Ocean Acidification Affirmative - UTNIF 2014

1AC

Contention I: The Environment

Anthropogenic processes are causing ocean pH to increase 150% by 2100 – coordinated research and monitoring is a prerequisite to effective management strategiesSomero, Chair of the Committee on the Review of the National Ocean Acidification, et al. 2013 (GEORGE N. SOMERO, Stanford University, California, JAMES P. BARRY, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California, ANDREW G. DICKSON, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California, JEAN-PIERRE GATTUSO, CNRS-Pierre and Marie Curie University, France, MARION GEHLEN, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de L’Environnement, France, JOAN (JOANIE) A. KLEYPAS, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, CHRIS LANGDON, University of Miami, RSMAS, Florida CINDY LEE, Stony Brook University, New York EDWARD L. MILES, University of Washington, JAMES SANCHIRICO, University of California, Davis, “REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL OCEAN ACIDIFICATION RESEARCH AND MONITORING PLAN”, National academies press, Accessed 7/20/14)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are currently approaching 395 ppm, a value that is 40% higher than those of the preindustrial period and exceeds CO levels of at least the past 800,000 years. Perhaps more significant is the rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, a rate that is unprecedented over the last 55 million years of the Earth’s history. The ocean plays a critical role in governing atmo- spheric CO2 levels. By absorbing a substantial share of the CO2 released through varied human activities, the ocean reduces atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas and thus moderates human-induced climate change. However, this beneficial effect of CO2 uptake by the ocean has resulted in potentially damaging consequences due to a lowering of ocean pH and related changes in ocean carbonate chemistry, collectively known as “ocean acidification.”¶ Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century, the average pH of the upper ocean has decreased by about 0.1 pH unit, corresponding to an approximately 30% rise in acidity, and is projected to decrease by an additional 0.3 to 0.4 units by the end of this century, corresponding to a 100 to 150% rise in acidity since preindustrial times. The current and expected magnitude and rate of ocean acidification argue for an expeditious and detailed investigation of ocean acidification and its associated impacts on ecosystems and natural resources. Additional environmental stressors—such as rising temperatures and decreases in dissolved oxygen—that may exacerbate the effects of acidification on marine organisms further highlight the urgency of this challenge. In particular, understanding the effects of ocean acidification requires research on the changes in the chemical composition of seawater; the direct and indirect influences of ocean acidification on chemical, biological, and eco- logical processes; socioeconomic impacts; and the capacities of biological systems and human societies to adapt to the challenges arising from ocean acidification. This requires a multi-focused yet coordinated program that integrates knowledge about ocean acidification across the natural, social and economic sciences to provide a foundation for predicting the future consequences of acidification and for development of effective strategies to address these consequences.

Scenario A is Climate Change

Ocean acidification functions as a positive feedback loop – destruction of phytoplankton reduces the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, substantially accelerating warming and disrupting the sulfur cycleSix, et. Al, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, 2012(Katharina D., Silvia Kloster, Tatiana Ilyina, Stephen Archer, Kai Zhang, Ernst Maier-Reimar, “Global Warming Amplified by Reduced Sulphur Fluxes as a Result of Ocean Acidification,” online: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate1981.html)

Climate change and decreasing seawater pH (ocean acidification)1 have widely been considered as uncoupled consequences of the anthropogenic CO2 perturbation 2, 3. Recently, experiments in seawater enclosures (mesocosms) showed that concentrations of dimethylsulphide (DMS), a biogenic sulphur compound, were markedly lower in a low-pH environment4. Marine DMS emissions are the largest natural source of atmospheric sulphur5 and changes in their strength have the potential to alter the Earth’s radiation budget6. Here we establish observational-based relationships between pH changes and DMS concentrations to estimate changes in future DMS emissions with Earth system model7 climate simulations. Global DMS emissions decrease by about 18(±3)% in 2100 compared with pre- industrial times as a result of the combined effects of ocean acidification and climate change. The reduced DMS emissions induce a significant additional radiative forcing, of which 83% is attributed to the impact of ocean acidification, tantamount to an equilibrium temperature response between 0.23 and 0.48 K. Our results indicate that ocean acidification has the

potential to exacerbate anthropogenic warming through a mechanism that is not considered at present in projections of future climate change.Impacts of climate change on marine biology and, thus, initiated potential feedback mechanisms on climate-relevant processes in the atmosphere are considered to be among the greatest unknowns in our understanding of future climate evolutions. Recently, ocean acidification has been identified as a potential source of biologically induced impacts on climate1. The continuous uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide by the oceans changes the chemical composition of the marine environment and lowers the seawater pH. Today’s mean surface pH values are already reduced by 0.1 units compared with preindustrial times 1 and future projections for the end of the twenty-first century give local decreases of up to 0.5 units8. As marine biota have not been exposed to such drastic pH changes over the past 300 million years9, multifarious impacts on biogenic cycles are conceivable.In mesocosm studies10 it was observed that DMS, a by-product of phytoplankton production, showed significantly lower concentrations in water with low pH (ref. 4). When DMS is emitted to the atmosphere its oxidation products include gas-phase sulphuric acid, which can condense onto aerosol particles or nucleate to form new particles, impacting cloud condensation nuclei that, in turn, change cloud albedo and longevity11. As oceanic DMS emissions constitute the largest natural source of atmospheric sulphur 6 , changes in DMS

could affect the radiative balance and alter the heat budget of the atmosphere 12.The main focus here is to investigate the climate impact of a decrease in global marine DMS emissions that might result from the exposure of marine biota to significant pH changes induced by ocean acidification. To address this question we apply a series of models. We use the Earth system model (ESM) of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology7 (MPI-ESM), which combines general circulation models of the atmosphere and the ocean. The ocean model comprises a biogeochemical module13 that includes a parameterization of the marine sulphur

cycle14, 15(Methods). The global pattern of present-day simulated DMS concentration of MPI-ESM agrees quite well with an observation-based climatology16 (Supplementary Fig. S1). Note that in the MPI-ESM, DMS emissions do not have an impact on climate. To quantify the potential climate impact of altered marine sulphur fluxes, we carried out simulations with a standalone version of the atmospheric circulation model that includes sulphur chemistry and aerosol microphysics17, 18(Methods).With the MPI-ESM we run simulations with anthropogenic forcing following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC SRES) A1B scenario19 for the period from 1860 to 2100. Model experiments consist of a set of runs including pH-sensitive DMS production and one reference run with no pH-change implications on the marine sulphur cycle (Supplementary Information).The key function here is the dependence of DMS concentration on seawater pH. In various mesocosm and laboratory microcosm experiments a tendency for decreasing DMS concentrations with decreasing pH has been observed20. In contrast to these findings, one study showed a DMS increase with decreasing pH, which was attributed to an enhanced grazing pressure due to a community shift20. Recent data from a large mesocosm experiment in 2010 in polar waters of Svalbard, Norway, support a DMS decrease in acidified water21. To establish functions describing the dependency of the DMS production on pH we average these Svalbard data for the mid-phase after nutrient addition and for the whole period of the experiment (Fig. 1; for details see ref. 21). The DMS concentrations for the mid-phase show, to first order, a linear decrease with lower concentrations of approximately 35(±11%) between a pH range of 8.3 and 7.7 (pCO2 of 190–750 parts per million by volume)21. Averaged values for the whole experiment are still 12(±13%) lower for the same pH range. Furthermore, results from mesocosm studies carried out in temperate water of a Norwegian fjord in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006 imply a much stronger sensitivity of DMS concentration on decreasing pH (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table S1). By basing our approach on the results from mesocosm experiments our intention is to encompass the variety of biological processes that govern net DMS production. Nonetheless, we note that the level of understanding of the processes behind the response of DMS to ocean acidification is hitherto very poor4, 21, 22. Furthermore, establishing a consistent response among mesocosm studies is confounded by considerable differences in the experimental set-ups that have been used, including: volumes of seawater enclosed; method used to alter acidity of the sea water; and the stability of the pH values over time (Supplementary Information).From Fig. 1 we derive a relationship, F, to modify the DMS production rate (Supplementary Equation S2) with F = 1+(pHact−pHpre)·γ. The monthly mean climatological surface pH value, pHpre, was obtained from the first ten years of the reference run (1860–1869) and pHact is the present in situ pH value. The multiplicative factor γ denotes the gradient of the linear fit for each data set: the whole Svalbard experiment with a low γ = 0.25; the mid-phase with a medium γ = 0.58; the three years measurements in a Norwegian fjord with a high γ = 0.87 gradient (Fig. 1). We carry out three studies applying the low, medium and high sensitivity of DMS on pH changes to evaluate the uncertainties underlying our assumption. In the following we focus our discussion on the results for the medium-pH-sensitive experiment.Annual mean pHact decreases during the simulation following the increase of anthropogenic CO2storage in the ocean. The annual mean pH reduction varies regionally between 0.25 and 0.4 units in 2100 as compared with the 1860s (Fig. 2a). Higher latitudes, known to absorb significant amounts of anthropogenic CO2, show a stronger pH reduction up to 0.5 units.Besides a potential pH sensitivity, the main drivers of the marine DMS cycle are the net primary production, or more precisely the decay of organic matter, and the plankton composition

(Supplementary Information). Any change to these quantities will directly affect the DMS concentration. We find that the global net primary production and export production of detritus decrease globally by about 16% from 1860 to 2100 (Table 1 and Fig. 2d). These changes are attributed to an increased stratification of the water column due to climate warming, which leads to a reduction in nutrient supply to surface layers23. In almost all ocean regions a decrease in biological production is projected; only in polar regions does the retreat of sea ice lead to an increased phytoplankton growth and a small increase in net primary and export production (Fig. 2d). The increased water-column stratification also reduces the supply of silicate to the surface layers, which causes a plankton community shift towards calcifiers, that is, towards high-DMS-producing plankton species, in some areas (Supplementary Fig. S2). Globally, the DMS production is decreased by 12% in 2100 in the reference run (Fig. 2b). The reference run and the pH-sensitive runs produce basically the same global patterns and global annual mean fluxes for net primary and export production and result in similar plankton composition because the physical circulation fields are identical (Table 1). In contrast, we find a substantial decrease by 26% in DMS production in the medium-pH-sensitive run by 2100 (Fig. 2e). Even regions in which biological production is projected to increase, such as the Southern Ocean at 60° S, show a reduction in the DMS production due to the significant decrease of seawater pH (Fig. 2a).Changes in the DMS production are not uniformly transferred to changes in the DMS sea-to-air flux (Fig. 2c,f). The global annual DMS emissions in the reference run decrease from 29 Tg S to 27 Tg S from 1860 to 2100 representing only a 7% reduction. For the medium-pH-sensitive run the global annual DMS emissions drop from 29 Tg S to 23.8 Tg S (−17%). The low-pH-sensitive experiment results in a 12% and the high one in a 24% decrease in DMS emission; thus, we find a linear response of DMS emission to the change of the multiplicative factor γ (Table 1). The relatively smaller reduction of the DMS emission compared with the DMS production in all experiments can be explained by a shift of high-DMS-producing areas into ocean regions with higher wind speeds, which allows for a more effective DMS gas transfer to the atmosphere.Incorporating the pH-induced decrease in DMS emissions in a standalone atmospheric circulation model that includes sulphur chemistry and aerosol-cloud mircophysics18 (Methods) leads to a positive global mean top-of-the-atmosphere radiative forcing (Table 1). In the reference run the global radiative forcing is small (0.08 W m−2). For the medium-pH-sensitive run a global radiative forcing of 0.48 W m−2 is simulated. Subtracting the contribution owing to climate change as deduced from the reference run, we get an additional radiative forcing of 0.40 W m−2 from the impact of pH on DMS. The low- and high-pH-sensitive runs project an additional global radiative forcing of 0.18 and 0.64 W m−2, respectively. The strongest positive radiative forcing is located in the latitudinal bands around 40° in both hemispheres in areas in which DMS emissions were reduced significantly (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. S3). Consistently, areas with increased DMS emission such as the remote polar oceans show a negative radiative forcing. The subtropical gyre in the South Pacific is also an area with increased DMS emission, but there is no detectable signal in the radiative forcing pattern (Supplementary Fig. S3). This apparent contradiction emphazises that nonlinear processes associated with aerosol chemistry, cloud microphysics and cloud-dynamical adjustments may play an important role in regulating the climate response to regional DMS emission changes as shown by other model studies24, 25.It is interesting to note that the impact of the pH-induced DMS emission changes on radiative forcing varies little when different anthropogenic background aerosol emissions are applied. We carried out a set of additional runs with a medium pH sensitivity and anthropogenic aerosol emissions, representative of the year 2000 or a Representative Concentration Pathway

projection26 for the year 2100. We found a mean radiative forcing of 0.50±0.03 W m−2 for this set of experiments (Supplementary Information).Our result of an additional radiative forcing of 0.40 W m−2 for the medium-pH-sensitive run can be compared with the radiative forcing of 3.71 W m−2 that is estimated for a CO2 doubling19. The significance of our result might become clearer if we convert the signal into a temperature response: by applying an equilibrium climate sensitivity given for a CO2 doubling of 2.1–4.4 K (ref. 19) we diagnose an additional equilibrium temperature response between +0.23 and +0.48 K for the medium-pH-sensitive run (from +0.1 to +0.76 K including low and high runs).To our knowledge we are the first to highlight the potential climate impact due to changes in the global sulphur cycle triggered by ocean acidification. We find that even in a future CO2 emission scenario as moderate as the IPCC SRES A1B, pH changes in sea water are large enough to significantly reduce marine DMS emissions by the end of the twenty-first century, causing an additional radiative forcing of 0.40 W m−2. This would be tantamount to a 10% additional increase of the radiative forcing estimated for a doubling of CO2. Our result emphasizes that this potential climate impact mechanism of ocean acidification should be considered in

projections of future climate change . Additional sensitivity experiments show this result varies little with regard to the anthropogenic aerosol background emission. However, a fully coupled transient climate run would be necessary to account for possible feedbacks between ocean acidification and aerosol emissions. Owing to the nonlinear atmospheric response to changes in DMS emissions the projected temperature increase could be amplified if the Earth system faces a higher CO2 emission scenario or a higher sensitivity of DMS on pH changes. Furthermore, ocean acidification might additionally have other impacts on marine biota that may provoke further reductions in marine DMS emission27. Progress in understanding the sensitivity of pelagic plankton communities to ocean acidification is required to reduce uncertainties in the effects of non-CO2 climate-relevant gases in future climate projections.

Independently, phytoplankton loss causes extinction – collapses ecoysystems and we need them to breatheWestenskow, UPI Correspondent, 2008(Rosalie, “Acidic Oceans may tangle food chain, http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/06/06/Acidic_oceans_may_tangle_food_chain/UPI-84651212763771/print/)

Although most of the concern about carbon emissions has focused on the atmosphere and resulting temperature changes, accumulation of carbon dioxide in the ocean also could have disturbing outcomes, experts said at the hearing, which examined legislation that would create a program to study how the ocean responds to increased carbon levels.Ocean surface waters quickly absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so as carbon concentrations rise in the skies, they also skyrocket in the watery depths that cover almost 70 percent of the planet. As carbon dioxide increases in oceans, the acidity of the water also rises, and this change could affect a wide variety of organisms, said Scott Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a non-profit research institute based in Woods Hole, Mass."Greater acidity slows the growth or even dissolves ocean plant and animal shells built from calcium carbonate," Doney told representatives in the House Committee on Energy and the

Environment. "Acidification thus threatens a wide range of marine organisms, from microscopic plankton and shellfish to massive coral reefs."If small organisms, like phytoplankton, are knocked out by acidity, the ripples would be far-reaching, said David Adamec, head of ocean sciences at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."If the amount of phytoplankton is reduced, you reduce the amount of photosynthesis going on in the ocean," Adamec told United Press International. "Those little guys are responsible for half of the oxygen you're breathing right now."A hit to microscopic organisms can also bring down a whole food chain. For instance, several years ago, an El Nino event wiped out the phytoplankton near the Galapagos Islands. That year, juvenile bird and seal populations almost disappeared. If ocean acidity stunted phytoplankton populations like the El Nino did that year, a similar result would occur -- but it would last for much longer than one year, potentially leading to extinction for some species, Adamec said.

Sulfur cycle disruption causes extinctionAyres, Center for Management and Environmental Resources, INSEAD, 1997(Robert U., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2, p. 107, “Integrated Assessment of the Grand Nutrient Cycles,” online: “http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/865/art%253A10.1023%252FA%253A1019057210374.pdf?auth66=1406078982_0b279f7c7b35b8a5eacb2eed233079ec&ext=.pdf)

There are four major elements that are required by the biosphere in significantly greater quantities than they are available in nature. These four are carbon (C), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and phosphorus (P). (Hydrogen and oxygen, the other two major ingredients of organic materials, are not scarce in the earth’s crust, though oxygen is also recycled along with carbon.) These natural cycles are driven¶ by geological, hydrological, atmospheric and biological processes. In effect, the geo-biosphere is a dissipative system (in the sense of¶ Prigogine) in a quasi steady state, far from thermodynamic equilibrium. This steady state is maintained by the influx of solar energy. Interruption or disturbance of these natural cycles as a consequence of human industrial/economic activity could adversely affect¶ the stability of the biosphere, and might possibly reduce its productivity. Indeed, because the more complex long-lived organisms such¶ as large mammals (including man), birds and even trees evolve more slowly than smaller short-lived organisms, the very nature of an¶ altered steady state might not be favorable to many existing species. Thus there is even a potential threat to human survival itself.

Unfortunately, the interactions among these cycles have received relatively little attention up to now.

Acidification prevents oceans from absorbing CO2, accelerating climate changeDevic 2014 (Magali, Associate at the Women’s Council on Energy and the Environment, “REDUCTIONS IN OCEANS' UPTAKE CAPACITY COULD SPEED UP GLOBAL WARMING”, March 18 2014, http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/ocean-uptake-climate-change.html, Accessed 7/21/14 //CM)

The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans. In June 2005, The Royal Society (the United Kingdom's National Academy of Science) released a report analyzing the impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean acidification. Surface oceans have an average pH globally of about 8.2 units. Carbon emissions in the atmosphere have lowered the ocean pH , increasing the acidity of the ocean by 30 percent in the last 100 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA also projects that, by the end of the century, current levels of carbon dioxide emissions could result in the lowest levels of ocean pH in 20 million years. A balanced pH is vital in order to maintain

water quality favorable to marine life and in order to keep the ocean serving as a "carbon

reservoir." If the oceans become too acidic, the shells of animals such as scallops, clams, crabs, plankton and corals are immediately threatened.¶ Although studies into the impacts of high concentrations of CO2 in the oceans are still in their infancy, evidence indicates that reduced ocean carbon uptake is starting to occur and that this poses a serious hazard

because this is likely to speed up global warming , as occurred when this type of feedback was initiated during the early warming stages of previous interglacials On October 16th 2007, the US Senate passed a provision proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to Protect Oceans from Acidification. The legislation, co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would focus more research attention on ocean acidification, which threatens marine life and the fishing industry.¶

Both the trends in ocean acidification and CO2 absorption will have very large implications , perhaps comparable to the potential impacts of more rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Moreover, reduced CO2 absorption by the oceans could accelerate warming greatly, pushing the climate toward a more precipitous melting of the Greenland ice sheet.¶ The recent developments give heightened urgency to our having a grasp of the ocean acidification and CO2 absorption trends. Although research and resources aiming at monitoring oceans should be drastically enhanced to fully understand the various consequences that will bring about anthropogenic Co2 emissions, there is cause for great concern over the threat carbon dioxide poses for the health of our oceans.

Addressing positive feedback loops is the key internal link to warming – they contribute to temperature increases and warming solutions won’t work without addressing them firstLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2006(“Feedback Loops in Global Cimate Change Point to a Very Hot 21st Century,” Published in Science Daily, online: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm)

Using as a source the Vostok ice core, which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the principal greenhouse gases, that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on.“The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think,” said Margaret Torn, who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth

Sciences Division, and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. She and John Harte, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources, have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming, which appears in the May, 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities.“If the past is any guide, then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, it will alter earth system processes, resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming,” said Torn.Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems, and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions, and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences, including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving.In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte provide an answer to those who have argued that uncertainties in climate change models make it equally possible that future temperature increases could as be smaller or larger than what is feared. This argument has been based on assumptions about the uncertainties in climate prediction.However, in their GRL paper, Torn and Harte conclude that: “A rigorous investigation of the uncertainties in climate change prediction reveals that there is a higher risk that we will experience more severe, not less severe, climate change than is currently forecast.”Serious scientific debate about global warming has ended, but the process of refining and improving climate models – called general circulation models or GCMs - is ongoing. Current GCMs project temperature increases at the end of this century based on greenhouse gas emissions scenarios due to anthropogenic activities. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, has already climbed from a pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm today, causing a rise in global temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. The expectations are for atmospheric carbon dioxide to soar beyond 550 ppm by 2100 unless major changes in energy supply and demand are implemented.Concerning as these projection are, they do not take into account additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane released when rising temperatures trigger ecological and chemical responses, such as warmer oceans giving off more carbon dioxide, or warmer soils decomposing faster, liberating ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. The problem has been an inability to quantify the impact of Nature’s responses in the face of overwhelming anthropogenic input. Torn and Harte were able to provide this critical information by examining the paleo data stored in ancient ice cores.“Paleo data can provide us with an estimate of the greenhouse gas increases that are a natural consequence of global warming,” said Torn. “In the absence of human activity, these greenhouse gas increases are the dominant feedback mechanism.”In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core, scientists have known that cyclic variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. However, the magnitude of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight

alone. Instead, large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming.Using deuterium-corrected temperature records for the ice cores, which yield hemispheric rather than local temperature conditions, GCM climate sensitivity, and a mathematical formula for quantifying feedback effects, Torn and Harte calculated the magnitude of the greenhouse gas-temperature feedback on temperature.“Our results reinforce the fact that every bit of greenhouse gas we put into the atmosphere now is committing us to higher global temperatures in the future and we are already near the highest temperatures of the past 700,000 years,” Torn said. “At this point, mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is absolutely critical.”The feedback loop from greenhouse gas concentrations also has a reverse effect, the authors state, in that reduced atmospheric levels can enhance the cooling of global temperatures. This presents at least the possibility of extra rewards if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere could be rolled back, but the challenge is great as Harte explained.“If we reduce emissions so much that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide actually starts to come down and the global temperature also starts to decrease, then the feedback would work for us and speed the recovery,” Harte said. “However, if we reduce emissions by an amount that greatly reduces the rate at which the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere increases, but don't cut emissions back to the point where the carbon dioxide level actually decreases, then the positive feedback still works against us.”

These feedback loops have a meaningful effect – even a 2 degree rise in global temperatures causes catastrophic changesParry, LiveScience writer, 2011(Wynne, “2 degrees of warming a recipe for disaster, NASA scientist says,” online: http://www.livescience.com/17340-agu-climate-sensitivity-nasa-hansen.html)

SAN FRANCISCO — The target set by nations in global warming talks won't prevent the devastating effects of global warming, according to climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.The history of ancient climate changes, which occurred over millions of years in the planet's history as it moved in and out of ice ages, offers the best insight into how humans' greenhouse gas emissions will alter the planet, Hansen said here today (Dec. 6) at the annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting. And his research suggests the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than had been suspected."What the paleoclimate record tells us is that the dangerous level of global warming is less than what we thought a few years ago," Hansen said. "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for 2 degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term

disaster."Hansen is referring to the goal set by climate negotiators in Copenhagen in 2009 to keep the increase in the average global temperature below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). That cap was put in place as a means to avoid the most devastating effects of global warming. [How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth]However, signs of changes that will exacerbate the situation, such as the loss of ice sheets that will raise sea level and change how much sunlight is reflected off the planet's surface, are already appearing, according to Hansen.

Two degrees of warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic and sea-level rise in the tens of meters, Hansen told LiveScience. "We can't say how long that will take, [but]it’s clear it's a different planet."Climate negotiators, currently gathered in Durban, South Africa, are working with that 2-degree goal, trying to figure out ways to meet it.If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unabated, the Earth's temperature is expected to increase by about 5.4 degrees F (3 degrees C) thanks to short-term effects, such as an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere and changes in cloud cover , which will amplify or weaken the temperature increase. But this is only a small piece of the warming that is expected, according to Hansen's research.Some fast-feedback effects show up within decades, and some of these show up only when other parts of the system , particularly the oceans, which warm slowly, catch up with atmospheric warming. This can take centuries.There are also slow-feedback effects that are expected to amplify global warming, particularly, the melting of ice sheets. The darker ground beneath the ice and the meltwater that pools on top of it absorbs more sunlight, warming the planet even more.

Warming will cause extinction – a single feedback loop could be the difference between life and death for the entire planetAhmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development at Brunel University, 2010(Nafeez Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development, professor of International Relations and globalization at Brunel University and the University of Sussex, Spring/Summer 2010, “Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises,” Spotlight on Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, online)Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which warned that at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel emissions, the earth’s global average temperature would likely rise by 6°C by the end of the 21st century creating a largely uninhabitable planet – was a wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the pretensions of ‘climate sceptics,’ the peer-reviewed scientific literature has continued to produce evidence that the IPCC’s original scenarios were wrong – not because they were too alarmist, but on the contrary, because they were far too conservative. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, current CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by the IPCC. This implies that the IPCC’s worst-case six-degree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate trajectory under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2°C rise in global average temperatures under an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit – beyond which further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changes that, in turn, could tip the whole earth climate system into a process of irreversible, runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with the level of greenhouse gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact far lower. James Hansen , director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for CO2 emissions is 350 ppm: “If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”[ix] A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to

explore the role of positive-feedback mechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warming process. Emissions beyond 350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic permafrost triggering massive methane injections into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the loss of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the momentous release of billions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in the earth’s soil leading to further huge releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these feedback sub-systems alone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effects that could tip the whole earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent studies now estimate that the continuation of business-as-usual would lead to global warming of three to four degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible, catastrophic impacts; and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end of the century – a situation endangering the survival of all life on

earth .[ xi]

Climate change creates global instability, poverty, hunger, disease, migration, and mass death; breaking down traditionally constraining institutions and acting as a threat multiplierSawin, Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute, 2012 (Janet, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77)

As early as 1988, scientists cautioned that human tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to "an unintended, uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." Since then, hundreds of scientific studies have documented ever-mounting evidence that human activities are altering the climate around the world. A growing number of international leaders now warn that climate change is, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, "the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism." Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security. Droughts, famines, and weather-related disasters could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations, fomenting diplomatic and

trade disputes . In the worst case, further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems and elevate already-rising sea levels, which could threaten the very survival of low-lying island nations, destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance , and incite violent conflict. Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on which humans and other species depend. And these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears. Mountain glaciers are shrinking at ever-faster rates, threatening water supplies for millions of people and plant and animal species. Average global sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters (8-10 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. A recent report by the International Climate Change

Taskforce, co-chaired by Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet faces." It warns that if average global temperatures increase more than two degrees Celsius—which will likely occur in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return," where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change. Existing threats to security will be amplified as climate change has increasing impacts on regional water supplies, agricultural productivity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, financial flows and economies, and patterns of international migration. Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through increased storms, droughts, disease, and other stressors. Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor. This, in turn, could lead to military confrontations over distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime. ► Rising temperatures, droughts, and floods, and the increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already limited global food supply, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal unrest or the use of food as a weapon. Even the modest warming experienced to date has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity, with a 10 percent decrease in corn yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming. ► Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate. Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and resources.

Scenario B is Biodiversity

Ocean acidification undermines biodiversity – creates algae blooms that release toxins, crushing entire ecosystemsMoore, PhD and research scientist, 2013 (Stephanie Moore [earned her Ph.D. from the University of New South Wales, Australia, in 2005. She then completed her post-doctoral training with the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and the School of Oceanography (2005-2008). She is currently a research scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and visiting scientist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center.], “Impacts of Climate Change on the Occurrence of Harmful Algal Blooms”, May 2013, Online: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/climatehabs.pdf)Climate change is predicted to change many environmental conditions that could affect the natural properties of fresh and marine waters both in the US and worldwide. Changes in these factors could favor the growth of harmful algal blooms and habitat changes such that marine

HABs can invade and occur in freshwater. An increase in the occurrence and intensity of harmful algal blooms may negatively impact the environment, human health, and the economy for communities across the US and around the world. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide climate change researchers and decision–makers a summary of the potential impacts of climate change on harmful algal blooms in freshwater and marine ecosystems. Although much of the evidence presented in this fact sheet suggests that the problem of harmful algal blooms may worsen under future climate scenarios, further research is needed to better understand the association between climate change and harmful algae. Algae occur naturally in marine and fresh waters. Under favorable conditions that include adequate light availability, warm waters, and high nutrient levels, algae can rapidly grow and multiply causing

“blooms.” Blooms of algae can cause damage to aquatic environments by blocking sunlight and depleting oxygen required by other aquatic organisms, restricting their growth and survival. Some species of algae, including golden and red algae and

certain types of cyanobacteria, can produce potent toxins that can cause adverse health effects to wildlife and humans, such as damage to the liver and nervous system. When algal blooms impair aquatic ecosystems or

have the potential to affect human health, they are known as harmful algal blooms (HABs). In recent decades, scientists have observed an increase in the frequency, severity and geographic distribution of HABs worldwide. Recent

research suggests that the impacts of climate change may promote the growth and dominance of harmful algal blooms through a variety of mechanisms including: • Warmer water temperatures • Changes in salinity • Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations • Changes in rainfall patterns • Intensifying of coastal upwelling • Sea level rise. Climate change may cause summer droughts to increase in intensity and duration worldwide. During a drought, the amount of water flowing into lakes and reservoirs decreases. Combined with warmer temperatures that cause more evaporation, water levels of fresh water bodies decrease. This causes

the salinity, or concentration of salt in the water body, to increase. Although certain toxin-producing cyanobacteria are quite salt tolerant, temporary increases in salinity can also cause salt stress leading to leakage of cells and the release of toxins. Increases in salinity during

drought conditions can also create favorable conditions for the invasion of marine algae into what are usually

freshwater ecosystems. This is currently occurring in our southwestern and south central US lakes

where marine alga, Prymnesium parvum, or golden algae, has been increasing since 2000, causing significant fish kills in inland waters. All algae, including harmful species, require carbon dioxide (CO2) for photosynthesis. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will

increase the levels of dissolved carbon dioxide in marine and freshwater ecosystems, favoring those

algae that can grow faster in elevated dissolved carbon dioxide conditions. In addition, cyanobacteria that can float to the surface have a distinct

advantage over other competing algae because they can directly utilize carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, cyanobacteria that can float to the surface will have greater access to carbon dioxide for growth, increasing the occurrence of harmful algal blooms. This also could lead to changes in the chemistry of ambient waters. Higher photosynthesis converts carbon dioxide into living algal biomass, some of which dies and settles to the bottom. The eventual decomposition of this surplus organic material is analogous to our own breathing activity because it consumes oxygen and increases carbon dioxide in areas with poor

circulation. This can contribute to increases in acidity (i.e., lower pH). This ecological source of acidification is added to the direct acidifying effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, commonly known as ocean acidification. Like temperature, these changes in water chemistry can change the competitive relationships between HABs and other algae, and can also change the ability of zooplankton to control HABs through their grazing activity.

Specifically, ocean acidification kills shellfishHari Sreenivasan, et. Al, 2013(PBS NewsHour, interviewing Wysocki – owner of Chelsea Farms, Feely – National Oceanic and Atmopheric Marine Environment Laboratory, “Ocean Acidification’s Impact on Oysters and Other Shellfish,” transcript available online: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification's+impact+on+oysters+and+other+shellfish)

SHINA WYSOCKI: Ocean acidification is a huge problem. And there are so many things. It's the currents, it's the carbon dioxide, it's the aragonite. And it's most of which, I understand a tiny fraction of, but what I do understand is when the nursery calls on the phone and says there's no oyster seed to ship, we don't have any.HARI SREENIVASAN: Seed production in the Northwest plummeted by as much as 80 percent between 2005 and 2009.RICHARD FEELY, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory: And what we found was just very dramatic. When the waters were highly corrosive, the organisms died within two days. The oyster larvae just simply died. When the water was high pH, they did just fine. It was just like a switch.HARI SREENIVASAN: That switch is happening around the world as oceans take in large amounts of carbon dioxide, or CO2, says Dick Feely, a senior scientist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.RICHARD FEELY: Over the last 200 years or so, we have released about two trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And about a quarter of that, or 550 billion tons of carbon dioxide, have been absorbed by the oceans.HARI SREENIVASAN: All that CO2 changes the chemistry of the water by making it more acidic, 30 percent more since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Because of natural tide and wave patterns, the Pacific Northwest Coast has been hit hardest, with corrosive water being brought up from the deep ocean to the surface, where shellfish live. That's why Washington's shellfish industry, worth $270 million a year and responsible for thousands of jobs, is the first to feel the effects of this global phenomenon, says Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish, the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the country. In a single night, Taylor's growers will bring in about 50,000 oysters.BILL DEWEY, Taylor Shellfish Farms: This is the first place these deep corrosive waters are coming to the surface. And we're an industry that relies on calcifiers, so we're the first to see the effects and to scream about it.HARI SREENIVASAN: Ocean acidification acts a lot like osteoporosis, the condition that causes bones to become brittle in humans. For oysters, scallops and other shellfish, lower pH means less carbonate, which they rely on to build their essential shells. As acidity increases, shells become thinner, growth slows down and death rates rise.

Shellfish key to biodiversity – act as “ecosystem engineers” Brumbaugh, et. Al, The Nature Conservatory at the University of Rhode Island, 2006(Robert D., M.W. Beck – Center for Ocean Health at the University of California Santa Cruz, L.D. Coen - South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, L. Craig – NOAA Restoration Center, P. Hicks – NOAA Restoration Center, “A Practitioners Guide to the Design and Monitoring of Shellfish Restoration Projects, online: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/tncnoaa_shellfish_hotlinks_final.pdf)

Once considered nearly inexhaustible, many shellfish populations around the world have declined precipitously – some to commercial extinction - over the past two hundred years. These declines are due in large part to over-exploitation as well as from the related overall

decline in the condition of estuaries (Gross and Smyth 1946; Cook et al 2000; Jackson et al 2001; Edgar and Samson 2004; Kirby 2004). In recent decades the translocation of shellfish parasites and diseases between coastal areas has contributed to further losses and has exacerbated the effect of habitat loss (Kennedy et at 1996).While bivalve fisheries in many places have produced substantial landings, traditional management efforts for shellfish have generally failed to sustain shellfish populations or the fisheries that depended on them. Few bivalve fisheries, if any, have been managed with any evidence of long-term sustainability, both in the U.S. and in many other parts of the world. Oysters and mussels in particular have posed a unique challenge to fishery managers since fishing activities for these species, unlike most fish and other mobile organisms, tends to simultaneously remove their habitat. Various approaches for countering fishery declines have been implemented, ranging from hatchery based put-and-take fisheries to introductions of non-native species, often with mixed results. By managing bivalves and their habitats almost exclusively for recreational and commercial fishing, many facets of their ecology that contribute to maintaining the overall condition of our coastal bays and estuaries have been ignored.Engineers at WorkWith the decline of shellfish populations we have lost more than the fisheries and economic activity associated with fishing. A growing body of research in recent decades has illuminated

the profoundly important ecological roles that shellfish play in coastal ecosystems . These roles include filtering water as bivalves feed on suspended algae, providing structured habitat for other species, and protecting shorelines from erosion by stabilizing sediments and dampening waves. In fact, many bivalve shellfish have been labeled ‘ecosystem engineers’ (Jones et al 1994; Lenihan 1999) in recognition of the multiple roles they play in shaping the environments in which they live. Restoring shellfish populations to our coastal waters, therefore, represents a powerful way to restore the integrity and resilience of these ecosystems.The Water FilterShellfish are suspension-feeders that strain microscopic algae (phytoplankton) that grow suspended in surrounding waters. In some coastal systems shellfish, through their feeding activity and resultant deposition of organic material onto the bottom sediments, were abundant enough to influence or control the overall abundance of phytoplankton growing in the overlying waters. This control was accomplished both by direct removal of suspended material and by controlling the rate that nutrients were exchanged between the sedi- ments and overlying waters (Officer et al 1982; Dame 1996; Newell 2004). For example, it is widely touted that in the late 19th century oysters were so abundant in the Chesapeake Bay that they likely filtered a volume of water equivalent to the entire volume of the Bay in less than a week (Newell 1988). This feeding activity contributed to greater water clarity and allowed seagrasses to thrive in more areas of the estuary than is observed today (Newell and Koch 2004).Similar ecological impacts have been attributed to other species of bivalves as well. Hard clams in Long Island’s Great South Bay were likely abundant enough, until about two decades ago, to prevent outbreaks “brown tides” caused by planktonic algae that cloud the water and prevent light from reaching seagrasses growing in the bay. As these algae die, sink to the bottom and decay, they also rob the Bay of oxygen (Kassner 1993; Cerrato et al 2004). The uptake of nutrients and localized impacts on water quality documented for blue mussels, Mytilus edulis, using flume experiments (Asmus and Asmus 1991) and field observations in European estuaries

suggest that robust populations of mussels are capable of consuming a considerable fraction of the phytoplankton from overlying waters (Haamer and Rodhe 2000).Ecosystem modeling and mesocosm studies have indicated that restoring shellfish populations to even a modest fraction of their historic abundance could improve water quality and aid in the recovery of seagrasses (Newell and Koch 2004; Ulanowicz and Tuttle 1992). Field studies have also revealed positive feedback mechanisms from shellfish populations that promote greater seagrass productivity (Peterson and Heck 1999).The Habitat ProviderIn addition to their impacts as filter feeders, some species of bivalve shellfish such as oysters and mussels form reefs or complex structures that provide refuge or hard substrate for other species of marine plants and animals to colonize. For example, the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica, forms three-dimensional reefs as generations of oysters settle and grow attached to one another (Zimmerman et al 1989; Hargis and Haven 1999; Steimle and Zetlin 2000). Reefs can occur subtidally, often associated with edges of channels, as well as in intertidal habitats, keeping pace with sea-level rise (DeAlteris 1988; McCormick-Ray 1998 and 2005; Hargis and Haven 1999). These reefs represent a temperate analog to coral reefs that occur in more tropical environments. Both kinds of reefs are “biogenic”, being formed by the accumulation of colonial animals, and both provide complex physical structure and surface area used by scores of other species as a temporary or permanent habitat. A single square meter of oyster reef ay provide 50 square meters of surface area in its cracks, crevices, and convolutions, providing attachment points and shelter for an array of plants and animals (Bahr and Lanier 1981). Given the variety of species and complex interactions of species associated with oyster reefs, they have been suggested as “essential fish habitat,” which is an important distinction for fisheries management in the U.S. (Coen et al. 1999). Unfortunately, many of the reefs that were once so prevalent have been mined away through fishing and dredging activities, and their remnant ‘footprints’ have been silted over in the past century (Rothschild et al. 1994, Hargis and Haven 1999).¶ The Shoreline Protector¶ In some regions, intertidal oyster reefs and, likely, mussel beds serve as natural breakwaters that can stabilize shore- lines and reduce the amount of suspended sediment in the adjacent waters. This reduction in suspended sediment improves water clarity and protects shellfish, seagrasses and other species. Shellfish restoration, therefore, offers a way to recapture this important ecosystem service (Meyer et al 1997) in some locations.¶ Given the increased understanding of the various roles that shellfish play in nearshore ecosystems, there is increasing interest in re-establishing robust and self-sustaining native shellfish populations as a component of coastal ecosystems. Indeed, the restoration of shellfish is increasingly invoked as a key strategy for rehabilitating and conserving marine and estuarine systems because of these anticipated ecosystem services. However, surprisingly little effort has been made to document the degree to which these ecosystem services are provided through restoration activities in actual practice.

Marine ecosystem collapse causes extinctionCraig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2003(Robin Kundis , 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms

and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability

to support life.Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity , "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266]

shocking suddenness . The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus

suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.

Algae blooms cause extinctionLeake 2008 [Jonathan, Environment Editor, “Zones of death are spreading in oceans due to global warming,” The Sunday Times, May 18, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3953924.ece]Marine dead zones, where fish and other sea life can suffocate from lack of oxygen, are spreading across the world’s tropical oceans, a study has warned. Researchers found that the warming of sea water through climate change is reducing its ability to carry dissolved oxygen, potentially turning swathes of the world’s oceans into marine graveyards. The study, by scientists from some of the world’s most prestigious marine research institutes, warns that if global temperatures keep rising there could be “dramatic consequences” for marine life and for humans in communities that depend on the sea for a living. Organisms such as fish, crabs, lobsters and prawns will die in such zones, warned Lothar Stramma of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, who co-wrote the research paper with Janet Sprintall, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. In the study, published in the journal Science, they collated hundreds of oxygen concentration readings taken over the past 50 years in the Atlantic and Pacific over depths ranging from 985ft to 2,500ft. “In the central and eastern tropical Atlantic and equatorial Pacific the oxygen-minimum zones appear to have expanded and intensified during the past 50 years,” Stramma said. The researchers found that such regions now extend deeper into the oceans and closer to the surface. Fish and other sea life cannot survive in such waters, said Sprintall. The researchers say the change is closely linked to rising sea water temperature. At 0C, one kilogram of sea water can hold about 10ml of dissolved oxygen but at 25C this falls to just 4ml. This impact is amplified by a host of other factors. One of the most important is that parts of the eastern Atlantic, eastern Pacific and the Indian Ocean are naturally low in oxygen – so a small additional decline has a disproportionately greater effect. Examples of partly dead zones include a stretch of the Pacific about 5,000 miles wide off the west coast of South America. Others are found off the west coasts of Africa and India. Additionally, as surface water heats up it becomes less dense and forms an insulating layer that stops oxygen percolating into the colder layers beneath. Climate change is also suspected of altering the direction and strength of ocean currents, causing dead zones such as the one that suddenly appeared off Oregon, in America’s Pacific Northwest, six years ago and which appears to have become an annual event, killing marine life at every level from plankton to salmon, seals and sea birds. Lisa Levin, professor of biological oceanography at Scripps, and a world expert on the expansion of oxygen depletion in the oceans, predicted that similar zones would eventually appear off California. “Around the world there are already around 150 areas suffering from low or declining oxygen levels,” she said. Many of these are close to coastlines where the main cause is not climate change but pollution, especially agricultural chemicals washed off the land. The nitrogen in such run-off effectively fertilises the sea, causing a sudden “bloom” of algae and other planktonic life. As such organisms die they are decomposed by bacteria that multiply so fast they suck all the oxygen from the water. A report by the United Nations Environment Programme found that such coastal dead zones have doubled in number since 1995, with some extending over 27,000 square miles, about the size of the Republic of Ireland. Among the worst affected are the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and parts of the Mediterranean. Perhaps the biggest of all is found in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi carries thousands of tons of agrochemicals into the sea

every year. Recent research has revealed that about 250m years ago average oxygen levels in oceans fell almost to zero – a reduction associated with dramatic changes in climate that resulted in the extinction of 95% of the world’s species.

Traditional great power conflict is obsolete – economic interdependence, international organizations, and mutually assured destructionIkenberry, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Deudney, Professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, 2009(Daniel and G. John, Jan/Feb, “The Myth of the Autocratic Revival,” Foreign Affairs, Online: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63721/daniel-deudney-and-g-john-ikenberry/the-myth-of-the-autocratic-revival)

It is in combination with these factors that the regime divergence between autocracies and democracies will become increasingly dangerous. If all the states in the world were democracies, there would still be competition, but a world riven by a democratic-autocratic divergence promises to be even more conflictual. There are even signs of the emergence of an "autocrats international" in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, made up of China, Russia, and the poorer and weaker Central Asian dictatorships. Overall, the autocratic revivalists paint the picture of an international system marked by rising levels of conflict and competition, a picture quite unlike the "end of history" vision of growing convergence and cooperation. This bleak outlook is based on an exaggeration of recent developments and ignores powerful countervailing factors and forces. Indeed, contrary to what the revivalists describe, the most striking features of the contemporary international landscape are the intensification of economic globalization, thickening institutions, and shared problems of interdependence. The overall structure of the international system today is quite unlike that of the nineteenth century. Compared to older orders, the contemporary liberal-centered international order provides a set of constraints and opportunities — of pushes and pulls — that reduce the likelihood of severe conflict while creating strong imperatives for cooperative problem solving. Those invoking the nineteenth century as a model for the twenty-first also fail to acknowledge the extent to which war as a path to conflict resolution and great-power expansion has become largely obsolete. Most important, nuclear weapons have transformed great-power war from a routine feature of international politics into an exercise in national suicide. With all of the great powers possessing nuclear weapons and ample means to rapidly expand their deterrent forces, warfare among these states has truly become an option of last resort. The prospect of such great losses has instilled in the great powers a level of caution and restraint that effectively precludes major revisionist efforts. Furthermore, the diffusion of small arms and the near universality of nationalism have severely limited the ability of great powers to conquer and occupy territory inhabited by resisting populations (as Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq have demonstrated). Unlike during the days of empire building in the nineteenth century, states today cannot translate great asymmetries of power into effective territorial control; at most, they can hope for loose hegemonic relationships that require them to give something in return. Also unlike in the nineteenth century, today the density of trade, investment, and production networks across international borders raises even more the costs of war. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan, to take one of the most plausible cases of a future interstate war, would pose for the Chinese communist regime daunting economic costs, both domestic and international. Taken together, these changes in the economy of violence mean that the

international system is far more primed for peace than the autocratic revivalists acknowledge. The autocratic revival thesis neglects other key features of the international system as well. In the nineteenth century, rising states faced an international environment in which they could reasonably expect to translate their growing clout into geopolitical changes that would benefit themselves. But in the twenty-first century, the status quo is much more difficult to overturn. Simple comparisons between China and the United States with regard to aggregate economic size and capability do not reflect the fact that the United States does not stand alone but rather is the head of a coalition of liberal capitalist states in Europe and East Asia whose aggregate assets far exceed those of China or even of a coalition of autocratic states. Moreover, potentially revisionist autocratic states, most notably China and Russia, are already substantial players and stakeholders in an ensemble of global institutions that make up the status quo, not least the UN Security Council (in which they have permanent seats and veto power). Many other global institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, are configured in such a way that rising states can increase their voice only by buying into the institutions. The pathway to modernity for rising states is not outside and against the status quo but rather inside and through the flexible and accommodating institutions of the liberal international order. The fact that these autocracies are capitalist has profound implications for the nature of their international interests that point toward integration and accommodation in the future. The domestic viability of these regimes hinges on their ability to sustain high economic growth rates, which in turn is crucially dependent on international trade and investment; today's autocracies may be illiberal, but they remain fundamentally dependent on a liberal international capitalist system. It is not surprising that China made major domestic changes in order to join the WTO or that Russia is seeking to do so now. The dependence of autocratic capitalist states on foreign trade and investment means that they have a fundamental interest in maintaining an open, rulebased economic system. (Although these autocratic states do pursue bilateral trade and investment deals, particularly in energy and raw materials, this does not obviate their more basic dependence on and commitment to the WTO order.) In the case of China, because of its extensive dependence on industrial exports, the WTO may act as a vital bulwark against protectionist tendencies in importing states. Given their position in this system, which so serves their interests, the autocratic states are unlikely to become champions of an alternative global or regional economic order, let alone spoilers intent on seriously damaging the existing one. The prospects for revisionist behavior on the part of the capitalist autocracies are further reduced by the large and growing social networks across international borders. Not only have these states joined the world economy, but their people — particularly upwardly mobile and educated elites — have increasingly joined the world community. In large and growing numbers, citizens of autocratic capitalist states are participating in a sprawling array of transnational educational, business, and avocational networks. As individuals are socialized into the values and orientations of these networks, stark: "us versus them" cleavages become more difficult to generate and sustain. As the Harvard political scientist Alastair Iain Johnston has argued, China's ruling elite has also been socialized, as its foreign policy establishment has internalized the norms and practices of the international diplomatic community. China, far from cultivating causes for territorial dispute with its neighbors, has instead sought to resolve numerous historically inherited border conflicts, acting like a satisfied status quo state. These social and diplomatic processes and developments suggest that there are strong tendencies toward normalization operating here. Finally, there is an emerging set of global problems stemming from industrialism and economic globalization that will create common interests across states regardless of regime type. Autocratic China is as dependent on imported oil as are democratic Europe, India, Japan,

and the United States, suggesting an alignment of interests against petroleum-exporting autocracies, such as Iran and Russia. These states share a common interest in price stability and supply security that could form the basis for a revitalization of the International Energy Agency, the consumer association created during the oil turmoil of the 1970s. The emergence of global warming and climate change as significant problems also suggests possibilities for alignments and cooperative ventures cutting across the autocratic-democratic divide. Like the United States, China is not only a major contributor to greenhouse gas accumulation but also likely to be a major victim of climate-induced desertification and coastal flooding. Its rapid industrialization and consequent pollution means that China, like other developed countries, will increasingly need to import technologies and innovative solutions for environmental management. Resource scarcity and environmental deterioration pose global threats that no state will be able to solve alone, thus placing a further premium on political integration and cooperative institution building. Analogies between the nineteenth century and the twenty-first are based on a severe mischaracterization of the actual conditions of the new era. The declining utility of war, the thickening of international transactions and institutions, and emerging resource and environmental interdependencies together undercut scenarios of international conflict and instability based on autocratic-democratic rivalry and autocratic revisionism. In fact, the conditions of the twenty-first century point to the renewed value of international integration and cooperation.

