that we can solve this problem — well, you’ve all found it, of course, but the only people who see it are those who go looking for it.¶ Of course, this blog is not even aimed at the general public. Probably 99% of Americans haven’t even seen one of my headlines and 99.7% haven’t read one of my climate science posts. And Climate Progress is probably the most widely read, quoted, and reposted climate science blog in the world.¶ Anyone dropping into America from another country or another planet who started following popular culture and

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFFthe news the way the overwhelming majority of Americans do would get the distinct impression that nobody who matters is terribly worried about climate change. And, of course, they’d be right — see “The failed presidency of Barack Obama, Part 2.”¶ It is total BS that somehow the American public has been scared and overwhelmed by repeated doomsday messaging into some sort of climate fatigue. If the public’s concern has dropped — and public opinion analysis suggests it has dropped several percent (though is bouncing back a tad) — that is primarily due to the conservative media’s disinformation campaign impact on Tea Party conservatives and to the treatment of this as a nonissue by most of the rest of the media, intelligentsia and popular culture.

Coral Reef Exploration Affirmative - CDL 2014

Documents