Plan

Plan: The United States Federal Government should develop a National Program Office for monitoring ocean acidification.

Contention II: Solvency

A “one-stop” ocean acidification information office is necessary to mitigation and adaptation strategiesMorel et al, Committee on the development of an integrated science strategy for ocean acidification monitoring, research, and impact assessment, 2010 (Francois M.M. Morel, Chair, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey David Archer, University of Chicago, Illinois James P. Barry, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California Garry D. Brewer, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut Jorge E. CORREDOR, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez SCOTT C. Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts Victoria J. Fabby, California State University, San Marcos Gretchen E. Hofman, University of California, Santa Barbara Daniel S. Holland, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland Joan A. Kelypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado Frank J. Millero, University of Miami, Florida Ulf Riebesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean”)

The FOARAM Act calls for an “Ocean Acidification Information Exchange to make information on ocean acidification developed through or utilized by the interagency ocean acidification program accessible through electronic means, including information which would be useful to policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders in mitigating or adapting to the impacts of ocean acidification” (P.L. 11111). The committee agrees that information exchange is an important priority for the pro gram . The Information Exchange proposed by the Act would go beyond chemical and biological measurements and also include syntheses and assessments that would be accessible to and understandable by managers, policy makers, and the general public (see section 6.3). It could also act as a conduit for two way dialogue between stakeholders and scientists to ensure that decision support products are meeting needs of the stake holders. A “one stop shop” of ocean acidification information would be an extremely powerful tool, but would require resources and expertise, particularly in science communication, to perform effectively. The committee was asked to consider the appropriate balance among research, observations, modeling, and communication. While the appropriate balance of research, observing, and modeling activities will best be determined by the IWG and individual agencies relative to their missions, the committee would like to stress the importance of communication. To successfully engage stakeholders in a two way dialogue, the National Ocean Acidification Program will require a mechanism for effectively communicating results of the research and receiving feedback and input from managers and others seeking decision support. Inadequate progress in communicating results and engaging stakeholders, largely due to the lack of a communication strategy, has been a criticism of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (National Research Council, 2007b). It will be important that the Ocean Acidification Information Exchange avoid a similar outcome. Both the EPOCA and OCB Program have web-based approaches for communicating science information on ocean acidification to the general public, and the National Program is encouraged to build on and learn from existing efforts in its development of an Ocean Acidifica tion Information Exchange.

Current monitoring networks are inadequate because they focus only on localized effects – national coordination is keyNRC (National Research Council), 2010(National Research Council, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet The Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=gVt0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=ocean+acidification+monitoring+current+techniques+insufficiency&source=bl&ots=WoOjp7Dtq4&sig=MX-o9hu3OPR5hJFD4jj14jP0OCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RVfQU_mIEYvgsATHmYHABw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20acidification%20monitoring%20current%20techniques%20insufficiency&f=false)

CONCLUSION: The existing observing networks are inadequate for the task of monitoring ocean acidification and its effects. However, these networks can be used as the backbone of a broader monitoring network.

RECOMMENDATION: The National Ocean Acidification Program should review existing and emergent observing networks to identify existing measurements, chemical and biological, that could become part of a comprehensive ocean acidification observing network and to identify any critical spatial or temporal gaps in the current capacity to monitor ocean acidification. The Program should work to fill these gaps by ensuring that existing coastal and oceanic carbon observing sites adequately measure the seawater carbonate system and a range of bio logical parameters; identifying and leveraging other long-term ocean monitoring programs by adding relevant chemical and biological measurements at existing and new sites; adding additional time-series sites, repeat transects, and in situ sensors in key areas that are currently undersampled. These should be prioritized based on ecological and societal vulnerabilities; deploying and field testing new remote sensing and in situ technologies for observing ocean acidification and its impacts; and • supporting the development and application of new data analysis and modeling techniques for integrating satellite, ship-based, and in situ observations. RECOMMENDATION: The National Ocean Acidification Program should plan for the long-term sustainability of an integrated ocean acidification

observation network. Ocean acidification research is still in its infancy. A great deal of research has been conducted and new information gathered in the past several years, and it is clear from this research that ocean acidification may threaten marine ecosystems and the services they provide. However, much more information is needed in order to fully understand and address these changes. Most previous research on the biological effects of ocean acidification has dealt with acute responses in a few species , and very little is known about the impacts of acidification on many ecologically or economically important organisms, their populations, and communities; the effects on a variety of physiological and biogeochemical processes; and the capacity of organisms to adapt to projected changes in ocean chemistry (Boyd et al., 2008). There is a need for research that provides a mechanistic understanding of physiological effects, elucidates the acclimation and adaptation potential of organisms, and allows scaling up to ecosystem effects, taking into account the role and response of humans in those systems and how best to support decision making in affected systems. There is also a need to understand these effects in light of multiple and potentially compounding environmental stressors, such as increasing temperature, pollution, and overfishing. The committee identifies eight broad research areas that address these critical information gaps; detailed research recommendations on specific regions and topics are contained in other community-based reports (i.e.,

Raven et al., 2005; Kleypas et al., 2006; Fabry et al., 2008a; Orr et al., 2009; Joint et al., 2009). CONCLUSION: Present knowledge is insufficient to guide federal and state agencies in evaluating potential impacts for management purposes.

Plan is essential to international coordination on monitoring and acidification solutionsJewett et al., the first director of NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program, 2014

(Elizabeth Jewett, Mary Boatman (BOEM), Phillip Taylor and Priscilla Viana (formerly with NSF), Todd Capson (formerly with DOS), Katherine Nixon (formerly with U.S. Navy) and Fredric Lipshultz (formerly with NASA), “Strategic Plan for Federal ¶ Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification,” Online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/iwg-oa_strategic_plan_march_2014.pdf)

Beyond linking to existing education and outreach initiatives, the National Ocean Acidification Program Of fice will have to forge new partnerships . The need for new partnerships will become clear after an assessment of current efforts has highlighted successful strategies and important gaps. New partnerships and initiatives will be streamlined with ongoing efforts as to avoid redundancy and will target education and outreach mes sages and key audiences where gaps have been identified. The National Ocean Acidification Program Office can play a pivotal role in uniting key partners by promot ing working relationships between other National Science and Technology Council Interagency Working Groups such as the Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture, U.S. agencies, NGOs, academia, and private businesses throughout the world at ongoing and developing venues. New partnerships may take the form of public-private partnerships, which have proven successful at uniting public, private, and philanthropic partners to address complex, cross-cutting issues. International partnerships may form via new initiatives that address emerging cross-cutting issues while striv ing to promote sustainable development on bilateral, regional, and global levels. As previously mentioned, formal science and technology agreements can unite governments in research partnerships, which may serve education and outreach needs. Science and technology cooperation, in addition to grants for international cooperation, supports the establishment of science-based industries, encourages investment in national sci ence infrastructure, education, and application of scientific standards, and it promotes international dialogue. Additionally, the National Ocean Acidification Program Office can form new international partnerships by leveraging existing relationships established through U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions. By building off of existing relationships, an international engagement strategy will have more relevant and achievable goals.

Absent the plan, agency overlap will prevent solutions to ocean acidificationEkstrom, Sea Grant California, 2008(Julia A. Ekstrom, Sea Grant California, “Navigating Fragmented Ocean Law in the California Current: Tools to Identify and Measure Gaps and Overlaps for Ecosystem-Based Management,” site: http://www.opc.ca.gov)

Despite institutional challenges, confronting ocean acidification is not a lost cause. To move forward, it is crucial to recognize that no institution can be created as if it exists or will exist in a vacuum. As such, we can work within the context of the existing governance by either proposing to modify what exists or to develop entirely new institutions. It is critical that a new institution be created as a productive partner in the existing web of institutions and not cause unintended interplay among overlapping jurisdictions (Ebbin 2002). Thus, baseline data about existing institutions provides policymakers and stakeholders with a blue print of the regulatory environment in regard to ocean acidification, so they can determine the most effective strategies toward realistic resolution of the issue. For example, there are numerous laws

pertaining to the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a causal factor in the problem of ocean acidification. Similarly, there are monitoring systems and regulations in place that pertain to pH balance of water. Although these laws were not written to address ocean acidification, they can still play a role in the institutional environment where, if reasonable, a new institution that directly tackles ocean acidification could be developed. The amount of governing law as a whole that inherently, though peripherally, relates to ocean acidification is enormous as a consequence of sector-based management. Historically, in the United States and many other developed countries, management of the oceans has been conducted within sectors or industries, such as fishing, mining, shipping, and recreation (USCOP 2004, Elliott et al. 2006, Cao and Wong 2007). Government agencies, along with other ocean-related stakeholders, recognize that this approach is no longer effective. With the increases in coastal populations (and its associated development), ocean pollution, and technological advances, the human footprint left on the oceans and coasts is visible everywhere on earth (Halpern et al. 2008). With industry priorities leading regulation, marine and coastal uses (and abuses) were developed in a piecemeal manner within the sectors. As a result, sector-based management has created a governance system riddled with gaps and overlaps in ocean law and regulation (Knecht et al. 1988, USCOP 2004, Crowder et al. 2006). Fragmented decision-making is fraught with problems. One problem is the negative consequences that result from overlapping jurisdictions, such as when one institution’s regulation conflicts with the actions or objectives of another. Some of these overlaps can be mitigated through improved coordination or collaboration. Another common problem associated with fragmented management is the mismatch of institutions in the context of the ecosystem. This is referred to as “the problem of fit,” which calls attention to the potentially harmful ecological implications of developing institutions without adequate consideration of the relevant ecosystem’s properties (Young 2002, Folke et al. 2007). Clearly the fragmented nature of sector- based policy-making is no

longer adequate for the complexity of modern ocean uses and the severity of poor management consequences (Pew Oceans Commission 2003, USCOP 2004). New methods for effective management call for a broader perspective and better use of information about the institutional environment (Sutinen et al. 2000, Juda and Hennessey 2001).

Mitigation and adaptation strategies are already being developed – plan is key to ensure their effectivenessNRC (National Research Council), 2010(National Research Council, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet The Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=gVt0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=ocean+acidification+monitoring+current+techniques+insufficiency&source=bl&ots=WoOjp7Dtq4&sig=MX-o9hu3OPR5hJFD4jj14jP0OCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RVfQU_mIEYvgsATHmYHABw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20acidification%20monitoring%20current%20techniques%20insufficiency&f=false)

The FOARAM Act of 2009 charges an interagency working group with overseeing the development of impacts assessments and adaptation and mitigation strategies, and with facilitating communication and outreach with stakeholders. Because ocean acidification is a relatively new concern and research results are just emerging, it will be challenging to move

from science to decision support. Nonetheless, ocean acidification is occurring now and will continue for some time. Resource managers will need information in order to adapt to changes in ocean chemistry and biology. In view of the limited current knowledge about the impacts of ocean acidification, the first step for the National Ocean Acidification Program will be to clearly define the problem and the stakeholders (i.e., for whom is this a problem and at what time scales), and build a process for decision support. It must be noted that a one-time identification of stakeholders and their concerns will not be adequate in the long term, and it should be considered an iterative process. As research is performed and the effects of ocean acidification are better defined, additional stakeholders may be identified, and the results of the socioeconomic analysis may change. For climate change decision support, there have been pilot programs within some federal agencies and there is growing interest within the federal government for developing a national climate service to further develop climate-related decision support. Similarly, new approaches for ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning are also being developed . The National Ocean Acidification Program could leverage the expertise of these existing and future programs.

Case

InherencyNational Program Office for ocean acidification does not existLevison, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, 2012(Lara, “Federal Policy and Funding Relating to Ocean Acidification,” http://www.nmsfocean.org/files/OA_Report.pdf)

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring (FOARAM) Act, passed in 2009, provides another estimate of funding needs. The bill authorizes $8 million for NOAA in FY09, ramping up to $20 million in FY12. It authorizes $6 million for NSF in FY09, ramping up to $15 million in 2012, for a FY12 total of $35 million for two agencies. The bill clearly indicates that other federal agencies should be involved as well, even though specific funding

authorizations are not provided .15Through discussions with several federal agency officials, we learned that some efforts have been made to estimate needed investments, over the next ten years, for crosscutting activities such as a national program office, as well as for funding within agencies. Funding information collected through these discussions, also displayed in the graph below, should be viewed as a broad estimate of the need for ocean acidification (OA) funding.Since significant cuts in the federal budget are likely for FY12 and beyond, flat fund- ing may be the best-case result, with reductions in agency research budgets a more likely outcome.The draft “Strategic Plan for Research and Monitoring on Ocean Acidification,” prepared by the federal Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification (IWG-OA), does not es- timate budget needs but does outline a number of activities, to be carried out by various federal agencies, that would require additional investment. The draft Strategic Plan also proposes a National Program Office and funding for cross-cutting national activities on data management, technology development and standardization of measurements, and education and outreach. These interagency activities are important to the success of the Strategic Plan. At this time, only NOAA has a program office dedicated to ocean acidifica- tion, and cross-cutting activities are coordinated by the IWG-OA with a minimal amount of staff and funding resources.

There are large information gaps in current oceanic data management. Improved monitoring is key to an informed public and environmental policy.Biber, Law professor at UC Berkeley, 2011 (Eric, Assistant Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law. “The Problem of Environmental Monitoring,” University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 83 Is. 1)

Water conditions that are sometimes sixfold dirtier than an unflushed toilet present possibly serious risks to human health.4 But without proper and adequate monitoring of those conditions, how would we know a problem exists, let alone plan successful preventative and curative measures to address it? These stories, and many others, highlight a central but neglected problem in environmental law: the surprising lack of reliable information about the conditions of the environment in which we live, i.e., ambient environmental conditions. There are tremendous gaps in our knowledge about a wide range of environmental resources, from water quality, to air quality, to endangered species, to wetlands.5 Those gaps result not just from the absence of monitoring data but also from the ineffective nature of much of the monitoring data that is available.6 What might cause such gaps? To some extent, gaps are understandable: Monitoring is costly and difficult to do well.7 Inadequate funding and infrequent collection of data were both important causes of the monitoring breakdowns in the Chesapeake Bay and in California.8 But there are also significant political, legal, and institutional obstacles to the pursuit of effective monitoring by the public agencies that gather most of the data. One example is the failure to replace the aging U.S. satellites that monitor global environmental conditions, causing significant gaps for information crucial to understanding climate change. 9 Observers blame the problem on inefficient inter agency coordination, indifferent management by the relevant agencies, and a change in White House priorities. 10 Monitoring of environmental conditions matters for environmental law. It can provide essential information to regulators, legislators, industry, and the public about the cleanliness of our air and water and about the conditions of the ecosystems that human life depends upon. This is information that legislators use to hold regulators accountable, that regulators use to improve regulatory programs, and that the public uses to make decisions about the environmental risks of everyday activities like swimming at the beach. Beyond its significance in current regulatory frameworks, monitoring is central to the future direction of environmental law. The new paradigm of adaptive management has been embraced by academics, regulators, and managers." Indeed, adaptive management forms the basis of major ecological restoration projects in the Chesapeake Bay, Colorado River, and the Everglades, as well as a proposed planning process for the U.S. National Fdrest system.12 These paradigms require that environmental policy be constantly updated to meet changing circumstances, especially a globally changing climate.13 But a system that calls for constant adaptation requires the ongoing collection of information about changing circumstances. We can hardly adapt our policies if we do not know whether we need to adapt, why we need to adapt, or how we need to adapt. Monitoring will also be crucial as environmental law relies more on the concept of ecosystem services, in which the benefits for humans from natural ecosystems are converted into quasi-monetary form.14 Ecosystem services can help justify protection of those ecosystems politically, increase the legal consideration given to those ecosystems under existing legal doctrines (such as nuisance), or provide the basis for markets that trade in the services and create economic incentives for the protection of the ecosystems. 15 The most aggressive use of ecosystem services being considered today is "carbon offsets" in carbon regulatory systems.16 These would allow emitters of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to "offset" their

emissions by contributing to the protection and restoration of ecosystems that absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (or at least prevent the release of those gases into the atmosphere).17 The credibility and effectiveness of the offset concept depends in large part on ensuring that the quantity and quality of the relevant ecosystems are both well understood and monitored.' 8

Current ocean acidification agencies lack the needed funding, technology, coordination, and oversight to effectively monitor the effects and causes of ocean acidificationDoney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2008(Scott Doney, Senior Scientist Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry Department Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act: H.R. 4174,” site: http://www.whoi.edu, July 5, 2008)

Despite some prominent successes, the present national investment in ocean acidification research is inadequate to address the research challenges described above and is not creating the required comprehensive research program integrating the chemical, biological and human dimension aspects of the acidification problem. There are issues involving the direction and funding level for both basic science, which provides information on the extent of ocean acidification, and applied science, which addresses adaptation strategies and solutions. Research and training go hand in hand, and more resources need to be devoted to undergraduate and graduate student training to ensure and strong scientific base for the future. Further, basic science efforts within the U.S. are often poorly connected with stakeholders and more applied research targeting coral reef and fisheries management and conservation. As a result, the U.S. research community is falling behind our European and Japanese colleagues, who are already moving forward on coordinated ocean acidification initiatives. The current funding level for ocean acidification research does not support the deployment of sufficient ocean monitoring capabilities, particularly in coastal waters where economically important ecosystems are at risk. New findings just released last week in Science magazine (Feely et al., 2008) of corrosive, acidified ocean waters on the continental shelf along the US west coast indicate that acidification is a problem we face now, not decades in the future. But these results from the first systematic survey of seawater CO2 and acidification in North American coastal waters also highlight the difficulties in monitoring ocean chemistry from slow moving and expensive ships. New robust chemical sensor technologies exist or are being developed, and an ocean acidification observing system needs to be deployed combining instrumented autonomous platforms (moorings, gliders, floats) supported by shipboard surveys and process studies. The NSF supported ocean carbon time-series stations at Hawaii and Bermuda are pivotal to the US and international research community, the ocean equivalent of the iconic Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 record. But such long records over time, critical for identifying trends due anthropogenic CO2 and acidification, are the exception not the rule. With our present funding mechanisms, it is difficult to maintain and support long-term, sustained time-series. Each 3-5 year funding cycle, the principal investigators need to create a new scientific justification for making continued measurements when in fact the unique value of time-series is their continuity over time, the value growing dramatically as the records extend over multiple decades (and funding cycles). The research community continues to struggle with simply

maintaining current capabilities, and few new time-series are being established in different ocean environments. In a similar vein, satellite measurements provide an unprecedented view of the temporal variations in ocean ecology. The ocean is vast, and the limited number of research ships move at about the speed of a bicycle, too slow to map the ocean routinely on ocean basin to global scales. By contrast, a satellite can observe the entire globe, at least the cloud free areas, in a few days. The detection of gradual trends such as those due to ocean acidification is challenging. Currently remote sensing can be used to estimate a number of biological and chemical properties of the ocean (e.g., particulate calcite, pCO2) relevant to understanding the impacts of an acidifying ocean on ocean ecology and chemistry. Finding trends in these records requires long, coherent and internally consistent, high-quality global time series. Potential gaps in data coverage between satellite missions are particular worrisome; each sensor has its own unique calibration issues, and without overlap of missions in orbit, it is often impossible to construct a climate quality time record the extends over multiple missions. At present, the on-going availability of high-quality, climate data records is not assured during the transition of many satellite ocean measurements from NASA research to the NOAA/DOD operational NPOESS program. For example, the present NASA satellite ocean color sensors, needed to determine ocean plankto, are nearing the end of their service life, and the replacement sensors on NPOESS may not be adequate for the climate community. Further, refocusing of NASA priorities away from earth science may dramatically limit or full preclude new ocean satellite missions need to characterize ocean biological dynamics. US ocean acidification research is also limited, at present, by the size and scope of potential field research projects. In particular, the current funding environment does not encourage the next generation of mesocosm (large enclosed tanks or floating bags of water) and ecosystem-scale field experiments where scientists manipulate environmental conditions (e.g., CO2, pH) and then examine how ocean biology changes. Many of the major unresolved questions concerning ocean acidification involve impacts on scales too large to test in the laboratory and on communities of organisms and species. The infrastructure and logistics for manipulative experiments is costly, but the scientific payoff can be substantial, and for some problems manipulation of the ecosystem provides new scientific insights that are not easily attained in other ways. Deliberate ocean iron release experiments are one such example. European scientists have made considerable headway on ocean acidification using a dedicated mesocosm facility for water-column plankton studies, and design studies are underway for manipulative coral reef acidification experiments, similar in concept to terrestrial Free Air Carbon Experiment (FACE) system used to study CO2 fertilization effects on terrestrial grasses, shrubs and trees. The University of Washington is moving forward, with state and private foundation support, on plans for an ocean mesocosm system, which could be expanded into a facility broadly available to the US research community. There are also a number of issues with the coordination and management across science agencies. Interagency coordination on US ocean acidification research occurs via several related pathways involving both program managers from the federal science agencies and federal and university scientists. The US Carbon Cycle Science Program (CCSP) is an interagency partnership (http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/) focused broadly on the global carbon cycle in the ocean, on land, and in the atmosphere and the interactions with climate. The CCSP is part of the US Climate Change Science Program, and it has an Interagency Working Group (agency representatives from NOAA, NASA, NSF, DOC, USGS and a number of other, more terrestrially oriented agencies) and a Scientific Steering Group. The Carbon Cycle Science Program initiated an ocean research program, the Ocean Carbon and Climate Change (OCCC) Program, focused on monitoring the ocean carbon system and predicting its future behavior. A key issue with regards to ocean acidification is that the Carbon Cycle Science

Program covers only a portion of the ocean acidification problem, namely the controls on the oceanic uptake of CO2, resulting changes in seawater chemistry and ocean mechanisms that could damp or accelerate climate change by altering atmospheric CO2levels. Key aspects of the acidification problem on ecological and socio-economic impacts extend well beyond the purview of the Carbon Cycle Science Program, however. While there are elements of the US Climate Change Science Program that could address ecological research and coordination needs on ocean acidification, the interactions have been minimal and disjoint to date reflecting the conflicting demands of a program covering such a wide research domain and not focused specifically on the ocean. There is also an existing, informal interagency effort on ocean biogeochemistry and ocean acidification, the Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry (OCB) Program (http://us-ocb.org/), which is supported by federal program managers at the NSF, NASA, and NOAA and assisted by input from a scientific steering committee consisting of academic and government scientists. The OCB Program encompasses the scientific direction of the OCCC program and also expands into ocean ecology to the degree that it interactions with biogeochemical cycling. The OCB and OCCC scientific steering groups overlap in membership and meet jointly. The OCB has taken the lead on organizing a recent major US ocean acidification workshop last Fall in La Jolla CA (Kleypas et al., 2008b), and is also working to ensure the appropriate international linkages with emerging and existing ocean acidification programs supported by the European Union, Australia and Japan. The informal interactions facilitated by OCB are working well but do not cover the full scope of acidification research, for example the more fisheries and coral reef oriented work currently supported internally within NOAA or socioeconomic components of the problem.

Current agencies have insufficient data management to instruct ocean acidification adaptation National Research Council 2010(National Research Council, By Committee on the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet The Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” National Academy of Sciences.http://books.google.com/books?id=gVt0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=ocean+acidification+monitoring+current+techniques+insufficiency&source=bl&ots=WoOjp7Dtq4&sig=MX-o9hu3OPR5hJFD4jj14jP0OCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RVfQU_mIEYvgsATHmYHABw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20acidification%20monitoring%20current%20techniques%20insufficiency&f=false)

It may seem that ocean acidification is a concern for the future. But ocean acidification is occurring now, and the urgent need for decision support is already quite evident. Recently, failures in oyster hatcheries in Oregon and Washington have been blamed on ocean acidification, and costly treatment systems have been installed, despite the fact that the evidence linking the failures to acidification is largely anecdotal (Welch, 2009). On the other hand, there is quite convincing evidence that coral reefs will be affected by acidification (see Chapter 4), but coral reef managers, who are just now beginning to develop adaptation plans to

deal with climate change, have limited information on how to address acidification as well. These two examples highlight the urgent need for information on not only the consequences of acidification, but also how affected groups can adapt to these changes. Like climate change, ocean acidification potentially affects governments, private organizations, and individuals—many of whom have insufficient information to consider fully the options for adaptation, mitigation, or policy development concerning the potentially far-reaching consequences of ocean acidification. While human activities have caused changes in the chemistry of the ocean in the past, none of those changes have been as fundamental, as widespread, and as long-lasting as those caused by ocean acidification. The resulting biological and ecological effects may not be as rapid and dramatic as those caused by other human activities (such as fishing and coastal pollution) but they will steadily increase over many years to come. Such long and gradual changes in ocean chemistry and biology—possibly punctuated by sudden ecological disruptions—undermines the foundation of existing empirical knowledge based on long-term studies of marine systems. Like climate change, ocean acidification renders past experience an undependable guide to decision making in the future. To deal effectively with ocean acidification, decision makers will require new and different kinds of information and will need to develop new ways of thinking. For some, ocean acidification will be one more reason to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; for others, the priority will be coping with the ecological effects. But in all circumstances, more information to clarify, inform, and support choices will be needed. As is the case for climate change, decision support for ocean acidification will include “organized efforts to produce, disseminate, and facilitate the use of data and information in order to improve the quality and efficacy of (climate- related) decisions” (National Research Council, 2009a). The fundamental issue for ocean acidification decision support is the quality and timing of relevant information. Although the ongoing changes in ocean chemistry are well understood, the biological consequences are just now being elucidated. The problem is complicated because acidification is only one of a collection of stressful changes occurring in the world’s oceans. It is also fundamentally difficult to understand how biological effects will cascade through food webs, and modify the structure and function of marine ecosystems. It may never be possible to predict with precision how and when acidification will affect a particular ecosystem. Ultimately, the information needed is related to social and economic impacts and pertain to “human dimensions” as has been noted in previous reports (e.g., National Research Council, 2008, 2009a). It is not only important to identify what user groups will be affected and when, but also to understand how resilient these groups are to the consequences of acidification and how capable they are of adapting to the changing circumstances. To begin to address these societal concerns, the report tries to answer the questions of what to measure and why by identifying high-priority research and monitoring needs. It also addresses the process by identifying elements of an effective national strategy to help federal agencies provide the information needed by resource managers facing the impacts of ocean acidification in the marine environment.

The status quo has no unified parameters for monitoring which are necessary for data management.National Research Council, 2010(National Research Council, By Committee on the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet The Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” National Academy of Sciences.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gVt0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=ocean+acidification+monitoring+current+techniques+insufficiency&source=bl&ots=WoOjp7Dtq4&sig=MX-o9hu3OPR5hJFD4jj14jP0OCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RVfQU_mIEYvgsATHmYHABw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20acidification%20monitoring%20current%20techniques%20insufficiency&f=false)

Many publications have noted the critical need for long-term monitoring of ocean and climate to document and quantify changes, including ocean acidification, and that the current observation systems for monitoring these changes are insufficient. A global network of robust and sustained chemical and biological observations will be necessary to establish a baseline and to detect and predict changes attributable to acidification. The first step in developing the observing network will be identification of the appropriate chemical and biological parameters to be measured by the network and ensuring data quality and consistency across space and time. There is widespread agreement on the chemical parameters (and methods and tools for measurement) for monitoring ocean acidification. Unlike the chemical parameters, there are no agreed upon metrics for biological variables. In part, this is because the field is young and in part because the biological effects of ocean acidification, from the cellular to the ecosystem level, are very complex. To account for this complexity, the program will need to monitor parameters that cover a range of organisms and ecosystems and support both laboratory-based and field research. The development of new tools and techniques, including novel autonomous sensors, would greatly improve the ability to make relevant chemical and biological measurements over space and time and will be necessary to identify and characterize essential biological indicators concerning the ecosystem consequences of ocean acidification. As critical biological indicators and metrics are identified, the Program will need to incorporate those measurements into the research plan, and thus, adaptability in response to developments in the field is a critical element of the monitoring program. The next step in developing the observing network will be consideration of available resources. A number of existing sites and surveys could serve as a backbone for an ocean acidification observational network, but these existing sites were not designed to observe ocean acidification and thus do not provide adequate coverage or measurements of key parameters. The current system of observations would be improved by adding sites and measurements in ecosystems projected to be vulnerable to ocean acidification (e.g., coral reefs and polar regions) and areas of high variability (e.g.. coastal regions). Two community-based reports (Fabry et al., 2008a; Feely et aL, 2010) identify vulnerable ecosystems, measurement requirements, and other details for developing an ocean acidification observational network. Another important consideration is the sustainability of long-term observations, which remains a perpetual challenge but is critical given the gradual, cumulative, and long-lasting pressure of ocean acidification. Integrating the network of ocean acidification observations with other ocean observing systems will help to ensure sustainability of the acidification-specific observations. CONCLUSION: The chemical parameters that should be measured as part of an ocean acidification observational network and the methods to make those measurements are well established. RECOMMENDATION: The National Program should support a chemical monitoring program that includes measurements of temperature, salinity, oxygen, nutrients critical to primary production, and at least two of the following four carbon parameters: dissolved inorganic carbon, pCO,, total alkalinity, and pH. To account for variability in these values with depth, measurements should be made not just in the surface layer, but with consideration for different depth zones of interest, such as the deep sea, the oxygen minimum zone, or in coastal

areas that experience periodic or seasonal hypoxia. CONCLUSION: Standardized, appropriate parameters for monitoring the biological effects of ocean acidification cannot be determined until more is known concerning the physiological responses and population consequences of ocean acidification across a wide range of taxa.

Current lack of data management ensure that agencies are incapable of monitoring ocean acidification and planning adaptation strategies. National Research Council, 2010(National Research Council, By Committee on the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet The Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” National Academy of Sciences.http://books.google.com/books?id=gVt0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=ocean+acidification+monitoring+current+techniques+insufficiency&source=bl&ots=WoOjp7Dtq4&sig=MX-o9hu3OPR5hJFD4jj14jP0OCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RVfQU_mIEYvgsATHmYHABw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20acidification%20monitoring%20current%20techniques%20insufficiency&f=false)

CONCLUSION: The existing observing networks are inadequate for the task of monitoring ocean acidification and its effects. However, these networks can be used as the backbone of a broader monitoring network.

RECOMMENDATION: The National Ocean Acidification Program should review existing and emergent observing networks to identify existing measurements, chemical and biological, that could become part of a comprehensive ocean acidification observing network and to identify any critical spatial or temporal gaps in the current capacity to monitor ocean acidification. The Program should work to fill these gaps by ensuring that existing coastal and oceanic carbon observing sites adequately measure the seawater carbonate system and a range of bio logical parameters; identifying and leveraging other long-term ocean monitoring programs by adding relevant chemical and biological measurements at existing and new sites; adding additional time-series sites, repeat transects, and in situ sensors in key areas that are currently undersampled. These should be prioritized based on ecological and societal vulnerabilities; deploying and field testing new remote sensing and in situ technologies for observing ocean acidification and its impacts; and • supporting the development and application of new data analysis and modeling techniques for integrating satellite, ship-based, and in situ observations. RECOMMENDATION: The National Ocean Acidification Program should plan for the long-term sustainability of an integrated ocean acidification

observation network. Ocean acidification research is still in its infancy. A great deal of research has been conducted and new information gathered in the past several years, and it is clear from this research that ocean acidification may threaten marine ecosystems and the services they provide. However, much more information is needed in order to fully understand and address these changes. Most previous research on the biological effects of ocean acidification has dealt with acute responses in a few species, and very little is known about the impacts of acidification on many ecologically or economically important organisms, their populations, and communities; the effects on a variety of physiological and biogeochemical processes; and the capacity of organisms to adapt to projected changes in ocean chemistry (Boyd et al., 2008). There is a need for research that provides a mechanistic understanding of physiological effects, elucidates the acclimation and adaptation potential of organisms, and allows scaling up to ecosystem effects, taking into account the role and response of humans in those systems and how best to support decision making in affected systems. There is also a need to understand these effects in light of multiple and potentially compounding environmental stressors, such as increasing temperature, pollution, and overfishing. The committee identifies eight broad research areas that address

these critical information gaps; detailed research recommendations on specific regions and topics are contained in other community-based reports (i.e.,

Raven et al., 2005; Kleypas et al., 2006; Fabry et al., 2008a; Orr et al., 2009; Joint et al., 2009). CONCLUSION: Present knowledge is insufficient to guide federal and state agencies in evaluating potential impacts for management purposes

Solvency

Monitoring Solves WarmingMonitoring solves – 1AC NRC evidence describes mitigation and adaptation strategies already in development – as effects of warming become more pronounced, more strategies will come online – monitoring is key to ensure that these strategies are effective

Monitoring solves warming – key to early detectionNRC, 2007 (National Research Council, Includes Panel on Earth Science Applications and Societal Benefits, Panel on Land Use change, Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biodiversity, Panel on Weather Science and Applications, Panel on Climate Variability and Change, Panel On Human Health and Security, Panel on Water Resources, Panel on Solid Earth Hazards, Natural Resources and Dynamics “Earth Science and Applications from Space” pdf available online)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING ECOSYSTEMSThe world's ecosystems are subject to a variety of human-caused stresses, including changes in climate, changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere and ocean, changes in the frequency of severe storms, droughts and floods, and changes in land cover, land use, and ocean use. Those stresses can act singly or together to reduce the capacity of ecosystems to cycle water and nutrients or deliver food, water, or other ecosystem services. It is possible to halt and reverse

ecosystem degradation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 20O5) and to enhance ecosystem services with carefully planned actions that have their foundations in science. Sustainable management of ecosystems requires information about their ability to carry out such func - tions as nutrient and water cycling (ecosystem function) and about the current state of and changes in the vertical and horizontal distribution of biomass within an ecosystem (ecosystem structure). Successful and adaptive management requires detecting trends early enough for intervention to be successful, efficient, and inexpensive. Late remediation can be extremely or even prohibitively expensive.Citizens, decision makers, and other stakeholders need several types of information to support effective responses. Changes in ecosystems have to be observed and documented, if possible with early detection of emerging issues. To evaluate management alternatives, there is a need to project ecosystem conditions under likely future scenarios of management, subject to changing climate, land-use, and other anthropogenic stressors. That requires reliable information about the state of systems and credible models of dynamics. The last decade's experience has shown that remote sensing data play a crucial role in developing, testing, and applying such decision-support models. Although many ecosystem issues develop slowly, there is also a need for remote sensing to provide decision suppon during and in the wake of episodic events, including abrupt events such as tropical storms and wildfires, and "slower" events, such as insect outbreaks, harmful algal blooms, and droughts.

Uncertainty about the specifics of environmental degradation prevents adaptation – the plan is key to develop solutions to acidificationBedsworth and Hanak, Public Policy Institute of California, 2010 (Louise W. Bedsworth, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her research focuses on climate change, air quality, and transportation issues & Ellen Hanak, senior fellow at

PPIC. Her research interests include water and land use policy, infrastructure finance, and climate change, September 23, 2010, “Adaptation to Climate Change,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:4, 477-495)

Uncertainties about the extent and nature of some climate-related impacts pose a significant

barrier to deci- sions on appropriate adaptation measures . For example, scientific projections of the pace of sea-level rise differ because of uncertainties in the role of melting ice sheets.8 The fourth IPCC report estimated a sea-level rise of from 7 to 23 inches by 2100, depending on future emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to them (IPCC, 2007a). Soon afterward, a model taking into account recent ob- served trends projected a significantly higher range of from 20 to 55 inches for the same time frame (Rahmstorf, 2007). Even using this latest projection, it is unclear what portion of the range to plan for. Planning for the upper end is more conservative, but also implies higher costs, either in foregone use of coastal property or higher invest- ments in protective structures, which also have environ- mental costs. For instance, Neumann and Hudgens (2006) find that the costs of shoreline protection would increase five-fold if sea-level rise were assumed to be 40 inches rather than 20 inches. A second example concerns precipitation changes and adaptation in the water sector. While there is considerable certainty that temperature increases will shift winter and spring runoff patterns by reducing the share of total precipitation that falls as snow, climate models are in disagreement about whether the future will be wetter or dryer in this region (Luers & Mastrandrea, 2008). The value of one costly adaptation tool, building new surface reservoirs to replace the lost storage in the snowpack, depends critically on the answer ; in a drier future, there will be few occasions when this storage can be put to use (Tanaka et al., 2006). Some windows of planning uncertainty can be re- duced through more focused analysis using currently available climate models. For instance, more refined, local impact assessments can help translate global and regional climate model results to scales better suited for local adaptation planning. Similarly, additional air quality modeling and analysis can help ascertain whether new emission controls would be appropriate to address the regional impacts of higher temperatures on air quality. But in other cases, such as the effects of climate change on precipitation levels, better information will only come with time, either as analytical tools improve or as the actual changes become more apparent. Since one of the predicted outcomes of climate models is more variability, we are unlikely to have a clear sense of the scale of some changes until we are in the midst of them.

Effective data monitoring key to adaptive policiesO’Malley, et. Al, Heinz Center, 2009(Robin O'Malley, senior fellow and project director for the Heinz Center report on the state of the nation's ecosystems Anne S. Marsh, Program Director for Observations and Understanding at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science Economics and Environment Christine Negra, Program Director at the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment in Washington, DC, Closing the Environmental Data Gap http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42969765/Closing-the-Environmental-Data-Gap)

The compelling evidence that the global climate is changing significantly and will continue to change for the foreseeable future means that we can expect to see similarly significant changes in a wide variety of other environmental conditions such as air and water quality; regional water

supply; the health and distribution of plant and animal species; and land-use patterns for food, fiber, and energy production. Unfortunately, we are not adequately monitoring trends in many of these areas and therefore do not have the data necessary to identify emerging problems or to evaluate our efforts to respond. As threats to human health, food production, environmental quality, and ecological well-being emerge, the nations leaders will be

handicapped by major blind spots in their efforts to design effective policies. In a world in which global environmental stressors are increasingly interactive and human actions are having a more powerful effect, the need for detailed, reliable, and timely information is essential. Yet environmental monitoring continues to be undervalued as an investment in environmental protection. We tolerated inadequate data in the past, when problems were relatively simple and geographically limited, such as air or water pollution from a single plant. But it is unacceptable today, as we try to grapple with far more extensive changes caused by a changing climate. The effects of climate change will be felt across the globe, and at the regional level they are likely to present unique and hard-to-predict outcomes. For example, a small change in temperature in the Pacific Northwest has allowed bark beetles to survive the winter, breed prolifically, and devastate millions of acres of forest Although scientists are working to improve forecasts of the future and anticipate such tipping points, observation of what is actually happening remains the cornerstone of an adequate response. Society needs consistent and reliable information to establish baselines, make projections and validate them against observed changes, and identify potential surprises as early as possible.

Monitoring Solves Shellfish

Monitoring solves shellfish adaptationSuhrbier, Pacific Shellfish Institute, 2013(Andy, “Ocean Acidification Monitoring,” online: http://www.pacshell.org/ocean-acidification-monitoring.asp)

In the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound, the combination of upwelled low-pH waters, low alkalinity and increased anthropogenic CO2 create some of the most corrosive conditions in the world’s ocean surface. Organisms that produce a calcium carbonate shell, like shellfish, are considered particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification because such conditions lead to a reduction in the carbonate ion needed for calcification. For the last several years, declining Pacific oyster populations in Willapa Bay, WA were correlated with changes in water conditions that have been attributed to ocean acidification. Beginning 2007, West Coast oyster hatcheries, including those in Dabob and Netarts Bays, have also reported unusually high mortalities of early-stage Pacific oyster larvae, generally associated with upwelled, corrosive deep water.PSI Senior Biologist, Andy Suhrbier is helping to inform shellfish growers and researchers of pertinent water quality variables near shellfish setting, remote setting and hatchery sites. Andy currently maintains water quality stations around Washington’s Willapa Bay and at the Lummi Lagoon. These stations record, at a minimum, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity, oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and temperature. Near real-time data is available at Willapa’s Nahcotta and Bay Center sites and can be accessed through the NANOOS (the Pacific Northwest regional ocean observing system) portal (www.nanoos.org/nvs). Water quality data at the Tokeland (Willapa) and Lummi sites also include chlorophyll, which is downloaded on a monthly basis and available upon request. Since August 2012, a CO2 meter has been collecting data at the Nahcotta site so data can be incorporated with pH values to calculate saturation state. Weekly water samples are also taken at all sites to identify levels of nutrients and vibrio bacteria in the water and to determine carbon chemistry variables including pCO2, TCO2 and saturation state. Saturation state is the best variable used to determine the suitability of water for early oyster shell formation.The data generated by this project is useful to current shellfish production as well as future research. Hatchery and remote setting operations can use the data to decide when to pull water into their tanks. Scientists can also utilize this information for their own projects involving modern estuarine water quality dynamics.

Monitoring Solves Acidification

Monitoring key to minimize impacts of acidification/key to adaptationSpeer, Director of the National Resource Defense Council’s international oceans program, 2011(Lisa, “The Global Problem of Ocean Acidification,” online: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lspeer/the_global_problem_of_ocean_ac.html)

There is precious little time to waste, and the issue of ocean acidification highlights the urgency for action. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels is changing the fundamental chemistry of our oceans. CO2 reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid. As atmospheric CO2 has risen, the oceans have become 30% more acidic over the last 150 years. This effect is measurable and undisputed, and affects all of the world’s oceans.At the Earth Summit, NRDC is calling on the international community to develop, on an urgent basis, an integrated, international program aimed at monitoring the chemical and biological changes resulting from ocean acidification that are likely to have socio-economic consequences. Such a monitoring network is essential to provide coastal nations with the information necessary to prepare for the impacts of ocean acidification on fisheries, corals and marine food webs.As NRDC’s movie ACID TEST so vividly illustrates, rising ocean acidity reduces the availability of carbonate, a critical component of shell-building. If acidity gets high enough, ocean water becomes corrosive and shells literally dissolve. Unchecked, ocean acidification could affect marine food webs and lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening protein supply and food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar global fishing industry. By mid-century vast ocean regions may be inhospitable to coral growth and reefs will begin to erode faster than they can grow. Regions dependent on healthy coral reefs for fisheries, tourism, and storm protection will be profoundly impacted.Currently, there are only approximately 30 monitoring stations capable of measuring ocean acidity, and most of these are in developed countries. There is very little monitoring of

biological impacts of acidification anywhere in the world. Without better monitoring it will

not be possible to identify areas of vulnerability or develop effective mitigation measures

and management strategies .The single most important step we can take to address ocean acidification is to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. But ocean acidification is already affecting marine life, and States and coastal communities need information that can help them assess risks, plan for impacts and initiate management strategies, including, for example:

Increasing monitoring capability is a top priority and first step to any other action on acidificationFabry, Oceanographer and professor of Biological Science, 2007(Victoria J., professor of Biological Science at CSU San Marcos and visiting scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Present and Future Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles” Report of the Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry

Scoping Workshop on Ocean Acidification Research Authors: V. J. Fabry, C. Langdon, W. M. Balch, A. G. Dickson, R. A. Feely, B. Hales, D. A. Hutchins, J. A. Kleypas, and C. L. Sabine)

High-latitude surveys to track present and future changes are vital since, as outlined above, such polar and subpolar regions will be the first to experience surface waters that are undersaturated with respect to aragonite, then calcite, on a continuous basis. The same vulnerable areas outlined for baseline studies are considered critical areas for surveys. In addition, the Bering Sea was recognized as a key survey area due to its strategic importance to fisheries. Dedicated OA surveys should be started immediately for data poor areas within high-latitude environments of both hemispheres. There are a number of important scientific questions that could be directly addressed by surveys. These include: (1) Where is acidification happening and at what rates? (2) What are the seasonal cycles in the abundances and vertical distributions of coccolithophores, pteropods, foraminifera and how are they changing with OA? (3) What are the key indicator species of high latitude ecosystems and how are they changing with OA? Organisms that secrete aragonite and high-magnesium calcites include pteropods, benthic bivalves, sea urchins, cold water corals (Figure 11), and coralline algae; many of these organisms are important in polar and subpolar marine food webs. Yet, such aragonite and high magnesium-calcite producers are especially at risk, owing to the high solubility of these carbonate phases. Biological surveys with sufficient temporal and spatial resolution to detect

potential impacts of OA are a top priority . Surveys of calcareous holoplankton and meroplankton as well as surveys of benthic calcareous fauna, many of which are major food resources for whales, birds and other indigenous species, will be important in developing ecological forecasts of OA impacts. (4) What are the climate feedbacks, and will oceanic CO2 uptake continue at present rates? Regional surveys will central for input to global models. (5) How will fisheries be affected by OA impact on their prey species? (6) Will OA cause regime shifts within ecosystems? Surveys should be designed to measure a number of key variables. Primary production, rain rates of POC and PIC, sediment trap studies, and the standing stocks and production rates of biogenic CaCO3 producers would be highly relevant elements of successful survey programs. Remote sensing will play an essential role since it can provide basin scale observations, and techniques now exist for deriving the concentration of PIC based on spectral measurements of water-leaving radiance (although the different mineral phases of PIC cannot be ascertained remotely) – see Figure 12. At least two of the four carbon variables (pH, pCO2, DIC and alkalinity) will be essential in all surveys. The high latitude group promoted long-term monitoring at specific sites, using moorings equipped to estimate carbon system parameters (pCO2, alkalinity, pH, DIC, hydrographic and bio-optical variables. Other variables of interest at specific monitoring sites would be calcification and dissolution rates of biogenic carbonates, including all of its mineral forms. The research community should take advantage of ship transits to monitoring sites to service moorings as a means to provide more survey observations such as described above. Temporal sampling scales should be as frequent as one sample every three hours. Other more time-consuming, expensive sampling obviously would have to be performed less frequent. Potential monitoring sites could be at ongoing LTER or OOI sites since there is much to be gained by pre-existing time series. However, emphasis must be on those regions which are projected to undergo high rates of change, particularly with regard to the carbonate saturation state of seawater. Repeated Longhurst-Hardy plankton surveys span decades and may provide valuable information on occurrence of foraminifera and pteropods in the surface ocean dating back to the 1940’s. Group participants recommended that these surveys be maintained.

Expanding monitoring capabilities is key - leveraging existing infrastructure makes sufficient action quick and easy Fabry, Oceanographer and professor of Biological Science, 2007(Victoria J., professor of Biological Science at CSU San Marcos and visiting scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Present and Future Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles” Report of the Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Scoping Workshop on Ocean Acidification Research Authors: V. J. Fabry, C. Langdon, W. M. Balch, A. G. Dickson, R. A. Feely, B. Hales, D. A. Hutchins, J. A. Kleypas, and C. L. Sabine)

The existing oceanic carbon observatory network provides insufficient in situ observations of sea surface carbonate chemistry and pH to adequately address the problem of ocean acidification. Expanding this network with new carbon and pH sensors will provide new information on the changing conditions in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian basins, which are currently grossly under sampled. In addition, the current carbon observatories only accommodate measurement of the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2), which is insufficient to fully constrain the carbonate system necessary for effective monitoring and forecasting biological effects. Ideally, this network would also have the capability to measure calcification and CaCO3 dissolution rates, and such measurements are needed to improve models in order to predict responses to ocean acidification. Leveraging existing infrastructure and monitoring programs will enable research to be conducted efficiently and quickly. For example, additional inorganic carbon system measurements and process studies could be conducted at Long-Term Ecological Research sites such as those in the California Current, Moorea, and near Palmer Station, Antarctica. However, new monitoring sites, time series stations and surveys are urgently needed in open-ocean and coastal regions. To create a global network of observations, for example, new moored buoys equipped with carbon system sensors should be added each year starting immediately (Figure 2).

Centralization Key

The observation network of a national program would drastically improve ocean acidification monitoring and research. National Research Council 2010 (Committee on the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment; National Research Council, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12904)

CONCLUSION: given that ocean acidification is an emerging field of research, the committee finds that the federal government has taken initial steps to respond to the nation’s long-term needs and that the national ocean acidification program currently in development is a posi- tive move toward coordinating these efforts. An ocean acidification program will require coordination at the inter national, national, regional, state, and local levels. Within the U.S. federal government, it will involve many of the greater than 20 agencies that are engaged in ocean science and resource management. To address the full scope of potential impacts, strong interactions among scientists in mul tiple fields and from various organizations will be required and twoway communication with stakeholders will be necessary. Ultimately, a suc cessful program will have an approach that integrates basic science with decision support. The growing concern over ocean acidification is demonstrated in the several workshops that have been convened on the subject, as well as scientific reviews and community statements (e.g., Raven et al., 2005; Doney et al., 2009; Kleypas et al., 2006; Fabry et al., 2008a; Orr et al., 2009; European Science Foundation, 2009). These reviews and reports present a communitybased statement on the science of ocean acidification as well as steps needed to better understand and address it; they provide the groundwork for the committee’s analysis. CONCLUSION: The development of a National Ocean Acidification Program will be a complex undertaking, but legislation has laid the foundation, and a path forward has been articulated in numerous reports that provide a strong basis for identifying future needs and priorities for understanding and responding to ocean acidification. The committee’s recommendations, presented below, include six key elements of a successful national ocean acidification program: (1) a robust observing network, (2) research to fulfill critical information needs, (3) assessments and support to provide relevant information to decision makers, (4) data management, (5) facilities and training of ocean acidifica tion researchers, and (6) effective program planning and management. Many publications have noted the critical need for long term moni toring of ocean and climate to document and quantify changes, including ocean acidification, and that the current observation systems for monitor ing these changes are insufficient. A global network of robust and sus tained chemical and biological observations will be necessary to establish a baseline and to detect and predict changes attributable to acidification. The first step in developing the observing network will be iden tification of the appropriate chemical and biological parameters to be measured by the network and ensuring data quality and consistency across space and time. There is widespread agreement on the chemical parameters (and methods and tools for measurement) for monitoring ocean acidification. Unlike the chemical parameters, there are no agreed upon metrics for biological variables. In part, this is because the field is young and in part because the biological effects of ocean acidification, from the

cellular to the ecosystem level, are very complex. To account for this complexity, the program will need to monitor parameters that cover a range of organisms and ecosystems and support both laboratorybased and field research. The development of new tools and techniques, includ ing novel autonomous sensors, would greatly improve the ability to make relevant chemical and biological measurements over space and time and will be necessary to identify and characterize essential biological indica tors concerning the ecosystem consequences of ocean acidification. As critical biological indicators and metrics are identified, the Program will need to incorporate those measurements into the research plan, and thus, adaptability in response to developments in the field is a critical element of the monitoring program. The next step in developing the observing network will be consider ation of available resources. A number of existing sites and surveys could serve as a backbone for an ocean acidification observational network, but these existing sites were not designed to observe ocean acidification and thus do not provide adequate coverage or measurements of key parameters. The current system of observations would be improved by adding sites and measurements in ecosystems projected to be vulnerable to ocean acidification (e.g., coral reefs and polar regions) and areas of high variability (e.g., coastal regions). Two community based reports (Fabry et al., 2008a; Feely et al., 2010) identify vulnerable ecosystems, measurement requirements, and other details for developing an ocean acidification observational network. Another important consideration is the sustainability of long term observations, which remains a perpetual challenge but is critical given the gradual, cumulative, and longlasting pressure of ocean acidification. Integrating the network of ocean acidification observations with other ocean observing systems will help to ensure sustainability of the acidification specific observations. CONCLUSION: The chemical parameters that should be measured as part of an ocean acidification observational network and the methods to make those measurements are well established. RECOMMENDATION: The National Program should support a chemical monitoring program that includes measurements of temperature, salinity, oxygen, nutrients critical to primary production, and at least two of the following four carbon parameters: dissolved inorganic carbon, pCO2, total alkalinity, and pH. To account for variability in these values with depth, measurements should be made not just in the surface layer, but with consideration for different depth zones of interest, such as the deep sea, the oxygen minimum zone, or in coastal areas that experience periodic or seasonal hypoxia. CONCLUSION: Standardized, appropriate parameters for monitoring the biological effects of ocean acidification cannot be determined until more is known concerning the physiological responses and population consequences of ocean acidification across a wide range of taxa. RECOMMENDATION: To incorporate findings from future research, the National Program should support an adaptive monitoring program to identify biological response variables specific to ocean acidification. In the meantime, measurements of general indicators of ecosystem change, such as primary productivity, should be supported as part of a program for assessing the effects of acidification. These measurements will also have value in assessing the effects of other long-term environmental stressors. RECOMMENDATION: To ensure long-term continuity of data sets across investigators, locations, and time, the National Ocean Acidifica tion Program should support inter-calibration, standards development, and efforts to make methods of acquiring chemical and biological data clear and consistent. The Program should support the development of satellite, ship-based, and autonomous sensors, as well as other methods and technologies, as part of a network for observing ocean acidification and its impacts. As the field advances and a consensus emerges, the Program should support the identification and standardization of biological parameters for monitoring ocean acidification and its effects. CONCLUSION: The existing observing networks are inadequate for the task of

monitoring ocean acidification and its effects. However, these networks can be used as the backbone of a broader monitoring network.

The establishment of a National Ocean Acidification Program integrates data-management and is a prerequisite to international cooperation Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification, 2014(“Strategic Plan for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/iwg-oa_strategic_plan_march_2014.pdf)

Oceans provide vital resources and services for sustaining humankind including food, recreation, transportation, energy, nutrient-cycling, and climate moderation, and they substantially contribute to the economy. However, the chemistry of the oceans is changing in ways that will have impacts on these services and resources. Several federal agencies are working towards developing a collective approach to understand and address this rapidly emerging problem, commonly referred to as ocean acidification. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive interagency plan to address the increasing impacts of ocean acidification, Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (FOARAM Act), which defines ocean acidification as “the decrease in pH of the Earth’s oceans and changes in ocean chemistry caused by chemical inputs from the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide.” Coastal and estuarine acidification, to the extent that the cause of the acidification can be traced back to anthropogenic atmospheric inputs to the ocean, are assumed to be covered by this Strategic Plan for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification (Strategic Plan) wherever ocean acidification is referenced. To further clarify, anthropogenic effects on land-based runoff can drive respiration-induced acidification that likely exacerbates chemical changes caused by atmospheric CO2 loading. The FOARAM Act calls on the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) to establish an Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification (IWG-OA). The Act also explicitly calls for developing a strategic research plan to guide “Federal research and monitoring on ocean acidification that will provide for an assessment of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms and marine ecosystems and the development of adaption and mitigation strategies to conserve marine organisms and marine ecosystems.” The IWG-OA was chartered in October 2009 and comprises representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), U.S. Department of State (DOS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Navy. The IWG-OA is chaired by NOAA and co-vice chaired by NSF and NASA. The IWG-OA is guided by the following vision: “A nation, globally engaged and guided by science, sustaining healthy marine and coastal ecosystems, communities, and economies through informed responses to ocean acidification.” This vision reflects the intention that U.S. ocean-acidification efforts be societally relevant and to be based on the best available information and science. In preparing this Strategic Plan, the IWG-OA focused on seven priority themes identified in the FOARAM Act. The themes include the five Program Elements set forth as the minimum requirements for the plan and two additional elements required for successful implementation. Although activities are separated into themes, most of the work conducted will

bridge themes to create a unified whole. Throughout the Strategic Plan, cross-referencing of themes clearly emphasizes these connections. The seven themes address: (1) monitoring; (2) research; (3) modeling; (4) technology development; (5) socioeconomic impacts; (6) education, outreach, and engagement strategies; and (7) data management and integration. These themes lay out recommendations and short-term (3- to 5-year) and long-term (10-year) goals. Research Goals Highlighted • Improve existing observing systems and develop new technology and systems that monitor chemical and biological impacts of ocean acidification worldwide, document trends, and develop early warning systems. • Undertake laboratory, mesocosm, and in situ research to examine species-specific and multi-species physiological responses including behavioral and evolutionary adaptive capacities. Also, examine interactions with other stressors, effects on biogeochemical processes affecting the cycling of elements and chemical species, impacts to marine food webs and ecosystems, the ability of ecological processes to reduce ocean acidification or its negative effects, and mechanisms necessary to develop indices to track marine-ecosystem responses. • Develop comprehensive models to predict changes in the ocean carbon cycle, oceanic carbonate-buffer systems, and impacts on marine ecosystems and organisms. • Ensure the ability to measure all required parameters with adequate data quality through technology development and standardization of measurements. • Undertake investigations that translate and reconcile laboratory results with real-world situations. • Develop vulnerability assessments for various CO2 emissions scenarios. • Foster a coordinated Federal approach to technology development and standardization efforts. • Assess the cultural, subsistence, and economic impacts of ocean acidification. • Identify and engage stakeholders and local communities in developing adaptation and mitigation strategies for responsible stewardship of marine and Great Lakes organisms and ecosystems. • Design and coordinate activities that foster ocean-acidification literacy through educational resources and public outreach. • Develop and implement domestic and international engagement strategies and facilitating partnerships. • Ensure that results and assessments of monitoring and research efforts are accessible to and understandable by managers, policy makers, and the general public. • Ensure that ocean-acidification data are properly managed and integrated across disciplinary, organizational, cultural, societal, and data-management technology boundaries. As ocean-acidification monitoring, research, modeling, and outreach programs are developed, priorities will likely need to be adjusted to ensure coverage of all present and future needs. Allowing for the periodic evaluation and adjustment of the Strategic Plan is a vital part of the planning effort. Areas that are of high interest with respect to ocean acidification in the near-term include high-latitude open-oceans, coral reefs, and coastal and estuarine regions. These regions, and the living marine resources they contain, will receive special emphasis and are incorporated into the short-term and/or long-term goals of each theme. As ocean acidification is a global phenomenon, international coordination and cooperation is essential. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre to address the growing concern of ocean acidification. Operated by the Agency’s Monaco Environmental Laboratories, the International Coordination Centre will serve the scientific community as well as policymakers, universities, media, and the general public by facilitating, promoting, and communicating global actions on ocean acidification. The United States will be represented on the Ocean Acidification Advisory Board. The establishment of a

National Ocean Acidification Program and an associated National Program Office is

recommended to serve the vital role of developing and executing an implementation plan that aligns with the goals outlined in this Strategic Plan. The location and leadership model for the National Ocean Acidification Program Office should be determined by the participating

agencies once the National Ocean Acidification Program is confirmed. The National Ocean Acidification Program Office will report directly to the IWG-OA and will be tasked with developing an ocean-acidification implementation plan, coordinating federal and federally funded ocean-acidification research and monitoring, establishing an ocean-acidification information exchange, and producing reports and documentation as required by the FOARAM Act and other statutes and interagency mandates. Both the IWG-OA and National Ocean Acidification Program must ensure that federal ocean acidification monitoring, research, funding programs, and outreach efforts effectively address short- and long-term priorities while remaining proactive and adaptive as ocean acidification impacts and effective mitigation measures become better understood. Also, the National Ocean Acidification Program and Program Office will facilitate U.S. representation on the International Coordination Centre of the IAEA.

A centralized organization is key – alternative is poor inter-agency cooperationBarnes and McFadden, NOAA and Assistant Professor, 2007 (Cassandra, Program Analyst at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with a Ph.D., and Katherine W., Assistant Professor, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology at Columbia University, “Marine ecosystem approaches to management: challenges and lessons in the United States”. Science Direct. 1 November 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000954)

An institutional feeling of “protectiveness” or overlapping jurisdictions within a geographic area has been a traditional problem for resource management. In addition, the dynamic nature of ecosystems makes it difficult for rigid guidelines on either ecosystem classification or boundary delineation. While scientists may define boundaries based on ecological criteria, the geopolitical or management boundaries must also be taken into account in EAM [14]. An important component in solving the problem of integrating social and natural science includes promoting collaborations between internal and external partners. Survey respondents noted that collaboration has been difficult to implement in an atmosphere of limited funding and time, and within an organizational structure of employees spanning the United States. Adding to this problem is the fact that multiple divisions within NOAA overlap(s) on research projects without full exchange or dialogue. For example, harmful algal blooms (HABs) may be studied by external researchers who are granted research funding from NOAA, while there is currently no formal structure for communicating these results directly to NOAA's own internal HAB research. Internal cooperation might be improved with greater level of centralized coordination amongst management. Additionally, a better application of matrix management may help streamline some of the barriers to organizational challenges. Strategic planning and matrix management cross traditional organizational boundaries by the assembly of teams to look at complex crosscutting issues for a more integrated organization.

The plan resolves both lab-based and field research and a sustainable programNational Research Council, 2010(National Research Council, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean (2010),” Online: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12904)

OBSERVING NETWORK: Many publications have noted the critical need for long-term monitoring of ocean and climate to document and quantify changes, including ocean acidification, and that the current observation systems for monitoring these changes are insufficient. A global network of robust and sustained chemical and biological observations will be necessary to establish a baseline and to detect and predict changes attributable to acidification. The first step in developing the observing network will be identification of the appropriate chemical and biological parameters to be measured by the network and ensuring data quality and consistency across space and time. There is widespread agreement on the chemical parameters (and methods and tools for measurement) for monitoring ocean acidification. Unlike the chemical parameters, there are no agreed upon metrics for biological variables. In part, this is because the field is young and in part because the biological effects of ocean acidification, from the cellular to the ecosystem level, are very complex. To account for this complexity, the program will need to monitor parameters that cover a range of organisms and ecosystems and support both laboratory-based and field research. The development of new tools and techniques, including novel autonomous sensors, would greatly improve the ability to make relevant chemical and biological measurements over space and time and will be necessary to identify and characterize essential biological indicators concerning the ecosystem consequences of ocean acidification. As critical biological indicators and metrics are identified, the Program will need to incorporate those measurements into the research plan, and thus, adaptability in response to developments in the field is a critical element of the monitoring program. The next step in developing the observing network will be consideration of available resources. A number of existing sites and surveys could serve as a backbone for an ocean acidification observational network, but these existing sites were not designed to observe ocean acidification and thus do not provide adequate coverage or measurements of key parameters. The current system of observations would be improved by adding sites and measurements in ecosystems projected to be vulnerable to ocean acidification (e.g.. coral reefs and polar regions) and areas of high variability (e.g., coastal regions). Two community-based reports (Fabry et al.. 2008a; Feely et al., 2010) identify vulnerable ecosystems, measurement requirements, and other details for developing an ocean acidification observational network. Another important consideration is the sustainability of long-term observations, which remains a perpetual challenge but is critical given the gradual, cumulative, and long-lasting pressure of ocean acidification. Integrating the network of ocean acidification observations with other ocean observing systems will help to ensure sustainability of the acidification-specific observations. CONCLUSION: The chemical parameters that should be measured as part of an ocean acidification observational network and the methods to make those measurements are well- established. RECOMMENDATION: The National Program should support a chemical monitoring program that includes measurements of temperature, salinity, oxygen, nutrients critical to primary production, and at least two of the following four carbon parameters: dissolved inorganic carbon, pCO2, total alkalinity, and pH. To account for variability in these values with depth, measurements should he made not just in the surface layer, but with consideration for different depth zones of interest, such as the deep sea, the oxygen minimum zone, or in coastal areas that experience periodic or seasonal hypoxia. CONCLUSION: Standardized, appropriate parameters for monitoring the biological effects of ocean acidification cannot be determined until more is known concerning the physiological responses and population consequences of ocean acidification across a wide range of taxa. RECOMMENDATION: To incorporate findings front future research, the National Program should support an adaptive monitoring program to identify biological response variables specific to ocean acidification. In

the meantime, measurements of general indicators of ecosystem change, such as primary productivity, should be supported as part of a program for assessing the effects of acidification. These measurements will also have value in assessing the effects of other long-term environmental stressors.

Establishment of a US national program on ocean acidification is key - coordinates federal agencies and is a prerequisite to international cooperation Fabry, Oceanographer and professor of Biological Science, 2007(Victoria J., professor of Biological Science at CSU San Marcos and visiting scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Present and Future Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles” Report of the Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Scoping Workshop on Ocean Acidification Research Authors: V. J. Fabry, C. Langdon, W. M. Balch, A. G. Dickson, R. A. Feely, B. Hales, D. A. Hutchins, J. A. Kleypas, and C. L. Sabine)

Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota, ecosystems, and biogeochemistry. Understanding these impacts requires integrative approaches to understand the linkages among ecosystem components and feedbacks to climate. The Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry (OCB) program, a scientific community-driven coordinating body that promotes U.S. research and international cooperation to investigate the ocean’s role in the global Earth system, sponsored a Scoping Workshop on Ocean Acidification Research. With support from the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey, a multidisciplinary assemblage of 93 scientists participated in the 3-day workshop, held at the UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography on 9–11 October 2007. The goals of this Scoping Workshop on Ocean Acidification Research were to: 1. Develop coordinated research implementation strategies to address present and future ocean acidification impacts; and 2. Identify specific activities and timelines needed to advance research priorities. Previous meetings and reports on the impacts of ocean acidification emphasized substantial knowledge gaps at the ecosystem level. Therefore, this workshop focused on developing comprehensive research strategies for four critical ecosystems: • Warm-water coral reefs; • Coastal margins; • Subtropical/tropical pelagic regions; and • High latitude regions. Four individual focus groups (one for each of these ecosystems) were asked to address each of the two goals noted above. Plenary discussions identified common approaches as well as ecosystem-specific differences. These discussions highlighted the need to integrate modeling into the design, execution, and interpretation of manipulative experiments, as well as recognizing the possibility for interactions between the effects of increasing p(CO2) and effects due to climate-induced changes in variables such as temperature and nutrients. Participants

strongly endorsed the establishment of an interdisciplinary U.S. national program on ocean

acidification that would coordinate research activities among different U.S. Federal agencies . They also stressed the need for continuing international cooperation to develop a coordinated, global network of ocean observations and process studies that could leverage existing infrastructure and programs as far as possible, while noting the need for additional sites for monitoring and process studies aimed explicitly at ocean acidification. Key recommendations include: • Establish a national program on ocean acidification research; • Develop new instrumentation for the autonomous measurement of CO2 system parameters, particulate

inorganic carbon (PIC), particulate organic carbon (POC), and physiological stress markers; • Standardize protocols for manipulation and measurement of seawater chemistry in experiments and for calcification and other rate measurements; • Establish new monitoring sites/surveys in open-ocean and coastal regions, including sites of particular interest such as the Bering Sea; • Build shared facilities to conduct well-controlled CO2-manipulation experiments; • Progressively build capacity and initiate planning for mesocosm and CO2-perturbation experiments in the field; Ocean acidification has implications for many aspects of the Earth system (i.e., chemical, physical, biological, ecological, geological), and any successful research strategy that aims to develop the ability to predict present and future responses of marine biota, ecosystem processes, and biogeochemistry requires a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Critical research elements will require technical advances, regional and global networks of observations and process studies, manipulative experiments involving a suite of organisms in laboratory studies, mesocosm and field experiments, and new modeling approaches. One of the key questions regarding responses to ocean acidification is resolving the distinction between “tipping points” and adaptation. Are there geochemical thresholds or tipping points for ocean acidification (e.g., CaCO3 mineral saturation state levels) that, if crossed, will lead to irreversible effects on species and ecosystems over human timescales? How can we determine whether organisms and ecosystems can adapt sufficiently to changing seawater chemistry in ways that will reduce potential negative impacts of ocean acidification? Ocean acidification-relevant indicators beyond basic water-column carbonate chemistry have yet to be adequately developed. Parameters that can be measured routinely and that detect biotic effects of ocean acidification reliably, such as indicator-species abundance, biochemical signatures of physiological stress, or ecosystem species composition, do not yet exist. Ocean acidification (OA) research must produce an accessible parameterization of the effects and risks of acidification. Towards that end, we first identified the recommended research needs that were common to all four ecosystems chosen. These are described below in terms of immediate (0–2 years), intermediate (2–5 years), and long-term (5–10 years) priorities. Also common to all four

ecosystems were the needs for a national ocean acidification program , data management, and programs to ensure education of the public and training of graduate students in ocean acidification research. Table 1 summarizes the research activities needed to advance ocean acidification research across the four critical ecosystems of warm water coral reefs, ocean margins, tropical/subtropical pelagic regions, and high latitude regions.

Creation of a national program sufficiently improves monitoring to overcome knowledge gaps Sponberg, director at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, 2007 (Ocean Acidification: The Biggest Threat to Our Oceans? Author(s): ADRIENNE FROELICH SPONBERG, director of public affairs at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Source: BioScience, Vol. 57, No. 10 (November 2007), p. 822Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/B571004)

When it comes to the oceans and carbon dioxide,there’s good news and bad news. To date, the world’s oceans have absorbed nearly a third of the excess carbon dioxide emitted as a result ofanthropogenic activities.That may be good news for the atmosphere, but scientists and policymakers are in- creasingly concerned about the side effect of carbon dioxide absorption:

ocean acidification. Since the industrial revolution,ocean pH has gone down by 0.1 units,which translates into a 30 percent surge in acidity.Scientists predict that pH will go down another 0.14 to 0.35 units by the end of this century.Accompanying the lower pH are lower saturation points of minerals such as calcium car- bonate,the primary skeletal material of marine organisms that form the basis of ocean food webs,such as phytoplank- ton and coral reefs.As the ocean be- comes more acidic,calcium carbonate begins to dissolve.The shift in ocean chemistry is so profound that the shells will literally dissolve offthe backs of some organisms under the ocean con- ditions predicted for 2100,according to experiments conducted by Victoria Fabry,ofCalifornia State University in San Marcos. The rapid change in seawater acidity is almost unprecedented.At a Senate Oceans,Atmosphere,Fisheries,and Coast Guard Subcommittee hearing on ocean acidification,Scott Doney,of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, testified,“Marine life has survived large climate and acidification variations in the past, but the projected rates ofcli- mate change and ocean acidification over the next century are much faster than experienced by the planet in the past, except for rare,catastrophic events in the geological record.”Thomas Love- joy,president ofthe Heinz Center for Science,Economics and the Environ- ment, shares Doney’s concern.Lovejoy has described ocean acidification as “the most profound environmental change I have observed in my entire professional career.” Unlike the situation with other as- pects of climate change,there is no con- troversy over ocean acidification.At the Senate hearing on ocean acidification, the panelists universally painted a grim picture.Not only will species have to adapt to a changing thermal environ- ment, but they will also have to cope with increased acidity ofseawater. David Conover,dean and director of the Marine Science Research Center at Stony Brook University,warned the subcommittee that the combination of stresses will make commercial species less resilient to harvesting:“We may need to reduce [the] harvest [of] some species in certain areas to enable them to withstand the additional stress.” Further complicating matters are potential shifts in marine community structure.David Hutchins,a professor at the University ofSouthern Califor- nia, has conducted experiments in open ocean areas to determine how plankton communities will react to the higher temperature and greater acidity of oceans ofthe future.His team’s results suggest a shift in marine food webs “that will make the ocean much less productive ofresources like fish that a hungry human population depends on.” Scientists concede there are many unknowns regarding ocean acidifica- tion. As with other aspects ofclimate change,scientists need to refine models of the physical environment. But even with improved physical models,Doney says,“significant knowledge gaps” in ocean biology will hinder “the creation of the skillful forecasts needed to guide ocean management decisions.” Despite the knowledge gaps, there is no dedicated federal funding for ocean acidification research. Some members of Congress want to change that. Sena- tors Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ) and Maria Cantwell (D–WA) have intro- duced S.1581,the Federal Ocean Acidi- fication Research and Monitoring Act of 2007,to create an interagency task force for ocean acidification,as well as a research program to be housed at NOAA.Lautenberg says the bill’s time has come:“Congress has been hearing from our Nation[’s] experts on ocean acidification since 2004.Now is the time for national investment in a co- ordinated program of research and monitoring.” Although ocean acidification is rela- tively new on the policy radar screen, do not be surprised to see it jump the queue to the top ofmarine conserva- tion issues. Cantwell,who chairs the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over ocean issues,sees acidification as a “must address”issue:“Ifwe fail to ad- dress the potential impact ofglobal cli- mate change and ocean acidification, we may be jeopardizing all ofour hard- fought ocean conservation gains.”

A national program office is key to coordinate current agencies, researchers, and NGO’s – lack of coordination between agencies causes overlap in observation Ocean Research and Advisory Panel 2010(Ocean Research and Advisory Panel, Ocean Acidification Task Force, “Summary of Work Completed and Recommendations for ORRAP to convey to the IWGOA,” June 22 2010, site: http://www.nopp.org) In an era of limited resources, yet critical scientific needs, it is important to focus on implementing strong interagency coordination of activities and funding so that duplication of activities is minimized and federal investments leveraged. A brief review of federal agency plans for addressing ocean acidification currently reflects reasonable plans within individual agencies but limited coordination between or among agencies. For example, monitoring of coastal waters for changes in pH, pCO2, DIC and/or TA, as well as other relevant biological, chemical and physical parameters are often duplicated among agencies, without direct communication and sharing of such data and without a coordinated plan toward a well- conceived and designed overall sampling and management plan. To this end, there needs to be a national plan for developing, deploying and integrating real-time ocean ecological measurements into ongoing observing systems. Moreover, funding of such activities as a national ocean monitoring system should be a focus of all agencies and coordinated as a single program and perhaps jointly funded through NOPP as a national program. Similar effective coordination and data sharing activities through creation of a permanent, national, inter-agency cyberinfrastructure system should be a top priority in developing a national plan for addressing ocean acidification. We support the vision of the National Research Council that calls for establishing a National Ocean Acidification Program Office that is jointly supported by all of the federal agencies involved in Ocean Acidification. This program office should not reside in a specific agency and would not only help maximize communication between agencies and participating scientists but also help avoid duplication. The logistics of such joint interagency support could be configured on the models of the past Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) and Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) programs, or the current Ocean Carbon Biogeochemistry (OCB) program office. Following the general structure used in these programs, the OA program office would be housed at an academic institution or possibly at the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. The program office structure would be simple, consisting of an executive director, a Chair of the Science Steering Committee (SSC), and an administrative assistant. These individuals would be full time positions and would be hosted at the home institution of the SSC Chair, at least initially, or at a non-academic site such as Consortium for Ocean Leadership. The SSC would be made up of members of the scientific community that should include representatives of academia, industry, agency and foundations. These individuals would be selected by a nomination process and would serve a defined term (possible 3 years). The program office would be funded by the IWGOA and could be selected by a Broad Agency Announcement for proposals to develop such an entity. In addition, the program office could house an education and outreach unit that would coordinate outreach and education efforts agency wide. This would facilitate getting the latest information out to the public. At the very least, the program office should coordinate education and outreach across the various agencies. A dedicated education and outreach unit that was well integrated into the program office was highly successful in the Census of Marine Life. This OA program office would provide a number of fundamental advantages over the present system whereby OA research and outreach activities are spread across several agencies. First, an OA program office would obviously be

critical to better coordinating and avoiding duplication between the various agencies (see previous bullet). Second, such an office would serve an additional important function by facilitating direct, constructive dialog between the US academic OA community and funding agency representatives, since academic scientists and presumably colleagues from foundations, NGO’s and industry would be members of the OA program Scientific Steering Committee. Finally, a national OA program office would fill a major gap by providing a badly needed united forum to represent US OA researchers in communications with the international ocean science community, with any participating foundations (see Section 3), and with related marine industries (see Section 3). OA research in the United States has historically lagged behind the more organized and coordinated efforts developed through organized programs, such as those from the European Union. A formal US OA program office would provide us with a stronger, more united voice in international OA issues instead of the “many small voices” which are all we now have as individual OA researchers.

A National Program Office is key to coordination between agencies, NGO’s, state and local governments, and international organizations in order to prevent agency overlap, produce better risk assessment, and better coordinate data sharingOcean Research and Advisory Panel 2010(Ocean Research and Advisory Panel, Ocean Acidification Task Force, “Summary of Work Completed and Recommendations for ORRAP to convey to the IWGOA,” June 22 2010, site: http://www.nopp.org) In September 2010, the National Research Council published the report, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean” which reviews the current state of scientific knowledge on ocean acidification, and identifies gaps in that knowledge, particularly with respect to information useful to policy makers and federal agencies. The OATF offers the following as additional details or emphasis to the NRC recommendations. 1. Interagency Coordination: It is critical that the federal agencies participating in the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification (IWGOA) consider the many ways to implement strong interagency coordination of activities and funding in building plans for addressing ocean acidification. 2. Interagency National Program Office: We support the vision of the National Research Council that calls for establishing an Interagency National Ocean Acidification Program Office. This office would not only help maximize communication between agencies and participating scientists but also help avoid duplication. 3. Foundations, NGOs and Industry: There is considerable potential value in having several major foundations and NGOs collaborate in supporting research into ocean acidification. We strongly encourage the participating federal agencies to develop linkages with these groups. We also believe there are many opportunities for scientists to advise the marine industrial community and that the IWGOA should encourage productive interactions such as those evolving between marine scientists on the west coast and the Pacific Shellfish Growers Association. 4. International Collaboration: The robust research programs involving ocean acidification that are underway internationally offer many opportunities for important collaborations with scientific colleagues in the United States. It is important that the involved federal agencies develop plans that facilitate the participation of US scientists so we capitalize on the substantive investments that are being made abroad. 5. Communication: Communication between scientists and education of

the public at large is a challenge confronting our society. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the interest in, and appreciation for, science in the United States is extremely low. If we expect our federal legislators to provide substantive long-term support, the IWGOA will need to consider how they can effectively improve communication about Ocean Acidification research and its relevance to society. 6. Science Needs: For many decades ocean science has been impeded by the lack of dependable in situ sensing systems. Sensor development has been perennially underfunded and substantial investments on the order of tens of millions a year are needed to develop and then sustainably deploy dependable new sensing systems for physical, chemical and biological variables and this should be integral to the decade-long effort the IWGOA is developing. In addition to National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) funding, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) should be approached to partner in the sensor development effort. An important goal of the observational, experimental and modeling studies being formulated by the IWGOA should include entire food webs and the biogeochemical cycles that support them. 7. Management Actions and Multiple Stressors: A host of important management decisions will be made in response to the scientific insights developed during the decade-long investigations involving Ocean Acidification. The Task Force recognizes the particular challenges presented by the action of multiple stressors in the marine environment but contends they should be made an integral part of management strategies. 8. Socioeconomic Recommendations: Social sciences need to be incorporated into the assessment of the impacts of ocean acidification on lives and livelihoods. This could build on existing models – NOAA Climate and Societal Interactions program (CSI) and The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and should include econometric approaches. Risk assessments of ocean acidification, that incorporate low-probability, high-impact events as well as high-probability, low-to-mid impacts need to be considered. Given the global nature of OA, socio-economic impacts must be considered with regard to global security. 9. National Ocean Acidification Data Management Plan: There needs to be effective interagency coordination and data sharing. Information about OA and relevant data are scattered; there needs to be a permanent, national, interagency cyberinfrastructure system that ties together or stores in a few places all relevant data archives relevant to ocean acidification. The IWGOA should also identify opportunities to integrate OA data into the eventual IOOS (Integrated Ocean Observing System) data management scheme. 10. Federal, Regional, State and Local Interactions: Local, regional, and state governments can combat the causes of acidification in parallel with the federal government. Environmental laws currently in effect provide a network of pathways for intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. Below we list some of the environmental laws relevant for mitigating ocean acidification, and the governmental interactions that these laws trigger.

Federal Government Key

Federal institutions like NOAA, NSF, and NASA all support an interagency organization to better process information. National Research Council, 2010(National Research Council, By Committee on the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet The Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” National Academy of Sciences.http://books.google.com/books?id=gVt0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=ocean+acidification+monitoring+current+techniques+insufficiency&source=bl&ots=WoOjp7Dtq4&sig=MX-o9hu3OPR5hJFD4jj14jP0OCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RVfQU_mIEYvgsATHmYHABw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20acidification%20monitoring%20current%20techniques%20insufficiency&f=false)

In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (RL. 109-479, sec. 701), Congress called on “the Secretary of Commerce [to] request the National Research Council to conduct a study of the acidification of the oceans and how this process affects the United States.” This request was reiterated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161). Based on these requests, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approached the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) to develop a study. While NOAA is a key federal agency in the effort to understand and address the consequences of ocean acidification, there are many other agencies involved in this topic. Therefore, NOAA and the OSB also sought input and sponsorship from the other members of the National Science and Technology Council Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST), composed of representatives from the 25 agencies that address ocean science and technology issues. JSOST assisted in developing the study terms and, in addition to NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the US. Geological Survey (USGS) agreed to support the study. As the study was being developed, Congress enacted an additional law that would influence the committee’s work. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research And Monitoring (FOARAM) Act of 2009 was passed as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 ([‘.L. 111-11) and signed into law on March 30, 2009, shortly before the committee’s first meeting. The purposes of the FOA RAM Act are to: develop and coordinate an interagency plan for monitoring and research, establish an ocean acidification program within NOAA, assess and consider ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts, and research adaptation strategies and techniques for addressing ocean acidification. The FOARAM Act outlines specific activities for both NOAA and NSF and also authorizes funds for these two agencies to carry out the Act, beginning at $14 million in fiscal year 2009 and ramping up to $35 million in 2012. In light of this new law, the committee’s work takes on added relevance. In parallel with the National Research Council (NRC) study, an interagency working group was assembled by the JSOST to develop the strategic plan. The committee considers this working group a primary audience for the report and hopes that the findings and recommendations feed into ongoing and future planning efforts by Congress and the federal agencies on ocean acidification research, monitoring, and impacts assessment. 1.3

STUDY APPROACH Tite Committee on the Development of an integrated Science Strategy for c.)ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research, and impacts Assessment was assembled by the NRC to provide recommendations to the federal agencies on an interagency strategic plan for ocean acidification. The committee is charged with reviewing the current state of knowledge and identifying key gaps in information to ultimately help guide federal agencies with efforts to better understand and address the consequences of ocean acidification (see Box S.l for full statement of task). The committee recognizes that many thorough scientific reviews have already been published on the topic of ocean acidification (e.g., Raven et al., 2005; Fabry et al., 2008b; Doney et al., 2009). Rather than duplicate the previous work, the committee chose to focus on the issues most relevant to the interagency working group: the high priority information needs of decision makers and the key elements of an effective interagency

program . The committee relied heavily on peer-reviewed literature, but also considered workshop reports, presentations at scientific meetings, and other community statements (e.g., Kleypas et al., 2006; Fabry et al., 2008a; Orr et al., 2009), as well as presentations at committee meetings and their own expert judgment as key inputs for establishing the community consensus on the current state of the science, research and monitoring priorities, and elements of an effective national program. 1.4

Federal government key – current agencies fail to adequately collect data but are a necessary backbone for a national ocean acidification office that can collect data with standardized data and facilitate communication between scientists, government agencies, and the publicMorel et al, Committee on the development of an integrated science strategy for ocean acidification monitoring, research, and impact assessment 2010 (Francois M.M. Morel, Chair, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey David Archer, University of Chicago, Illinois James P. Barry, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California Garry D. Brewer, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut Jorge E. CORREDOR, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez SCOTT C. Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts Victoria J. Fabby, California State University, San Marcos Gretchen E. Hofman, University of California, Santa Barbara Daniel S. Holland, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland Joan A. Kelypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado Frank J. Millero, University of Miami, Florida Ulf Riebesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean”)

An ocean acidification program will be a complex undertaking for the nation. Like climate change, ocean acidification is being driven by the integrated global behavior of humans and is occurring at a global scale, but its impacts are likely to be felt at the

regional and local level. It is a problem that cuts across disciplines and affects a diverse group of stake holders. Assessment, research, and development of potential adaptation measures will require coordination at the international, national, regional, state, and local levels. It will involve many of the greater than 20 federal agencies that are engaged in ocean science and resource management. Investigating

and understanding the problem will necessitate the close collaboration of ocean chemists, biologists, modelers, engineers, economists, social scientists, resource managers, and others from academic institutions, government labs and agencies, and non governmental organizations. It

will also involve two way communication—both outreach to and input from —stakeholders interested in

and affected by ocean acidification. Ultimately, a successful program will have an approach that inte grates basic science with decision support. In this chapter, the committee describes some key elements of a successful program: a robust observing network, research to fulfill critical information needs, adaptability to new findings, and assessments and support to

provide relevant information to decision makers, stakeholders, and the general public. Cutting across these elements are the needs for data management, facilities, training of ocean acidification researchers, and effective program planning and management. Countless publications have noted the critical need for long term ocean observations for a variety of reasons, including understanding the effects of climate change and acidification; they have also noted that the current systems for monitoring these changes are insufficient

(e.g., Baker et al., 2007; Fabry et al., 2008a; Birdsey et al., 2009; National Research Council, 2009b). Currently, observations relevant to ocean acidification are being collected, but not in a systematic fashion. A global network of robust and sustained observations, both chemical and biological, will be necessary to establish a baseline and to detect and predict changes attributable to acidification (Feely et al., 2010). This network will require adequate and standardized measurements, both biological and chemical, as well as new methods and technologies for acquiring those measurements. It will also have to cover the major ecosystems that may be affected by ocean acidification, and specifically target environments that provide important ecosystem services that are potentially sensitive to acidification (e.g.,

fisheries, coral reefs). This network need not be entirely built “from scratch,” and the program should leverage existing and developing observing systems. Even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions remained constant at today’s levels, the average pH of the ocean would continue to decrease for some period of time, and research in the area would benefit from continuous time-series data. Thus the program should consider mechanisms to sustain the long term continuity of the observational network.

Monitoring Solves Risk Assessment

Monitoring is key to systemic risk assessment and adaptive regulationsBiber, Law Professor at UC Berkeley, 2011 (Eric, Assistant Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law. “The Problem of Environmental Monitoring,” University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 83 Is. 1)

The term "environment" can refer to the natural environment, and that is the usual meaning in environmental law. But it has a broader meaning-the context in which any activity takes place. Thus, the problem of environmental monitoring-of monitoring ambient, systemic conditions-is not just a problem for environmental law. It is a problem for any field of regulatory law. The immediate trigger of the recent financial crisis was a series of dramatic changes in the global financial environment, 334 changes potentially caused by the problems of "systemic risk," (the possibility that the interconnections among different financial actors allow for the transmission and amplification of risk across institutional and international boundaries). 335 The analogy with ambient environmental conditions is strong. In both cases, the focus is on systemic problems at a scale larger than that of an individual actor. Both problems require the gathering of tremendous amounts of data from large numbers of actors or locations (data about biotic and abiotic conditions in the natural environment in one case, data about a tremendous number of financial transactions in the other case).336 And, in both cases, analysis and prediction will be complicated by the potential for interaction with exogenous changes or shocks (interaction of human pollution with biotic and abiotic systems in one case, the possibility of changes in underlying economic, political, or social conditions that affect the values of assets in the other case). As with environmental law, ongoing, continuous monitoring of the financial environment will be important, if only because no one can know when a rapid rise in systemic risk might occur. The complexity and difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of systemic risk monitoring mimics the same challenges in environmental law; the uncertainty of any assessments as to the quality of the monitoring data parallel the same uncertainties in environmental law. Thus, the principles developed in this Article in the context of environmental law-the need to develop trust in the institutions that conduct the monitoring, the importance of creating institutions that are motivated to conduct effective monitoring, the difficulty of forcing effective monitoring to occur-can apply in the context of finance as well. Given the conclusions of this Article about the potentially important role that independent monitoring agencies can play, Congress's decision in the recent financial reform bill to give the task of collecting and analyzing the monitoring data on systemic risk to a new agency that has at least some institutional independence seems promising.337 Whatever the regulatory field, monitoring of ambient conditions will be central to the present and future of successful regulation and management. After this Article's review of how challenging it can be to conduct effective monitoring, a reader might conclude that the law should focus more on developing legal and institutional design structures that do not depend so heavily on monitoring. For instance, in areas where monitoring is inordinately expensive (such as environmental resources where there is high variability at both small temporal and geographic scales), perhaps we should manage based on the assumption that we will not be able to act based on timely, accurate information.338 But this might require abandoning the possibility of adaptive, flexible, or experimental regulation and returning to "rigid, inflexible, dictated" regulatory standards

inconsistent with the paradigm of new governance. 339 But we cannot know if experimentation and adaptation are successful if we cannot monitor whether management choices have improved outcomes or not. The new governance literature has argued that whatever we may lose in terms of accountability with more flexible legal standards, we can gain back with greater monitoring that can provide a foundation by which we can judge whether regulatory and management programs are succeeding.340 Yet that literature has paid little attention to how this monitoring will occur, whether it will be successful, and whether it can fill the accountability gap that would otherwise be created by the legal flexibility that the new, dynamic, experimentalist forms of governance demand.341 The analysis in this Article makes clear that the answers to these questions are not given, that monitoring may well not fill the breach caused by the retreat of law in new governance systems. Every substantive regulatory area will have its own unique features that will make solving the problem of environmental monitoring different. But all have this in common: Addressing monitoring is a necessary feature of successful governance, whether of the old or new variety, and policymakers will need to thoughtfully consider how to answer what is an essentially political question as they make important legal and institutional design choices. To do otherwise is to court failure.

Monitoring Solves Iron Fertilization

Monitoring is a prerequisite to iron fertilizationWatson, Professor of Biochemistry, et al. 2008Andrew J., Fellow of the Royal Society, Professor at the College of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Exeter. “Designing the next generation of ocean iron fertilization experiments” Andrew J. Watson1,*, Philip W. Boyd2, Suzanne M. Turner1, Timothy D. Jickells1, Peter S. Liss1 (http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m364p303.pdf)

In the first generation of experiments, the criteria for site selection were appropriate biogeochemical conditions (HNLC, low iron, iron-limited phytoplankton, seasonal mean mixed layer depth) and relatively quiescent physical conditions (to permit a coherent labelled patch of ocean to persist). For larger experiments that rely less on tracking a tracer, this basis for site selection will no longer be so relevant. Modelling should be used to help select the site, considering not just the large-scale dynamics (e.g. what part of the world ocean to do the release in) but also the mesoscale: proximity to fronts, eddy scales and kinetic energy. For this purpose, high resolution models and observations (from satellite altimetry, for example) would be useful and could help determine the best strategy for the iron release. The ‘confined patch’ strategy used up until now may well not be the best way to begin a larger and longer-scale experiment (see later), which might be better initiated by an elongated streak. DESIGN OF THE OBSERVATIONAL PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENT Following the selection of a suitable site based on an ensemble of model simulations, the next step is to design a comprehensive survey of the variability exhibited by the properties that may be altered by the iron release. This survey should cover both the waters upstream (i.e. into which the iron will eventually be released) and downstream (i.e. the waters that will interact with the labelled iron patch as it evolves). The variables to be measured would include biogenic gases, downward export flux, biological productivity and nutrients. The areal extent of this survey will be dictated by the expected final areal extent of the iron release. Modelling will also be essential to provide some constraints on the probable trajectory (e.g. Coale et al. 1996) and evolution (dilution rate) of the ironlabelled patch over the subsequent 6 to 12 mo. During the first generation of experiments, around 12 to 14 h was required to add the dissolved iron so that it formed a coherent patch of 10 km length-scale. However, logistics dictate that for iron enrichment of a 200 × 200 km patch, multiple vessels would be required if a coherent enrichment patch is to be accomplished within a few days. Such a challenge would require making the iron addition in a carefully co-ordinated manner, which would involve monitoring a suite of Lagrangian (i.e. moving with the net flow of the upper ocean currents, etc.) drifters both in surface and subsurface waters (the latter ensuring the water at depth below the patch is moving in concert with the iron-enriched surface layer). A possible alternative to iron addition using multiple ships might be to use aircraft to spread the iron, though this would inevitably mean the iron would be added at the very surface, rather than homogenized into the mixed layer. We also foresee some operational difficulties in spreading >10 t of material from the air in remote regions of the ocean.

Monitoring is crucial in planning iron fertilization Djoghalf, Executive Secretary of UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009 (Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of Convention on Biological Diversity under UNEP. “Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Fertilization on Marine Biodiversity” Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity CBD Technical Series No 45. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-45-en.pdf)

Ocean fertilization purposefully alters both the chemistry and biological processes in the marine environment, which raises a number of fundamental uncertainties and questions, especially as the role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle is still not fully understood. Changes and impacts on water chemistry (e.g. carbonate concentrations and pH) and abotic parameters follow known stoichiometric, thermodynamic and kinetic reactions, and therefore can be measured, modeled and predicted with reasonable certainty and accuracy. For example, it would be possible to determine the increase in ocean acidi- cation in relation to the amount of CO2 sequestered by ocean fertilization. However, the impact on biological processes and marine biodiversity is much more difficult to forecast. Knowledge of complex and dynamic biogeochemical marine processes (e.g. the ”biological pump”) is mostly limited to the general components and functions, and does not include the biological sub-processes, linkages and drivers, which ultimately determine whether and how marine biodiversity and ecosystems will be a ected. (iii) e extent and duration of the impact caused by ocean fertilization on marine biodiversity and ecosystems and related processes and functions also depends on how organisms and communities a ected by the environmental changes will react. Again, this is something which at present can only be estimated vaguely (at best) because of the lack of detailed information about the dynamic functioning of marine ecosystems and processes, including the ecology, life cycles and resilience of marine species and communities. Short-term (days to weeks) impacts, especially on planktonic organisms and communities in the surface layers around the fertilization site, could be measured by vessel or traced by remote sensing . However, it would be very costly and resource intensive to measure medium- (months to years) to long-term (years to decades) impacts, especially in the deeper water column and on the sea oor. There is a need for long-term monitoring in these environments to determine any ecological effects, as most deep-sea organisms have a long life time and slow reproduction. At present, the medium- to long-term e ects of large-scale ocean fertilization on higher levels of the marine food chain remain poorly understood and researched. (iv) Most of the ocean fertilization experiments carried out so far, especially the early experimentations, had the objective to test the concept of ocean fertilization (i.e. whether it was possible to stimulate plankton growth) and to gain a better scienti- c understanding of the development and dynamics of the arti- cially created plankton blooms. e focus, design and duration of these experiments was not suitable to monitor and provide data on the actual impact of ocean fertilization to marine biodiversity. (v) In order to get a better understanding on the actual and potential impacts of ocean fertilization on marine biodiversity, more extensive and targeted - eld work and better mathematical models of ocean biogeochemical processes would be required, not only to determine whether signi - cant sequestration has taken place, but also to interpret - eld observations and to provide reliable predictions and answers about the side e ects and impacts of large-scale fertilization. ere is also a need for research to advance our understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics and the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle. Advances in both of these basic research areas are critical to understanding climate change and should be fostered regardless of whether or not ocean fertilization activities contribute to mitigating climate change.243 Ocean fertilization,

whether carried out as legitimate scienti- c research or on a commercial basis, presents serious challenges for the law of the sea, a fundamental objective of which is to ensure that activities conducted on, in or under the oceans do not create hazards to human health and the marine environment, or harm living marine resources244,245. Ocean fertilization is one of many recently proposed or emerging uses of the oceans which require an integrated, concerted response from stakeholders and relevant international bodies/organizations to ensure that our oceans and their resources are protected, conserved, managed and used in a sustainable way.

Iron fertilization mitigates ocean acidification by stimulating phytoplankton growthCao and Caldeira, Stanford department of Global Ecology, 2009 (Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford. “Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate ocean acidification?” A letter Long Cao · Ken Caldeira Received: 30 October 2009 / Accepted: 2 January 2010 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 http://web.stanford.edu/~longcao/Cao&Caldeira 2010.pdf)

Ocean iron fertilization has been proposed as a method to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, and there is continued commercial interest in using iron fertilization to generate carbon credits. It has been further speculated that ocean iron fertilization could help mitigate ocean acidification. Here, using a global ocean carbon cycle model, we performed idealized ocean iron fertilization simulations to place an upper bound on the effect of iron fertilization on atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification. Under the IPCC A2 CO2 emission scenario, at year 2100 the model simulates an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 965 ppm with themean surface ocean pH 0.44 units less than its pre-industrial value of 8.18. A globally sustained ocean iron fertilization could not diminish CO2 concentrations below 833 ppm or reduce the mean surface ocean pH change to less than 0.38 units. This maximum of 0.06 unit mitigation in surface pH change by the end of this century is achieved at the cost of storingmore anthropogenicCO2 in the ocean interior, furthering acidifying the deepocean. If the amount of net carbon storage in the deep ocean by iron fertilization produces an equivalent amount of emission credits, ocean iron fertilization further acidifies the deep ocean without conferring any chemical benefit to the surface ocean. 1 Introduction Ocean iron fertilization (OIF) has been proposed by several commercial organizations as an approach to mitigate rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations following John Martin’s formulation of the ‘iron hypothesis’ (Martin 1990). Over about 20% of the surface ocean, including large parts of the Southern Ocean, the eastern equatorial Pacific, and parts of the North Pacific, low biomass and chlorophyll concentrations are observed with macronutrients go largely unutilized. These areas are termed as high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll (HNLC) regions. The proposal to fertilize the ocean with iron is based on the reasoning that adding iron to these HNLC regions would stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, and therefore enhance the biological drawdown of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. A number of field experiments (e.g. Boyd et al. 2007; Pollard et al. 2009) and modeling studies (e.g. Sarmiento and Orr 1991; Gnanadesikan et al. 2003; Aumont and Bopp 2006) investigated the effect of OIF on plankton community dynamics and carbon sequestration. Some studies pointed out the environmental risks associated with OIF including expanded regions with low oxygen concentration, increased production of N2O, and possible disruptions of marine ecosystems (see a review of Denman 2008 and references hereinafter). There are a few speculations in the literature (Wayman 2008; Freestone and Rayfuse 2008) that ocean iron

fertilization could help to mitigate anthropogenic ocean acidification, a process referring to the increase in ocean acidity as a result of the ocean’s absorption of anthropogenic CO2 (Caldeira and Wickett 2003). Ocean acidification would affect marine organisms and ecosystems in a variety of ways (Raven et al. 2005). For example, a decrease in the saturation state of seawater with respect to carbonate minerals (including both calcite and aragonite) would weaken the ability of corals and some other calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and reefs, posing a risk to their ecological sustainability. A decrease in ocean pH would also impact the growth, respiration, and reproduction of some marine organisms, altering the biodiversity of marine ecosystems. In this study we investigate the effect of large-scale ocean iron fertilization on ocean acidification. To our knowledge, except for a few speculations (Wayman 2008; Freestone and Rayfuse 2008) no scientific study has addressed this issue. In a recently released report on ocean acidification, “Monaco Declaration” (Monaco Declaration 2009), it states that “Mitigation strategies that aim to transfer CO2 to the ocean, for example by direct deep-sea disposal of CO2 or by fertilising the ocean to stimulate biological productivity, would enhance ocean acidification in some areas while reducing it in others”. But no quantitative estimates of this issue have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. Here, from simulations by a global ocean carbon cycle model, we provide the first quantitative results that bound the effect of iron fertilization on ocean acidification.

Iron fertilization successfully sequesters carbon and increases marine life - experiments prove Waller, professor of Marine Sciences at Darling Marine Center, 2012(Rhian, professor of Marine Sciences at the Darling Marine Center (University of Maine, USA) and specializes in the ecology of deep-sea and cold-water organisms, particularly corals. “Iron Fertilization: Savior to Climate Change or Ocean Dumping?” October 18, 2012 National Geographic. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/18/iron-fertilization-savior-to-climate-change-or-ocean-dumping/)

Unbeknownst to most scientists until a few days ago, two hundred thousand pounds of iron sulphate were dumped into North Pacific Ocean in July, with the aim to trigger a large plankton bloom. This experiment was conducted by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, under the direction of businessman Russ George. Why dump this dirty brown powder into the ocean and why to trigger a plankton bloom? All in the name of reversing man-made climate change. Phytoplankton is photosynthetic, needing sunlight and nutrients to grow, taking up carbon dioxide in the process and producing oxygen as a by-product. This phytoplankton then dies, falling to the bottom of the ocean, and taking that ‘sequestered’ carbon dioxide with it, trapping it at the bottom of the ocean. One of the major nutrients phytoplankton needs to grow is iron, an insoluble nutrient and often found in limited quantities, inhibiting large plankton blooms from occurring. So by adding iron to the ocean, we can increase the numbers of phytoplankton photosynthesizing, using up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and locking it up, deep in our oceans. Or at least that’s the theory. Geoengineering is the term coined for deliberately modifying our environment to tackle man-made climatic changes on a global scale. It all sounds so simple – an easy route to solving our carbon emission crisis. The controversy comes that we don’t fully understand the consequences of manipulating our environment on a global scale, and we have to weigh up whether those consequences are better, or worse, than the problem we are trying to fix. We’ve seen what’s happened time after

time when we’ve modified the food chain – fisheries collapses, extinction of species – we know well that connections that seem small can have drastic consequences we didn’t even consider. In addition, as that large bloom dies, decay will use up oxygen, potentially creating large anoxic zones, smothering important bottom habitats in the deep ocean.

AT: No International Coordination

Plan results in coordination – Jewett – one-stop-shop for acidification information will allow the formation of international partnerships and international solutions

And we solve even without them – local communities can use information produced by the plan to develop adaptation strategiesFloyd, Director of News Communications at Oregon State University, 2011(Mark, “Science paper: existing regulations can tackle local ocean acidification,” http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/may/science-paper-coastal-communities-can-use-existing-regulations-tackle-local-ocean-)

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Ocean acidification is a complex global problem because of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, but there also are a number of local acidification “hotspots” plaguing coastal communities that don’t require international attention – and which can be addressed now.A regulatory framework already is in place to begin mitigating these local hotspots, according to a team of scientists who outline their case in a forum article in the journal Science.“Certainly, ocean acidification on a global level continues to be a challenge, but for local, non-fossil fuel-related events, community leaders don’t have to sit back and wait for a solution,” said George Waldbusser, an Oregon State University ecologist and co-author of the paper. “Many of these local contributions to acidity can be addressed through existing regulations.”A number of existing federal environmental laws – including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act – provide different layers of protection for local marine waters and offer officials avenues for mitigating the causes of local acidity.“The localized events might be nutrient-loading or eutrophication issues that can be addressed,” said Waldbusser, an assistant professor in OSU’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. “Communities don’t have to wait for a global solution.”

Warming

2AC: Coccolithophores I/L

Ocean acidification causes collapse of coccolithophore blooms, which acts as additional internal link to lowered DMS production while independently furthering warming by reducing the earths ability to reflect sunlight off the ocean surfaceRaven, school of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, et al. 2005 (John,¶ Dr Ken Caldeira, Energy and Environment Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA, Prof Harry Elderfield, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge¶ Prof Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland, Australia¶ Prof Peter Liss, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia¶ Prof Ulf Riebesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton Dr Carol Turley, Plymouth Marine Laboratory¶ Prof Andrew Watson, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia¶ “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide”, June 2005, http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/reprioritization/wgroups/resources/climate/resources/oa_royalsociety.pdf, Accessed 7/21/14)

Another potential effect of ocean acidification may be the disappearance of coccolithophore blooms (Section 4.3.1). These massive blooms add to the albedo affect of the Earth . This means that they quantifiably increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space, which cannot then contribute to global warming. It has been projected that the loss of these blooms could reduce the global albedo by up to 0.13%, and could therefore enhance global warming (Tyrrell et al 1999). 5.3 Other feedbacks within the Earth systems¶ As discussed in Section 3, it is unclear what impact rising atmospheric CO2 will have on the physiology of phytoplankton (such as diatoms and flagellates). As a result it is uncertain whether it will lead to greater productivity and therefore draw down more CO2 or reduce productivity thus absorbing less.¶ Apart from the CO2, the climate is affected by a number of other gases that are produced by marine organisms, including the greenhouse gases nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). In addition, some groups of plankton produce DMS, a gas that when oxidised in the atmosphere produces cloud-forming particles which can lead to climatic cooling. Changes in DMS production under elevated CO2 conditions, as with the preceding discussion on calcification, will be very dependent on which plankton species are most affected by the changed conditions.¶ For example, it is well established that there is wide variation in the ability of different groups of phytoplankton to produce DMS from its biochemical precursor, dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP). For example in the phytoplankton, diatoms form little DMSP whereas the alga Phaeocystis and coccolithophores are prolific producers (Liss et al 1994). Changes in the abundance of these groups would affect the size of the feedback.¶ Notwithstanding this uncertainty, a recent modelling study (Gunson, personal communication) suggests a considerable climatic sensitivity to changes in DMS emissions from the oceans. These models indicate that a relatively small (two-fold) increase in DMS emission, if occurring globally, would produce an atmospheric temperature decrease in the order of 1-2oC. Such a cooling would clearly be significant and changes in DMS emissions of this size are certainly possible. However, it should be stressed that there are considerable uncertainties in the modelling, including the mechanisms of particle and cloud formation on oxidation of DMS in the atmosphere, as well as in the representation in models of the variations in DMS production by different plankton

species.¶ In this context it is important to note that organisms forming CaCO3 plates, such as the coccolithophores, are major producers of DMS

OA Causes Coccolithophores

Ocean Acidification kills CoccolithophoresNIPCC 2013 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, “Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Coccolithophores”, January 1 2013, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2013/jan/1jan2013a4.html, Accessed 7/22/14)

About one-third of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity has been absorbed by the oceans1, where it partitions into the constituent ions of carbonic acid. This leads to ocean acidification, one of the major threats to marine ecosystems2 and particularly to calcifying organisms such as corals3, 4, foraminifera5, 6, 7 and coccolithophores8. Coccolithophores are abundant phytoplankton that are responsible for a large part of modern oceanic carbonate production. Culture experiments investigating the physiological response of coccolithophore calcification to increased CO2 have yielded contradictory results between and even within species8, 9, 10, 11. Here we quantified the calcite mass of dominant coccolithophores in the present ocean and over the past forty thousand years, and found a marked pattern of decreasing calcification with increasing partial pressure of CO2 and concomitant decreasing concentrations of CO32−. Our analyses revealed that differentially calcified species and morphotypes are distributed in the ocean according to carbonate chemistry. A substantial impact on the marine carbon cycle might be expected upon extrapolation of this correlation to predicted ocean acidification in the future. However, our discovery of a heavily calcified Emiliania huxleyi morphotype in modern waters with low pH highlights the complexity of assemblage-level responses to environmental forcing factors.

Ocean acidification kills CoccolithophoresSD 2011 (Science Daily, “Calcifying microalgae are witnesses of increasing ocean acidification”, August 18 2011, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803133517.htm , Accessed 7/22/14)

For the first time researchers have examined on a global scale how calcified algae in their natural habitat react to increasing acidification due to higher marine uptake of carbon dioxide. In the current issue of the journal Nature they explain that coccolithophores, a certain group of algae, form thinner calcite skeletons when the pH value in the ocean drops. In marine ecosystems, changes in the degree of calcification are much more pronounced than presumed to date based on laboratory tests.¶ Around one third of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is being absorbed by the oceans where it forms carbonic acid and its reaction products. The mounting combustion of fossil energy sources led to increased acidification of the ocean over the past century and has affected marine ecosystems. Calcifying organisms like corals and certain microalgae, so-called coccolithophores, react extremely sensitively . These microscopic algae number among the phytoplankton and form a skeleton of calcite platelets.¶ The group of coccolithophores is very widespread and produces a large portion of the marine lime -- a process that has led to lime deposits, such as the chalk cliffs on Rügen, over geological time scales. The reactions of calcified microalgae to ocean acidification in their natural environment have not yet been studied on a global scale . Using a method developed by Dr. Luc Beaufort, CNRS researcher at the French research institute CEREGE (Univ. Aix-Marseille/CNRS), it has now

been possible to analyse a large number of plankton and sediment samples that document the changes in the calcification of coccolithophores in the present-day ocean as well as over the past 40,000 years.¶ The results show that coccolithophores form less lime when the water contains less carbonate ions, i.e. when it has a lower pH value (is "acidic"). " The reactions in the

natural system are much more pronounced than assumed up to now ," reports Dr. Björn Rost from Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association, who is involved in the study. Laboratory experiments have already shown that the degree of calcification decreases, as water gets more acidic, i.e. the algae form a thinner skeleton.¶ In the marine ecosystem, however, there is a shift in species composition from strongly to weakly calcified species and strains. "Even small physiological differences in their reactions to environmental changes may have great ecological consequences if this influences their competitiveness," explains Rost. As ocean acidification increases, species that have to invest more energy to form their calcite skeleton may be displaced. Consequently the group of coccolithophores might take up less carbon in future -- with uncertain consequences for the global carbon cycle.However, the study also shows that there may be exceptions to this general trend. In the coastal zone of Chile, where the "most acidic" conditions in the present-day oceans prevail (pH values of 7.6 to 7.9 instead of 8.1 on average), scientists found extremely calcified coccolithophores. Genetic analysis showed that a distinct strain of the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi has evolved here. This strain has evidently succeeded in adapting to environmental conditions that are unfavourable for calcification. In view of the currently rapid pace of climate change, however, it is extremely questionable whether other representatives of the coccolithophores are able to adjust to this pace.

Coccolithophores Cause Warming

Coccolithophores are a key feedback loop – key to remove CO2 from the airBurns, Senior Fellow with the Santa Clara University School of Law, 2008(Dr. William C.G., co-chair of the American Society of International Law's International Environmental Law Group and editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, “Ocean Acidification: A Greater Threat than Climate Change or Overfishing?” online: http://www.terrain.org/articles/21/burns.htm)

Coccolithophores are one-celled marine phytoplankton that inhabit the upper layers of coastal waters and the open ocean. Coccolithophores are the primary calcite producers in the ocean, constructing elaborate calcite plates or liths. Recent studies indicate that rising pH levels associated with increased oceanic carbon dioxide uptake may imperil coccolithophore species in the future. One study concluded that a doubling of present-day concentrations of carbon dioxide could result in a 20 to 40 percent reduction in biogenic calcification of coccolithophores, resulting in malformed calcareous plates and layers of plates, while another concluded that coccolithophores exposed to carbon dioxide levels triple those of the present day could lose half their protective coatings.The particulate organic material of coccolithophores sinks and contributes substantially to carbon mineralization deep in the water column. A reduction in the transport of organic carbon to the deep ocean would diminish the flux of food to benthic organisms. Additionally, the decline of coccolithophore in an ecosystem can result in a shift to a diatom-dominated phytoplankton community, which can restructure an ecosystem at all trophic levels.Diminution of coccolithophores could also amplify global warming trends for several reasons. Chalky coccolithophore blooms can extend over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, and when blooming, lighten the surface of the ocean and reflect substantial amounts of sunlight back towards space. Substantial reductions in their numbers might thus accelerate warming because more incoming solar radiation would be absorbed by the oceans. Moreover, coccolithophores produce substantial amounts of dimethylsulphide, which account for substantial portions of atmospheric sulphate particles around which cloud droplets grow. Reductions in cloud development might ultimately result in additional warming, as some clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back to space. Finally, calcium carbonate is very dense, and acts as ballast, which serves to accelerate the deposition of particulate carbon in the deep ocean. A reduction in calcium carbonate production thus could ultimately imperil a mechanism that helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, potentially intensifying the greenhouse effect..

Coccolithophore blooms reflect sunlight back out into space – they are a key planetary insulator from further warmingBarnard, Senior Programme Officer at UNEP-WCMC, and Hain, Head of the UNEP Coral Reef Unit, 2008 (Nicola, The United Nations Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Stefan, The United Nations Environment Programme, “SCIENTIFIC SYNTHESIS OF THE IMPACTS OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON MARINE BIODIVERSITY”, November 28 2008,

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/oa/resources/cbd_ts46_oceanacidification-web.pdf, Accessed 7/21/14)

Significant feedback systems also stand to be influenced. Coccolithophore blooms have an albedo effect, reflecting significant amounts of sunlight back into space, which cannot then contribute to global warming. The loss of blooms could reduce the global albedo effect by up to 0.13%. Additionally, coccolithophores are major producers of Dimethylsulphide (DMS), which, on release to the atmosphere, is oxidized to SO4, an important component of aerosols, thought to influence the lifetimes and optical properties of clouds. DMS is supersaturated in surface waters, and emissions to the atmosphere by marine phytoplankton have been proposed to reduce the radiative flux to the Earth’s surface. The complex logistics of monitoring DMS cycling have prevented its effective characterization335, however, it is clear that changes in the composition of the phytoplankton community would affect the size of this feedback to the global climate336. A shipboard incubation experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of increased temperature and pCO2 on the algal community structure of the North Atlantic spring bloom, one of the largest annually occurring phytoplankton blooms in the world ocean, and their subsequent impact on particulate (DMSPp) and dissolved (DMSPd) DMSP concentrations. Under elevated pCO2 (690 ppm) and elevated temperature (ambient + 4°C), coccolithophorid and pelagophyte abundances were significantly higher than under control conditions (390 ppm CO2 and ambient temperature). This shift in phytoplankton community structure also resulted in an increase in DMSPp concentrations337.

Ocean acidification contributes substantially to warming – plankton destruction alone causes 25% increase in temperaturesJohnson, MA in hydrogeology from University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2013(Scott K, Lecturer at Madison College, “Ocean acidification could affect rising temperatures,” online: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ocean-acidification-could-affect-rising-temperatures/)

Climate change’s oft ignored twin, ocean acidification, is usually thought of as a biological rather than a climatic problem. They’re seen as parallel (carbon dioxide emissions are a cause of each) but separate (the effects of ocean acidification don’t depend on changes in climate). Some recent studies are showing that, true to the interconnected nature of, well, nature, ocean acidification may actually have a climatic effect of its own.Ocean acidification is a decrease in the pH and carbonate concentration of ocean water caused by CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. It’s generally bad news for critters with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, and acidification has even been shown to affect fish. Studies in which CO2 is added to closely monitored sections of marine habitat have shown that one of the many outcomes appears to be a decrease in dimethylsulfide produced by phytoplankton.This turns out to be pretty interesting, because this is the biggest source of biologically created sulfur that makes its way into the atmosphere, where sulfur compounds are hugely important for the formation of clouds. (They help create the cloud condensation nuclei that cloud droplets grow around.) Since cloud cover affects the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, this has the potential to affect climate.But are we talking about a negligible impact or a significant one? A group of researchers set out to explore this question using a climate model developed by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. The models simulated the effect of an acidification-induced decline in sulfur production on clouds.But the magnitude of that sulfur decline is highly uncertain. The handful of existing studies came up with different estimates of how much sulfur production drops as pH goes down. Rather than

guess which estimate came closest to the truth, the researchers ran their simulations with high, medium, and low estimates.One simulation left the link between acidification and sulfur out completely, providing a baseline for a comparison of warming by the end of the century with a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario. Then the model was run with the three estimates of acidification’s effect on sulfur.In the baseline model, the flow of biologically created sulfur from the ocean to the atmosphere still decreased by seven percent because of climate change. Warming the surface ocean cuts down on mixing with deeper, nutrient-rich water, so phytoplankton productivity drops.But in the simulations that included the impact of acidification, that sulfur contribution to the atmosphere decreased by 12 to 24 percent. The effect this has on cloud formation in the model is measured in terms of the additional energy from the Sun reaching the Earth’s surface—0.08 Watts per square meter due to warming the waters the phytoplankton live in and 0.18 to 0.64 Watts per square meter due to acidification. Allowing for uncertainty in exactly how sensitive the climate is to change, that equates to 0.1 to 0.76 °C of additional warming caused by ocean acidification at the end of the century. Keeping in mind that this emissions scenario projects around 2.8 °C of warming by 2100, that could potentially be a

significant addition.While climate change and ocean acidification are parallel phenomena, there are also some cross-links enabling the twins to interact. Rising temperatures and changing seawater chemistry will have impacts on marine life, and some of those impacts could, in turn, affect rising temperatures. That’s why it’s called the climate system—when you tug on one thing, many things move.

2AC: Plankton I/L

Ocean acidification kills DMS-producing plankton, preventing atmospheric sulfur emissions that seed cloud formation which is integral to shield earth from further warmingBarford 2013 (Eliot, BCs in biochemistry and MSc in Science Communication at Imperial College London, journalist for Nature News London and is frequently published in nature, “Rising ocean acidity will exacerbate global warming”, August 25 2013, http://www.nature.com/news/rising-ocean-acidity-will-exacerbate-global-warming-1.13602, Accessed 7/20/14)

Atmospheric sulphur , most of which comes from the sea, is a check against global warming . Phytoplankton — photosynthetic microbes that drift in sunlit water — produces a compound called dimethylsulphide ( DMS ) . Some of this enters the atmosphere and reacts to make sulphuric acid, which clumps into aerosols , or microscopic airborne particles. Aerosols seed the formation of clouds, which help cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight.¶ James Lovelock and colleagues proposed in the 1980s that DMS could provide a feedback mechanism limiting global warming1, as part of Lovelock’s ‘Gaia hypothesis’ of a self-regulating Earth. If warming increased plankton productivity, oceanic DMS emissions might rise and help cool the Earth.¶ More recently, thinking has shifted towards predicting a feedback in the opposite direction, because of acidification. As more CO2 enters the atmosphere, some dissolves in seawater, forming carbonic acid. This is decreasing the pH of the oceans, which is already down by 0.1 pH units on pre-industrial times, and could be down by another 0.5 in some places by 2100. And studies using 'mesocosms' — enclosed volumes of seawater — show that seawater with a lower pH produces less DMS. On a global scale, a fall in DMS emissions due to acidification could have a major effect on climate, creating a positive-feedback loop and enhancing warming.¶ The sulphur factor¶ Katharina Six at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, and her colleagues have applied these mesocosm data to a global climate model developed at their institute. In a 'moderate' scenario described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assumes no reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases, global average temperatures will increase by 2.1 to 4.4 °C by the year 2100.¶ The model projected that the effects of acidification on DMS could cause enough additional warming for a 0.23 to 0.48 °C increase if atmospheric CO2 concentrations double. The moderate scenario projects CO2 doubling long before 2100. Their paper is published in Nature Climate Change today3.

Carbon Sink I/L

Ocean acidification tanks the oceans ability to function as a sink in the carbon cycleIGBP et al. 2013 (The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) was launched in 1987 to coordinate international research on global-scale and regional-scale interactions between Earth’s biological, chemical and physical processes and their interactions with human systems. IGBP’s international core projects Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Research (IMBER), Surface Ocean–Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), Past Global Changes (PAGES) and Land–Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) study ocean acidification, The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC-UNESCO) was established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1960 to provide Member States of the United Nations with an essential mechanism for global cooperation in the study of the ocean, The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) was established by the International Council for Science (ICSU) in 1957 and is a co-sponsor of the international projects IMBER and SOLAS, “Ocean Acidification¶ Summary for Policymakers¶ Third Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World”, http://www.igbp.net/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c91140a/1385975160621/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf, Accessed 7/21/14)

The ocean provides a vast sink for anthropogenic CO2 emissions . Around one quarter of annual CO2 emissions from human activities currently end up in the ocean18. This service

cannot be relied on in the future . Atmospheric CO2 is rising faster than the ocean can

respond. The capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2 decreases as ocean pH decreases ; that is, the buffering capacity of seawater decreases. This reduced capacity is a concern for stabilising CO2 emissions and implies that larger emissions cuts will be needed to meet targets to mitigate climate change.

Decrease in Calcium Carbonate producing organisms slows the rate at which carbon moves to the deep oceanRaven, school of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, 2005 (John,¶ Dr Ken Caldeira, Energy and Environment Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA, Prof Harry Elderfield, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge¶ Prof Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland, Australia¶ Prof Peter Liss, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia¶ Prof Ulf Riebesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton Dr Carol Turley, Plymouth Marine Laboratory¶ Prof Andrew Watson, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia¶ “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide”, June 2005, http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/reprioritization/wgroups/resources/climate/resources/oa_royalsociety.pdf, Accessed 7/21/14)

A reduction and possibly regional cessation of calcification by organisms in the oceans would strongly affect ecosystem regulation and the flow of organic material to the seafloor. As discussed in Section 2, the biological pump removes carbon from the surface waters . It has been suggested that CaCO3 acts as a mineral ballast for the export of organic carbon , such as

plankton cells and other particulate matter, in the biological pump (Section 3.2.1) (Klaas & Archer 2002). Any reduction in CaCO3 production will reduce the amount of ballast available to the biological pump and may therefore diminish the flow of carbon to the deep oceans. However, because any link between the flow of this mineral ‘ballast’ and the flow of organic matter is unknown, the significance of this effect remains uncertain (Passow 2004).

AT: Feedback Loops Not Real

Positive Feedback Loops are real and contribute to WarmingLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 6 (“Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century”, May 22, 2006, Online: http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ESD-feedback-loops.html)

Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting. Using as a source the Vostok ice core, which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the principal greenhouse gases, that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on. “The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think,” said Margaret Torn, who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division, and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. She and John Harte, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources, have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming, which appears in the May, 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities. “If the past is any guide, then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, it will alter earth system processes, resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming,” said Torn. Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems, and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions, and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences, including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte provide an answer to those who have argued that uncertainties in climate change models make it equally possible that future temperature increases could as be smaller or larger than what is feared. This argument has been based on assumptions about the uncertainties in climate prediction. However, in their GRL paper, Torn and Harte conclude that: “A rigorous investigation of the uncertainties in climate change prediction reveals that there is a higher risk that we will experience more severe, not less severe, climate change than is currently forecast.” Serious scientific debate about global warming has ended, but the process of refining and improving climate models – called general circulation models or GCMs - is ongoing. Current GCMs project temperature

increases at the end of this century based on greenhouse gas emissions scenarios due to anthropogenic activities. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, has already climbed from a pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm today, causing a rise in global temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. The expectations are for atmospheric carbon dioxide to soar beyond 550 ppm by 2100 unless major changes in energy supply and demand are implemented. Concerning as these projection are, they do not take into account additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane released when rising temperatures trigger ecological and chemical responses, such as warmer oceans giving off more carbon dioxide, or warmer soils decomposing faster, liberating ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. The problem has been an inability to quantify the impact of Nature’s responses in the face of overwhelming anthropogenic input. Torn and Harte were able to provide this critical information by examining the paleo data stored in ancient ice cores. “Paleo data can provide us with an estimate of the greenhouse gas increases that are a natural consequence of global warming,” said Torn. “In the absence of human activity, these greenhouse gas increases are the dominant feedback mechanism.” In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core, scientists have known that cyclic variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. However, the magnitude of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight alone. Instead, large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming.

Biodiversity

Impact Calc

Outweighs the any disadRichard Tobin, 1990 (President and Chief Executive Officer of CNH, The Expendable Future, 1990, p. 22)Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.

Species extinction is a decision rule Florida Journal of International Law 1994 (9 Fla. J. Int'l L. 189)It is our responsibility, as tenants on the global commons, to prevent that which is within our power to prevent. As Senator Alan Cranston once said: The death of a species is profound, for it means nature has lost one of its components, which played a role in the inter-relationship of life on earth. Here the cycle of birth and death ends. Here there is no life, no chance to begin again - simply a void. To cause the extinction of a species, whether by commission or omission, is unqualifiedly evil. The prevention of this extinction ... must be a tenet among [hu]man's moral responsibilities. n86 show how we are all connected."

Algae Blooms I/L

Ocean Acidification will lead to higher concentrations of HABs in oceans – other causes are trivialMoore et al., 8 (Stephanie Moore [earned her Ph.D. from the University of New South Wales, Australia, in 2005. She then completed her post-doctoral training with the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and the School of Oceanography (2005-2008). She is currently a research scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and visiting scientist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center.], “Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health”, November 7, 2008, Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586717/)

Anthropogenically-derived increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been implicated in recent climate change, and are projected to substantially impact the climate on a global scale in the future. For marine and freshwater systems, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to increase surface temperatures, lower pH, and cause changes to vertical mixing, upwelling, precipitation, and evaporation patterns. The potential consequences of these changes for harmful algal blooms (HABs) have received relatively little attention and are not well understood. Given the apparent increase in HABs around the world and the potential for greater problems as a result of climate change and ocean acidification, substantial research is needed to evaluate the direct and indirect associations between HABs, climate change, ocean acidification, and human health. This research will require a multidisciplinary approach utilizing expertise in climatology, oceanography, biology, epidemiology, and other disciplines. We review the interactions between selected patterns of large-scale climate variability and climate change, oceanic conditions, and harmful algae. Phytoplankton need to remain close to the ocean's surface in order to capture sunlight for photosynthesis. If the surface becomes depleted of nutrients required for growth, certain types of phytoplankton will be favored. For example, most marine HABs are dinoflagellates, which are distinguished by the presence of two flagella used for swimming. Other phytoplankton groups, such as the diatoms, do not possess this swimming ability, and therefore do not have the potential to forage for nutrients deeper in the water column. Nutrients in the surface layer of the water column can become limiting by the combination of uptake by phytoplankton and the decrease in upward mixing of nutrients under stratified water column conditions. The swimming ability of dinoflagellates allows them to swim below the upper stratified layer of the water column to utilize nutrients in the deeper layer that other phytoplankton cannot access [36]. Dinoflagellates are therefore expected to be favored over other phytoplankton in marine environments under future climate scenarios . Assuming that dinoflagellate HA are favored by a more thermally-stratified ocean in the same way as other dinoflagellates, it is likely that the frequency of marine dinoflagellate HABs will increase as a result of climate change . However, more research is required to ascertain the response of dinoflagellate HA species to thermal stratification. Warmer temperatures may result in expanded ranges of warm water HA species. For example, the tropical marine dinoflagellate, Gambierdiscus toxicus, is associated with ciguatera fish poisoning and primarily occurs as an epiphyte on some macroalgae. The abundance of G. toxicus correlates positively with elevated sea surface temperature during the warm (El Niño) phases of the ENSO cycle [37,38], and its range may extend to higher

latitudes as temperatures rise due to climate change [39]. Indirect impacts of climate change may also cause incidents of ciguatera fish poisoning to become more frequent and more geographically widespread. For example, perturbations to coral reefs, such as hurricanes or bleaching events caused by increased water temperatures, free up space for macroalgae to colonize. Climate change impacts are predicted to increase the intensity of hurricanes and water temperatures [40], and may therefore increase habitat for G. toxicus. The period of time that HABs occur annually may also expand as a result of climate change. For example, the planktonic dinoflagellate Alexandrium catenella is associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning [41]. Water temperatures greater than 13°C have been found to promote A. catenella blooms [42], and in Puget Sound (Washington State), shellfish toxicity from this species occurs primarily in the late summer and early fall when the water temperatures reach their seasonal maxima [43]. By the year 2100, surface air temperatures in the Puget Sound region are predicted to increase by up to 6°C [44]. Given the close correspondence between Puget Sound air and water temperatures [45], the annual window of warm water temperatures exceeding 13°C will expand greatly (Figure (Figure1).1). Optimal growth periods for freshwater HA may also expand as a result of warmer temperatures predicted under future climate scenarios, potentially favoring the growth of harmful cyanobacteria over other phytoplankton species [46]. Predicted rising water temperature may therefore promote earlier and longer lasting HABs [43]; however, it is important to acknowledge that interactions with other physical and biological aspects of the marine ecosystem will also influence the ultimate growth responses of HA species. Changes in

seawater CO2 concentrations and ocean acidity are also likely to influence phytoplankton

species assemblages . The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic activities has increased concentrations of seawater CO2 and bicarbonate (HCO3-); both of which are inorganic carbon sources that can be utilized by phytoplankton for photosynthesis and growth. However, intrinsically linked with this change in seawater carbon chemistry is a decrease in ocean pH; a drop of roughly 0.1 units from pre-industrial levels has already been observed [2,47-49]. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue unabated, ocean pH could drop by an additional 0.6 units to a level lower than has occurred in the past 300 million years [40,49], with tropical regions and the Northern and Southern Oceans predicted to be impacted most severely [47,50]. Changes in phytoplankton species assemblages in response to increased dissolved CO2 and HCO3- concentrations may result from enhanced growth of certain species [51], and/or from the inhibited growth of calcifying phytoplankton due to the dissolution of their biogenic calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells [52], among other contributing factors [e.g., [48]]. How these changes will interact with other effects of climate change (such as warmer temperatures) to influence phytoplankton growth and species assemblages, including the growth and relative abundances of HA species, remains unknown [48,53]. Furthermore, experimental studies of HA species have largely focused on the effects of elevated pH levels. These studies, which include laboratory, field, and marine enclosure experiments, generally find positive relationships between pH and growth or toxin production of these species [54-56]. However, it is uncertain if these relationships will hold at the lower end of the pH scale in a more acidic ocean. Looking ahead several hundreds of years is obviously speculative, but there is general agreement that a warmer Earth will be associated with climatic conditions similar to those characterized by the Mesozoic era [57], when the geological record indicates that dinoflagellates and coccolithophorids were favored among the eukaryotic phytoplankton [36]. Coccolithophorids are not a harmful algal species. However, the fact that they secrete calcium carbonate tests will make their survival problematic if the pH of aquatic systems drops by 0.7 units or more [3]. By making the environment more challenging for coccolithophorid survival,

the non-calcareous phytoplankton will be given an advantage. A more acidic environment would favor, among others, the dinoflagellates – the group of phytoplankton to which most HA belong. Clearly, this is an aspect of climate change impacts research that deserves greater attention. In freshwater systems, cyanobacterial HABs may also be impacted by pH changes resulting from climate change. Empirically, most freshwater cyanobacteria, and in particular species associated with HABs, are poor competitors with other phytoplankton at low pH [58,59]. Although the mechanisms responsible for the shift in competitive advantage is somewhat controversial [60], the empirical results are unequivocal [61]. Based on the chemical composition of the Great Lakes [62] and assuming a constant total alkalinity, the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations projected by Caldeira and Wickett [49] would drop the pH of the Great Lakes by 0.6 to 0.8 during summer months. In the case of Lake Erie, for example, the summer pH would decrease from ~9.5 to 8.7. Such a change would likely reduce the incidence of cyanobacterial surface scums [59], one of the common manifestations of freshwater cyanobacterial HABs. However, it is unknown if this will counter the predicted increase in growth rates of cyanobacterial HABs in response to warmer temperatures and nutrient overenrichment of waters [46].

Coral Internal Link

Acidification kills coral – key to biodiversityBurns, Senior Fellow with the Santa Clara University School of Law, 2008(Dr. William C.G., co-chair of the American Society of International Law's International Environmental Law Group and editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, “Ocean Acidification: A Greater Threat than Climate Change or Overfishing?” online: http://www.terrain.org/articles/21/burns.htm)

Among the most imperiled species may be coral reef-building organisms, which must deposit aragonitic calcium carbonate in excess of physical, biological ,and chemical erosion to facilitate the building of a scaffolding or framework for coral reefs. Studies have documented that coral organisms produce calcium carbonate more slowly as the extent of carbonate ion supersaturation decreases. However, continued declines in pH levels, as a consequence of the rising uptake of carbon dioxide in the oceans, may ultimately imperil the very existence of coral reefs in many parts of the world.A recent study on rapid climate change and ocean acidification appearing in Science concluded that oceanic carbonate concentrations will drop below 200 µmol kg-1 when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reach 450-550ppm, a scenario that may occur by the middle of this century. At that point, the rates of calcification by coral polyps will be exceeded by reef erosion, which in conjunction with the impacts of increasing temperatures, may “reduce coral reef ecosystems to crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals.” By the end of the century, climate scientist Ken Caldeira—who with Michael Wickett originally coined the term “ocean acidification”—concludes that “there is no place left with the kind of chemistry where corals grow today.” The diminution of reefs could also result in half or more of coral-associated fauna becoming rare or extinct.Massive declines in coral reefs could have grave environmental and socio-economic implications. Coral reefs are among the most diverse ecosystems in the world. While covering only 0.17 percent of the ocean floor, coral provide habitat for one quarter of all marine species. In the Pacific region, reefs serve as habitat for fish and other marine species that provide 90 percent of the protein needs of inhabitants of Pacific Island developing countries “and represent almost the sole opportunity for substantial economic development for many small island nations.” AWorld Bank study estimates that 50 percent of the subsistence and artisanal fisheries will be lost in regions of high coral reef loss.Moreover, coastal peoples rely on the marine life found on corals for many medicinal needs, including venom from tropical cone snails that serve as a substitute for morphine, and coral skeletons that can replace bone grafts. Overall, it’s been estimated that the food, tourism revenue, coastal protection, and new medications that reefs provide are worth about $375 billion annually, with nearly 500 million people dependent on healthy coral reefs for their services.

Acidification destroys coral reefs - those are the biggest internal link to biodiversity Fabry, Oceanographer and professor of Biological Science, 2007(Victoria J., professor of Biological Science at CSU San Marcos and visiting scientists at Scripps

Institution of Oceanography. “Present and Future Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles” Report of the Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Scoping Workshop on Ocean Acidification Research Authors: V. J. Fabry, C. Langdon, W. M. Balch, A. G. Dickson, R. A. Feely, B. Hales, D. A. Hutchins, J. A. Kleypas, and C. L. Sabine)

The response of coral reef ecosystems to ocean acidification includes many issues common to all ocean ecosystems, but there are some important and unique problems. Coral reefs are shallow benthic ecosystems whose climax state includes the net accumulation of calcium carbonate to form geologic structures resistant to strong hydrodynamic conditions (Figure 3). Skeletal formation by coral reef organisms, particularly corals and calcareous algae, produce the great bulk of calcium carbonate that makes up the coral reef structure. Calcium carbonate production is thus central to this ecosystem in several ways. The organisms themselves depend on their calcium carbonate shells, but the ecosystem as a whole depends on reef formation, because the reef structure provides the spatial complexity necessary to support biodiversity , sedimentary stability, nitrogen fixation, and in times past, the ability to build the ecosystem upward with sea level rise, and maintain its position within the photic zone. Coral reef environments are shaped not only by the production of calcium carbonate rock and sediment, but also by the breakdown, transport and dissolution of that rock and sediment. The interactions between the reef structure, the reef community structure, and the hydrodynamic regime give coral reefs their high spatial heterogeneity. The typical reef zones change over 10–100 meter scales. Indeed, a coral reef system includes the typical fore-reef and reef crest zones dominated by corals and calcareous algae, and also the back reef lagoons and sediment aprons that support other ecosystems such as sea-grass beds and mangroves. This complexity contributes to the overall ecological, biogeochemical, and economic value of coral reef ecosystems, but it also results in a much more complex set of responses to ocean acidification than those currently expected in open ocean ecosystems. Shifts in the balance between biogeochemical processes on the reef can either reinforce the decline in saturation state or counterbalance it. A decrease in the photosynthesis/calcification ratio, such as might follow a bleaching event, would reinforce the decline in saturation state. An increase in the photosynthesis/calcification ratio, such as might result from eutrophication would cause the saturation state to increase counterbalancing the change due to ocean acidification. Studies on the response of coral reefs to ocean acidification have thus far concentrated primarily on the photosynthesis, respiration, calcification, and dissolution response of single coral species in small tanks under a limited range of conditions and a few larger scale mesocosm experiments on simple systems consisting of sediment, corals and coralline algae. The opinion of the coral reef working group is that these are but the first steps toward understanding the overall response of the coral reef system to ocean acidification. Most of our recommendations thus promote a research strategy that works toward understanding the response of the entire reef system. This strategy includes research priorities that fall within: (1) technical needs; (2) monitoring and observational needs; and (3) experimental needs. Table 2 lists the research priorities recommended by working group participants.

Low pH environments prove that increased acidification could increase bleaching, disease, and mortality in coral reefs that support 25% of marine diversity and more than 100 countriesLogan assistant professor Cal State 2010

(Cheryl A. Logan is an assistant professor in the Division of Science and Environmental Policy (SEP) at Cal State Monterey Bay, “A Review of Ocean Acidification and America’s response”, November 2010)Community assemblages are expected to change in response to ocean acidification because of relative shifts in abundance between ecological winners and losers (Fabry et al. 2008). For example, a recent study in the eastern Pacific found a correlation between an eight- year decrease in pH in a rocky reef community and an increase in the abundance of noncalcifying invertebrates and algae, along with a decrease in the abundance of calcifying species (Wootton et al. 2008). Naturally low-pH environments have provided some understanding of how ecosystems might change with increased acidity. Near shallow seafloor CO2 vents off the coast of Italy, where mean pH values range from those predicted for the end of this century to more extreme levels, the ecosystem experiences greatly reduced species richness and lacks calcifying organisms (Hall-Spencer et al. 2008). In another case study, an eastern tropical Pacific coral reef in naturally low-pH waters hosts reef structures that are less cemented and more prone to bioerosion (Manzello et al. 2008). Additional ecosystem-level effects could ensue if habitat- forming animals, such as corals, were no longer able to form and cement calcium carbonate structures that serve as habitat for a variety of invertebrates and fish (Kleypas et al. 2005). Theoretical concerns and preliminary research have identified coastal margins, deep-sea ecosystems, high-latitude regions (Kleypas et al. 2005, Raven et al. 2005, Fabry et al. 2008, Guinotte and Fabry 2008), and especially tropical coral reefs ecosystems (Kleypas et al. 2005, Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007) as areas of particular concern. Although coral reefs cover less than 1% of the ocean floor, they may support up to 25% of marine biodiversity. They also provide sources of income, food, and coastal protection for more than 100 countries around the world (UNEP-WCMC 2006). Rising temperatures over the past 50 years already challenge the thermal limits of reef-building corals (Hoegh-Guldberg 2007). In addition, evidence shows that for some species of corals and crustose coralline algae, higher water tem- peratures in concert with ocean acidification could have interactive negative effects on calcification rates (Reynaud et al. 2003, Anthony et al. 2008, Cooper et al. 2008, Doney et al. 2009). Under the IPCC’s BAU scenario, tropical coral reefs could rapidly contract and experience an increase in the frequency and severity of bleaching, disease, and mor- tality by 2050 as a result of the combined effects of rising temperature and carbonate saturation levels too low to maintain reef growth (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007).

AT: Shellfish Not Key

Shellfish are key to Bio Diversity: they are the canary in the coal mine for the oceanKing, 10 (Teri King [Marine Specialist at University of Washington], “Bivalves for Clean Water”, 2010, Online: http://www.wsg.washington.edu/mas/pdfs/BiValvesCleanWater2011.pdf)

Bivalve Shellfish — Canaries in the Coal Mine, Grazers of the Sea. Shellfish are a keystone species, studied by water quality investigators to determine the health of a water body. Clams, oysters, mussels and other bivalves filter seawater and, in the process, can accumulate environmental contaminants in their tissues. Polluted shellfish beds are often an early warning to a larger problem, upland in the watershed, that needs immediate attention. Marine water quality standards are more stringent for shellfish harvesting than for wading and swimming. Since shellfish are a food, the threshold for contamination is much lower than for external contact with marine waters. Bivalve shellfish also play an important role in the food web. These grazers of the sea filter copious amounts of phytoplankton rich water, converting it into a delectable dish — just as cows grazing in a pasture convert grass into steak. The role of shellfish in this transformative position within the marine ecosystem is essential in the cycling of nutrients in our marine waters. By converting phytoplankton into tissue and shell, the shellfish are able to improve light penetration in the water column, reducing overall turbidity and benefiting larger aquatic plants such as eelgrass. Bivalve shellfish can help control the overabundance of phytoplankton in parts of Hood Canal and South Puget Sound, where nitrogen from terrestrial sources has led to over-fertilization of marine waters. The best option for marine waters is to greatly reduce or eliminate the flow of nitrogen from land to sea. Failing that, bivalve shellfish introduced into nitrogen-rich marine waters can be an effective part of a remediation plan. The animals consume and retain nitrogen. When they are harvested, the nitrogen they consumed is removed from the system.

AT: Shellfish Resilient

Shellfish are dying because of acidification – adaptation now is keyPatyten, No Date (MARY C. PATYTEN [Research Writer for the California Department of Fish and Game. She has won several Superior Accomplishment Awards from the State of California for her work, as well as recognition from outside organizations such as the Association for Conservation Information. Mary served on the Executive Management for two years as Senior Features Editor from 2001-2002, created the feature article review process for JYI, and served as a Features Editor, Science Journalist and Associate Editor previously.] “Bracing for Impact”, Online: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/impact.asp)

According to a summary of findings presented at the 2010 West Coast Ocean Acidification-Shellfish Workshop, fisheries and aquaculture in the United States that depend on mollusks such as oysters stand to lose possibly billions of dollars by 2060, if more acidic conditions continue to develop and successful ways of coping are not found. "I really worry that by the time fishermen realize what's happening, it'll be too late," said Bruce Steele, a commercial sea urchin fisherman who has been harvesting urchins for 37 years. " We could be unleashing an extinction event on

the ocean . People tell me, 'You can't go around saying that,' but it's true." Steele, who has also fished for salmon and albacore tuna off the West Coast, now spends summers on his property in Buellton, California with his wife Diane Pleschner-Steele, growing produce for local restaurants and residents. In the fall and winter, he dives for sea urchin, weather permitting. "Around 2005, a whole slew of scientific papers came out about ocean acidification," he said. "The more I read, the more it piqued my interest." Among other things, Steele read accounts of how acidic ocean water may be to blame for the failure of oyster hatchery stock over the past few years in the Pacific Northwest, and realized that acidification might threaten California's shellfish as well. Recognizing the threat to his livelihood "changed his life," according to his wife, Diane Pleschner-Steele. "He became a sort of closet scientist. We have a whole room full of papers and articles Bruce has collected on ocean acidification. "He was one of the first to see the need for a coordinated ocean acidification monitoring network that extended beyond state borders, and he played a key role in developing the California Current Acidification Network," she said. The network, known as C-CAN, now brings together the shellfish industry, scientists and government to discuss and investigate ocean acidification and other threats to West Coast shellfish. In the Pacific Northwest, frigid seawater absorbs and hold onto gases such as CO2 better than the warmer waters off California, which gives the northern latitudes the dubious distinction of being the first to feel the effects of more acidic seawater. Aquaculture facilities here have seen massive losses of oyster larvae, and production has dropped by up to 80 percent in recent years, according to 2010 West Coast Ocean Acidification-Shellfish Workshop proceedings. In some regions, wild oysters have not reproduced since 2005, and although the exact cause has not been identified in each case, most indicators point to upwelling of acidic waters as a primary suspect. "Ocean acidification is not a theoretical problem that may happen in the future, it is here, now," said John Finger, co-owner and founder of the Hog Island Oyster Company on Tomales Bay in northern California. Finger and his partner Terry Sawyer have produced oysters at Hog Island for 28 years, and are active participants in C-CAN. Most of Hog Island's oysters grow from seed stock that usually comes from oyster hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest. "We're definitely in touch with those folks, and know about their problems," said Finger, who now purchases more seed stock from oyster hatcheries located farther south, in Humboldt Bay

and Hawaii."We all understand that acidification is changing ocean conditions. Learning how to deal with it will be a steep learning curve. Things are changing faster than we thought they would." So far, the Hog Island Oyster Farm has not had to wrangle with the problems experienced by farms and hatcheries in the Northwest. "Though it's hard to admit, at this point we can't do anything to protect an entire estuary or bay. But maybe we can do something on the hatchery level, like control the water being pumped in," said Finger. "Because ocean pH can be different at different times of the day, maybe we can regulate intake to avoid periods of more acidic water. The more we know about what's going on, the more easily we can adapt to it—which is one reason we participate in C-CAN," he said.

Their evidence is empirically false: millions of shellfish are dying in the Pacific NorthwestKroh, 14 (Kiley Kroh [Kiley Kroh is Co-Editor of Climate Progress. Prior to joining Think Progress, she worked on the Energy policy team at the Center for American Progress as the Associate Director for Ocean Communications], “Acidic Waters Kill 10 Million Scallops Off Vancouver”, Online: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/26/3332141/ocean-acidification-kills-scallops/)

A mass die-off of scallops near Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island is being linked to the increasingly acidic waters that are threatening marine life and aquatic industries along the West Coast. Rob Saunders, CEO of Island Scallops, estimates his company has lost three years worth of scallops and $10 million dollars — forcing him to lay off approximately one-third of his staff. “I’m not sure we are going to stay alive and I’m not sure the oyster industry is going to stay alive,” Saunders told The Parksville Qualicum Beach NEWS. “It’s that dramatic.” Ocean acidification, often referred to as global warming’s “evil twin,” threatens to upend the delicate balance of marine life across the globe. As we pump increasing amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, it’s not just wreaking havoc on air quality. The oceans are the world’s largest carbon sinks, absorbing one-quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted every year. The more carbon dioxide absorbed, the more acidic the water becomes and as a result, organisms like shellfish no longer have the calcium carbonate they need to build their shells. The Pacific Northwest is a hot spot for ocean acidification and the declining levels of pH hits baby scallops particularly hard — as they struggle to build a protective shell, they’re forced to expend more energy and are vulnerable to predators and infection. The rising rate of carbon dioxide emissions “may have pushed local waters through a ‘tipping point’ of acidity beyond which shellfish cannot survive,” Chris Harley, marine ecologist at the University of B.C, told the Vancouver Sun. Saunders guesses that he lost 95 percent of his scallop crop as of July. And Island Scallops isn’t alone. “Cape Mudge lost 2.5 million animals and some other small growers lost 300,000,” Saunders said. And the oceans aren’t just taking in carbon dioxide. The ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of global warming — the energy equivalent of about 12 Hiroshima bombs per second in 2013 alone. As climate change steadily drives up both the temperature and acidity of the oceans, shellfish won’t be the only victims. Researchers believe coral reefs are being driven to the brink of extinction and several species of fish are already disappearing at an alarming rate. “It’s a phenomena that’s happening worldwide,” Island Scallops’ Rob Saunders told the NEWS. “There’s very little hope for us.”

AT: Overfishing Alt Cause

We solve alternate causalities – monitoring can be used for effective adaptation strategies that can counteract the effect of overfishing

Overfishing estimates are exaggerated: only 24% of fish in the world are in any sort of danger Hilborn, Professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at University of Washington, 2011 (Ray Hilborn, “Let us Eat Fish”, April 14, 2011, Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15hilborn.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

Over the last decade the public has been bombarded by apocalyptic predictions about the future of fish stocks — in 2006, for instance, an article in the journal Science projected that all fish stocks could be gone by 2048. Subsequent research, including a paper I co-wrote in Science in 2009 with Boris Worm, the lead author of the 2006 paper, has shown that such warnings were exaggerated. Much of the earlier research pointed to declines in catches and concluded that therefore fish stocks must be in trouble. But there is little correlation between how many fish are caught and how many actually exist; over the past decade, for example, fish catches in the United States have dropped because regulators have lowered the allowable catch. On average, fish stocks worldwide appear to be stable, and in the United States they are rebuilding, in many cases at a rapid rate. The overall record of American fisheries management since the mid-1990s is one of improvement, not of decline. Perhaps the most spectacular recovery is that of bottom fish in New England, especially haddock and redfish; their abundance has grown sixfold from 1994 to 2007. Few if any fish species in the United States are now being harvested at too high a rate, and only 24 percent remain below their desired abundance . Much of the success is a result of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act , which was signed into law 35 years ago this week. It banned foreign fishing within 200 miles of the United States shoreline and established a system of management councils to regulate federal fisheries. In the past 15 years, those councils, along with federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations and commercial and sport fishing groups, have helped assure the sustainability of the nation’s fishing stocks. Some experts, like Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Center,who warns of “the end of fish,” fault the systems used to regulate fisheries worldwide. But that condemnation is too sweeping, and his prescription — closing much of the world’s oceans to fishing — would leave people hungry unnecessarily.

Studies show some fisheries are improving and threats are overblownBarringer, New York Times, 2011(Felicity, “One Fish, Two Fish, Flase-ish, True-ish,” online: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/one-fish-two-fish-false-ish-true-ish/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)

Two University of Washington scientists have just published a study in the journal Conservation Biology in collaboration with colleagues from Rutgers University and Dalhousie

University arguing that the gloomiest predictions about the world’s fisheries are significantly exaggerated.The new study takes issue with a recent estimate that 70 percent of all stocks have been harvested to the point where their numbers have peaked and are now declining, and that 30 percent of all stocks have collapsed to less than one-tenth of their former numbers. Instead, it finds that at most 33 percent of all stocks are over-exploited and up to 13 percent of all stocks have collapsed.It’s not that fisheries are in great shape, said Trevor Branch, the lead author of the new study; it’s just that they are not as badly off as has been widely believed. In 2006, a study in the journal Science predicted a general collapse in global fisheries by 2048 if nothing were done to stem the decline.The work led by Dr. Branch is another salvo in a scientific dispute — feud might be a better word — that pits Dr. Branch and his co-author Ray Hilborn at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences and their allies against scientists at the University of British Columbia and their partisans.The latest paper argues that the methodology resulting in the most dire estimates, derived from records of the amount of fish caught, is not as accurate as data from the more broadly based United Nations assessment, based on the estimated biomass of available stocks of individual species.When the catch-based approach was applied to data on 234 global fish stocks from 1950 to 2006, it showed that 68 percent of all fisheries were either over-exploited (46 percent) or collapsed (22 percent) by the end of that period, while none were increasing.By contrast, when an assessment is based on an estimate of biomass, it showed that 28 percent of fisheries were either over-exploited (15 percent) or collapsed (13 percent). The second method also indicated 24 percent of the stocks were increasing .

No War

***2AC: Conflict Theory Extension

Traditional causes of conflict are obsolete – the only scenario for inter-state escalation is a world of global warming where international constraints like trade break down as a result of migration and environmental stresses like water scarcity

A. Nuclear weapons deter conflict – mutually assured destruction mean that countries will never launch

B. Diffusion of small arms – aysemmetric threats like terrorism have caused states to cooperate against mutual threats instead of attack each other

C. Spread of democracy has created constraints on leader’s abilities to wage warD. Declining utility of war – no motivation for land grabs

(This next card is pretty K-Friendly, maybe don’t read if you are reading the policy only version of the aff)

Multiple factors mean no war – interdependence, change in strategy, and empiricsFettweis, professor of political science at Tulane University, 2006(Christopher J., “A Revolution in International Relation Theory: Or, What If Mueller Is Right?” International Studies Review, Volume 8, Issue 4, accessed through JSTOR)

However, one need not be convinced about the potential for ideas to transform international politics to believe that major war is extremely unlikely to recur. Mueller, Mandelbaum, Ray, and others may give primary credit for the end of major war to ideational evolution akin to that which made slavery and dueling obsolete, but others have interpreted the causal chain quite

differently. Neoliberal institutionalists have long argued that complex economic interdependence can have a pacifying effect upon state behavior (Keohane and Nye 1977, 1987). Richard Rosecrance (1986, 1999) has contended

that evolution in socio-economic organization has altered the shortest, most rational route to state prosperity in ways that make war unlikely. Finally, many others have argued that credit for great power peace can

be given to the existence of nuclear weapons, which make aggression irrational ( Jervis 1989; Kagan et al. 1999). With so many overlapping and mutually reinforcing explanations, at times the end of major war may seem to be overdetermined ( Jervis 2002:8–9). For purposes of the present discussion, successful identification of the exact cause of this fundamental change in state behavior is probably not as important as belief in its existence. In other words, the outcome is far more important than the mechanism. The importance of Mueller’s argument for the field of IR is ultimately not dependent upon why major war has become

obsolete, only that it has. Almost as significant, all these proposed explanations have one important point in common: they

all imply that change will be permanent. Normative/ideational evolution is typically unidirectional. Few would argue that it is likely, for instance, for slavery or dueling to return in this century. The

complexity of economic interdependence is deepening as time goes on and going at a quicker pace. And,

obviously, nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented and (at least at this point) no foolproof defense against their use

seems to be on the horizon. The combination of forces that may have brought major war to an end seems to be unlikely to allow its return. The twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented pace of evolution in all areas of human endeavor, from science and medicine to philosophy and religion. In such an atmosphere, it is not difficult to imagine that

attitudes toward the venerable institution of war may also have experienced rapid evolution and that its

obsolescence could become plausible, perhaps even probable, in spite of thousands of years of violent precedent. The burden of proof would seem to be on those who maintain that the ‘‘rules of the game’’ of international politics,

including the rules of war, are the lone area of human interaction immune to fundamental evolution and that, due to these immutable and eternal rules, war will always be with us. Rather than ask how major war could have grown obsolete, perhaps scholars should ask why anyone should believe that it could not.

Linear predictions concerning international relations ignore the complexity of human interactions – lack of standards for measurement and contradictory starting pointsBernstein, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Tornoto, et al., 2k(Steven, Richard Ned Lebow, James Freedman, Presidential Professor of Government at Dartmouth University, Janice Stein, Professor of political science at University of Toronto, and Steven Weber, professor at School of Information and Department of Political Science at UC Berkeley, “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems: Adapting Social Science to an Unpredictable World”, European Journal of International Relations. Accessed through sagepub)A deep irony is embedded in the history of the scientific study of international relations. Recent generations of scholars separated policy from theory to gain an intellectual distance from decision-making, in the belief that this would enhance the 'scientific' quality of their work. But five decades of well-funded efforts to develop theories of international relations have produced precious little in the way of useful, high confidence results. Theories abound, but few meet the most relaxed 'scientific' tests of validity. Even the most robust generalizations or laws we can state — war is more likely between neighboring states, weaker states are less likely to attack stronger states — are close to trivial, have important exceptions, and for the most part stand outside any consistent body of theory. A generation ago, we might have excused our performance on the grounds that we were a young science still in the process of defining problems, developing analytical tools and collecting data. This excuse isneither credible nor sufficient; there is no reason to suppose that another 50 years of well-funded research

would result in anything resembling a valid theory in the Popperian sense. We suggest that the nature, goals and criteria for judging social science theory should be rethought, if theory is to be more helpful in understanding the real world. We begin by justifying our pessimism, both conceptually and empirically, and argue that the quest for predictive theory rests on a mistaken analogy between physical and social phenomena. Evolutionary biology is a more productive analogy for social science. We explore the value of this analogy in its 'hard' and 'soft' versions, and examine the implications of both for theory and research in international relations.' We develop the case for forward `tracking' of international relations on the basis of local and general knowledge as an alternative to backward-looking attempts to build deductive, nomothetic theory. We then apply this strategy to some emerging trends in international relations. This article is not a nihilistic diatribe against 'modern' conceptions of social science. Rather, it is a plea for constructive humility in the current context of attraction to deductive logic, falsifiable hypothesis and large- n statistical 'tests' of narrow propositions. We propose a practical alternative for social scientists to pursue in addition, and in a complementary fashion, to `scientific' theory-testing. Physical and chemical laws make two kinds of predictions. Some phenomena — the trajectories of individual planets — can be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty. Only a few variables need to be taken into account and they can be measured with precision. Other mechanical problems, like the break of balls on a pool table, while subject to deterministic laws, are inherently unpredictable because of their complexity. Small differences in the lay of the table, the nap of the felt, the curvature of each ball and where they make contact, amplify the variance of each collision and lead to what appears as a near random distribution of balls. Most predictions in science are probabilistic, like the freezing point of liquids, the expansion rate of gases and all chemical reactions. Point predictions appear possible only because of the large numbers of units involved in interactions. In the case of nuclear decay or the expansion of gases, we are talking about trillions of atoms and molecules. In international relations, even more than in other domains of social science, it is often impossible to assign metrics to what we think are relevant variables (Coleman, 1964: especially Chapter 2). The concepts of polarity, relative power and the balance of power are among the most widely used independent variables, but there are no commonly accepted definitions or measures for them. Yet without consensus on definition and measurement, almost every statement or hypothesis will have too much wiggle room to be `tested' decisively against evidence. What we take to be dependent variables fare little better. Unresolved controversies rage over the definition and evaluation of deterrence outcomes, and about the criteria for democratic governance and their application to specific countries at different points in their history. Differences in coding for even a few cases have significant implications for tests of theories of deterrence or of the democratic peace (Lebow and Stein, 1990; Chan, 1997). The lack of consensus about terms and their measurement is not merely the result of intellectual anarchy or sloppiness — although the latter cannot entirely be dismissed. Fundamentally, it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the concepts themselves. Key terms in physics, like mass, temperature and velocity, refer to aspects of the physical universe that we cannot directly observe. However, they are embedded in theories with deductive implications that have been verified through empirical research. Propositions containing these terms are legitimate assertions about reality because their truth-value can be assessed. Social science theories are for the most part built on 'idealizations', that is, on concepts that cannot be anchored to observable phenomena through rules of correspondence. Most of these terms (e.g. rational actor, balance of power) are not descriptions of reality but implicit 'theories' about actors and contexts that do not exist (Hempel, 1952; Rudner, 1966; Gunnell, 1975; Moe, 1979; Searle, 1995: 68-72). The inevitable differences in interpretation of these concepts lead to different

predictions in some contexts, and these outcomes may eventually produce widely varying futures (Taylor, 1985: 55). If problems of definition, measurement and coding could be resolved, we would still find it difficult, if not impossible, to construct large enough samples of comparable cases to permit statistical analysis. It is now almost generally accepted that in the analysis of the causes of wars, the variation across time and the complexity of the interaction among putative causes make the likelihood of a general theory extraordinarily low. Multivariate theories run into the problem of negative degrees of freedom, yet international relations rarely generates data sets in the high double digits. Where larger samples do exist, they often group together cases that differ from one another in theoretically important ways.' Complexity in the form of multiple causation and equifinality can also make simple statistical comparisons misleading. But it is hard to elaborate more sophisticated statistical tests until one has a deeper baseline understanding of the nature of the phenomenon under investigation, as well as the categories and variables that make up candidate causes (Geddes, 1990: 131-50; Lustick, 1996: 505-18; Jervis, 1997). Wars — to continue with the same example — are similar to chemical and nuclear reactions in that they have underlying and immediate causes. Even when all the underlying conditions are present, these processes generally require a catalyst to begin. Chain reactions are triggered by the decay of atomic nuclei. Some of the neutrons they emit strike other nuclei prompting them to fission and emit more neutrons, which strike still more nuclei. Physicists can calculate how many kilograms of Uranium 235 or Plutonium at given pressures are necessary to produce a chain reaction. They can take it for granted that if a 'critical mass' is achieved, a chain reaction will follow. This is because trillions of atoms are present, and at any given moment enough of them will decay to provide the neutrons needed to start the reaction. In a large enough sample, catalysts will be present in a statistical sense. Wars involve relatively few actors. Unlike the weak force responsible for nuclear decay, their catalysts are probably not inherent properties of the units. Catalysts may or may not be present, and their potentially random distribution relative to underlying causes makes it difficult to predict when or if an appropriate catalyst will occur. If in the course of time underlying conditions change, reducing basic incentives for one or more parties to use force, catalysts that would have triggered war will no longer do so. This uncertain and evolving relationship between underlying and immediate causes makes point prediction extraordinarily difficult. It also makes more general statements about the causation of war problematic, since we have no way of knowing what wars would have occurred in the presence of appropriate catalysts. It is probably impossible to define the universe of would-be wars or to construct a representative sample of them. Statistical inference requires knowledge about the state of independence of cases, but in a practical sense that knowledge is often impossible to obtain in the analysis of international relations. Molecules do not learn from experience. People do, or think they do. Relationships among cases exist in the minds of decision-makers, which makes it very hard to access that information reliably and for more than just a very small number of cases. We know that expectations and behavior are influenced by experience, one's own and others. The deterrence strategies pursued by the United States throughout much of the Cold War were one kind of response to the failure of appeasement to prevent World War II. Appeasement was at least in part a reaction to the belief of British leaders that the deterrent policies pursued by the continental powers earlier in the century had helped to provoke World War I. Neither appeasement nor deterrence can be explained without understanding the context in which they were formulated; that context is ultimately a set of mental constructs. We have descriptive terms like 'chain reaction' or 'contagion effect' to describe these patterns, and hazard analysis among other techniques in statistics to measure their strength. But neither explains how and why these patterns emerge and persist. The broader point is that the

relationship between human beings and their environment is not nearly so reactive as with inanimate objects. Social relations are not clock-like because the values and behavioral repertories of actors are not fixed; people have memories, learn from experience and undergo shifts in the vocabulary they use to construct reality. Law-like relationships — even if they existed — could not explain the most interesting social outcomes, since these are precisely the outcomes about which actors have the most incentive to learn and adapt their behavior. Any regularities would be `soft'; they would be the outcome of processes that are embedded in history and have a short half-life. They would decay quickly because of the memories, creative searching and learning by political leaders. Ironically, the`findings' of social science contribute to this decay (Weber, 1969; Almond and Genco, 1977: 496-522; Gunnell, 1982: Ch. 2; Ball, 1987: Ch. 4; Kratochwil, 1989; Rorty, 1989; Hollis, 1994: Ch. 9). Beyond these conceptual and empirical difficulties lies a familiar but fundamental difference of purpose. Boyle's Law, half-lives, or any other scientific principle based on probability, says nothing about the behavior of single units such as molecules. For many theoretical and practical purposes this is adequate. But social science ultimately aspires — or should aspire —to provide insight into practical world problems that are generally part of a small or very small n. In international relations, the dynamics and outcomes of single cases are often much more important than any statistical regularities. The conception of causality on which deductive-nomological models are based, in classical physics as well as social science, requires empirical invariance under specified boundary conditions. The standard form of such a statement is this — given A, B and C, if X then (not) Y.4 This kind of bounded invariance can be found in closed systems. Open systems can be influenced by external stimuli, and their structure and causal mechanisms evolve as a result. Rules that describe the functioning of an open system at time T do not necessarilydo so at T + 1 or T + 2. The boundary conditions may have changed, rendering the statement irrelevant. Another axiomatic condition may have been added, and the outcome subject to multiple conjunctural causation. There is no way to know this a priori from the causal statement itself. Nor will complete knowledge (if it were possible) about the system at time T necessarily allow us to project its future course ofdevelopment. In a practical sense, all social systems (and many physical and biological systems) are open. Empirical invariance does not exist in such systems, and seemingly probabilistic invariances may be causally unrelated (Harre and Secord, 1973; Bhaskar, 1979; Collier, 1994; Patomaki, 1996; Jervis, 1997). As physicists readily admit, prediction in open systems, especially non-linear ones, is difficult, and often impossible. The risk in saying that social scientists can 'predict' the value of variables in past history is that the value of these variables is already known to us, and thus we are not really making predictions. Rather, we are trying to convince each other of the logic that connects a statement of theory to an expectation about the value of a variable that derives from that theory. As long as we can establish the parameters within which the theoretical statement is valid, which is a prerequisite of generating expectations in any case, this 'theory-testing' or 'evaluating' activity is not different in a logical sense when done in past or future time.5

1AR: MAD Deters Conflict

Nuclear weapons deter all war – empirics proveTepperman, Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, 2009(Jonathan “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” Online: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/28/why-obama-should-learn-to-love-the-bomb.html)

A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume. The bomb may actually make us safer. In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that's a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Obama's idealistic campaign, so out of character for a pragmatic administration, may be unlikely to get far (past presidents have tried and failed). But it's not even clear he should make the effort. There are more important measures the U.S. government can and should take to make the real world safer, and these mustn't be ignored in the name of a dreamy ideal (a nuke-free planet) that's both unrealistic and possibly undesirable. The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states." To understand why—and why the next 64 years are likely to play out the same way—you need to start by recognizing that all states are rational on some basic level. Their leaders may be stupid, petty, venal, even evil, but they tend to do things only when they're pretty sure they can get away with them. Take war: a country will start a fight only when it's almost certain it can get what it wants at an acceptable price. Not even Hitler or Saddam waged wars they didn't think they could win. The problem historically has been that leaders often make the wrong gamble and underestimate the other side—and millions of innocents pay the price. Nuclear weapons change all that by making the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable. Suddenly, when both sides have the ability to turn the other to ashes with the push of a button—and everybody knows it—the basic math shifts. Even the craziest tin-pot dictator is forced to accept that war with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort. As Waltz puts it, "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?" Why indeed? The iron logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction is so compelling, it's led to what's known as the nuclear peace: the virtually unprecedented stretch since the end of World War II in which all the world's major powers have avoided coming to blows. They did fight proxy wars, ranging from Korea to Vietnam to Angola to Latin America. But these never matched the furious destruction of full-on, great-power war (World War II alone was responsible for some 50 million to 70 million deaths). And since the end of the Cold War, such bloodshed has declined precipitously. Meanwhile, the nuclear powers have scrupulously avoided direct combat, and there's very good reason to think they always will. There have been some near misses, but a close look at these cases is fundamentally reassuring—because in each

instance, very different leaders all came to the same safe conclusion. Take the mother of all nuclear standoffs: the Cuban missile crisis. For 13 days in October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union each threatened the other with destruction. But both countries soon stepped back from the brink when they recognized that a war would have meant curtains for everyone. As important as the fact that they did is the reason why: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's aide Fyodor Burlatsky said later on, "It is impossible to win a nuclear war, and both sides realized that, maybe for the first time." The record since then shows the same pattern repeating: nuclear-armed enemies slide toward war, then pull back, always for the same reasons. The best recent example is India and Pakistan, which fought three bloody wars after independence before acquiring their own nukes in 1998. Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn't do anything to lessen their animosity. But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations (like Pakistani-based terrorist attacks on India in 2001 and 2008). They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up, in Kashmir in 1999, both countries were careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other's vital interests. Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and coauthor of the forthcoming India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, has found that on both sides, officials' thinking was strikingly similar to that of the Russians and Americans in 1962. The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with a nuclear holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it. Nuclear pessimists—and there are many—insist that even if this pattern has held in the past, it's crazy to rely on it in the future, for several reasons. The first is that today's nuclear wannabes are so completely unhinged, you'd be mad to trust them with a bomb. Take the sybaritic Kim Jong Il, who's never missed a chance to demonstrate his battiness, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust and promised the destruction of Israel, and who, according to some respected Middle East scholars, runs a messianic martyrdom cult that would welcome nuclear obliteration. These regimes are the ultimate rogues, the thinking goes—and there's no deterring rogues. But are Kim and Ahmadinejad really scarier and crazier than were Stalin and Mao? It might look that way from Seoul or Tel Aviv, but history says otherwise. Khrushchev, remember, threatened to "bury" the United States, and in 1957, Mao blithely declared that a nuclear war with America wouldn't be so bad because even "if half of mankind died … the whole world would become socialist." Pyongyang and Tehran support terrorism—but so did Moscow and Beijing. And as for seeming suicidal, Michael Desch of the University of Notre Dame points out that Stalin and Mao are the real record holders here: both were responsible for the deaths of some 20 million of their own citizens. Yet when push came to shove, their regimes balked at nuclear suicide, and so would today's international bogeymen. For all of Ahmadinejad's antics, his power is limited, and the clerical regime has always proved rational and pragmatic when its life is on the line. Revolutionary Iran has never started a war, has done deals with both Washington and Jerusalem, and sued for peace in its war with Iraq (which Saddam started) once it realized it couldn't win. North Korea, meanwhile, is a tiny, impoverished, family-run country with a history of being invaded; its overwhelming preoccupation is survival, and every time it becomes more belligerent it reverses itself a few months later (witness last week, when Pyongyang told Seoul and Washington it was ready to return to the bargaining table). These countries may be brutally oppressive, but nothing in their behavior suggests they have a death wish.

1AR: No Rogue States/Rising Powers

No rouge states or rising powers – international organizations and increased stabilityGoldstein, professor emeritus of international relations at American University, 2011(Joshua S., “Think Again: War,” Online: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=0,0&wp_login_redirect=0,

In response, the United Nations commissioned a report in 2000, overseen by veteran diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, examining how the organization's efforts had gone wrong. By then the U.N. had scaled back peacekeeping personnel by 80 percent worldwide, but as it expanded again the U.N. adapted to lessons learned. It strengthened planning and logistics capabilities and began deploying more heavily armed forces able to wade into battle if necessary. As a result, the 15 missions and 100,000 U.N. peacekeepers deployed worldwide today are meeting with far greater success than their predecessors. Overall, the presence of peacekeepers has been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of a war's reigniting after a cease-fire agreement. In the 1990s, about half of all cease-fires broke down, but in the past decade the figure has dropped to 12 percent. And though the U.N.'s status as a perennial punching bag in American politics suggests otherwise, these efforts are quite popular: In a 2007 survey, 79 percent of Americans favored strengthening the U.N. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement -- there's plenty. But the U.N. has done a lot of good around the world in containing war. "Some Conflicts Will Never End." Never say never. In 2005, researchers at the U.S. Institute of Peace characterized 14 wars, from Northern Ireland to Kashmir, as "intractable," in that they "resist any kind of settlement or resolution." Six years later, however, a funny thing has happened: All but a few of these wars (Israel-Palestine, Somalia, and Sudan) have either ended or made substantial progress toward doing so. In Sri Lanka, military victory ended the war, though only after a brutal endgame in which both sides are widely believed to have committed war crimes. Kashmir has a fairly stable cease-fire. In Colombia, the war sputters on, financed by drug revenue, but with little fighting left. In the Balkans and Northern Ireland, shaky peace arrangements have become less shaky; it's hard to imagine either sliding back into full-scale hostilities. In most of the African cases -- Burundi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ivory Coast (notwithstanding the violent flare-up after elections there in late 2010, now resolved) -- U.N. missions have brought stability and made a return to war less likely (or, in the case of Congo and Uganda, have at least limited the area of fighting). Could we do even better? The late peace researcher Randall Forsberg in 1997 foresaw "a world largely without war," one in which "the vanishing risk of great-power war has opened the door to a previously unimaginable future -- a future in which war is no longer socially-sanctioned and is rare, brief, and small in scale." Clearly, we are not there yet. But over the decades -- and indeed, even since Forsberg wrote those words -- norms about wars, and especially about the protection of civilians caught up in them, have evolved rapidly, far more so than anyone would have guessed even half a century ago. Similarly rapid shifts in norms preceded the ends of slavery and colonialism, two other scourges that were once also considered permanent features of civilization. So don't be surprised if the end of war, too, becomes downright thinkable.

1AR: No Nuclear Winter

Nuclear winter won’t happen and even if it does it will not have a great enough effect to disrupt the climateDunning, Computer Scientist and award-winning writer, 2011(Brian, “Nuclear War and Nuclear Winter,” Online: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4244)

Other cataclysmic events have proven that the nuclear winter scenario is not at all far-fetched. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, also in 1991, threw some 17 million tons of particulates into the upper atmosphere that caused global temperatures to drop by about a degree for several months. Sunlight dropped by 10%. This temperature drop did not, however, have any long-term effect on agriculture. Pinatubo was only a blip compared the the K-T extinction event of some 65 million years ago, when a theorized asteroid hit us with one hundred million megatons of destructive force, lighting virtually the entire world on fire. The evidence of this is called the K-T boundary, a layer of clay found all around the world. Sunlight was reduced by 10-20% for ten years, which caused a massive cascading extinction of species from plants to herbivores to carnivores. But we shouldn't expect anything like this to happen from a nuclear war. Times continue to change, including the nature of warfare. Nations no longer stockpile the megaton class weapons popular in the 1950s and 1960s; typical yields now are a fraction of a megaton. The United States' conventional capability is now so good that it can effectively destroy an entire nation's ability to wage large-scale war overnight, using only conventional weapons. But that doesn't mean the nuclear forces are no longer needed. Should a superpower strike first against the United States with nuclear weapons, the response would more than likely be nuclear, bringing Mutually Assured Destruction into play. But what about a small nation striking first? What about nukes in the trunks of cars parked in major cities? In the modern era, it's much less clear that any superpower would necessarily have anyone to shoot back at. Increasingly, non-superpower nations are building nuclear stockpiles. India and Pakistan might get into it with one another. Israel's foes might surprise it with nuclear weapons. Who knows what North Korea and Iran might do. Smaller regional nuclear wars remain a very real possibility. According to the worst-case estimates in the TTAPS papers, about one million tons of smoke would be expected from the fires resulting from each nuclear strike. And these smaller regional nuclear combats are expected to use about 50 nuclear weapons (compare this to 150 nuclear weapons for a broader global nuclear war). Thus, today's most likely nuclear scenario would be expected to produce climate effects similar to three Pinatubo events, according to the worst estimates, and still many orders of magnitude less than the K-T extinction. And so, while the nuclear winter scenario is a good prediction of the effects of a worst-case scenario, when all the variables are at their least favorable, the strongest probabilities favor a much less catastrophic nuclear autumn; and even those effects depend strongly on variables like whether the war happens during the growing season. A bomb in Los Angeles might result in history's worst firestorm, while a bomb in the mountains of Pakistan might create no fires at all. The simple fact is that there are too many unpredictable variables to know what kind of climate effects the smoke following nuclear fires will produce, until it actually happens. Obviously we're all very mindful of the many terrible implications of nuclear combat, and if it ever happens, the prospect of a nuclear autumn will likely be among the least of our concerns. The physicist Freeman Dyson perhaps described it best when he said

"(TTAPS is) an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight... Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?"

Prefer our evidence – their’s is based on flawed modelsHaller, Assistant Professor of Contemporary Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, 2002, (Stephen F., Apocalypse Soon? Wagering on Warnings of Global Catastrophe, p. 13-14)

Later, more complicated models were designed, and the conclusions had to be modified to allow for the mitigating effects mentioned above. It turned out that the nuclear winter models were not "robust"; that is, small changes in the initial conditions and assumptions would result in wide variations in the predictions of temperature decreases and duration of the dust cloud. Since estimates of the amount of smoke produced by nuclear explosions are very uncertain,8 this sensitivity of the model to small changes in assumptions is a serious defect . For example, if the nuclear exchange takes place in the winter season instead of the summer season, the temperature drop is smaller by one order of magnitude.9S.L. Thompson and S.H. Schneider argue that, as a result of the above considerations, the deep-freeze interpretation of nuclear winter is now dismissed by most scientists as unlikely . Instead, these authors suggest that we think in terms of a nuclear autumn rather than a nuclear winter.10 While not suggesting that nuclear war will have no other lasting environmental effects, Thompson and Schneider nonetheless argue that "on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability . That is, there does not seem to be the potential for human extinction resulting solely from the climatic change that would follow nuclear explosions. The possibility of nuclear winter still exists, but the revised models suggest a much lower probability than the original models, as well as the absence of any minimum threshold.

1AR: No Ozone Impact

Ozone scenarios assume high yield bombs that have been obsolete since the 50’sMartin, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, 1988 (Brian, “Nuclear winter: science and politics,” Science & Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, online: http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/88spp.html)

In 1981 journalist Jonathan Schell wrote a series of articles in the New Yorker arguing that nuclear war could cause extinction of human life, principally through destruction of stratospheric ozone. Schell's articles, made into a book[15], were inspired by the burgeoning peace movement and in turn were widely taken up by it. Yet by the time he made his argument, the basis for massive ozone destruction by nuclear weapons had largely

evaporated.This is what Crutzen and his collaborator John Birks found in 1982 as they ran their computer models dealing with stratospheric ozone to determine the effects of a nuclear war. Because the large multi-megatonne nuclear bombs deployed in the 1950s were being replaced by larger numbers of smaller warheads, not as much nitrogen oxides would be lofted far up into the stratosphere. Crutzen and Birks' model did not predict a significant reduction in stratospheric ozone using the Ambio reference scenario.

This is conclusively true even in the largest nuclear war Martin, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, 1988 (Brian, “Nuclear winter: science and politics,” Science & Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, online: http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/88spp.html)

The next effect to which beliefs in nuclear extinction were attached was ozone depletion. Beginning in the mid-1970s, scares about stratospheric ozone developed, culminating in 1982 in the release of Jonathan Schell's book The Fate of the Earth.[4] Schell painted a picture of human annihilation from nuclear war based almost entirely on effects from increased ultraviolet light at the earth's surface due to ozone reductions caused by nuclear explosions. Schell's book was greeted with adulation rarely observed in any field. Yet by the time the book was published, the scientific basis for ozone-based nuclear extinction had almost entirely evaporated. The ongoing switch by the military forces of the United States and the Soviet Union from multi-megatonne nuclear weapons to larger numbers of smaller weapons means that the effect on ozone from even the largest nuclear war is unlikely to lead to any major effect on human population levels, and extinction from ozone reductions is virtually out of the question .[3]

1AR: Trends Prove No War

Trends prove war is decliningMueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, 2009 (John, Political Science Quarterly, “War Has Almost Ceased to Exist:An Assessment”, http://tigger.uic.edu/~bvaler/Mueller%20War%20Dead.pdf)

THE PRESENT CONDITION No matter how defined, then, there has been a most notable decline in the frequency of wars over the last years. As Table 1 suggests, between 2002 and 2008, few wars really shattered the 1,000 battle or battle-related death threshold.37 Beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, violent flare-ups have exceeded the yearly battle death threshold during the period in Kashmir, Nepal, Colombia, Burundi, Liberia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, Pakistan and Uganda. Almost all of these have just barely done so. Indeed, if the yearly threshold were raised to a not-unreasonable 3,000, almost the only war of any kind that has taken place anywhere in the world since 2001 would be the one in Iraq. Several of these intermittent armed conflicts could potentially rise above the violence threshold in the future , though outside of Afghanistan, most of these seem to be declining in violence. Ethiopia and Eritrea continue to glare at each other, and plenty of problems remain in the Middle East, where in 2006 and again in 2009, Israel took on a substate group based in another country, and where the Iraq conflict could have spillover effects. And, of course, new wars could emerge in other places: concerns about China and the Taiwan issue, for example, are certainly justified, and many in the developed world advocate the application of warfare as a last resort to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by undesirable countries.38 Moreover, there has been “intercommunal” or “substate” violence in countries like Nigeria (and Iraq) that often certainly resembles warfare, but is removed from consideration here by the definitional requirement that something labeled a “war” must have a government on at least one side. However, war, as conventionally, even classically, understood, has , at least for the time being, become a remarkably rare phenomenon . Indeed, if civil war becomes (or remains) as uncommon as the international variety, war could be on the verge of ceasing to exist as a substantial phenomenon.

AT: Escalation

Nuclear war would never escalate – decisionmakers on both sides would limit conflict as quickly as possibleQuinlan, Consulting Senior Fellow for South Asia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, former British Under-Secretary of Defense, 2009(Michael, Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects, p. 63-64)

There are good reasons for fearing escalation. These include the confusion of war; its stresses, anger, haired, and the desire for revenge; reluctance to accept the humiliation of backing down; the desire to get further blows in first. Given all this, the risks of escalation are grave in any conflict between advanced powers, and Western leaders during the cold war were rightly wont to emphasize them in the interests of deterrence. But this is not to say that they are virtually certain, or even necessarily odds-on; still less that they are so for all the assorted circumstances in which the situation might arise, in a nuclear world to which past experience is only a limited guide. It is entirely possible, for example, that the initial use of nuclear weapons, breaching a barrier that has held since 1945, might so horrify both sides in a conflict that they recognized an overwhelming common interest in composing their differences. The human pressures in that direction would be very great.Even if initial nuclear use did not quickly end the fighting, the supposition of inexorable momentum in a developing exchange, with each side rushing to overreaction amid confusion and uncertainty, is implausible . It fails to consider what the situation of the decisionmakers would really be. Neither side could want escalation. Both would be appalled at what was going on. Both would be desperately looking for signs that the other was ready to call a halt. Both, given the capacity for evasion or concealment which modern delivery platforms and vehicles can possess, could have in reserve significant forces invulnerable enough not to entail use-or-lose pressures. (It may be more open to question, as noted earlier, whether newer nuclear-weapon possessors can be immediately in that position; but it is within reach of any substantial state with advanced technological capabilities, and attaining it is certain to be a high priority in the development of forces.) As a result, neither side can have any predisposition to suppose, in an ambiguous situation of fearful risk, that the right course when in doubt is to go on copiously launching weapons. And none of this analysis rests on any presumption of highly subtle or pre-concerted rationality. The rationality required is plain.

Prefer our ev – escalation isn’t automatic, it’s conditioned by human reactions Quinlan, Consulting Senior Fellow for South Asia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, former British Under-Secretary of Defense, 2009(Michael, Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects, p. 63)

Two points about these questions should be recognized at the outset. The first is that we cannot know the answers for certain. Anyone who asserts or implies that we can be sure or nearly sure cannot be on firm ground. Nor can we measure the probabilities neatly. No one knows how political leaders and armed forces will react in the unprecedented situations in question. Escalation is neither a physical process like a chemical chain-reaction nor a sequence of

random events like outcomes on a gambling machine. It is a matter of interactive choices by

people . It has to be considered therefore in human and political terms, not just as a matter of military or technical mechanics. The second point is that the emergency could arise in a wide variety of ways and settings. Assertions claiming uniform predictive authority throughout the range of possibility are very unlikely to be well-founded. So too, a fortiori, are deductions and evaluations purporting to rest on them.

AT: Miscalculation

No risk of miscalcMueller, Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester, 1988 (John, International Security, Fall)

The argument thus far leads to the conclusion that stability is overdetermined—that the postwar situation contains redundant sources of stability. The United States and the Soviet Union have been essentially satisfied with their lot and, fearing escalation to another costly war, have been quite willing to keep their conflicts limited. Nuclear weapons may well have enhanced this stability—they are certainly dramatic reminders of how horrible a big war could be. But it seems highly unlikely that , in their absence, the leaders of the major powers would be so unimaginative as to need such reminding. Wars are not begun out of casual caprice or idle fancy, but because one country or another decides that it can profit from (not simply win) the war —the combination of risk, gain, and cost appears preferable to peace. Even allowing considerably for stupidity, ineptness, miscalculation, and self—deception in these considerations, it does not appear that a large war, nuclear or otherwise, has been remotely in the interest of the essentially—contented, risk—averse, escalation—anticipating powers that have dominated world affairs since 1945 . It is conceivable of course that the leadership of a major power could be seized by a lucky, clever, risk—acceptant, aggressive fanatic like Hitler; or that an unprecedentedly monumental crisis could break out in an area, like Central Europe, that is of vital importance to both sides; or that a major power could be compelled toward war because it is consumed by desperate fears that it is on the verge of catastrophically losing the arms race. It is not obvious that any of these circumstances would necessarily escalate to a major war, but the existence of nuclear weapons probably does make such an escalation less likely; thus there are imaginable circumstances under which it might be useful to have nuclear weapons around. In the world we’ve actually lived in, however, those extreme conditions haven’t come about, and they haven’t ever really even been in the cards. This enhancement of stability is, therefore, purely theoretical—extra insurance against unlikely calamity.

Add-Ons

Coral Reef

2AC: Coral Reef Add-On

Acidification kills entire reefsMatz, R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program at the University of Miami, 2014(Hanover, “Coral Reefs and the Threat of Ocean Acidification,” online: http://rjd.miami.edu/conservation/coral-reefs-and-the-threat-of-ocean-acidification)

While global climate change is often the environmental concern at the forefront of the discussion about greenhouse gas emissions, ocean acidification is a marine conservation issue just as closely tied to the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans have put into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. It is understood that the oceans act as a sink for atmospheric CO2: as humans increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, more carbon dioxide diffuses from the atmosphere into the world’s oceans. This increase in the uptake of CO2affects the ocean by reducing the pH, or increasing the acidity, of seawater, an effect known as ocean acidification (Kleypas et al. 2006). Chemically, ocean acidification occurs through the following process: an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the water leads to an increase in the concentration of two chemicals: bicarbonate (HCO3-) and hydrogen ions (H+). By increasing the concentration of H+, the pH of the water is lowered and becomes more acidic. This shift in equilibrium towards bicarbonate and hydrogen ions also causes a shift in the chemistry of calcium (Ca2+) and carbonate (CO32-) ions. Hydrogen ions react with available carbonate ions to produce more bicarbonate, a process which reduces the formation of solid calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Thus ocean acidification has two significant chemical effects on the marine environment: it lowers the pH and decreases the availability of carbonate (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007) What does this mean for coral reefs? The hard coral species that make up reefs today belong to the order Scleractinia. These scleractinian corals are a colony of polyps that form a hard exoskeleton by secreting aragonite, a solid form of calcium carbonate. Increasing ocean acidification reduces the availability of carbonate in the water as well as the pH, so it is more difficult for the corals to form necessary hard skeletons. Many cellular and physiological responses have been observed in corals subjected to increased acidification, as shown in a 2012 study by Kaniewska et al. onAcropora millepora. The corals in the study were subjected to increasing levels of CO2, and were shown to exhibit changes in metabolism, calcification, and cellular activity. Not only do high levels of CO2 make it more difficult for corals to calcify, or form hard skeletons, due to the lack of carbonate, but they make the energy investment in calcification for the coral more costly. Corals rely on endosymbiotic algae in their cells known asSymbiodinium, or zooxanthellae, for energy from photosynthesis. Kaniewskaet al. showed that increasing the level of CO2 caused the coral branches to lose their symbiotic algae, a process normally caused by increasing ocean temperature known as bleaching. Those corals that retained their zooxanthellae exhibited a 60% reduction in net photosynthesis per cell. A reduction in photosynthesis means less available energy to coral polyps, which in turn reduces coral health and reproductive ability. The study also indicated an increase in internal cellular pH regulation by the corals due to changes in CO2 levels. Increasing internal pH regulation may result in less energy being devoted to calcification. By decreasing calcification, not only does ocean acidification decrease coral growth, but it also decreases the accretion of the reef system as a whole.

Why do these physiological effects on corals matter to the reef ecosystem, or to human society? Corals constitute the primary three dimensional structures of most reef systems; any negative effect to their health will detrimentally affect the health of the reef . A study by Hoegh-Guldberg et al.published in 2007 demonstrated the effect increasing ocean acidification will have on coral reef ecosystems. The use of field studies and experimental simulations produced a model that showed as global ocean temperatures rise and pH levels fall due to increasing atmospheric CO2, it is expected that coral dominated communities will be replaced by macroalgae and non-coral dominated communities. The basic cause behind this is decreased coral calcification: if it becomes harder for the corals to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons, their structures will become weaker, their growth decreases, they may be eroded or damaged, and they will be outcompeted by other species, specifically macroalgae. The stress induced by ocean acidification may also cause reduced coral reproduction, yet another factor leading to decreased coral dominated reefs. Without corals, the biodiversity of a reef system

greatly decreases as there is no longer a viable habitat for many fish species . For humans, this means significant potential damage to both fishing and tourism industries that rely on coral reefs and the fish they support. Without tourism and fishing, many countries would not only lose a significant source of income, but a significant food source for their growing populations. Coral reefs also provide protection from wave action and storms, reducing coastal erosion. The study indicates that the model takes into account atmospheric CO2 increases at the lower end of predictions for the coming century. The authors astutely note that it is “sobering” to realize these serious effects on coral reefs are based on the most optimistic outcomes of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes.

Key to developing new medicinesBruckner, ecologist at the National Marine Fisheries Service Office, 2013 (Andrew W.,“Life-Saving Products from Coral Reefs”, Issues in Science and Technology, November 27, 2013, http://issues.org/18-3/p_bruckner/)

Coral reefs are storehouses of genetic resources with vast medicinal potential, but they must be properly managed. During the past decade, marine biotechnology has been applied to the areas of public health and human disease, seafood safety, development of new materials and processes, and marine ecosystem restoration and remediation. Dozens of promising products from marine organisms are being advanced, including a cancer therapy made from algae and a painkiller taken from the venom in cone snails. The antiviral drugs Ara-A and AZT and the anticancer agent Ara-C, developed from extracts of sponges found on a Caribbean reef, were among the earliest modern medicines obtained from coral reefs. Other products, such as Dolostatin 10, isolated from a sea hare found in the Indian Ocean, are under clinical trials for use in the treatment of breast and liver cancers, tumors, and leukemia. Indeed, coral reefs represent an important and as yet largely untapped source of natural products with enormous potential as pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements, enzymes, pesticides, cosmetics, and other novel commercial products. The potential importance of coral reefs as a source of life-saving and life-enhancing products, however, is still not well understood by the public or policymakers. But it is a powerful reason for bolstering efforts to protect reefs from degradation and overexploitation and for managing them in sustainable ways. Between 40 and 50 percent of

all drugs currently in use, including many of the anti-tumor and anti-infective agents introduced during the 1980s and 1990s, have their origins in natural products. Most of these were derived from terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms, but marine biotechnology is rapidly expanding. After all, 80 percent of all life forms on Earth are present only in the oceans. Unique medicinal properties of coral reef organisms were recognized by Eastern cultures as early as the 14th century, and some species continue to be in high demand for traditional medicines. In China, Japan, and Taiwan, tonics and medicines derived from seahorse extracts are used to treat a wide range of ailments, including sexual disorders, respiratory and circulatory problems, kidney and liver diseases, throat infections, skin ailments, and pain. In recent decades, scientists using new methods and techniques have intensified the search for valuable chemical compounds and genetic material found in wild marine organisms for the development of new commercial products. Until recently, however, the technology needed to reach remote and deepwater reefs and to commercially develop marine biotechnology products from organisms occurring in these environments was largely inadequate. The prospect of finding a new drug in the sea, especially among coral reef species, may be 300 to 400 times more likely than isolating one from a terrestrial ecosystem. Although terrestrial organisms exhibit great species diversity, marine organisms have greater phylogenetic diversity, including several phyla and thousands of species found nowhere else. Coral reefs are home to sessile plants and fungi similar to those found on land, but coral reefs also contain a diverse assemblage of invertebrates such as corals, tunicates, molluscs, bryozoans, sponges, and echinoderms that are absent from terrestrial ecosystems. These animals spend most of their time firmly attached to the reef and cannot escape environmental perturbations, predators, or other stressors. Many engage in a form of chemical warfare, using bioactive compounds to deter predation, fight disease, and prevent overgrowth by fouling and competing organisms. In some animals, toxins are also used to catch their prey. These compounds may be synthesized by the organism or by the endosymbiotic microorganisms that inhabit its tissues, or they are sequestered from food that they eat. Because of their unique structures or properties, these compounds may yield life-saving medicines or other important industrial and agricultural products.

Antibiotic-resistant super bugs will cause extinction – new medicines are keyKeating, Foreign Policy web editor, 9(Joshua, “The End of the World”, 11-13-09, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?page=full, ldg)

How it could happen: Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death killed more off more than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 3 percent of the world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization, diseases today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding. A global outbreak of a disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drug-resistant form of the flu virus on a global scale

could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact . How likely is it? Treatment of deadly diseases has improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have been blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as swine flu, and as the world’s population grows and humans move into previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown pathogens increases. More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the

1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.

1AR: Coral Reef Key to Medicine

Coral reefs are key to new medicinesNOAA, 2008(March 25, The Importance of Coral Reefs, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_importance.html)

Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Coral reefs support more species per unit area than any other marine environment, including about 4,000 species of fish, 800 species of hard corals and hundreds of other species. Scientists estimate that there may be another 1 to 8 million undiscovered species of organisms living in and around reefs (Reaka-Kudla, 1997). This biodiversity is considered key to finding new medicines for the 21st century. Many drugs are now being developed from coral reef animals and plants as possible cures for cancer, arthritis, human bacterial infections, viruses, and other diseases. Storehouses of immense biological wealth, reefs also provide economic and environmental services to millions of people. Coral reefs may provide goods and services worth $375 billion each year. This is an amazing figure for an environment that covers less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface (Costanza et al., 1997) Healthy reefs contribute to local economies through tourism. Diving tours, fishing trips, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses based near reef systems provide millions of jobs and contribute billions of dollars all over the world. Recent studies show that millions of people visit coral reefs in the Florida Keys every year. These reefs alone are estimated to have an asset value of $7.6 billion (Johns et al., 2001).

1AR: Antibiotic Resistance Impact

Antibiotic resistance causes extinctionDavies, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of British Columbia, 2008(Julian Davies, “Resistance redux. Infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance and the future of mankind,” EMBO reports 9, S1, S18–S21 (2008), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327549/)

For many years, antibiotic-resistant pathogens have been recognized as one of the main

threats to human survival, as some experts predict a return to the pre-antibiotic era . So far, national efforts to exert strict control over the use of antibiotics have had limited success and it is not yet possible to achieve worldwide concerted action to reduce the growing threat of multi-resistant pathogens: there are too many parties involved. Furthermore, the problem has not yet really arrived on the radar screen of many physicians and clinicians, as antimicrobials still work most of the time—apart from the occasional news headline that yet another nasty superbug has emerged in the local hospital. Legislating the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic applications and curtailing general public access to them is conceivable, but legislating the medical profession is an entirely different matter.…microbes are formidable adversaries and, despite our best efforts, continue to exact a toll on the human raceIn order to meet the growing problem of antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the discovery and development of new antibiotics and alternative treatments for infectious diseases, together with tools for rapid diagnosis that will ensure effective and appropriate use of existing antibiotics, are imperative. How the health services, pharmaceutical industry and academia respond in the coming years will determine the future of treating infectious diseases. This challenge is not to be underestimated: microbes are formidable adversaries and, despite our best efforts, continue to exact a toll on the human race.

Climate Migrants

2AC: Climate Migrants Add-On

Coastal erosion triggers mass climate migrationWashington Times, 2009(“Climate refugees in the Pacific flee rising sea”, online: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/19/rising-sea-levels-in-pacific-create-wave-of-migran/?page=all)

MELBOURNE, Australia | Rising sea levels blamed on climate change are taking a toll on island nations in the South Pacific, with the world’s first climate refugees beginning a migration that

is likely to continue for decades to come.Inhabitants of parts of New Guinea and Tuvalu have already been forced to moved from low-lying areas.New Zealand has agreed to accept migrants from Tuvalu, which experts think will be completely submerged by the middle of the century. Canada is funding the relocation of residents from parts of Vanuatu affected by global warming.Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization warned in a recent report that the Pacific region is particularly vulnerable.It warned of coastal communities already being inundated by rising seas, the loss of wetlands and coral bleaching, as well as an increase in disease and heat-related mortality resulting from climate change.“Communities all over the Pacific are alarmed at coastal erosion and the advancing sea

levels ,” said Diane McFadzien , the South Pacifics regional climate change coordinator with the World Wildlife Fund. “We are already seeing signs of whole villages having to relocate … or important cultural sites such as burial grounds in Fiji being eroded.”The Pacific islands comprise 22 nations with 7 million residents.The rising sea and eroding beaches caused the recent forced displacement of the people of the Carteret Islands, about 70 miles northeast of Papua New Guinea. The islands’ 2,500 residents are moving to one of Papua New Guineas larger towns, Bougainville.Extreme weather has increased in frequency and ferocity in recent years in Papua New Guinea. A flood in Oro Province in November 2007 killed 70 people and destroyed nearly all roads and bridges.In the Indian Ocean, the Maldives, a chain of 1,200 islands and coral atolls that sits about 6 feet above sea level, has long been a favorite honeymoon destination. Estimates released at the Copenhagen International Climate Congress in February say the sea could swallow most or all of the islands by the year 2100.The worlds first climate refugees are thought to be the 500,000 inhabitants of Bhola Island in Bangladesh, who were left homeless after half of the island became permanently flooded in 2005.Inhabitants of another island in the Bay of Bengal, Kutubdia, are now homeless after the island lost almost 4 square miles of land, shrinking it from its original size of almost 10 square miles, according to the Equity and Justice Working Group, an environmental organization.The group recently said that some 30 million people in 19 of 64 districts along the southern coastline of Bangladesh have already been exposed to extreme weather, rising sea levels and river erosion.

Equity’s estimates are more dire than the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which estimates that 22 million people in Bangladesh will be forced from their homes by 2050 because of climate change.A migration of such magnitude can have real-life implications for national budgets, international law and immigration policies.

Sudden onset migration increasingly likely and triggers resource wars which are highly likely to escalateBahati, Policy Analyst at Africa Faith and Social Justice Network, 2010(Jacques, Originally published in the Jan-Feb edition of Around Africa, Climate Change: What About the Displaced?, February 9, 2010, Bahati Ntama Jacques, Policy Analyst, http://afjn.org/focus-campaigns/other/other-continental-issues/82-general/792-climate-change-what-about-the-displaced.html)

Already, as a result of climate change, at least 18 islands have been submerged worldwide. These include Lohachara Island in India, Bedford, Kabasgadi and Suparibhanga Island near India. Other islands are at risk of being submerged. They include Bangladesh’s Bhola Island, half of which is permanently flooded, Kutubdia in southeastern Bangladesh with thousands of people already displaced and more to be displaced, in Shishmaref and Kivalini of Alaska, and Maldives, a state island in the Indian Ocean whose President wishes to relocate the entire country.Climate change-related disasters not only affect ecosystems, but cause people to relocate either by choice or by force. Some will be displaced within the boundaries of their affected countries (Internal Displacement or ID) and others will cross state borders. Some will be displaced because of sudden-onset hydro-meteorological disasters, such as flooding, hurricanes, landslides, etc. Others will be affected by slow-onset disasters, like desertification, rising sea levels and droughts. Sea level rise will, in some cases, lead to permanent loss of small state islands, Maldives being an example, which means permanent displacement of the inhabitants of the island. In high-risk zones authorities have to choose between the cost of rebuilding every time a disaster hits or of just displacing the people permanently. Furthermore, as a result of displacement, disputes over resources such as water and land will cause violence. It is more than likely that some of the violence will end up in armed conflict.

Resource wars cause extinction – traditional constrains on conflict don’t applyHeinberg, Senior Fellow of Post Carbon Institute, 2004(Richard, Book Excerpt: Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Port-Carbon World, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2291)

Last One Standing – The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues with current policies, the next decades will be filled with war, economic crises, and environmental catastrophe. Resource depletion and population pressure are about to catch up with us, and no one is prepared. The political elites, especially in the US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their preferred “solution” is simply to commandeer other nations’ resources, using military force. The worst-case scenario would be the general destruction of human civilization and most of the ecological life-support system of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer not to contemplate it –

except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded. This is general true among non-human animals, among which competition for diminishing resources typically leads to aggressive behaviour.

1AR: Climate Migrants Cause War

Environmental stress is now the main cause of conflict – massive migration flows cause warAtapattu, Associate Director, Global Legal Studies Center, University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009(Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri LankaColorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, Fall, 2008, 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 35, Lexis)

While environmental stress has rarely been the sole cause of conflicts in and between states, the intrinsic link between access to resources - particularly water - and conflict is increasingly recognized. Global climate change will exacerbate this problem. Faced with increased temperatures, erosion, desertification, deforestation, flooding, rising sea levels, forest fires, loss of species, and increased incidence of disease, environmental stress may well become the main cause of conflict in the coming years.While wars and conflicts have forced many people to abandon their homes and flee to relatively safe areas, we are now faced with a situation where people may flee their homes for

environmental reasons . People who do so have been termed "environmental refugees," and it is estimated that in 1984-1985 some ten million Africans fled their homes due to reasons connected with environmental degradation. n121 Many of these refugees moved across national boundaries thereby increasing tension in the receiving countries. Most receiving countries can barely cope with their own problems and when more people seek access to quickly dwindling resources, conflicts are bound to increase . The World Commission on Environment and Development ("WCED") described the relationship between environmental degradation and conflict as follows:As unsustainable forms of development push individual countries up against environmental limits, major differences in environmental endowment among countries, or variations in stocks of usable land and raw materials, could precipitate and exacerbate international tension and conflict. And competition for use of the global commons, such as ocean fisheries and Antarctica, or for use of more localized common resources in fixed supply, such as rivers and coastal waters, could escalate to the level of international conflict and so threaten international peace and security. n122If one also considers the inherent injustices in developing countries, prevailing extreme socioeconomic inequality, and corruption and [*62] poverty, the situation becomes bleak indeed. The WCED recognized the link between global warming and conflict as follows:Environmental threats to security are now beginning to emerge on a global scale. The most worrisome of these stem from the possible consequences of global warming... Any such climatic change would quite probably be unequal in its effects, disrupting agricultural systems in areas that provide a large proportion of the world's cereal harvests and perhaps triggering mass population movements in areas where hunger is already endemic. Sea levels may rise during the first half of the next century enough to radically change the boundaries between coastal nations and to change the shapes and strategic importance of international waterways - effects both likely to increase international tension. The climatic and sea-level change are also likely to

disrupt the breeding grounds of economically important fish species. Slowing, or adapting to, global warming is becoming an essential task to reduce the risks of conflict. n123

US-China War Impact

Specifically, climate refugees in the Pacific result in US-China warPaskal, Associate Fellow at Royal Institute of International Affairs and Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Geopolitics at Manipal University, 2010(Global Warring, 2010, p. 231-232)

Whether individual countries survive or not, and in what form, there will still be an increasingly complex situation in the Pacific leading to the question: Who will dominate in the next few decades? Much depends on how well the groundwork is laid in the next few years. For example, with environmental change, there will be an increased need for foreign intervention in the region, from emergency search-and-rescue operations to evacuations. Facilitating regional assistance gives outside countries a humanitarian excuse to base a navy in the region. Once the serious, persistent flooding begins, political capital can be gained by taking in refugees. The countries that host the most refugees from a given swamped territory will then be in the best position to claim a "special relationship" with the patch of ocean where that territory used to be, and potentially to develop the same sort of economic and political relationship proposed for the Maldives and India. As it stands now, the most likely home for many of the refugees is New Zealand and, to a lesser degree, Australia. However, there is no reason that China, for example, can't take in Tongans. In a reverse of its policy of exporting Chinese to Pacific nations to establish a beachhead, it could import Pacific Islanders to strengthen Chinese claims over areas of the Pacific.Ultimately influence in the Pacific is likely to be a matter of power. There are four ways countries can try to reach an understanding with each other. In incremental order they are: friendly negotiations (i.e., a Maldivian merge with India), the courts (i.e., taking a claim to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea), raw politics (i.e., China and Taiwan outbidding, outbribing, and out blackmailing each other), and the military (i.e., China versus Vietnam in the South China Sea). The countries of the Pacific probably only have a small window of friendly negotiations and legal positioning left; after that it'll be raw politics. Hopefully it will stop short of military intervention.Currently, barring a late start from India, China seems on course to increase its hegemony over large sections of the Pacific. The United States is hindered by a lack of sustained interest in the Pacific. Additionally, the United States is over-stretched in too many theaters and is already having problems basing, strategizing, recruiting, training, and equipping against so many varied threats. The United States knows it is being left behind and is making some efforts to gain position. The U.S. government declared 2007 the "Year of the Pacific," and in May 2007, it sponsored a meeting of Pacific island leaders in Washington for the first time.25 The State Department said it was "part of US efforts to expand engagement with the vast and important Pacific region through closer political, economic, and cultural tics."26 However, rather than talk about issues of concern to Islanders, such as rising sea levels and illegal fishing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned a coup in Fiji and lectured the assembled prime ministers and presidents, saying, "The Pacific cannot evolve into an area where strongmen unilaterally decide the fates of their countries and destabilize the democratic foundations of their neighbors."27 It was unfortunately a lost chance to win the hearts and minds of Pacific leaders who have vivid memories of the United States unilaterally expropriating valuable land for military bases and detonating; nuclear devices that contaminated entire islands.

Meanwhile, the Pacific has China's focused attention. China's diplomatic battle with Taiwan is only a short- to medium-term issue. If Taiwan remains outside Chinese mainland control, it is likely that the situation will eventually normalize as the two countries1 economies become even more symbiotic. Under Taiwan's current China-friendly government, elected in 2008, policies have already softened. There has been a de facto ceasefire on trying to lure away countries from each other's sphere of influence and, in an apparent move to avoid annoying China, Taiwan canceled a summit with its six Pacific-friendly nations.28Conversely, the more serious China is about invading Taiwan, the less important it is for China to secure official government-to-government relationships in the Pacific as, if there were a successful Chinese attack on Taiwan, die small Pacific countries recognizing Taiwan would quickly change allegiances in order not to be on the losing side of future aid packages. Either way, the China-Taiwan tug-of-war in the Pacific should be over within a generation or two. Meanwhile, China's long-term, nationalistic capitalist strategy is to get people on the ground, owning shops and businesses, and gaining local influence. Economic reasons alone make this sound policy for China. The strategic and political reasons make it an obvious course to follow. China is creating a firm buffer of its own design around Taiwan (and perhaps even Japan and South Korea), making it difficult for the United States to get in and protect its allies. The more entrenched China becomes in the Pacific, the farther afield it can base submarines and missiles, and the harder it is for the United States to defend Taiwan, except by remotely bombing the Chinese mainland. That in itself is unlikely, as China has made it clear that it is willing to retaliate (or even preempt) with a nuclear attack on the United States—something that few American presidents can risk.29

Taiwan war causes extinctionStraits Times ’00 (6-25, Lexis, No one gains in war over Taiwan)

THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China . If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The

US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that s hould that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation . There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

US-China war causes nuclear winterWittner 11 (11/30/11 Dr. Lawrence, Prof of History Emeritus at SUNY Albany, “Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?”) But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher . Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture , creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction . Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade.

Space/NASA

2AC: NASA Focus Add-On

Plan eliminates agency overlap – frees up NASA resources for spaceBhattacharjee, Science Insider, 2011(Yudhijit, “Bolden defends NASA’s earth science missions,” online: http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/03/bolden-defends-nasas-earth-science-missions)

Should NASA have anything to with studying Earth? NASA Administrator Charles Bolden found himself having to explain that to lawmakers yesterday at a hearing by the House of Representatives on NASA's $18.7 billion budget request for 2012. Ironically, he testified only hours before aNASA mission to help understand climate change crashed into the Pacific after a rocket failure.NASA wants $1.8 billion for earth science in next year's budget, up 25% from current spending levels. Among other things, the agency plans to use that money to ready the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 for launch in 2013 and to begin the development of two missions to measure soil moisture and monitor ice sheets and forest cover.The chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), asked Bolden if NASA wouldn't be better off letting agencies—in particular, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation—take over NASA's earth science efforts. Perhaps that would free up money for NASA to pursue space exploration, Wolf suggested. He also asked whether there was any overlap between the work being done by NOAA and NASA in monitoring Earth.

Science Diplomacy

2AC: SciDip Add-On

Plan creates international science partnershipsJewett et al., the first director of NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program, 2014(Elizabeth Jewett, Mary Boatman (BOEM), Phillip Taylor and Priscilla Viana (formerly with NSF), Todd Capson (formerly with DOS), Katherine Nixon (formerly with U.S. Navy) and Fredric Lipshultz (formerly with NASA), “Strategic Plan for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification,”Online:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/iwg-oa_strategic_plan_march_2014.pdf)

International partnerships may form via new initiatives that address emerging cross-cutting issues while striv ing to promote sustainable development on bilateral, regional, and global levels. As previously mentioned, formal science and technology agreements can unite governments in research partnerships, which may serve education and outreach needs. Science and technology cooperation,

in addition to grants for international cooperation, supports the establishment of science-based industries, encourages investment in national sci ence infrastructure, education, and application of scientific standards, and it promotes international dialogue. Additionally, the National Ocean

Acidification Program Office can form new international partnerships by leveraging existing relationships established through U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions. By building off of existing relationships, an international engagement strategy will have more relevant and achievable goals.

Oceans the key to effective science diplomacyPages and Kearney, 2004 (Patrice, magazine editor at American Chemical Society, and Bill, editor at Ocean Drive magazine, “Exploration of the Deep Blue Sea: Unveiling the Ocean’s Mysteries,” In Focus Magazine, Winter/Spring, vol. 4, no. 1, http://www.infocusmagazine.org/4.1/env_ocean.html)

The oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface, regulate our weather and climate, and sustain a large portion of the planet's biodiversity, yet we know very little about them. In fact, most of this underwater realm remains unexplored. Three recent reports from the National Research Council propose a significantly expanded international infrastructure for ocean exploration and research to close this knowledge gap and unlock the many secrets of the sea. Already a world leader in ocean research, the United States should lead a new exploration endeavor by example. "Given the limited resources in many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. exploration program that would include foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries," said John Orcutt, the committee chair for one of the reports and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. "Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then collaborate on research and pool their resources under international agreements." Using new and existing facilities, technologies, and vehicles, proposed efforts to understand the oceans would follow two different approaches. One component dedicated to exploration would utilize ships, submersibles, and satellites in new ways to uncover the ocean's biodiversity, such as the ecosystems associated with deep-sea hydrothermal vents, coral reefs, and volcanic, underwater mountains. A second component -- a network of ocean "observatories" composed of moored buoys and a system of telecommunication cables and nodes on the seafloor -- would complement the existing fleet of research ships and satellites. The buoys would provide

information on weather and climate as well as ocean biology, and the cables would be used to transmit information from sensors on fixed nodes about volcanic and tectonic activity of the seafloor, earthquakes, and life on or below the seafloor. Also, a fleet of new manned and unmanned deep-diving vehicles would round out this research infrastructure. Education and outreach should be an integral part of new ocean science efforts by bringing discoveries to the public, informing government officials, and fostering collaborations between educators and the program's scientists, the reports say. These activities will expand previous international programs. For example, the observatory network will build on current attempts to understand the weather, climate, and seafloor, such as the Hawaii-2 Observatory -- which consists of marine telephone cables running between Oahu and Hawaii and the California coast -- and the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Array, which contains about 70 moorings in the Pacific and was key to predicting interannual climate events such as El Niño.

Scientific diplomacy key to solve global problemsSackett, former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, 2010 (Penny, PhD in theoretical physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU) Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 8/10, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,” Forum for Australian-European Science and Technology Cooperation, http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1p10y/FEAST/resources/134.htm)

Imagine for a moment that the globe is inhabited by a single individual who roams free across outback plains, through rainforests, across pure white beaches — living off the resources available. Picture the immensity of the world surrounding this one person and ask yourself, what possible impact could this single person have on the planet? Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year. That’s about 2 more mouths to feed every second. Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true. A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of

the natural and human world. Values integral to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices. Furthermore, given the long-established global trade of scientific information and results, many important international links are already in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when supported at a political level, can provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security.

1AR: SciDip Solves Global Problems

International partnerships created by the plan are key to US science diplomacy and build coalitions to preserve global stabilityCarnahan, former congressman, 2012 (Russ, represented Missouri’s Third Congressional District from 2005-2013 and served on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Veterans’ Affairs. Science Diplomacy and Congress, AAAS center for scientific diplomacy, 08.02.2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-congress)

As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and a former member of the House Committee on Science, I believe that the coordination of international science and technology (S&T) diplomacy is paramount to U.S. interests. The United States has the potential to build more positive relationships with other countries through science. Our country can better advance U.S. national security and economic interests by helping build technological capacities in other nations and working with international partners to solve global challenges. This is why I have worked in a bipartisan manner to lead the introduction of four bills at the intersection of science and diplomacy: the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act; the Global Conservation Act; the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act; and the Startup Act 2.0. International challenges are just that: global in their scope and in their solutions. The United States cannot solve multifaceted, multinational problems in scientific or diplomatic isolation. Forging networks with scientists and institutions abroad helps the United States and its partners find technical solutions to key global challenges. In an era where international skepticism about U.S. foreign policy abounds, civil society—including scientists and engineers—plays a critical role in reinforcing U.S. foreign policy priorities via engagement with its counterparts.

Science diplomacy can prevent conflict from escalatingWallin, Matthew, master’s candidate at in the Public Diplomacy program and Center for Science Diplomacy intern/conference reporter, 2010 (Matthew, referencing the remarks of Ernest J. Wilson III, Dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the proceedings of the USC Center of Public Diplomacy’s conference on Science Diplomacy and the Prevention of Conflict, 2/4/10, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/useruploads/u22281/Science%20Diplomacy%20Proceedings.pdf)

In his introductory remarks, Dean Ernest Wilson pointed out that although science diplomacy can be utilized to prevent conflict, it tends to be neglected as an important aspect of diplomacy. Science diplomacy takes place at the intersection of events and trends, and so it doesn’t neatly fit into traditional analytic categories, nor does it fit into the standard and familiar organizational silos. Proposing three areas of analysis for science diplomacy, Wilson outlined the concepts of Context, Curves, and Caution. Contextually, science and technology’s ability to play a larger role in the foreign policy of states is an area that requires careful scrutiny. This field is becoming more pertinent, as can be seen from recent conflicts between Google, Inc. and the People’s Republic of China over Internet access. This example highlights technology companies’

attempts to gain political influence that they believe is commensurate with their economic weight, demonstrating the possible emergence of a new political context where science and technology (S&T) may be augmenting companies’ audiences and constituencies. To demonstrate the concept of Curves, Wilson brought up the previous night’s question about the disaggregation of science. As with science, conflict can be subdivided into different categories, many of which require different tools to achieve lasting and successful resolution. Conflict cannot be modeled as a steady state, but rather as a bell-shaped curve. On the left side, conflict is either non-existent or in a pre-conflict state. Accelerators act to raise the level of conflict to a peak or plateau, and on the right side of the curve, conflict declines. It is subsequently important to understand at which points on the curve science and technology can intervene. On the left side, S&T can help prevent conflict, whereas at the peak it can help reduce it. On the right side, the question remains of how exactly S&T can help sustain the reduction in conflict.

Philippines

2AC: Philippines I/L

Ocean Acidification destroys the Philippine economy – tourism and fisheries collapseJimeno, professor at the San Beda College of Law in Alabang, 2014 (Rita Linda V., “Exploiting our ocean resources”, June 9 2014, http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/06/09/exploiting-our-ocean-resources/, Accessed 7/22/14)

Other threats facing small islands are increased flooding, shoreline erosion, ocean acidification, warmer sea and land temperature, and damage to infrastructure from extreme weather events. Super typhoon Yolanda that devastated Tacloban and many other parts of the Visayas has proven that the Philippines is vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. Because of the acidification of the seas as a result of rising temperatures, coral reefs are dying and our fisheries is gravely affected. Tourism will suffer too because of the slow disappearance of beaches as sea level rises. The Philippine economy will be in tatters unless we start adapting

now .

Recent growth has nearly eliminated the Philippines’ domestic terrorist insurgency – but gains are reversible Mong, NBC Correspondent, 2010(Adrienne, NBC News Correspondent, October 1, 2010, “America’s Forgotten Frontline: The Philippines,” online: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/America_s_forgotten_frontline__The_Philippines-104158608.html)

Most notably, the Philippine military succeeded in weeding out extremist elements from the local population – particularly in Basilan province – by working with U.S. Special Forces on a humanitarian assistance campaign to improve villagers’ lives while at the same time pursuing combat operations. “[It’s] dramatically improved in terms of the security situation, in terms of the population having more freedom to move around to do their daily business,” said Maj. Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, the AFP’s deputy chief of staff for operations. Those efforts further paid off when the country’s largest Islamic insurgent group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) – some of whose members are believed to be closely allied with both Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf – officially disavowed terrorism and re-engaged in on-again, off-again peace talks with the Philippines government.In fact, the U.S. has helped to broker the negotiations, a move that has helped engage MILF. “We have been telling the Americans point-blank that you planted the seeds of enmity in Mindanao,” said MILF spokesman Mohagher Iqbal, from one of its training camps near Cotabato City. “Had you separated our homeland from the rest of Luzon and the Visayas [during the Philippine-American War], there [would have] been no Moro problem. So please help us address this problem.”A fragile peace

But the peace talks, which are expected to resume in the coming weeks after a two-year hiatus, are no guarantee that the Moro “problem” will be resolved or that terrorism will be kept at bay permanently.Twenty-eight so-called “high value targets” have been killed or captured in the region since 2002, and many of the remaining wanted individuals have been confined to the remote provinces of Sulu and Basilan. But both still see regular outbreaks of violence.During our stay, the local newspapers carried daily multiple reports of fire fights and kidnappings in Mindanao. And last year saw only the second-ever attack on American troops in the southern Philippines since their return to the region. Two U.S. soldiers and one Philippines marine died when their vehicle ran over a landmine last September en route to a school development project.In part, the challenge lies not only in the region’s geography (a collection of small islands, some no larger than a couple of square miles) but also in the local communities, which retain an entrenched antipathy to any officialdom representing Manila.“Sulu has always been the place of, we say, seasoned warriors,” observed Col Aminkadra Undug, commander of airborne special forces for the AFP. “Some of these people have always been very proud people. They claim they do not succumb to influence from the outside, even though it’s their own government.” ‘Where the road ends, terrorism starts’Poverty also is a big factor.On Jolo island, for instance, where fishing and fruit farming are the main industries, the average fisherman might bring home about $3 or $4 a day, a fruit farmer even less.A person “actually living in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao area of southern Mindanao will probably die 10 years earlier than someone in metro Manila,” said Gloria Steele, director of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) mission in the Philippines.All of which adds up to persistent conditions ripe for terrorist recruitment or an insurgency that promises better governance for its people. “The international terrorist links fed on the feeling of dissatisfaction of some fundamentalist groups in that area,” said Dr. Jennifer Santiago Oreta, who teaches in the department of political science at Ateneo de Manila University.To counteract this phenomenon, Filipino and American troops have shifted their strategy, focusing even more on community and development.“Even if we kill all the high-value targets, that’s not going to solve the problem,” said U.S. Army Special Forces Major Varman Chhoeung, the Commander of Task Force Sulu. “The bigger part of the problem is denying safe havens. How do you deny safe havens? You only do that through good governance and through economic growth in the area.”The major showed us around Jolo, where he’s stationed with 130 U.S. troops. In line with the idea that “where the road ends, terrorism starts,” modest infrastructural improvements have been made across Jolo. Roads have been built or repaired. An airstrip was recently refurbished with the assistance of U.S. troops, enabling the first commercial flight to land in Jolo. There are projects to build schools and ongoing plans to establish more health clinics. In addition to the American troops’ contributions, USAID has funneled more than $500 million in assistance to Mindanao since 2002. “Our programs have focused primarily in the areas of health, education, energy, good governance, rule of law as well as infrastructure and economic growth,” said Steele.

In Panamao Municipality, which saw recent skirmishes with what the Philippines military call “rogue MILF elements,” there is one hospital with 10 to 15 beds serving an estimated 44,000 villagers in the community. There is “only one doctor, one dentist,” said Dr. Silak Lakkian, the chief of the hospital in Panamao. “We have four midwives, and we have five nurses.”The doctor said her hospital had received a lot of what she called “disposables” – medicine and some basic medical supplies – from the Americans. But “that was four years ago,” she said. “[L]ately we haven’t received any.”‘Defense, diplomacy, development’“We’re at a critical juncture thanks to the efforts of our military operation with USAID and the Armed Forces of the Philippines,” said Harry Thomas, Jr., the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines. “We are near eliminating the terrorist threat, but we have to sustain it.… That’s why we’re still trying to do the three tenets: defense, diplomacy, and development.”

Impact – LNG

Terrorists in the Philippines will attack LNG tankersSittnick, Attorney, 2005(Tammy M., “State Responsibility and Maritime Terrorism in the Strait of Malacca: Persuading Indonesia and Malaysia to Take Additional Steps to Secure the Strait – 14 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y 743, Lexis)

Several possible maritime terrorist scenarios exist. As the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and the recent attacks on the Philippine ferry indicate, passenger ships, especially ferries and cruise ships, are vulnerable targets. Such ships could either be blown up or used as weapons against other ships or a seaport. Either scenario would likely result in a large number of civilian casualties. Other possible attacks include the use of shipping containers to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into a country and the use of a ship to launch an attack on a port city. Additionally, attacks similar to those perpetuated against the U.S.S. Cole or the French supertanker Limburg remain possible.Another serious concern is the maritime equivalent of the September 11th attacks. If terrorists hijacked a ship, especially one carrying flammable materials such as oil or liquefied natural gas, they would have the potential to blow the ship up at one of the narrow point in the Strait of Malacca, or ram the ship into another ship or port. The September 1992 collision in the Strait of Malacca between the tanker Nagaski Spirit and the container ship Ocean Blessing illustrates how easily terrorists could conduct a similar, but more disastrous operation.

An LNG tanker attack is equivalent to large-scale nuclear warLovins and Lovins 1 [Amory Lovins has received ten honorary doctorates and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1984, of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1988, and of the World Business Academy in 2001. He has received the World Technology Award, the Right Livelihood Award, the Blue Planet Prize, Volvo Environment Prize, the 4th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment in 1998,[17] and the National Design (Design Mind), Jean Meyer, and Lindbergh Awards. Lovins shared a 1982 Mitchell Prize for an essay on reallocating utility capital, a 1983 Right Livelihood Award (often called the "alternative Nobel Prize"), a 1993 Nissan Award for an article on Hypercars, the 1999 Lindbergh Award for Environment and Technology, and several honorary doctorates. In 2000, she was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine, and received the Loyola Law School Award for Outstanding Community Service.[2] In 2001, she received the Leadership in Business Award and shared the Shingo Prize for Manufacturing Research. In 2005 she received the Distinguished Alumni Award of Pitzer College. “Brittle Power”, http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Energy/BrittlePower.pdf]

LNG is less than half as dense as water, so a cubic meter of LNG (the usual unit of measure) weighs just over half a ton. 1 LNG contains about thirty percent less energy per cubic meter than oil, but is potentially far more hazardous. 2 Burning oil cannot spread very far on land or water, but a cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about six hundred twenty cubic meters of pure natural gas, which in turn mixes with surrounding air. Mixtures of between about five and fourteen percent natural gas in air are flammable. Thus a single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up to twelve thousand four hundred cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture. A single modern LNG tanker typically holds one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters of LNG, equivalent to twenty-seven hundred million cubic feet of natural gas. That gas can form between about twenty and fifty billion cubic feet of flammable gas-air mixture—several hundred times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. About nine percent of such a tankerload of LNG will probably, if spilled onto water, boil to gas in about five minutes. 3 (It does not matter how cold the water is; it will be at least two hundred twenty-eight Fahrenheit degrees hotter than the LNG, which it will therefore cause to boil violently.) The resulting gas, however, will be so cold that it will still be denser than air. It will therefore flow in a cloud or plume along the surface until it reaches an ignition source. Such a plume might extend at least three miles

downwind from a large tanker spill within ten to twenty minutes. 4 It might ultimately reach much farther—perhaps six to twelve miles. 5 If not ignited, the gas is asphyxiating. If ignited, it will burn to completion with a turbulent diffusion flame reminiscent of the 1937 Hindenberg disaster but about a hundred times as big. Such a fireball would burn everything within it, and by its radiant heat would cause third-degree burns and start fires a mile or two away. 6 An LNG fireball can blow through a city, creating “a very large number of ignitions and explosions across a wide area. No present or foreseeable equipment can put out a very large [LNG]...fire.” 7 The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters) is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs.

Impact – Spratlys

Fighting insurgency trades off with deterrence – can’t prevent Spratly’s intrusionLohman and De Castro, 2010 (Walter, Director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, and Renato C. De, Professor in the International Studies Department of De La Salle University (Manila) and holds the Dr. Aurelio Calderon Professorial Chair of Philippine–American Relations. “Empowering a New Era in the United States-Philippines Security Alliance.” Heritage Foundation. June 28, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/empowering-a-new-era-in-the-united-states-philippines-security-alliance)

It has also been observed that the AFP’s focus on internal security has forced it to use its existing military materiel continuously under “adverse combat conditions,” causing excessive wear and tear that has reduced their effectiveness and reliability.[36] For example, deployment of PN patrol crafts in the counterinsurgency/counterterrorism operations in southern Philippines has reduced patrol visibility in other critical areas. This has led to increased intrusion by foreign vessels into Philippine territorial waters.[37] Thus, in terms of overall AFP territorial defense capabilities, the 2007 assessment pessimistically and candidly admits:[T]he AFP’s overall capability to defend the country against external threats in maritime and air environment remains inadequate. This situation is nowhere more manifest than in the Kalayaan Island Group (Spratlys) wherein the AFP is unable to prevent and respond to intrusion into our EEZ or show our resolve in defending areas we are claiming.[38]

Spratly’s goes nuclearNikkei Weekly in ’95, June 3, [“Developing Asian Nations should Be Allowed a Grace Period to Allow their Economies to Grow Before Being Subjected to Trade Liberalization Demands, says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad”]Mahathir strongly opposes the use of weapons to settle international disputes. The prime minister hails the ASEAN Regional Forum as a means for civilizing nations of achieving negionted settlement disputes. Many members of the forum, including Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand, have problems with their neighbors, but they are trying to solve them through continued dialogue, he adds. Three scenarios Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in the future. In his worst-case scenario, Asian countries would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims on the Spartly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S. leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.

1AR: Philippines Key to Spratlys

Philippines key to prevent conflict over the Spratlys – that’s key to containing China’s riseLohman and De Castro, 2010 (Walter, Director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, and Renato C. De, Professor in the International Studies Department of De La Salle University (Manila) and holds the Dr. Aurelio Calderon Professorial Chair of Philippine–American Relations. “Empowering a New Era in the United States-Philippines Security Alliance.” Heritage Foundation. June 28, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/empowering-a-new-era-in-the-united-states-philippines-security-alliance)

Abstract: The Philippines occupies a strategic location on the edge of China’s “first island chain of defense” and has been subjected to persistent and assertive Chinese claims to disputed territory in the South China Sea. These Chinese claims threaten not only the Philippines and the other claimants to the territory, but also the ability of the U.S. to conduct naval operations in open seas and, ultimately, the security of the sea-lanes through which much of the world’s trade passes. To manage growing Chinese power, the U.S. needs a reliable, adequately equipped, like-minded partner on the South China Sea. The Philippines needs American leadership and assistance to fully develop its capacity for territorial defense. To protect both U.S. and Philippine interests in the region, the U.S. should assist the Philippines in building a credible ability to support its sovereign claims.The South China Sea is rapidly emerging as a key venue for managing China’s rise as a global power. At stake is no less than freedom of navigation and the U.S. security predominance that has served the Western Pacific region so well for more than 60 years. The Philippines shares these interests but has another much closer to home: countering persistent and assertive Chinese claims to disputed territory in the Spratly Islands.

1AR: Spratlys Impact

Philippines are key to contain China – the alternative is nuclear warSantoli, Director and President of the Asia America Initiative, 2005(Al, 11-6-5 “CAN FUTURE NUCLEAR WAR BE PREVENTED?” China In Focus - Number 8 http://www.asiaamerica.org/publications/cif/cif-08-2005.htm)

The Philippines has been the core ally of the United States and the world's democracies in Southeast Asia, straddling essential maritime lines of communication, trade and defense between the Middle East and the Pacific, linking South and North Asia. Tragically beset by political paralysis, insurgencies and mismanagement, the Philippines has lost the capability to defend its territory from outside aggression. The Philippine Air Force, once the strongest in Southeast Asia, today finds itself without a single jet fighter plane to protect the country's vast 7,000 island archipelago's airspace. The antiquated Philippine navy is also without the firepower to resist territorial incursions. The Chinese navy maintains a warship presence on Mischief Reef, in Philippine territorial waters, alongside the strategic Palawan Passage in the South China Sea - where all oil to North Asia from the Middle East must pass.While China has been offering massive amounts of arms almost free of monetary charge (but with a political price) to dictatorships around the region, why has the American and other allied governments failed to assist the Philippines? The cost, on all levels, is much less than a regional conflict that could turn nuclear.

Impact – Malacca

Insurgency will disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Malacca – collapses the Chinese, Japanese and South Korean economiesLuft and Korin, 2004 (Gal Luft – Executive Director of the Institute for Analysis of Global security, Anne Korin – Director of Policy and Strategic Planning, IAGS, terrorism goes to sea, http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Foreign%20Affairs%20-%20Terrorism%20Goes%20to%20Sea%20-%20Gal%20Luft%20and%20Anne%20.htm]

Pirates and Islamist terrorist groups have long operated in the same areas, including the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and in waters off the coast of western Africa. Now, in the face of massive international efforts to freeze their finances, terrorist groups have come to view piracy as a potentially rich source of funding. This appeal is particularly apparent in the Strait of Malacca, the 500-mile corridor separating Indonesia and Malaysia, where 42 percent of pirate attacks took place in 2003. According to Indonesia's state intelligence agency, detained senior members of Jemaah Islamiyah, the al Qaeda-linked Indonesian terrorist group, have admitted that the group has considered launching attacks on Malacca shipping. And uniformed members of the Free Aceh Movement, an Indonesian separatist group that is also one of the most radical Islamist movements in the world, have been hijacking vessels and taking their crews hostage at an increasing rate. The protracted ransom negotiations yield considerable sums-the going rate is approximately $100,000 per ship-later used to procure weapons for sustained operations against the Indonesian government. In some cases, the Free Aceh Movement has demanded the release of members detained by the government in exchange for hostages.The string of maritime attacks perpetrated in recent years demonstrates that terror has indeed gone to sea. In January 2000, al Qaeda attempted to ram a boat loaded with explosives into the USS The Sullivans in Yemen. (The attack failed only because the boat sank under the weight of its lethal payload.) After this initial failure, al Qaeda suicide bombers in a speedboat packed with explosives blew a hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors, in October 2000. In October 2002, an explosives-laden boat hit the French oil tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen. In February 2004, the southern Philippines-based Abu Sayyaf claimed responsibility for an explosion on a large ferry that killed at least 100 people. And according to FBI Director Robert Mueller, "any number of attacks on ships have been thwarted." In June 2002, for example, the Moroccan government arrested a group of al Qaeda operatives suspected of plotting raids on British and U.S. tankers passing through the Strait of Gibraltar.Terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah , the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers have long sought to develop a maritime capability. Intelligence agencies estimate that al Qaeda and its affiliates now own dozens of phantom ships-hijacked vessels that have been repainted and renamed and operate under false documentation, manned by crews with fake passports and forged competency certificates. Security experts have long warned that terrorists might try to ram a ship loaded with explosive cargo, perhaps even a weapon of mass destruction, into a major port or terminal. Such an attack could bring international trade to a halt, inflicting multi-billion-dollar damage on the world economy.BLACK GOLD

Following the attack on the Limburg, Osama bin Laden released an audio tape warning of attacks on economic targets in the West: "By God, the youths of God are preparing for you things that would fill your hearts with terror and target your economic lifeline until you stop your oppression and aggression." It is no secret that one of the most effective ways for terrorists to disrupt the global economy is to attack oil supplies-in the words of al Qaeda spokesmen, "the provision line and the feeding artery of the life of the crusader nation."With global oil consumption at 80 million barrels per day and spare production capacity gradually eroding, the oil market has little wiggle room. As a result, supply disruptions can have a devastating impact on oil prices-as terrorists well know. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has repeatedly warned that "terrorists are looking for opportunities to impact the world economy" by targeting energy infrastructure. In recent years, terrorists have targeted pipelines, refineries, pumping stations, and tankers in some of the world's most important energy reservoirs, including Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.In fact, since September 11, 2001, strikes on oil targets have become almost routine. In October 2001, Tamil Tiger separatists carried out a coordinated suicide attack by five boats on an oil tanker off northern Sri Lanka. Oil facilities in Nigeria, the United States' fifth-largest oil supplier, have undergone numerous attacks. In Colombia, leftist rebels have blown so many holes in the 480-mile Ca-o Lim -- n-Cove-as pipeline that it has become known as "the flute." And in Iraq, more than 150 attacks on the country's 4,000-mile pipeline system have hindered the effort to resume oil production, denying Iraqis funds necessary for the reconstruction effort. In April 2004, suicide bombers in three boats blew themselves up in and around the Basra terminal zone, one of the most heavily guarded facilities of its kind in the world.Particularly vulnerable to oil terrorism is Saudi Arabia, which holds a quarter of the globe's oil reserves and, as the world's leading exporter, accounts for one-tenth of daily oil production. Al Qaeda is well aware that a successful attack on one of the kingdom's major oil facilities would rattle the world and send oil prices through the ceiling. In the summer of 2002, a group of Saudis was arrested for plotting to sabotage the world's largest offshore oil-loading facility, Ras Tanura, through which up to a third of Saudi oil flows. More recently, in May 2004, jihadist gunmen opened fire on foreign workers in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia's petrochemical complex on the Red Sea, killing five foreign nationals. Later in the same month, Islamic extremists seized and killed 22 foreign oil workers in the Saudi city of Khobar. All of these attacks caused major disruptions in the oil market and a spike in insurance premiums, bringing oil prices to their highest level since 1990.Whereas land targets are relatively well protected, the super-extended energy umbilical cord that extends by sea to connect the West and the Asian economies with the Middle East is more vulnerable than ever. Sixty percent of the world's oil is shipped by approximately 4,000 slow and cumbersome tankers. These vessels have little protection, and when attacked, they have nowhere to hide. (Except on Russian and Israeli ships, the only weapons crewmembers have today to ward off attackers are high-powered fire hoses and spotlights.)If a single tanker were attacked on the high seas, the impact on the energy market would be marginal. But geography forces the tankers to pass through strategic chokepoints, many of which are located in areas where terrorists with maritime capabilities are active. These channels-major points of vulnerability for the world economy-are so narrow at points that a single burning supertanker and its spreading oil slick could block the route for other vessels. Were terrorist pirates to hijack a large bulk carrier or oil tanker, sail it into one of the chokepoints, and scuttle it to block the sea-lane, the consequences for the global economy would be severe: a spike in oil prices, an increase in the cost of shipping due to the need to use alternate routes, congestion in sea-lanes and ports, more expensive maritime insurance, and

probable environmental disaster. Worse yet would be several such attacks happening simultaneously in multiple locations worldwide.The Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, is only 1.5 miles wide at its narrowest point. Roughly 15 million barrels of oil are shipped through it daily. Between 1984 and 1987, when tankers were frequently attacked in the strait, shipping in the gulf dropped by 25 percent, causing the United States to intervene militarily. Since then, the strait has been relatively safe, but the war on terrorism has brought new threats. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush revealed that U.S. forces had already prevented terrorist attacks on ships there. Bab el Mandeb, the entrance to the Red Sea and a conduit for 3.3 million barrels per day, also is only 1.5 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Bosporus, linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, is less than a mile wide in some areas; ten percent of the 50,000 ships that pass through it each year are tankers carrying Russian and Caspian oil.According to the IMB, however, the most dangerous passage of all is the Strait of Malacca. Every day, a quarter of world trade, including half of all sea shipments of oil bound for eastern Asia and two-thirds of global shipments of liquefied natural gas, passes through this strait. Roughly 600 freighters loaded with everything from Japanese nuclear waste bound for reprocessing facilities in Europe to raw materials for China's booming economy traverse this chokepoint daily. Roughly half of all piracy attacks today occur in Southeast Asia, mostly in Indonesian waters. Singapore's defense minister, Teo Chee Hean, has said that security along the strait is "not adequate" and that "no single state has the resources to deal effectively with this threat." Any disruption of shipping in the South China Sea would harm not only the economies of China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, but that of the United States as well.

Chinese economic collapse causes nuclear warPlate 3 Tom, Professor at UCLA, The Straights Times, “Neo-cons a bigger risk to Bush than Chin,” 6-28-2003

But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright military invasion because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don’t’ want them and cant handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of World War II revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send Singapore and Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That’s why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth – the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.

Japanese collapse causes nuclear warThe Guardian ‘02(2-11, Lexis)Even so, the west cannot afford to be complacent about what is happening in Japan, unless it intends to use the country as a test case to explore whether a full-scale depression is less painful now than it was 70 years ago. Action is needed, and quickly because this is an economy that could soak up some of the world's excess capacity if functioning properly. A strong Japan is not

only essential for the long-term health of the global economy, it is also needed as a counter-weight to the growing power of China. A collapse in the Japanese economy, which looks ever more likely, would have profound ramifications; some experts believe it could even unleash a wave of extreme nationalism that would push the country into conflict with its bigger (and nuclear) neighbour.

South Korean economic collapse causes Asian warsRichardson, Washington-based analyst who covered East Asian security issues as a presidential management fellow with the US Department of Defense, 2006(“South Korea Must Choose Sides,” www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html)

A Korea faced with an economic dilemma of such magnitude would find maintaining its conventional military forces at current levels impossible. At the same time, it would feel more vulnerable than ever, even with US security assurances. For a nation paranoid about the possibility of outside influence or military intervention, strapped for cash, and obsessed about its position in the international hierarchy, the obvious route might be to either incorporate North Korean nuclear devices (if they actually exist), or build their own, something South Korean technicians could easily accomplish. North Korea, after all, has set the example for economically challenged nations looking for the ultimate in deterrence. One might argue that clear and firm US security guarantees for a reunified Korea would be able to dissuade any government from choosing the nuclear option. If making decisions based purely on logic the answer would be probably yes. Unfortunately, the recent Korean leadership has established a record of being motivated more by emotional and nationalistic factors than logical or realistic ones. Antics over Dokdo and the Yasukuni Shrine and alienating the US serve as examples. But the continuation of the "Sunshine Policy" tops those. Instead of admitting they've been sold a dead horse, the Roh administration continued riding the rotting and bloated beast known as the Sunshine Policy, until all that are left today are a pile of bones, a bit of dried skin, and a few tufts of dirty hair. Roh, however, is still in the saddle, if not as firmly after North Korea's recent missile tests. Japan must then consider its options in countering an openly nuclear, reunified Korea without USFK. Already building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it's not inconceivable that Japan would ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no technological barrier preventing Japan from building nuclear weapons. While the details of the race and escalation of tensions can vary in any number of ways and are not inevitable, that an arms race would occur is probable. Only the perception of threat and vulnerability need be present for this to occur. East Asia could become a nuclear powder keg ready to explode over something as childish as the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan, a Diaoyu/Senkakus dispute between China and Japan, or the Koguryo dispute between Korea and China.

1AR: Acidification Hurts Philippine Economy

Ocean acidification wrecks transportation systems, tourism, fisheries and ports – which are uniquely key to the Phillipines largest trading cities because road access is unreliable with frequent floodingRanada, Rappler staff writer 2014 (Pia, “Climate change threatens economy of 4 PH cities”, January 15 2014, http://www.rappler.com/nation/47937-climate-change-economy-four-ph-cities, Accessed 7/24/14)

MANILA, Philippines – The worsening effects of climate change can cripple the economy of 4 Philippine cities, a study conducted by Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Philippines and BPI Foundation found.¶ The latest chapter of the Business Risk Assessment and the Management of Climate Impacts assessed the climate change preparedness of Tacloban City in Leyte, Naga City in Camarines Sur, Batangas City in Batangas, and Angeles City in Pampanga. The results were released on Tuesday, January 14.¶ Based on 20 years of data from each city, the study showed how climate change is taking a toll on the cities' major sources of economic growth. Climate change causes extreme droughts, stronger storms, rise in sea levels, aggravated flooding and landslides.¶ The report analyzed the cities' exposure to climate change, the sensitivity of their economy and society to climate change impacts, and their ability to adapt to these impacts.¶ Vulnerable economies¶ In Tacloban City, major economic drivers – its port and fishing

industry – are vulnerable to sea level rise and ocean acidification , both of which are effects of climate change. (READ: What made Tacloban so vulnerable to Haiyan?)¶ Sea level rise due to the melting of icecaps in the world's northern hemisphere can eventually submerge the port. Tacloban's proximity to the Pacific Ocean, a major source of tropical storms, exposes its port and fishermen to extreme weather events like storms. Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) in

November brought storm surges, which destroyed the port and crippled the fishing industry .¶

In Naga City, tourism is one of the primary drivers of economic growth . Most of its tourists travel by land and not by air, meaning it will need all-weather and highly accessible roads if it wants to continue to reap benefits from tourism.¶ But Naga is s flanked by Mount Isarog, perennially covered by rain-producing clouds, and the Bicol river basin. Climate change will intensify the rains and resulting floods. Thus, effective drainage systems and alternative road routes must be built so that tourists can still keep visiting the city.¶ Batangas City is highly dependent on its sea routes for economic growth . It has become a trade hub because of the Batangas Port, which connects the province to other regions and businesses. Good thing it is shielded by its orientation from the Pacific Ocean's storms.¶ Angeles City is similar. Its trade hub status depends on Clark Air Base and the Freeport Zone. Being situated inland, it is protected from sea level rise, storm surges, and storms from the Pacific Ocean.¶ However, Batangas and Angeles cities need major roads , like the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) and South Luzon Expressway (SLEX), to keep trading with other cities. The study showed that these vital roads are sub merged by floods during major storms, rendering them impassable .¶ "Seaports and airports will be viable only if they provide safe and consistent movement of passengers and cargo," said WWF CEO Lory Tan.

1AR: Terrorism Brink

Abu Sayyaf is on the decline but remain a threat – minimizing poverty is keyWhaley and Schmitt, 2014(Floyd and Eric, “U.S. Phasing Out Its Counterterrorism Unit in the Philippines,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/world/asia/us-will-disband-terrorism-task-force-in-philippines.html?_r=0)

The primary target of the Philippine military and the Special Forces was the small but violent militant group Abu Sayyaf, credited with high-profile kidnappings, bombings and beheadings. Abu Sayyaf was formed in the early 1990s by Filipino rebels trained under Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and with help in the Philippines from Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who organized the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York.According to data from Pacific Strategies and Assessments, a risk consultancy that produces regular reports on insurgency activities in the Philippines, violence has remained consistently

high in the southern Philippines in recent years . Abu Sayyaf is focused primarily on criminal

activity, but remains a significant threat , according to a recent report by the firm.“The group has been surprisingly resilient and able to sustain this number over the past decade despite the death and capture of over a hundred of its leaders and members in past years,” it said.Abu Sayyaf’s ranks have declined to 400 fighters from a peak of 1,300 members in 2000, the report said.Still, the fact that Abu Sayyaf still exists at all, after years of American assistance here, “is less of a success story for the U.S. task force,” Mr. Jendruck said.In January, leaders in Manila struck a landmark peace deal with the largest Muslim insurgent group in the country, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The deal, which is still being completed by the government, seeks to bring prosperity to the restive south and weaken the appeal of the extremist groups.

1AR: Philippine Economy Uniquess

Philippine economy highly susceptible to crash – nearly all of the recent growth has gone into the pockets of the richest 40 families, while the rest functioning economy remains at the brink of collapseKeenan 2013 (Jillian, freelance journalist, “The Grim Reality Behind the Philippines' Economic Growth”, May 7 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-grim-reality-behind-the-philippines-economic-growth/275597/, Accessed 7/22/14)

But that economic growth only looks great on paper. The slums of Manila and Cebu are as bleak as they always were, and on the ground, average Filipinos aren't feeling so optimistic. The economic boom appears to have only benefited a tiny minority of elite families ; meanwhile, a huge segment of citizens remain vulnerable to poverty, malnutrition, and other grim development indicators that belie the country's apparent growth. Despite the stated goal of President Aquino's Philippine Development Plan to oversee a period of "inclusive growth," income inequality in the Philippines continues to stand out.¶ In 2012, Forbes Asia announced that the collective wealth of the 40 richest Filipino families grew $13 billion during the 2010-2011 year, to $47.4 billion--an increase of 37.9 percent. Filipino economist Cielito Habito calculated that the increased wealth of those families was equivalent in value to a staggering 76.5 percent of the country's overall increase in GDP at the time. This income disparity was

far and away the highest in Asia : Habito found that the income of Thailand's 40 richest families increased by only 25 percent of the national income growth during that period, while that ratio was even lower in Malaysia and Japan, at 3.7 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. (And although critics have pointed out that the remarkable wealth increase of the Philippines' so-called ".01 percent" is partially due to the performance of the Filipino stock market, the growth of the Philippine Composite Index during that period would not account for such a dramatic disparity from neighboring countries.) Even relative to its regional neighbors, the Philippines' income inequality and unbalanced concentrations of wealth are extreme.¶ Meanwhile, overall national poverty statistics remain bleak: 32 percent of children under age five suffer from moderate to severe stunting due to malnutrition, according to UNICEF, and roughly 60 percent of Filipinos die without ever having seen a healthcare professional. In 2009, annual reports found that 26.5 percent of Filipinos lived on less than $1 a day -- a poverty rate that was roughly the same level as Haiti's. And a new report from the National Statistical Coordination Board for the first half of 2012 found no statistical improvement in national poverty levels since 2006. Even as construction cranes top Manila skyscrapers and the emerging beach town of El Nido unveils plans for its newest five-star resort, tens of millions of Filipinos continue to live in poverty. And according to Louie Montemar, a political science professor at Manila's De La Salle University, little is being done to destabilize the Philippines' oligarchical dominance of the elite.¶ "There's some sense to the argument that we've never had a real democracy because only a few have controlled economic power," he said in an interview with Agence France-Presse. "The country dances to the tune of the tiny elite."¶ Many observers blame the inequality on widespread corruption in local government, which makes it difficult or impossible for many Filipinos to launch small businesses. (In 2012, Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and reports a comparative listing of corruption worldwide, gave the Philippines a rank of 105 out of 176, tied with Mali and Algeria, among others.) Low levels of

investment also suppress business growth: the Philippines' investment-to-GDP ratio currently stands at 19.7 percent. By comparison, the investment rate is 33 percent in Indonesia, 27 percent in Thailand, and 24 percent in Malaysia.¶ For the select few Filipinos who live in beach towns and other popular tourism areas, however, the recent influx of foreign tourists to the previously overlooked country has meant new business opportunities. Celso Serran, 38, a rickshaw driver in the growing tourist town of El Nido, said that the economic impact of tourism has had a significant impact on his income. "Today, a driver can reasonably expect to make 500 Philippine Pesos ($12.16) per day," said Serran. "Before the tourists started coming, he might make 200 PHP ($4.86) on a good day."¶ For some, the tourism industry is so clearly the only option that it even pulls them away from their hometowns towards more tourist-friendly cities. Dorina Genturo, 20, moved from Puerto Princesa, the capital of Palawan, to El Nido for the better job opportunities there. "There are definitely a lot more jobs in tourism, in hotels and tour companies," she said. "But it's not like this in other towns." Meanwhile, other huge sectors of Filipino industry (such as banking, telecommunications, and property development) are almost entirely monopolized by a few elite political families, most of whom have been in power since the Spanish colonial era. And despite wide-reaching government reforms from the 1980s, those industries remain effective oligarchies or cartels that vastly outperform small businesses. According to a paper released by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for roughly 99 percent of Filipino firms. However, those SMEs only account for 35 percent of national output--a sharp contrast with Japan and Korea, where the same ratio of SMEs accounts for roughly half of total output. This translates into far fewer high-paying jobs on the local level for Filipino employees and exacerbates the huge income disparity across the country.¶ "Is the economy growing here?" said Josefa Ramirez, 31, who earns roughly 123 pesos ($3) a day selling bottles of water and soda from a cart in Manila. "I didn't know that. For me, things feel the same as they always did."

Philippines economy improving nowRoc, 7/25/14 (Bettina Faye V. Roc [Senior Reporter for Business World Online], “Philippine economy ‘well positioned’”, July 25, 2014, Online: http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=TopStory&title=Philippine-economy-%E2%80%98well-positioned%E2%80%99&id=90514)

Shanaka Jayanath Peiris, IMF Resident Representative to the Philippines, said that while the country was expected to fare favorably as monetary authorities move toward a more “normal” policy stance in preparation for tighter global financial conditions, the government has a huge part to play in ensuring the economy’s continued expansion. “The economy is well positioned for a tighter monetary policy setting, together with a needed rebalancing of the policy mix towards an expansionary fiscal policy to accommodate fiscal spending for post typhoon reconstruction and infrastructure upgrading,” he said in an e-mail. Economic growth this year is thus still expected to be robust, Mr. Peiris said, even as financial conditions tighten and as industries continue to recover from last year’s calamities, if the government continues to ramp up disbursements. “The pace of export and spending pickup particularly on reconstruction activities will have a bearing on the annual growth outcome,” he said. “Government spending can still accelerate through the year if the bottlenecks to spending execution can be addressed as envisaged by the government.” The Supreme Court’s having ruled that “acts and practices” under the administration’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) -- formulated in 2011 as an economic “stimulus” package -- are unconstitutional, Mr. Peiris added, is also not expected

to affect the economy. “According to the authorities, the DAP has not been activated in 2014 so there should not be significant implications in terms of spending and growth in 2014 unless the DAP ruling leads to a generalized slowdown in spending execution,” he said. The IMF sees Philippine economic growth hitting 6.5% this year and the next. The projections were bared at the end of an Article IV consultation in March, as well as in the World Economic Outlook (WEO) report that was released early April. Last month, Mr. Peiris said the lender’s 2014 forecast could be revised downwards with the release of the Article IV report and the next WEO revision this month following the worse-than-expected first quarter. From this year’s 6.5-7.5%, the government is targeting an even higher 7-8% expansion for 2015. In 2013, GDP growth beat the 6-7% goal by coming in at 7.2%.

AT: Off-Case Arguments

Topicality

2AC: Exploration = Discovery Only

We meet – we discover chemical processesNational Academies 9 National Academies – National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council 2009 Ocean Exploration Highlights of National Academies Reports http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdfWhat Is Ocean Exploration?As defined by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations and documentation of biological, chemical , physical, geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time.

And we’re developmentThe Free Dictionary, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/development. 2014 Development - the act of making some area of land or water more profitable or productive or useful; "the development of Alaskan resources"; "the exploitation of copper deposits"

Counterinterp - Exploration includes data management and disseminationMcNutt, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, 2001(Marcia K., THE THIRD ANNUAL ROGER REVELLE COMMEMORATIVE LECTURE Ocean Explorationhttp://nas-sites.org/revellelecture/files/2011/11/2001-Program.pdf)

Just two years ago I was asked by NOAA Administrator Jim Baker to chair a panel of distinguished researchers, explorers, educators, and marine archaeologists to develop a national strategy for ocean exploration. The report was commissioned by the White House on the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and was intended to expand exploration of our planet to the portions that lie under the sea.The panel embraced the charge with relish, and recommended that the nation implement a program of ocean exploration with 4 elements:1. Voyages of discovery.2. Platform and instrumentation development.3. Data management and dissemination.4. Formal and informal educational outreach.

Prefer our interp –

A. Limits – they overlimit the topic and make it impossible to be aff – discovering material things has no US key warrant

B. Education – data gathering and dissemination is key to develop effective solutions to ocean management – their interp produces bad scholarship

C. Their interp is about how oil exploration ends with discovery – prefer our interp – exploration must be defined in contextNRC ‘3(National Research Council –referencing Dr. Montserrat Gorina-Ysern, American University,is a Professorial Lecturer-Adjunct Professor at School of International Service, American University and an expert on the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown By Committee on Exploration of the Seas, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council – p. 199)

"Exploration" has different meanings for different purposes (i.e., marine science research versus discovery of natural resources). The definition problem is compounded because marine science research has not been defined in LOSC. IOC has defined marine science research as referring to the scientific investigation of the ocean, its biota and its physical boundaries with the solid Earth and the atmosphere. The results of marine science research, normally published in journals of international circulation, are said to benefit humankind at large; whereas, exploration (also referred to as applied research) is concerned with ocean resources, and the results of this type of research are considered to be the property of the persons, corporations, or governments initiating the research.

Prefer reasonability – competing interpretations leads to a race to the bottom to find the most limiting interpretation and detracts from topic debates

1AR: T – Explore

“Exploration” is collecting informationBinus 9 – Binus University Thesis, “CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY”, 4-21, http://thesis.binus.ac.id/doc/Bab3/Bab%203_09-52.pdf

The type of research for this study is the 'exploratory study'. The term exploration means: the process of collecting information to formulate or refine management, research, investigative, or measurement questions: loosely structured studies that discover future research tasks, including developing concepts, establishing priorities, developing operational definitions, and

improving research design : a phase of a research project where the researcher expands understanding of the management dilemma. Looks for ways others have addressed and solved problems similar to the management dilemma or management question, and gathers background information on the topic to refine the research questions. (Cooper. Donald R. Schindler. Pamela S.) I found that this method suits the aim to study and find out the consumer behavior in the mall.

2AC: Substantially Increase

We meet – we increase the amount of monitoring done by <insert amount> - burden is on the neg to prove we’re less than that

Counterinterp –

Substantial means “of considerable amount” – must be defined contextuallyProst 4 (Judge – United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “Committee For Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States”, 6-18, http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1016.html)

The URAA and the SAA neither amend nor refine the language of § 1677(4)(C). In fact, they merely suggest, without disqualifying other alternatives, a “clearly higher/substantial proportion” approach. Indeed, the SAA specifically mentions that no “precise mathematical formula” or “‘benchmark’ proportion” is to be used for a dumping concentration analysis. SAA at 860 (citations omitted); see also Venez. Cement, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1329-30. Furthermore, as the Court of International Trade noted, the SAA emphasizes that the Commission retains the discretion to determine concentration of imports on a “case-by-case basis.” SAA at 860. Finally, the definition of the word “substantial” undercuts the CFTVC’s argument. The word “substantial” generally means “considerable in amount, value or worth.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1993). It does not imply a specific number or cut-off . What may be substantial in one situation may not be in another situation. The very breadth of the term “substantial” undercuts the CFTVC’s argument that Congress spoke clearly in establishing a standard for the Commission’s regional antidumping and countervailing duty analyses. It therefore supports the conclusion that the Commission is owed deference in its interpretation of “substantial proportion.” The Commission clearly embarked on its analysis having been given considerable leeway to interpret a particularly broad term.

Increase can be qualitativeAMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2009(Fourth Edition, 2009, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase)in.crease–verb (used with object)¶ to become greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality : Sales of automobiles increased last year.

Exploration includes data management and dissemination – plan increases through the creation of a National Budget Office and dissemination of data gatheredMcNutt, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, 2001(Marcia K., THE THIRD ANNUAL ROGER REVELLE COMMEMORATIVE LECTURE Ocean Explorationhttp://nas-sites.org/revellelecture/files/2011/11/2001-Program.pdf)

Just two years ago I was asked by NOAA Administrator Jim Baker to chair a panel of distinguished researchers, explorers, educators, and marine archaeologists to develop a

national strategy for ocean exploration. The report was commissioned by the White House on the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and was intended to expand exploration of our planet to the portions that lie under the sea.The panel embraced the charge with relish, and recommended that the nation implement a program of ocean exploration with 4 elements:1. Voyages of discovery.2. Platform and instrumentation development.3. Data management and dissemination.4. Formal and informal educational outreach.

Prefer our interpretation –

A. Legal and topic precision – using a legal definition for substantially and a topic contextual definition for exploration is key to a holistic interpretation of the topic – our interp is the most predictableWords and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 458)D.S.C. 1966. The word “substantial” within Civil Rights Act providing that a place is a public accommodation if a “substantial” portion of food which is served has moved in commerce must be construed in light of its

usual and customary meaning , that is, something of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable, something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal

B. No brightline - exploration is impossible to quantify because exploration requires discovery

C. They overlimit – requiring a solvency advocate with a specific dollar amount or percentage is impossible for the aff and funding-only affs will always lose to counterplans – other words and functional limits check abuse

Prefer reasonability – competing interpretations leads to a race to the bottom to find the most limiting interpretation and directs from topic debates

Disadvantages

2AC: Agenda DA

Non unique link - Obama recently made public statements in favor of acidification policy Gray, 2014(“FACT SHEET: Leading at Home and Internationally to Protect Our Ocean and Coasts” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/17/fact-sheet-leading-home-and-internationally-protect-our-ocean-and-coasts)“We’ve already shown that when we work together, we can protect our oceans for future generations. So let’s redouble our efforts. Let’s make sure that years from now we can look our children in the eye and tell them that, yes, we did our part, we took action, and we led the way toward a safer, more stable world.” President Barack Obama, June 17, 2014 President Obama is committed to protecting the ocean and its marine ecosystems. Americans all over the country depend on the ocean for food, jobs, and recreation. But the health of our ocean is under threat on multiple fronts, from overfishing to carbon pollution. The recently released National Climate Assessment confirms that climate change is causing sea levels and ocean temperatures to rise. Changing temperatures can harm coral reefs and force certain species to migrate. In addition, carbon pollution is being absorbed by the oceans, causing them to acidify, which can damage coastal shellfish beds and reefs, altering entire marine ecosystems. In fact, the acidity of our ocean is changing 50 times faster than any known change in millions of years. And black market fishing—fishing that is illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU)—continues to pose a major threat to the sustainability of our world’s fisheries, economies and to global security. Recognizing these significant challenges, President Obama launched the National Ocean Policy early in his first term. The National Ocean Policy seeks to streamline more than 100 laws that govern our oceans and create a coordinated, science-based approach to managing the many resources and uses of our coasts and oceans. National Ocean Policy initiatives range from voluntary marine planning to releasing more federal data to supporting offshore renewable energy projects to making our ports more resilient to sea level rise. This week, the State Department is hosting the “Our Ocean” conference, an international conference on sustainable fisheries, marine pollution, and ocean acidification that concludes today. Secretary Kerry has also issued a global call to action to protect the oceans. As part of the conference, the President is announcing several steps that the United States is taking to answer that call. During the closing events of the conference, the State Department will announce additional steps and commitments it has secured to protect our oceans.

Past congressional action proves the plan is a bipartisan priority Miles and Bradbury, Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs at University of Washington 2009WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS OCEAN ACIDIFICATION THROUGH U.S. POLICY AND GOVERNANCE? By Edward L. Miles and James Bradbury THE JOURNAL OF MARINE EDUCATION Edward L. Miles, Ph.D., is the Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs at the University of Washington. Dr. Miles works with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Miles’ fields of specialization are marine policy and ocean management, and the impacts of climate

variability and change at global and regional scales. James Bradbury, Ph.D., has worked since 2006 as a Legislative Aide to Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-1) where he focuses on U.S. national energy and climate policy, as well as environmental issues relating to fisheries and agriculture. James holds a Ph.D. in Geosciences from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and a Master’s Degree in Hydrology from the University of New Hampshire

To U.S. policymakers currently focused on solutions to global warming , the issue of ocean acidification adds another important reason why fast policy actions are necessary to abate CO2 emissions, protect our economy, and preserve the health of our global ecosystems. With rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers, and sea-ice disappearing rapidly in the Arctic, a sense of urgency is already palpable to many policymakers, particularly those committed to achieving “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (UNFCCC, 1992).” On the research side, in the 109th Congress, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) successfully passed an amendment to the Magnuson- Stevens reauthorization bill requiring that the National Research Council study the effects of ocean acidification; however, without Congressional appropriations, this will remain an unfunded request. The 110th Congress made significant progress toward passing into law a comprehensive bill (the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act; the FOARAM Act) that would authorize greater funding levels and establish a more coordinated national effort to research, monitor, model, and assess the impacts of ocean acidification. Due to a combination of unfortunate timing and unfavorable election-year politics, this bill never passed in the 110th Congress. THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR THE FOARAM ACT Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), introduced with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), in June, 2007, S. 1581 (the FOARAM Act), a few weeks after the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard held a hearing on the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on living marine resources. The bill subsequently earned bipartisan support and passed by voice vote out of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in December 2007. In November 2007, Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) introduced with bipartisan support the House companion to the FOARAM Act (H.R. 4174). In June 2008, the bill moved quickly through committee and to the Floor, where it passed by voice vote on July 9th. Through this process, the House Committee on Science and Technology gave the FOARAM Act significant vetting, beginning with a hearing on June 5th in the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Testifying at the June hearing was a panel of expert witnesses. To reflect recommendations made in the hearing, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) together with the Committee on Science and Technology produced the amended version of H.R. 4174 that later passed on the House Floor. The bill would establish an Executive Branch interagency program, coordinated by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST), to develop and manage a comprehensive plan to better understand and address ocean acidification issues. The program would provide for assessment of ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts, monitor and model chemical and biological changes, research adaptation strategies to conserve marine ecosystems, and technology development for improved carbonate chemistry measurements. The bill would also require JSOST to actively involve a broad range of ocean community stakeholders in the development of the plan, including universities, states, industry, and environmental groups. Finally, the bill would authorize ocean acidification activities at the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and authorize funding for these activities over a four-year period. Despite having cleared most other hurdles to final passage, legislative progress in 2008 on FOARAM stalled in the Senate when U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) put a “hold” on S. 1581,

along with a raft of other bills that would increase authorized government spending levels. Putting bills on hold prevents Senate leadership from expediting their passage by requiring first that they be subject to debate and votes on the Senate Floor. Since Senate Floor time is a premium commodity, the act of placing a bill on hold is practically tantamount to killing it, especially in the final days of a legislative year. A partisan debate over energy policy in the summer and a financial crisis in the fall prevented any other legislative progress in 2008. NEXT STEPS Public outreach and education efforts could be increased so that Americans better understand the link between global warming and ocean acidification. For example, in May 2008, Senator Cantwell held a Congressional field hearing in Washington State to examine the impacts of climate change on ocean and coastal ecosystems in the region. Witnesses testified on the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on marine ecosystems in Puget Sound and coastal Washington, including the economic impacts on coastal communities. The development and legislative progress of the FOARAM Act represents a significant step forward for federal ocean research, policy, and governance. Environmental policy leaders in the House and Senate will likely take it up again early in the 111th Congress. Once passed and signed into law, additional funding plus the process of establishing a plan for research, monitoring, and impacts assessment will further engage a variety of national and international stakeholders, particularly the fishing industry and coastal communities, who have a significant economic stake in sustainable ocean ecosystem management. Though the issue of ocean acidification has come somewhat late to the climate policy debate, most energy and land-use policy solutions are well suited to addressing both global warming and ocean acidification. Thus, further research into the ocean acidification phenomenon will help inform policy decisions regarding the mitigation and adaptation solutions to this and other climate change impacts. Meanwhile, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through meaningful national and international policy action will remain an urgent matter, if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change and the most severe consequences of ocean acidification.

Bipartisan support to combat acidificationEnglum, World Wildlife Fund, 2010(Lynn, “Both Republicans & Democrats Agree, Ocean Acidification Poses a Major Threat to Oceans,” http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/republicans-democrats-agree-ocean-acidification-poses-major-threat-oceans)

Last week (22 April 2010) during a hearing (The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification) hosted by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, Senators from both sides of the political spectrum voiced concerns about the impact of acidifying oceans on fisheries, tourism and ecosystem health.Ocean acidification, like climate change, is driven by excessive, human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The oceans absorb about 30% of this CO2. With the increase in CO2 levels, ocean pH is declining, creating a more acidic ocean. The ramifications are immense for marine life as well as the human activities that depend on it. Both Senator Cantwell (D) of Washington and Senator Snowe (R) of Maine represent constituents whose livelihoods depend on a healthy ocean. Senator Snowe stated that ocean acidification is “perhaps the greatest threat facing our planet’s oceans. If current trends of ocean acidification continue, vast areas of the sea could very well become inhospitable to many

species which form the foundation of the marine food web…[and] we cannot risk placing them in jeopardy.” Testimony included a wide range of interests from the fishing and marine recreational industry to scientists and Hollywood.

Plan is supported by fishing lobbyElbot, GTA at Colorado State University, 2010(Morgan, “The Evolution of the Epistemic Community of Ocean Acidification,” The Monitor, http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/issues/15-2/2-elbot.pdf)

A topic of discussion at the symposium and an issue highlighted in the policymakers’ summary was how ocean acidification will affect societies and economies. In the summary, it states, “ocean acidification may trigger a chain reaction of impacts through the marine food web that will affect the multi-billion dollar commercial fisheries and shellfish industries, as well as threatening the food security for millions of the world’s poorest people.”21 This is another strategic effort to frame ocean acidification as both an economic and a social problem. In this way, the evidence produced by the epistemic community is able to appeal to state actors in terms of the loss of economic markets that rely on the stable marine ecosystems This information also creates an incentive for the fisheries and shellfish industries to lobby for government action on ocean acidification, since the future of the fishing industry depends on the welfare of the ocean. The epistemic community has made recent attempts at this, by coordinating researchers in Alaska Marine Conservation Council and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership with commercial fishermen to make a statement about the threat of ocean acidification: “More than 100 fishing boats…arranged themselves in the ocean to spell out ‘Acid Ocean SOS.’”22 This collaboration between private industry and conservationists is an important event in terms of making the scientific knowledge of ocean acidification relevant to policy makers.

They have strong political influenceWilmot et al, 2003(David Wilmot, PhD, Executive Director of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition of conservation organizations, Executive Director of the National Audubon Society’s Living Oceans Program, at the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council. He has a Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Jack K. Sterne is a lawyer with more than fourteen years of experience in ocean conservation, public lands, fisheries, and other environmental issues. He was a staff attorney at the public interest law firm Trustees for Alaska specializing in ocean fisheries and marine mammal issues Kim Haddow is President of Haddow Communications, Inc, serves as senior communications strategist for Sierra Club, and previously spent eight years at Greer, Margolis, Mitchell & Burns, where she provided media strategy and produced advertising for twenty-two statewide candidate and initiative campaigns Beth Sullivan, an independent consultant, was the Executive Director of the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund for six years. Before that, she was the managing partner of the Campaign Design Group, an independent campaign consulting firm that was largely responsible for the 1992 Boxer and Murray Senate wins, as well as hundreds of others., October, http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/TurningTheTide.pdf )

Despite victories on specific issues, however, the overall trend for ocean conservation cannot be considered positive, as the final Pew Oceans Commission report makes clear. The influence and effectiveness of those who oppose critical conservation measures, including many commercial and recreational fishermen and their organizations, have grown in recent years, both as a result of the prevailing federal and state political climates and because of their improved efforts at organizing, lobbying, and flexing their political muscle . The short-term economic evaluations of proposed conservation measures continue to drive most marine policy debates. Thus, while the threats to the ocean and its wildlife continue to mount, efforts to achieve real and lasting conservation are encountering powerful opposition . Unfortunately, the ocean conservation community has had trouble countering this resistance, and finds itself increasingly on the defensive.

1AR: Agenda Politics – Link Turn

Everyone likes data collection!Conover, The Hill, 2014(Dave, “White House climate change initiative Republicans can support,” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/201219-white-house-climate-change-initiative-republicans-can)

This week the White House announced a new Climate Data Initiative that is intended to combine private sector innovation and resources with the power of federal data from NOAA, NASA, the US Geological Survey and other federal agencies on key issues like coastal flooding and sea level rise. That’s sound science and wise use of scarce federal resources worth noting. The idea is that providing this information will help communities “develop data-driven planning and resilience tools for local communities.” This is precisely the type of government effort that should receive support from both Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, it’s a direct outgrowth of efforts undertaken in the Bush Administration through the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Even partisan Republicans can congratulate this Administration for carrying those efforts

forward .

2AC: Midterms DA

The public wont perceive the planLogan, PhD in ecological physiology at Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University, 2010 (“A Review of Ocean Acidification and America's Response” http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/819.full)Climate change is a complex concept, difficult for the public to conceptualize and relate to at a personal level (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006). As a subtopic of global change, ocean acidification is even more difficult to understand because of confusion over basic chemistry and misunderstandings of pH (Kleypas et al. 2005). Overall, public awareness of ocean

acidification appears relatively low compared with the recent attention it has gained within the scientific community and the government. Public awareness. To date, no surveys have examined public awareness of ocean acidification. Examination of popular magazine and news articles provides some idea of the level of public awareness. Three longer pieces about ocean acidification have appeared in high-circulation popular magazines (in The New Yorker, Kolbert 2006; in Scientific American, Doney 2006; in New Scientist, Henderson 2006), but these magazines reach only a limited audience. During 2007–2009, 12 articles on ocean acidification appeared in the New York Times (as found by a search on the engine LexisNexis). Over the same time frame, nine articles on ocean acidification appeared in other high-circulation regional newspapers (e.g., by rank, Miami Herald [8], Honolulu Star-Bulletin [6], The Washington Post [5], San Francisco Chronicle [4], Seattle Times [4], San Diego Union-Tribune [4], Los Angeles Times [2]; LexisNexis). In a Washington Post article published 7 July 2008, science writer Andrew Freedman called ocean acidification “ the sleeper issue of climate change ”: “If I were to rank climate change impacts in terms of sexiness or pizzazz, ocean acidification would rank near the bottom of the list. The relatively slow, unseen process would be well behind the drama of highly visible shifts such as more intense hurricanes, severe droughts, and melting sea and glacial ice” (Freedman 2008). Social-networking sites, films, and the blogosphere are other media we can use to gauge public awareness of ocean acidification . The World Ocean Observatory presented an online, interactive Webcast on ocean acidification in 2006 (WOO 2009). The Webcast included some of the top researchers in the field, but attracted only 170 attendees worldwide. On the social-networking Web site Facebook, there are two common interest groups related to ocean acidification; the largest has 187 members and is called “Stop the acidification of the oceans—help fight rising CO2 levels.” This group's size is small compared with the largest climate change interest group, “Slow climate change,” with 54,400 members. At least three blogs are specifically dedicated to ocean acidification, one sponsored by the 27-institute research consortium European Project of Ocean Acidification (EPOCA 2009); another by the Alaska Marine and Conservation Council (AMCC 2009); and one published by an independent environmental blogger, Rhett A. Butler (Ocean Acidification News, http://news.mongabay.com/news-index/ocean_acidification1.html). In 2009, two full-length US documentary films on ocean acidification were released, A Sea Change (Niijii Films) and Acid Test (see NRDC 2009). Oceans-related nongovernmental organizations and marine educators have also attempted to stimulate public interest (e.g., Oceana report, Harrould-Kolieb and Savitz 2008; special issue of Current: Journal of Marine Education, NMEA 2009). A detailed comparison of public awareness in the United States and other countries may be revealing, though no such

survey information is currently available. European public awareness may be greater than in the United States (see the Dissemination and Media Center on the EPOCA Web site).

Public wants solutions to acidification - becoming a bigger deal than climate The Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 2014(“Concern About Ocean Acidity Prompting New Attention” http://oceanleadership.org/concern-ocean-acidity-prompting-new-attention/)“Concern About Ocean Acidity Prompting New Attention” And yet, while global warming has a high degree of public recognition, ocean acidification is a less familiar phenomenon, Huffman said. Terry Sawyer, owner of Hog Island Oyster Co. on Tomales Bay, put it this way: “We’re dealing with something that’s hard to touch. It’s hard to see, hard to taste, smell, etc.” Huffman organized the event in part to highlight bipartisan legislation that he is co-sponsoring with Washington state Congressman Derek Kilmer. The Ocean Acidification Innovation Act is intended to spark new research and innovation in adaptive strategies through X-Prize-style competitions. The bill would leverage existing federal funds to create competitions for research into solutions, Huffman said. But he said he also wanted to awaken public awareness to an environmental threat that has yet to receive the attention given to climate change. “ This one

has a potential to just be enormous and overwhelming ,” he said. “Nothing is quite as scary as acidification,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. Scientists say the oceans absorb a quarter or more of the carbon dioxide humankind puts into the atmosphere — about 22 million tons a day, on top of the estimated 525 billion tons absorbed over the past two centuries. What exactly that means for the planet is still not known, Largier said, though “it doesn’t look good.” Shellfish, however, and particularly West Coast oysters, are providing some clues. Scientists are looking at reproductive failures in their midst in recent years — problems they ascribe to the interference of low pH water with the synthesis of calcium carbonate through which oyster larvae, and presumably other shellfish, develop hard, protective shells. Sawyer and other West Coast purveyors of farm-raised oysters have seen “complete crashes” at some hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest, where he and other producers obtain the oyster larvae to seed their farms. Sawyer has had similar die-offs at his Tomales Bay operation, enough so that he’s building a new hatchery in Humboldt Bay to provide seed for his farm. He and his staff, meanwhile, are working closely with the marine lab to monitor and document conditions at his facility and develop strategies to try to adapt. The entire fishing industry is at risk, given the role of calcium carbonate synthesis in skeletal development, potentially disrupting the entire food web, from the lowest phytoplankton on up, Largier said. Largier and his colleagues emphasized that the world’s oceans are already contending with pollution, areas of low oxygen and rampant over fishing. Those problems are likely to compound any effects of acidification. “The science is really early days,” Largier said. UC Davis researcher Daniel Swezey, said one of the alarming features of ocean acidification is that a certain amount is inescapable, given the volume of past and current carbon dioxide emissions. “We’re kind of locked in to a certain amount of change,” he said. Largier said reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the only real fix but conceded that even large-scale, global changes in human behavior might not be evident for decades. But that’s “no reason not to start acting now,” Largier said. “Even if we completely adapt,” said Grader, “if we don’t start changing the ways we’re doing things now, we’re going to lose our ocean. We’re going to lose the planet.”

Even if monitoring ocean acidification is unpopular – its not sensationalized in the media or well-known enough to cause political controversy – constituencies don’t careLogan, postdoctoral fellow in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Department at Princeton University, 2010 (Cheryl A., “A Review of Ocean Acidification and America's Response”, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/819.full, Accessed 7/24/14)

Public awareness. To date, no surveys have examined public awareness of ocean acidification. Examination of popular magazine and

news articles provides some idea of the level of public awareness. Three longer pieces about ocean acidification have appeared in high-circulation popular magazines (in The New Yorker, Kolbert 2006; in Scientific American,

Doney 2006; in New Scientist, Henderson 2006), but these magazines reach only a limited audience . During 2007–2009, 12 articles on ocean acidification appeared in the New York Times (as found by a search

on the engine LexisNexis). Over the same time frame, nine articles on ocean acidification appeared in other high-circulation regional newspapers (e.g., by rank, Miami Herald [8], Honolulu Star-Bulletin [6], The Washington Post [5], San Francisco Chronicle [4], Seattle Times [4], San Diego Union-Tribune [4], Los Angeles Times [2]; LexisNexis). In a Washington Post article published 7 July 2008, science writer Andrew Freedman called ocean acidification “the sleeper issue of

climate change”: “If I were to rank climate change impacts in terms of sexiness or pizzazz , ocean

acidification would rank near the bottom of the list . The relatively slow, unseen process would be well behind

the drama of highly visible shifts such as more intense hurricanes, severe droughts, and melting sea and glacial ice” (Freedman 2008).¶ Social-networking sites, films, and the blogosphere are other media we can use to gauge public awareness of ocean

acidification. The World Ocean Observatory presented an online, interactive Webcast on ocean acidification in 2006 (WOO 2009). The Webcast included some of the top researchers in the field, but attracted only

170 attendees worldwide . On the social-networking Web site Facebook, there are two

common interest groups related to ocean acidification; the largest has 187 members and is called

“Stop the acidification of the oceans—help fight rising CO2 levels.” This group's size is small compared with the largest climate change interest group, “Slow climate change,” with 54,400 members.¶ At least three blogs are specifically dedicated to ocean acidification , one sponsored by the 27-institute research

consortium European Project of Ocean Acidification (EPOCA 2009); another by the Alaska Marine and Conservation Council (AMCC 2009); and one published by an independent environmental blogger, Rhett A. Butler (Ocean Acidification News, http://news.mongabay.com/news-index/ocean_acidification1.html). In 2009, two full-length US documentary films on ocean acidification were released, A Sea Change (Niijii Films) and Acid Test (see NRDC 2009). Oceans-related nongovernmental organizations and marine educators have also attempted to stimulate public interest (e.g., Oceana report, Harrould-Kolieb and Savitz 2008; special issue of Current: Journal of Marine Education, NMEA 2009). A detailed comparison of public awareness in the United States and other countries may be revealing, though no such survey information is currently available. European public awareness may be greater than in the United States (see the Dissemination and Media Center on the EPOCA Web site).

2AC: NOAA Tradeoff

Plan would be funding through new appropriations – budget for FY2015 still has not been voted on, so the plan would be added to current allocations instead of taken from somewhere else

No impact – loss of ALL satellites would only reduce forecast efficacy by 12%Bennett, Congressional Budget Office, 2012(Michael, “Options for Modernizing Military Weather Satellites,” online: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-20-WeatherSatellites.pdf)

Under this approach, DoD would not field a weather satellite after DMSP-20 reached the end of its life around 2026, and it would instead rely on other sources for weather data. In this case, DoD would be able to avoid the cost of developing and fielding a new set of weather satellites, potentially saving several billion dollars. These savings, however, would come at some operational cost.Foregoing the mid-AM orbit, as described above, would mean relying on an imager that is less suited for nighttime observations and visual interpretation than is currently carried on DMSP satellites. However, no other U.S. or international polar-orbiting satellites operate in the AM orbit, so if DoD chose to stop fielding satellites in that orbit, planners would need to rely on less recent polar satellite observations or, more likely, other sources for imagery and other measurements.Other potential sources of data exist , including local sensors, geostationary satellites, and other low-earth- orbit satellites. Local sensors, such as ground-based weather stations, can measure local conditions and provide useful input for local weather forecasts if enough sensors are available. However, military operations often occur in remote areas where local sensors are not available. Geostationary weather satellites also provide visual/infrared imagery and other measurements. They can view a large, fixed region of the earth at all times, so that in many cases they may provide more recent observations than polar-orbiting satellites. NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) and the Europeans’ Meteosat are such satellites. Other, less conventional geostationary sources include observations from the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), which is designed to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches but could possibly be used to support a limited number of weather missions as well. In general, though, geostationary satellites provide measurements with lower spatial resolution than polar satellites because of their greater distance from the earth. Further, geostationary satellites cannot view areas at high latitudes because of the earth’s curvature. Some missions could potentially be filled by smaller, special-purpose satellites. For example, DoD fields WindSat—an instrument similar to MIS that provides data on sea-surface winds—on its Coriolis research satellite.A decision by DoD to stop fielding weather satellites could have a significant impact on large-scale weather forecast modeling. WMO conducts a semiannual assessment of current and planned weather satellites’ capabilities, and for polar-orbiting satellites, that assessment is built around the AM, mid-AM,and PM orbits.17 For certain critical missions, WMO stipulates a need for at least one primary and one backup satellite in each orbit. While several of the WMO member nations intend to field satellites in the mid-AM and PM orbits, only DoD fields satellites in the AM orbit. Thus,

should DoD decide to stop fielding weather satellites, the WMO standard would not be met in the AM orbit—unless some other nation were to field an AM satellite.The operational impact of a gap in orbital coverage is difficult to assess, and few studies are available in the open literature that address the issue. One recent study by EUMETSAT, however, concluded that a loss of data from any single polar orbit would affect forecasts significantly less than loss of data from all of the orbits; for example, loss of data from a single orbit was estimated to reduce the accuracy of five- day forecasts in the European region by

only about two percent , whereas the loss of data from all orbits would reduce the accuracy

of those forecasts by about 12 percent .18

Loss of coverage is inevitable even with full fundingGruss, SpaceNews, 2014(Mike, “Commerce Inspector General Warns of 10- to 16-month Weather Satellite Gap,” http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40282commerce-inspector-general-warns-of-10-to-16-month-weather-satellite-gap)

AMPA, Fla. — The U.S. Commerce Department’s inspector general is projecting a 10- to 16-month gap in weather satellite coverage that would limit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ability to forecast three to seven days out.In written testimony submitted in advance of an April 10 hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science and related agencies, Todd Zinser cited cost overruns, schedule delays and the age of NOAA’s current satellites as likely causes.NOAA, which is part of the Commerce Department, operates geostationary-orbiting satellites for continental coverage and polar-orbiting craft for global coverage. Budget difficulties and delays to the systems currently under development — the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R system and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) — have prompted widespread concerns about the coverage gap.Zinser said that as recently as late March, an internal NOAA report predicted a three-month gap in coverage from polar orbit. He offered a different assessment based on the transition timetable from the existing Suomi NPP satellite, which launched in October 2011, to the JPSS-1.“We continue to project a potential 10-16-month gap between Suomi NPP’s end of design life and when JPSS-1 satellite data become available for operational use,” Zinser said. He said the 10-month minimum assumes four months between the end of Suomi NPP operations and the JPSS-1 launch, currently scheduled for 2017, and a six-month checkout period following that launch.“NOAA’s medium-range weather forecasting (3-7 days) could be degraded during the period of time JPSS data are unavailable, but NOAA must do more research using past and current weather events to determine the extent to which forecasts may be affected,” Zinser said.During the same hearing, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker repeatedly said NOAA’s weather satellite programs were “on schedule and on budget.” But she also said, “The potential for a gap is still too high.”

Readiness is low nowArmed Services Committee, 2013

(“Sec. Hagel Spotlights U.S. military readiness crisis,” Nov. 18, online: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/defense-drumbeat-blog?ContentRecord_id=76851964-c8fb-43e1-a0d4-54571a409461&ContentType_id=3656d01d-1920-44b6-a520-385c45d19f4e&Group_id=01c27866-262f-49c1-ac39-5242779de598&MonthDisplay=3&YearDisplay=2013)

WASHINGTON – Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel spoke on the dire condition of military

readiness at the Reagan National Defense Forum Saturday in Simi Valley, CA. Selected excerpts from Sec. Hagel’s speech below spotlight specific and serious vulnerabilities to American national security caused by significant defense cuts made since 2011.Building on themes discussed at the Reagan National Defense Forum, Rep. Rob Wittman will be speaking at a Foreign Policy Initiative meeting this week on “The Impact of Defense Cuts on Military Readiness” Thursday, November 21 from 12:30 – 1:30 PM in 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building. Along with other distinguished guests, Chairman Wittman will brief Congressional staff on the readiness challenges the military faces today. Secretary Hagel:Read the full remarks“…While our people today are strong and resilient after 12 years of war, they are under tremendous stress from years of repeated deployments, and so are the institutions that support them, train them, and equip them. As you all know, the department is currently facing sequester-level cuts on the order of $500 billion over the next 10 years. This is in addition – in addition – to the 10-year $487 billion reduction in DoD’s budget that is already underway. That means we are looking at nearly $1 trillion in DoD cuts over this 10-year period, unless there is a new budget agreement. “Consider that since sequestration began, just a couple of examples. • The Navy’s average global presence is now down more than 10 percent, with particularly sharp reductions in regions like South America. • The Army has had to cancel final training rotations for seven brigade combat teams. That’s more than 15 percent of the entire force, and it now has just two of the 43 active-duty brigade combat teams fully ready and available to execute a major combat operation. • Air Force units lost 25 percent of the annual training events that keep them qualified for their assigned missions, and • Marine Corps units not going to Afghanistan are getting 30 percent less funding just as the service is facing more demands for more embassy security and more Marines around the world.“These are all current readiness realities, and they have all occurred since the imposition of sequestration in March. But the effects will be felt for a long period of time to come . By continuing to cancel training for non-deploying personnel, we will create a backlog of training requirements that could take years to recover from. And inevitably, we are shrinking the size of the force that is ready and available to meet new contingencies or respond to crises across the globe.

Climate change devastates military effectivenessSullivan et al, former US Army Chief of Staff and chairman of the Military Advisory Board, 2007

(Gordon, the rest of the Military Advisory Board, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, CAN Corporation Report, http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/apr/security_climate.pdf, p.37-8)

Climate change will stress the U.S. military by affecting weapons systems and platforms, bases, and military operations. It also presents opportunities for constructive engagement. Weapons systems and platforms Operating equipment in extreme environmental conditions increases maintenance requirements— at considerable cost—and dramatically reduces the service life of the equipment. In Iraq, for instance, sandstorms have delayed or stopped operations and inflicted tremendous damage to equipment. In the future, climate change—whether hotter, drier, or wetter—will add stress to our weapons systems. A stormier northern Atlantic would have implications for U.S. naval forces [34]. More storms and rougher seas increase transit times, contribute to equipment fatigue and hamper flight operations. Each time a hurricane approaches the U.S. East Coast, military aircraft move inland and Navy ships leave port. Warmer temperatures in the Middle East could make operations there even more difficult than they are today. A Center for Naval Analyses study showed that the rate at which U.S. carriers could launch aircraft was limited by the endurance of the flight deck crew during extremely hot weather [34]. Bases threatened by rising sea levels During the Cold War, the U.S. established and maintained a large number of bases throughout the world. U.S. bases abroad are situated to provide a worldwide presence and maximize our ability to move aircraft and personnel. Climate change could compromise some of those bases. For example, the highest point of Diego Garcia, an atoll in the southern Indian Ocean that serves as a major logistics hub for U.S. and British forces in the Middle East, is only a few feet above sea level. As sea level rises, facilities there will be lost or will have to relocated. Although the consequences to military readiness are not insurmountable, the loss of some forward bases would require longer range lift and strike capabilities and would increase the military’s energy needs. Closer to home, military bases on the eastern coast of the United States are vulnerable to hurricanes and other extreme weather events. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew ravaged Homestead Air Force Base in Florida so much that it never reopened; in 2004 Hurricane Ivan knocked out Naval Air Station Pensacola for almost a year. Increased storm activity or sea level rise caused by future climate change could threaten or destroy essential base infrastructure. If key military bases are degraded, so, too, may be the readiness of our forces. Military operations Severe weather has a direct effect on military readiness. Ships and aircraft operations are made more difficult; military personnel themselves must evacuate or seek shelter. As retired Army Gen. Paul Kern explained of his time dealing with hurricanes in the U.S. Southern Command: “A major weather event becomes a distraction from your ability to focus on and execute your military mission.” In addition, U.S. forces may be required to be more engaged in stability operations in the future as climate change causes more frequent weather disasters such as hurricanes, flash floods, and extended droughts. The Arctic: a region of particular concern A warming Arctic holds great implications for military operations. The highest levels of planetary warming observed to date have occurred in the Arctic, and projections show the high northern latitudes warming more than any other part of the earth over the coming century. The Arctic, often considered to be the proverbial “canary” in the earth climate system, is showing clear signs of stress [33]. The U.S. Navy is concerned about the retreat and thinning of the ice canopy and its implications for naval operations. A 2001 Navy study concluded that an ice-free Arctic will require an “increased scope of naval operations” [35]. That increased scope of operations will require the Navy to consider weapon system effectiveness and various other factors associated with operating in this environment. Additionally, an Arctic with less sea ice could bring more competition for

resources, as well as more commercial and military activity that could further threaten an already fragile ecosystem. Department of Defense energy supplies are vulnerable to extreme weather The DoD is almost completely dependent on electricity from the national grid to power critical missions at fixed installations and on petroleum to sustain combat training and operations. Both sources of energy and their distribution systems are susceptible to damage from extreme weather. The national electric grid is fragile and can be easily disrupted. Witness the Northeast Blackout of 2003, which was caused by trees falling onto power lines in Ohio. It affected 50 million people in eight states and Canada, took days to restore, and caused a financial loss in the United States estimated to be between $4 billion and $10 billion [36]. People lost water supplies, transportation systems, and communications systems (including Internet and cell phones). Factories shut down, and looting occurred. As extreme weather events becomes more common, so do the threats to our national electricity supply.

AT: US-China War

No risk of Taiwan warKeck, Managing Editor of the Diplomat, 2013(December 24, “Why China Won’t Attack Taiwan,” http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/why-china-wont-attack-taiwan/)

Thus, even if it quickly defeated Taiwan’s formal military forces, the PLA would continue to have to contend with the remnants of resistance for years to come. Such a scenario would be deeply unsettling for leaders in Beijing as this defiance would likely inspire similar resistance among various groups on the mainland, starting first and foremost with ethnic minorities in the western China. Should the PLA resort to harsh oppression to squash resistance in Taiwan, this would deeply unsettle even Han Chinese on the mainland. In fact, the clear parallels with how Imperial Japan sought to pacify Taiwan and China would be lost on no one in China and elsewhere.The entire situation would be a nightmare for Chinese leaders. Consequently, they are nearly certain to avoid provoking it by invading Taiwan. The only real scenario in which they would invade Taiwan is if the island nation formally declared independence. But if Taiwanese leaders have avoided doing so to date, they are unlikely to think the idea is very wise as China goes stronger.Thus, the status-quo in the Taiwanese strait is unlikely to be changed by military force. Instead, Beijing is likely to continue drawing Taiwan closer economically, and seeking to disrupt the U.S.-Taiwanese bilateral relationship. The hope would be that leaders in Taipei will ultimately conclude that they cannot resist being absorbed into China, something China itself can facilitate this by offering favorable terms.

AT: Chinese Cyber Attacks

No threat of a major cyber attackLawson, Ph.D. Department of Communication University of Utah, 2011 ("BEYOND CYBER-DOOM: Cyberattack Scenarios and the Evidence of History" Jan 11 mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/beyond-cyber-doom-cyber-attack-scenarios-evidence-history_1.pdf)

Despite persistent ambiguity in cyber-threat perceptions, cyber-doom scenarios have remained an important tactic used by cybersecurity proponents. Cyber-doom scenarios are hypothetical stories about prospective impacts of a cyberattack and are meant to serve as cautionary tales that focus the attention of policy makers, media, and the public on the issue of cybersecurity. These stories typically follow a set pattern involving a cyberattack disrupting or destroying critical infrastructure. Examples include attacks against the electrical grid leading to mass blackouts, attacks against the financial system leading to economic losses or complete economic collapse, attacks against the transportation system leading to planes and trains crashing, attacks against dams leading floodgates to open, or attacks against nuclear power plants leading to meltdowns (Cavelty, 2007: 2).Recognizing that modern infrastructures are closely interlinked and interdependent, such scenarios often involve a combination of multiple critical infrastructure systems failing simultaneously, what is sometimes referred to as a “cascading failure.” This was the case in the “Cyber Shockwave” war game televised by CNN in February 2010, in which a computer worm spreading among cell phones eventually led to serious disruptions of critical infrastructures (Gaylord, 2010). Even more ominously, in their recent book, Richard Clarke and Robert Knake (2010: 64–68) present a scenario in which a cyberattack variously destroys or seriously disrupts all U.S. infrastructure in only fifteen minutes, killing thousands and wreaking unprecedented destruction on U.S. cities.Surprisingly, some argue that we have already had attacks at this level, but that we just have not recognized that they were occurring. For example, Amit Yoran, former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cyber Security Division, claims that a “cyber- 9/11” has already occurred, “but it’s happened slowly so we don’t see it.” As evidence, he points to the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, as well as other incidents in which the computer systems of government agencies or contractors have been infiltrated and sensitive information stolen (Singel, 2009). Yoran is not alone in seeing the 2007 Estonia attacks as an example of the cyberdoom that awaits if we do not take cyber threats seriously. The speaker of the Estonian parliament, Ene Ergma, has said that “When I look at a nuclear explosion, and the explosion that happened in our country in May, I see the same thing” (Poulsen, 2007).Cyber-doom scenarios are not new. As far back as 1994, futurist and best-selling author Alvin Toffler claimed that cyberattacks on the World Trade Center could be used to collapse the entire U.S. economy. He predicted that “They [terrorists or rogue states] won’t need to blow up the World Trade Center. Instead, they’ll feed signals into computers from Libya or Tehran or Pyongyang and shut down the whole banking system if they want to. We know a former senior intelligence official who says, ‘Give me $1 million and 20 people and I will shut down America. I could close down all the automated teller machines, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and most hospital and business computer systems’” (Elias, 1994).

But we have not seen anything close to the kinds of scenarios outlined by Yoran, Ergma, Toffler, and others. Terrorists did not use cyberattack against the World Trade Center; they used hijacked aircraft. And the attack of 9/11 did not lead to the long-term collapse of the U.S. economy; we would have to wait for the impacts of years of bad mortgages for a financial meltdown. Nor did the cyberattacks on Estonia approximate what happened on 9/11 as Yoran has claimed, and certainly not nuclear warfare as Ergma has claimed. In fact, a scientist at the NATO Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, which was established in Tallinn, Estonia in response to the 2007 cyberattacks, has written that the immediate impacts of those attacks were “minimal” or “nonexistent,” and that the “no critical services were permanently affected” (Ottis, 2010: 72).Nonetheless, many cybersecurity proponents continue to offer up cyber-doom scenarios that not only make analogies to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but also hold out economic, social, and even civilizational collapse as possible impacts of cyberattacks. A report from the Hoover Institution has warned of so-called “eWMDs” (Kelly & Almann, 2008); the FBI has warned that a cyberattack could have the same impact as a “wellplaced bomb” (FOXNews.com, 2010b); and official DoD documents refer to “weapons of mass disruption,” implying that cyberattacks might have impacts comparable to the use of WMD (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004, 2006). John Arquilla, one of the first to theorize cyberwar in the 1990s (Arquilla & Ronfeldt, 1997), has spoken of “a grave and growing capacity for crippling our tech-dependent society” and has said that a “cyber 9/11” is a matter of if, not when (Arquilla, 2009). Mike McConnell, who has claimed that we are already in an ongoing cyberwar (McConnell, 2010), has even predicted that a cyberattack could surpass the impacts of 9/11 “by an order of magnitude” (The Atlantic, 2010). Finally, some have even compared the impacts of prospective cyberattacks to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed roughly a quarter million people and caused widespread physical destruction in five countries (Meyer, 2010); suggested that cyberattack could pose an “existential threat” to the United States (FOXNews.com 2010b); and offered the possibility that cyberattack threatens not only the continued existence of the United States, but all of “global civilization” (Adhikari, 2009).In response, critics have noted that not only has the story about who threatens what, how, and with what potential impact shifted over time, but it has done so with very little evidence provided to support the claims being made (Bendrath, 2001, 2003; Walt, 2010). Others have noted that the cyber-doom scenarios offered for years by cybersecurity proponents have yet to come to pass and question whether they are possible at all (Stohl, 2007). Some have also questioned the motives of cybersecurity proponents. Various think tanks, security firms, defense contractors, and business leaders who trumpet the problem of cyber attacks are portrayed as selfinterested ideologues who promote unrealistic portrayals of cyber-threats (Greenwald, 2010).

1AR: NOAA T/O - No Impact to Satellite Loss

Even the worst case scenario won’t cause the impactYehle, E&E Reporter, 2014(Emily, Greenwire, July 14, “NOAA: With Satellite on death watch, forecasts face uncertain future,” online: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002814)

In 2012, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts used Sandy as an opportunity to calculate the importance of polar satellites. It found that without data from all the 14 polar satellites then in orbit, the five-day forecast would have shown Sandy remaining at sea. With them, forecasters were able to predict that the storm would hit the East Coast."If you look at that forecast, it was really kind of spot on," Powner said. "If you didn't have polar data that forecast would have been off."In short, the polar data enabled forecasters to give the public more warning. Without any polar satellite, most computer models wouldn't have predicted the accurate path until three days before the storm hit.But that's the worst-case scenario . Losing one or two polar satellites would ostensibly have less of an effect. And tweaked computer models -- along with data borrowed from other countries and through other means -- might be able to partly account for the missing data."Without polar orbiters and the information they provide, I think our ability to get things done will be to some extent degraded, but not crippled," Christensen said. "We can still do our job."

It will only be loss of the afternoon data – can function without NOAA satellitesYehle, E&E Reporter, 2014(Emily, Greenwire, July 14, “NOAA: With Satellite on death watch, forecasts face uncertain future,” online: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002814)

The possibility of a "gap" in weather data is well-known on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers have chided NOAA for years over delays in its satellite programs, with Senate appropriators once threatening to hand over all construction responsibility to NASA.Today, the polar satellite program -- and its geostationary counterpart -- are among the few budget requests that Congress plans to fully fund in fiscal 2015. Lawmakers from both parties don't want to risk the weather forecasts their constituents rely upon.Indeed, the loss of so much data sounds catastrophic. But is it?" All is not lost if we lose all of them ," said Jeff Masters, founder of the website Weather Underground. "But we're not going to lose all of them. We're going to lose a few."NOAA now relies on a hodgepodge of polar satellites in an attempt to ensure data for every region of the Earth is no more than six hours old.Only one "operational," or primary, satellite comes from a NOAA program; it covers the afternoon orbit. Two satellites built through Department of Defense programs and controlled by NOAA cover the early morning and midafternoon orbits, and NOAA also gathers data from a European satellite. A few of NOAA's older satellites provide additional data.Experts say NOAA's primary satellite is the one most likely to fail, leaving the agency without a fully functioning polar satellite for an afternoon snapshot. But it would still have data from

other polar-orbiting satellites -- just not as much and not as frequently. A loss could limit measurements that allow hurricane paths to be predicted earlier and would especially affect forecasts in northern regions, dealing a particular blow to Alaska.

2AC: Spending DA

Plan doesn’t require new spendingJewett et al., the first director of NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program, 2014(Elizabeth Jewett, Mary Boatman (BOEM), Phillip Taylor and Priscilla Viana (formerly with NSF), Todd Capson (formerly with DOS), Katherine Nixon (formerly with U.S. Navy) and Fredric Lipshultz (formerly with NASA), “Strategic Plan for Federal ¶ Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification,” Online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/iwg-oa_strategic_plan_march_2014.pdf)

Early establishment of an Ocean Acidification Data Management Office under the National Program Of fice would be highly desirable in order to oversee the many complex connections between institutions and data systems that will be contributing to the Program (NRC 2010a; refer to Box 12 for examples). If ocean acidification data management functions must be embedded within an existing federally supported data man agement activity due to resource limitations, then it remains essential to employ staff members dedicated to a curatorship role for the ocean acidification data collection. To this end, the National Oceanographic Data Center has been designated to serve as the long-term archive for NOAA-funded ocean acidification data. Where possible, the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) will also serve the broader ocean acidification community through partnerships and leveraging of resources. The model for integration, in order to respect the independence of data systems developed by the contributors, must be a system-of-systems outlook, such as has been articulated in numerous plans, including the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System Data Management and Communications (IOOS-DMAC) Plan (Hankin and the DMAC Steering Committee 2005), NOAA’s Global Earth Observation-Integrated Data Environment (GEO-IDE) plan (U.S. Department of Commerce 2006), the European Union’s SeaDataNet (Schaap 2009), the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) framework (Group on Earth Observations [GEO] 2005) and the emerging Federal data architecture being developed within the SOST ad hoc Biodiversity Working Group (Fornwall 2012). The Ocean Acidification Data Management Office must also manage a shared data analysis environment to support community data synthesis and integration activities and a framework for model intercomparison.

Ocean Acidification costs the economy billions Donahue, 12 (Jim Donahue [Senior Editor at Guardian Liberty Voice Newspaper], “Ocean Acidification is Killing Shellfish, Commercial Fishing Industry May Be Next”, November 27, 2012, Online: http://guardianlv.com/2012/11/jd-ocean-acidification-is-killing-shellfish-commercial-fishing-industry-may-be-next/)

This rise in the acid level in our oceans is killing marine organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells, or use calcium carbonate in their skeletal structure. Coral reefs rely on calcium carbonate for re-enforcement of the skeletal structure of the reef itself, and

there is evidence that these coral reefs may erode faster than they can be rebuilt. Coral reefs are an ecosystem all unto

themselves, as many species of fish and aquatic life dependent of the reef for life will be affected by the reefs demise. Recent findings suggest that the calcium carbonate cementation process that serves to bind the reef framework together may be eroded by thermal stress, diseases, storms, and rising sea level. In CO2 enriched waters around the Galapagos Islands, reef structures were completely eroded to rubble and sand in less than 10 years following the 1982–83 El Niño event. This

acidic sea water is affecting fish and shellfish and their food sources as well. Commercially important fish and shellfish have extremely high mortality rates when exposed to CO2 enriched waters. King crab, squid, silver seabream, sea urchins and mussels, all show ill effects and an inability to maintain their internal acid balance because

of the increased acid of the sea water. It puts these commercially valuable marine species in jeopardy for

extinction. The potential economic impact from this happening is one that could resonate throughout the entire commercial

fishing industry Worldwide. The United States is the third largest consumer of seafood in the world with total consumer spending for fish and shellfish at around $70 billion per year. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates over $35 billion per year and employ almost 70,000 people. Dr. Richard Feely, PHD, Senior Scientist at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in his testimony

before Congress, “Healthy coral reefs are the foundation of many viable fisheries, as well as the source of jobs and businesses related to tourism and recreation. Increased ocean acidification may directly or indirectly influence the fish

stocks because of large-scale changes in the local ecosystem dynamics.” adding, “It may also cause the dissolution of the newly discovered deepwater corals in the West Coast and Alaskan Aleutian Island regions, where many commercially important fish species in this region depend on this particular habitat for their survival.” “In the Florida Keys alone, coral reefs attract more than $1.2 billion in tourism annually. In Hawaii, reef-related tourism and fishing generate $360 million per year, and their overall worth has been estimated at close to $10 billion. In addition to sustaining commercial fisheries, tourism, and recreation, coral reefs also provide vital protection to coastal areas that are vulnerable to storm surges and tsunamis.”

Counterplans

2AC: Cap and Trade

Won’t solve acidificationEnergy Tribute, 2009(July 1, “Carbon Cap and Trade Bill Won’t Stop Ocean Acidification,” online: http://www.energytribune.com/2311/carbon-cap-and-trade-bill-wont-stop-ocean-acidification#sthash.BN8tNEih.dpbs)

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will set in place the nation’s first cap-and-trade regulation to reduce carbon dioxide, will go only part way toward solving a second serious, and less well-appreciated problem (other than global warming). That problem: Ocean acidification, which is caused by the massive uptake of carbon dioxide by oceans.Here’s what Oceana had to say about the House passage of the bill:“Oceana is pleased that the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation is a landmark step towards addressing climate, energy and jobs and provides hope for the already imperiled ocean ecosystems that are on the brink of collapse. The Act marks the beginning of a new approach to regulating global warming pollution which is necessary to achieve the critically needed shift to a clean energy economy.“Only a major shift away from our addiction to fossil fuels and toward carbon-free energy sources – such as wind and solar – will achieve the change we need to prevent continued acidification of our oceans. While our oceans have absorbed roughly a third of the carbon dioxide released, thus providing a much-needed service in slowing climate change, it is making them sick.“Carbon dioxide causes a destructive chemical reaction that reduces the availability of calcium carbonate, an essential compound needed by many marine animals to survive. Corals, lobsters, oysters, clams, crabs and mussels, to name just a few, are all commercially important and enhance our quality of life. But they all need calcium carbonate to build their shells and skeletons. A continued “business-as-usual” approach will cause a mass extinction of corals, according to respected scientists. It will also make it harder for other animals, dependent on coral, or on calcium carbonate, to survive. We need almost a total shift to carbon-free energy sources by 2050 and a nearer-term reduction of 25 to 40 percent of carbon dioxide releases by 2020“While their ability to absorb carbon dioxide is declining, our oceans will continue to provide solutions to climate change by helping to produce clean energy through the establishment of offshore wind production. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030, and offshore wind can be a major contributor. On the other hand, offshore oil drilling should not be expanded as it promises no relief in gas prices, and only threatens to contaminate our beaches and marine wildlife while continuing our destructive fossil fuel addiction.“Although the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a terrific start, it needs to go farther to protect our oceans from acidification and the worst impacts of climate change. Therefore, while Oceana applauds the House of Representatives for initiating this important process, it is essential for the Senate to strengthen this bill to ensure that it includes the reductions needed to protect our oceans and marine wildlife."

Reducing emissions won’t solve – only preserving phytoplankton can reverse catastrophic effects of climate changeGarnet, 10 (Andre [Biotechnology expert and analyst], “Slowing CO2 emissions cannot end global warming, but removing CO2 from the atmosphere will.”, August 14, 2010, Online: http://theenergycollective.com/andre-garnet/41653/slowing-co2-emissions-cannot-end-global-warming-removing-co2-atmosphere-will)

However, all we are currently attempting is to limit emissions of CO2. This is too little, too

late and totally useless inasmuch it could reduce our CO2 emissions by only 5% at best, while achieving nothing in terms of diminishing the amount of atmospheric CO2. Rather than wasting precious time on attempts to LIMIT our CO2 emission, we should focus on EXTRACTING from the atmosphere more CO2 than we are emitting. We have a proven method for this that couldn't be simpler, more effective and inexpensive, so what are we waiting for? More specifically, it has been shown that atmospheric CO2 has been perhaps twice higher than now in the not too distant past (some 250,000 years ago.) So what caused it to drop to as low as it was around 1,850? It was primarily due to the plankton that grows on the surface of the sea where it absorbs CO2 that it converts to biomass before dying and sinking to the bottom of the sea where it eventually becomes trapped in sedimentary rock where it turns to oil or gas. There simply isn't enough biomass on the 30% of Earth's surface that is land (as opposed to sea) for this biomass to grow fast enough to soak up the excess atmospheric CO2 that we have to contend with. Plankton, on the other hand, can grow on the 70% of Earth that is covered by the sea where it absorbs atmospheric CO2 much faster, in greater quantities and sequesters it for thousands of years in the form of oil and gas. Growing plankton is thus an extremely efficient, yet simple and inexpensive process for removing the already accumulated CO2 from the atmosphere. All we need to do is to dust the surface of the ocean with rust (i.e. iron oxides) that serves as a fertilizer that causes plankton to grow. The resulting plankton grows and blooms over several days, absorbing CO2 as it does, and then about 90% of it that isn't eaten by fish sinks to the bottom of the sea. The expert Russ George calculated that if all ocean-going vessels participated in such an effort worldwide, we could return atmospheric CO2 concentration to its 1,850 level within 30 years. It's very inexpensive and easy to do, wouldn't interfere with the ships' normal activities and would, in fact, earn them carbon credits that CO2 emitters would be required to buy. Moreover it is the ONLY approach available for addressing global warming on the global scale that is necessary. By contrast, efforts to limit CO2 emissions by means of CO2 sequestration could address only about 5% of NEW CO2 generated by power plants. So even while causing our electricity costs to treble or quadruple, such efforts wouldn't remove any of the massive amount of CO2 already accumulated in the atmosphere. In fact, the climatologist James Hansen believes that even if we could stop all CO2emissions as of today, it may already be too late to avert run-away, global warming as there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere for global warming to keep increasing in what he fears is becoming an irreversible process. In other words, atmospheric CO2 is trapping more heat than Earth can dissipate which causes temperature to rise inexorably. So what prevents us from proceeding with plankton fertilization? It is the fact that the United Nations have forbidden it on the basis of scientific studies that raised concerns about some of the unknowns involved, including the possibility that oxygen levels might decrease deep in the oceans and also that some varieties of plankton (i.e. such as the ones that cause "red tides") produce harmful compounds (such as the neurotoxin domoic acid) that would find their way into the food chain. However, such concerns are

unjustified on the basis of other scientific studies and seafood is now routinely screened for domoic acid. Moreover, they are contradicted by the facts: there is no denying that it is primarily plankton that brought down the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by about 50% to 75% from what it was around 250,000 years ago and that it did so without destroying marine life. So the growth of plankton in the sea is nothing new or that hasn't been occurring for millions of years. Therefore, dusting the surface of the oceans with iron oxides today would amount to nothing more than restoring a natural process in which, for millions of years, winds from the deserts spread iron oxides over the oceans causing plankton to grow. All we would need to do is to proceed cautiously by means of selecting the right kinds of plankton and where and to what extent to fertilize their growth. Are there other uncertainties? Yes, of course, but inaction is no longer an option at a time when we are already speeding into unknown territory where the only certainty is that life as we know it might become unsustainable within 50 to 100 years. Let us not forget that about 9% of CO2 emissions are from humans as they breathe and about 75% as they burn fossil fuels. Yet, CO2 emissions from power plants represent at most about 5% of the total CO2 emissions. However, it is only this 5% of CO2emissions from power plants that we are talking about limiting by means of sequestration - an exercise in futility ! It's time to wake up to the facts: attempting to limit CO2 emissions is a senseless waste of time and money given that we are past the point when cutting our CO2 emissions by 5% could make a dent - we cannot LIMIT the other 95% as its emission is so widespread that it is impossible to capture. But we sure can and absolutely must EXTRACT the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. There is no other conceivable way to slow, let alone, reverse global warming.

Doesn’t reduce emissionsBryner, Research Associate, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, 2004(Professor, Public Policy Program, Brigham Young University, Summer, Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 17 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 267, p. 269-270)

The reliance on emissions trading for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is controversial. Critics fear that trading programs, if not carefully designed, result in reductions on paper but fail to produce actual emission reductions. Emissions trading may seduce people into thinking they can escape making difficult choices about changes in behavior and consumption that will ultimately be required to significantly reduce the threat of climate change. Debates over carbon trading may also divert attention from direct actions such as investing in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels that promise clear benefits. There are numerous challenges to making carbon trading work as an effective way of reducing the threat of climate change. However, given the promise of carbon markets in [*270] minimizing the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon trading in any voluntary or mandatory strategy has become a prerequisite for generating the necessary political support.

Links to politicsArnold, NPR, 2014(June 3, Chris, “GOP Demonizes Once Favored Cap-And-Trade Policy,” online: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318414868/gop-demonizes-once-favored-cap-and-trade-policy)

Republicans say the Environmental Protection Agency will kill jobs and raise electricity prices with new carbon emissions limits. But their tactics in fighting the proposed rules are targeting a policy that their own party championed during GOP presidencies.Republicans are touting a letter signed by 41 GOP senators asking President Obama to withdraw what they call his "cap-and-trade rule."Cap and trade is one of the policy tools that would be allowed under the EPA proposal for states to achieve the new emissions standards.In recent years, the term "cap and trade" has become a dirty word for many Republicans . But Republicans used to be the big advocates of cap and trade. It was originally a conservative idea because it's a market-based approach to environmental regulation.

1AR: C & T Can’t Solve Warming

Companies and politicians will create loopholesHaddad, Assistant Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation, 2008(Abigail, “The Problem with a ‘Cap-and-Trade’ System,” November 17, online: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-11-08/the-problem-with-a-2018cap-and-trade2019-system)

Obama wants to auction off 100 percent of GHG emissions permits. But evidence from the European Union suggests that industries will lobby hard to win exemptions from the new rules or to set the “caps” high enough that they prove ineffective in actually reducing

emissions. If the Obama plan becomes law, companies will maneuver for free emissions permits and other goodies. Congressmen and senators will demand that carbon-intensive industries in their districts or states be shielded from adverse economic consequences.When the Lieberman-Warner bill was being debated, nine Democratic senators came out against the legislation and wrote a letter to Democrats Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Their letter stressed the need to balance environmental goals with economic realities, to distribute the burden of emissions reductions evenly among states, and to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs.If the next Congress moves to pass cap-and-trade legislation, plenty of lawmakers—particularly those from the Upper Midwest and the Rust Belt—will voice similar concerns. Which means that if a cap-and-trade bill eventually reaches President Obama’s desk, chances are it will be littered with exemptions and loopholes. It will still be very costly, but probably ineffective as a means of reducing GHG emissions.

Price fluctuations means they can’t reduce emission or transition to renewables – EU provesLofgren, writer for Inhabit, 2013(Kristine, Inhabit is a website dedicated to sharing news about technology and material design, “Europe’s Carbon Market Failures Expose Flaws in Cap and Trade System,” online: http://inhabitat.com/europes-carbon-market-failures-expose-flaws-in-the-cap-and-trade-system/)

There once was a time when cap and trade plans looked like our best hope for limiting carbon emissions . But recent fluctuations in the European carbon market seem to indicate trouble in paradise. The prices of carbon allowances — necessary for any company that plans to produce more emissions than allotted — have dropped down to 10% of what they were once worth. While that’s bad news for investors, it also gives polluters a cheap way to continue polluting as usual.Last week, the price of carbon allowances settled at $3.90 after an all-time high of $40 just a few years ago and an all-time low of nearly zero. Ever since that high, the price has consistently crawled lower and lower, hovering in the single digits for at least a year.

For those who make money off of the market of trading carbon allowances, it has made for a difficult year. But the bigger problem is that the cost of buying allowances is so low that they are cheap for any company that wants to continue polluting , defeating the purpose of the

system. When the price of carbon allowances was high, companies scrambled to invest in renewable energy like wind and solar. That is no longer the case now that prices are low .

Increased energy costs are passed on to consumers – biggest polluters PROFIT from cap-and-trade and won’t reduce emissionsGilbertson, Founder of Carbon Trade Watch, 2011(Tamra, co-author of ‘Carbon Trading: How it works and why it fails’ “Fraud and scams in Europe’s Emissions Trading System,” online: http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/05/05/fraud-and-scams-in-europes-emissions-trading-system/)

With a host of problems since the inception of the EU ETS six years ago, it is time to ask whether an emissions trading system is fundamentally flawed and, if so, what is to be expected if these costly mistakes are repeated on a larger scale?The EU ETS is the largest existing carbon market in the world, valued at €88.7 billion in 2009. The aim is to put a ‘cap’ on greenhouse gas emissions but evidence mounts against the scheme with many loopholes allowing for a carbon market with no real cap which awards profits to the biggest polluters .The market consists of trading through spot, futures and options contracts, exchanging 6.3 billion tonnes of CO2-e in 2009. It trades ‘carbon permits’ called European Union Allowances (EUAs), which are allocated according to National Allocation Plans, which are in turn subject to European Commission approval.The EU ETS covers approximately 11,000 power stations, factories and refineries in 30 countries which include the 27 EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. These account for almost half of the EU’s CO2 emissions, covering most of the largest static emissions sources, including power and heat generation, oil refineries, iron and steel, pulp and paper, cement, lime and glass production.In the first phase of the scheme, from 2005?2007, emissions permits were over-allocated to these industries, largely as a result of intense corporate lobbying. When the first emissions data were released in April 2006, they showed that 4% more permits were handed out than the actual level of emissions within the EU. In other words, the ‘cap’ did not cap anything, nor was it just the first year of the scheme that was over-allocated. By the end of the first phase, emitters had been allowed to emit 130 million tonnes more CO2 than they actually did before the scheme was established ? a surplus of 2.1%. The price of carbon permits collapsed as a result and never recovered. From a peak of around €30, the price slid below €10 in April 2006, and below €1 in 2007.A further major criticism leveled at the first phase of the EU ETS is that it generated huge profits for power producers, helping them to make large unearned financial gains as a result of flaws in the rules rather than any proactive measures taken to reduce emissions through structural changes. An inquiry by the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee found

that “it is widely accepted that UK power generators are likely to make substantial windfall profits from the EU ETS amounting to £500 million a year or more.”These profits were mainly enjoyed by energy companies based on how they account for the costs of the EU ETS. The costs that are indirectly passed on to consumers through an increase in wholesale energy prices do not reflect what carbon credits actually cost, but rather what the companies assume they could cost. This leaves considerable scope for overestimates.The same fundamental problems of over-allocated permits and windfall profits for polluters are occurring in the second phase of the EU scheme, which runs from 2008-2012. Research by market analysts Point Carbon, for example, has calculated that the likely profits made by power companies in phase two could be between €23 billion and €71 billion (and between €6 and €15 billion for UK power producers alone).

Fraud prevents solvencyGilbertson, Founder of Carbon Trade Watch, 2011(Tamra, co-author of ‘Carbon Trading: How it works and why it fails’ “Fraud and scams in Europe’s Emissions Trading System,” online: http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/05/05/fraud-and-scams-in-europes-emissions-trading-system/)

The CDM has also been subject to global scrutiny not only for its failure to reduce emissions but also the authenticity of projects based on additionality fraud. Within the CDM, credit recycling, also referred to as double counting, can occur in several ways. Until recently, it was largely seen within companies selling the same credits on both the voluntary and CDM markets. In other words, instead of expiring already ‘used’ credits, they were sold again but on another market.In 2007, the chemical corporation Rhodia and cement company Lafarge were accused of using credits from the CDM to meet voluntary corporate targets and later sold them at a profit to be counted again elsewhere. The companies can use credits from the CDM to meet mandatory targets under the EU ETS and also use them to meet voluntary reductions elsewhere. In addition, other companies claim reductions as well.Last year, another type of credit recycling scandal broke. This time the recycling involved swapping allowances for credits – a legal loophole between the two markets. The Hungarian government swapped Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) for Certified Emission Reductions (CER) from the CDM which companies had already used under the EU ETS to cover their emissions, then later sold the CERs on for more money. (AAUs are a tradeable carbon credit unit recognised within the Kyoto Protocol.)Hungary has a surplus of AAUs due to its ‘hot air’ allowances which do not fetch a high price nor will they have worth post-2012. Hungary sold on two million retired offset credits knowing they would fetch a higher price than the AAUs. As a result, French and Nordic exchanges were forced to close trading when the offset credits (CERs) were found to be resold, forcing the spot price of the credits to collapse from €12 a tonne of carbon to less than €1.Offsets are rife with corruption from the ground up, from the projects to the companies that implement them all the way to double counting on the market. Offsets enable companies and governments in the North to continue polluting while exacerbating harmful development in the South.

2AC: Emissions Reduction CP

The plan is key to adaptation – only adequate acidification data can determine which areas are being most effective and allow the development of localized solutions

The CP is too little too late – if we are going to solve acidification through emissions reductions we would have to be totally carbon-free by 2050 and have 40% reductions by 2020 – cap and trade failsEnergy Tribune 2009 (“Carbon Cap and Trade Bill Won''t Stop Ocean Acidification”, July 1 2009, http://www.energytribune.com/2311/carbon-cap-and-trade-bill-wont-stop-ocean-acidification#sthash.IUGd5LAa.dpbs, Accessed 7/22/14)

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will set in place the nation”s first cap-and-trade regulation to reduce carbon dioxide, will go only part way toward solving a second serious, and less well-appreciated problem (other than global warming). That problem: Ocean acidification, which is caused by the massive uptake of carbon dioxide by oceans.¶ Here”s what Oceana had to say about the House passage of the bill:¶ “Oceana is pleased that the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation is a landmark step towards addressing climate, energy and jobs and provides hope for the already imperiled ocean ecosystems that are on the brink of collapse. The Act marks the beginning of a new approach to regulating global warming pollution which is necessary to achieve the critically needed shift to a clean energy economy.¶ “Only a major shift away from our addiction to fossil fuels and toward carbon-free energy sources – such as wind and solar – will achieve the change we need to prevent continued acidification of our oceans. While our oceans have absorbed roughly a third of the carbon dioxide released, thus providing a much-needed service in slowing climate change, it is making them sick.¶ “Carbon dioxide causes a destructive chemical reaction that reduces the availability of calcium carbonate, an essential compound needed by many marine animals to survive. Corals, lobsters, oysters, clams, crabs and mussels, to name just a few, are all commercially important and enhance our quality of life. But they all need calcium carbonate to build their shells and skeletons. A continued “business-as-usual” approach will cause a mass extinction of corals, according to respected scientists. It will also make it harder for other animals, dependent on coral, or on calcium carbonate, to survive. We need

almost a total shift to carbon-free energy sources by 2050 and a nearer-term reduction of 25

to 40 percent of carbon dioxide releases by 2020 . “While their ability to absorb carbon dioxide is declining, our oceans will continue to provide solutions to climate change by helping to produce clean energy through the establishment of offshore wind production. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030, and offshore wind can be a major contributor. On the other hand, offshore oil drilling should not be expanded as it promises no relief in gas prices, and only threatens to contaminate our beaches and marine wildlife while continuing our destructive fossil fuel addiction.¶ “Although the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a terrific start, it needs to go farther to protect our oceans from acidification and the worst impacts of climate change.

2AC: Adaptation CPs

Plan is a pre-requisite – need data to determine which solutions are best for which areas

No solvency – a one size fits all adaptation approach failsRobert L. Glicksman, Fall 2010, J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, The George Washington University Law School, “THE CLEAN AIR ACT AT A CROSSROADS: TURNING 40, CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION: A COLLECTIVE ACTION PERSPECTIVE ON FEDERALISM CONSIDERATIONS”, Lexis

One argument for devolving considerable control over the formulation and implementation of adaptation policy to the state and local levels is that the effects of climate change will vary by location, requiring different strategies. n19 If a "one size fits all" approach was ill-suited to pollution control regimes, n20 it is likely to be that much more problematic when addressing climate change adaptation issues. Accordingly, some have advocated placing the power and responsibility of dealing with adaptation issues principally in the hands of local governments. n21 The German federal government has accepted this view, postulating that "people on the spot often know best what is good for their specific case ... . The Federal Government is [*1165] therefore relying on strengthening individual capacity and adaptive capacity at the local level." n22

They put the cart before the horse – we’re WAY behind in science like the plan and currently can’t determine the best adaptation strategyRuhl, Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property at The Florida State University College of Law, 2010(J.B., “CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND THE STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW”, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1517374)

The period during which adaptation policy was in the doghouse, however, stunted progress on forging its theory, design, and implementation. The accruing “adaptation deficit”19 has grown large, putting us far behind the European Union, Australia, and many other nations in this respect.20 In short, “the United States . . . lacks sufficient investment in the sciences required for moving beyond climate science to define impacts and vulnerabilities.”21 Domestic law and policy are in no better shape. To be sure, legal scholarship on climate change policy is sharply on the rise.22 Most of it, however, focuses on the configuration of instruments and institutions to accomplish mitigation, as in the debates over the efficacy of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade23 and the advantages of federal top-down versus local bottom-up initiatives.24 Although discussion of climate change adaptation, especially more recently, is often included in those scholarly contributions,25 it is seldom included as a significant focus and almost never with concrete domestic policy proposals offered.26 Indeed, the vast majority of legal scholarship touching on climate change adaptation explores not domestic preparedness, but rather the scope of responsibility developed nations have to assist the adaptation efforts of the least developed nations most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.27 The latter is an important policy concern, but the former deserves urgent and focused attention as well.

Sequencing is key – ill-planned adaptation measures can make climate change worseRuhl, Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property at The Florida State University College of Law, 2010(J.B., “CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND THE STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW”, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1517374)

Several forms of human adaptation impacts will present the most pernicious of such threats. First, many human communities are likely to find it necessary and possible to migrate to avoid rising sea levels along coastal areas, to relocate agricultural land uses, and to obtain secure water supplies from ever distant locations.86 These migrations and transfers of resources will necessarily involve some conversion of land uses in areas that presently provide suitable ecological conditions for particular species, in some cases at scales sufficient to pose a threat to the species.87 Relocated human communities will likely also introduce ecological degradations from new or amplified pollution, noise, water diversions, and other stresses.88 Many human communities, relocated or not, also will implement climate change mitigation and adaptation measures designed primarily to protect human health and welfare, such as coastal flood barriers, which in some cases could threaten ecological conditions for other species.89 Even planting of forests to sequester carbon could degrade conditions for some species.90 Lastly, human adaptation to climate change involving population relocations and increased flow of goods and resources to new settlement areas is likely to introduce nonnative species to local ecosystems, some of which will establish successfully.91

Links to politicsBoncour, Head of the International Dialogue on Migration, 2009(Philippe, The Moment Of Truth – Adapting to Climate Change, Head, International Dialogue on Migration, IOM, 12-11-2009, http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/feature-stories/featureArticleEU/cache/offonce?entryId=26621)

Therefore, the international community's response must also adapt to this new paradigm. It may be easier to raise funds to respond to natural disasters because of the emergency nature of such events and because of the media coverage and the political credit such assistance can bring. However, it is much more difficult to convince donors to invest in tackling the long-term effects of climate change and to support adaptation as the effects of such investments are not evident for many years. They are less "saleable" to the public. This is particularly true in the current difficult economic climate, where voters are more concerned about keeping their jobs and maintaining their standard of living.

1AR: Adaptation Links to Politics

CP links to politics – policymakers will clash over which type of adoption plan to appropriateRobert L. Glicksman, Fall 2010, J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, The George Washington University Law School, “THE CLEAN AIR ACT AT A CROSSROADS: TURNING 40, CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION: A COLLECTIVE ACTION PERSPECTIVE ON FEDERALISM CONSIDERATIONS”, Lexis

The uncertainty about the magnitude and distribution of the effects of climate change makes it impossible to predict exactly what kinds of adaptive measures will be needed in different parts of the country and when they will be needed. There seems to be a consensus among those who have focused on climate change adaptation policy that the effort will necessarily involve federal, state, and local government participation. In an optimal world, policymakers at different levels would coordinate their responses so that adaptation proceeds as efficiently and effectively as possible, the burdens resulting from climate change are minimized, and the unavoidable burdens are distributed as equitably as possible, even though climate change is likely to affect some areas of the country, such as coastal areas vulnerable to flooding and severe storm activity, more than others. It is inevitable, however, that clashes of interest will develop between jurisdictions when desired goods, such as potable water, are scarce or [*1193] efforts by one state or locality to avoid the undesirable aspects of climate change shift the burden of those changes to other jurisdictions. Collective action analysis can help avoid or resolve such conflicts by assigning the authority to control the development of climate change adaptation policy to the level of government best situated to address a problem without exacerbating the adverse consequences of climate change for others. The conflicts are likely to arise both when states and localities fail to do enough to anticipate and react to climate change and when they do "too much." As the analysis above indicates, collective action analysis supports the exercise of federal power to create minimal protections against the ravages of climate change in the face of state or local reluctance to react to its consequences. The federal role, which would exist concurrently with the exercise of state and local power to respond to climate change, could involve providing technical and financial assistance to state and local governments or the creation of the kinds of cooperative federalism regulatory programs that have become entrenched in U.S. environmental law over the last forty years. In limited contexts, collective action analysis also supports displacement of the aggressive exercise of state and local authority to adapt to climate change in favor of exclusive federal control. These situations are most likely to involve state and local efforts that result in interstate externalities.

2AC: RPS CP

RPS won’t solve warming – targets too lowGrinzo, Energy Researcher at the University of Rochester, 2010(Lou, “A national RPS for the US?”, September 28, http://theenergycollective.com/lougrinzo/44270/national-rps-us)

My big objection is to the 15% RPS for years 2021 through 2039. That’s too low for 2021, considering the urgency of decarbonizing our electricity infrastructure, and absurdly low for 2039. If the US’ electricity generation is still 85% non-renewable, and therefore carbon emitting at the same percentage or very nearly so, then we are in immense trouble. If we have any shot whatsoever of hitting an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, then we need much quicker change than this bill would trigger. And keep in mind that our transportation energy consumption will begin to shift from oil to the electricity sector literally in a matter of months as the first EVs and PHEVs hit the mass market. By the years 2021 to 2039 we’ll see a very sizable portion of our transportation fueled by electrons, which will make cleaning up the electricity sector even more critical.[2]

Links to politicsJohnson, RES advocate with a background in energy financial and policy issues, 2010(Taylor, “Is the U.S. Wind Industry Losing Ground?”, http://www.windpowerengineering.com/category/renewable-portfolio-standard/)

One key factor in the U.S. decline is the failure of congress to provide any form of certainty to the market. You’ve no doubt heard that the pleas for a national Renewable Energy Standard (RES) have fallen on deaf ears as senators and representatives shy away from legislation that may negatively impact their re-election chances in November. Several pieces of pro-renewable energy legislation have been proposed and brought before Congress, but in the spirit of partisan behavior our beloved congress has failed to produce any results. As such, the tax credits and cash grants that have led to a booming renewable energy economy over the last four years are coming to an end, and no legislation is in place to support the industry afterward. On top of this (and a bit of a side note) the “Bush Tax Cuts” are coming to an end as 2010 concludes. Although this is not directly related to renewable energy, increasing tax rates also increases the level of investment uncertainty in our country. So why is Congress having such a hard time passing a bill that will both improve our economic future and decrease our dependence on foreign energy? In a word: Money. It all boils down to money, cold hard cash. Businesses and their lobbyists are working away on Capitol Hill, whispering in the ears of our representatives, planting the idea that if the federal government supports renewable energy development than energy prices will jump to a level that is too high for businesses to maintain their global competitive advantage. Unfortunately this is just not the case. In fact, the U.S. has by far the lowest energy costs in the world. Our national average (commercial) price is under $0.05/kWh whereas our nearest competitor, China, spends roughly $0.11/kWh. Though, even if we were to put that point out of the way, there is still enough evidence to refute these anti-

renewable energy lobbyists in just one point. The implementation of a national 15% Renewable Energy Standard will only increase our energy costs by a fraction of one cent per kilowatt-hour.

2AC: Geo-Engineering CP

(Note – the aff may result in some geo-engineering)

Geo-engineering strategies focus on warming but ignore acidification – continued existence of the negative feedback loop cancels the effectSomero, Chair of the Committee on the Review of the National Ocean Acidification, et al. 2013 (GEORGE N. SOMERO, Stanford University, California, JAMES P. BARRY, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, California, ANDREW G. DICKSON, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California, JEAN-PIERRE GATTUSO, CNRS-Pierre and Marie Curie University, France, MARION GEHLEN, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de L’Environnement, France, JOAN (JOANIE) A. KLEYPAS, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, CHRIS LANGDON, University of Miami, RSMAS, Florida CINDY LEE, Stony Brook University, New York EDWARD L. MILES, University of Washington, JAMES SANCHIRICO, University of California, Davis, “REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL OCEAN ACIDIFICATION RESEARCH AND MONITORING PLAN”, National academies press, Accessed 7/20/14)

Furthermore, the social sciences could provide valuable information on not only the economic, ecological, and social benefits and costs of ocean acidification, but also the risks of different mitigation techniques. There are multiple geo-engineering methods being considered, but presently they do not offer an adaptive response to ocean acidification (Matthews et al., 2009). That is, geo-engineering strategies commonly focus only on reducing global warming and fail to take acidification into account. The only mitigation techniques discussed in this section of the Strategic Plan are reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and policies that improve the overall health of ecosystems by reducing other stressors (e.g., reduction in fishing catch, habitat restoration, and improvement in water quality).

2AC: International CP

The plan increases effectiveness of international solutions – creating a national office results in a cohesive U.S. contribution to global research – a unilateral move by another country can’t solveNewton, et. Al, 2012(JA Newton – University of Washington, RA Freely - NOAA, EB Jewett -NOAA, D Gledhill -NOAA, “Toward a Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network,” http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/GOA_ON/GOA-ON_Interim_Report_July2013.pdf

In order to coordinate international efforts to document the status and progress of ocean acidification in open-ocean and coastal environments, and to understand its drivers and impacts on marine ecosystems, it will be necessary to develop a coordinated multidisciplinary multinational approach for observations and modeling that will be fundamental to establishing a successful monitoring and research strategy for ocean acidification. This will facilitate the development of our capability to assess present-day and predict future biogeochemistry, and climate change feedbacks and the responses of marine biota, ecosystem processes, and socioeconomic consequences. Required research elements include regional and global networks of observations collected in concert with process studies, manipulative experiments, field studies, and modeling. Global and regional observation networks will provide the necessary data required to firmly establish impacts attributed to ocean acidification.

US monitoring is best – best monitoring satellites and techWilliamson et al, 2002(Ray A. Williamson, esearch Professor of International Affairs and Space Policy in the Space Policy Institute of The George Washington University, focusing on the history, programs, and policy of space–based information systems; Henry R. Hertzfeld, an expert in the economic, legal, and policy issues of space and advanced technological development: Joseph Cordes, Ph.D.in Economics, 2002, “The Socio-Economic Value of Improved Weather and Climate Information,” Online: https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Socio-EconomicBenefitsFinalREPORT2.pdf)

NASA has a major interest in reducing the negative effects of natural disasters in the United States. However modeling of weather and climatic conditions cannot be limited to one nation. Nearly all major weather and climatic changes can be traced to global phenom- ena, for which the vantage point of Earth-circling satellites is especially advantageous. Hence, NASA’s employment of satellite sensors assists in understanding global changes,5 which in turn lead to better predictions of local and regional weather patterns. Further, the development of weather and climate predictive tools also assists other countries to improve their ability to mitigate the destructive effects of natural disasters and to respond effectively. Many countries, especially the less developed ones, have much less access than the United States to these contemporary information tools.

Satellites are key – no other tech can replace themRobinson, Institute for Oceanographic Studies, 2010 (Ian, Discovering the Ocean from Space [electronic resource] The unique applications of satellite oceanography / by Ian S. Robinson., BA and MA Mechanical Sciences, Cambridge University, PhD Engineering Magneto-hydrodynamics, University of Warwick, 1973, Higher and Senior Scientific Officer, Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Bidston, Lecturer, senior lecturer and reader, University of Southampton Department of Oceanography, Head of Department of Oceanography, Professor, University of Southampton School of Ocean and Earth Science, Professorial Fellow, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Long before satellite remote sensing of the ocean became the precise measurement technique it is today, pictures such as those in Figure 3.1 helped to transform the perception of physical oceanographers. By displaying qualitatively the meanders of major ocean fronts such as the Gulf Stream, they must surely have helped to stimulate the research effort of the 1970s and 1980s towards measuring mesoscale variability using conventional instruments from ships. In the 1980s and 1990s satellite data, from infrared and visible imagers and from altimeters, became supplementary measurement tools used by physical oceanographers to improve their understanding of mesoscale dynamics. Now they have become an almost essential element of monitoring aspects of mesoscale variability. By capturing a synoptic view of the ocean, satellite images can readily provide spatial data about the extent, the shape, and the variability in lengthscales of certain ocean processes, information that is otherwise hard to obtain from conventional oceanographic experiments.

Specifically, satellites are key to our internal links -

A. Algal bloomsWilson, NOAA, 2011 (Cara, “The rocky road from research to operations for satellite ocean-colour data in fishery management,” ICES Journal of Marine Science, Environmental Research Division, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Ph.D in oceanography from Oregon State University, JPL)

Monitoring HABs is one example of a clear R2O transition of ocean-colour data. Toxin-producing algae that have negative impacts on humans, marine organisms, and/or coastal economies, HABs can result in the closure of shellfish beds and beaches, massive fish kills, illness and death to marine mammals and seabirds, and alteration of marine habitats. Consequently, HAB events adversely affect commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and valued habitats, creating a significant impact on local economies and the livelihood of coastal residents. Advanced warnings of HAB events and estimation of their spatial distributions increase the options for managing such events and minimizing their harmful impact. The large spatial scale and high frequency of observations needed to assess bloom location and movements make oceancolour satellite data a key component in HAB research and forecasting . New blooms can be identified by a chlorophyll-anomaly method that accounts for the complex optical properties in coastal waters that can confound the satellite chlorophyll algorithm (Stumpf et al., 2003a; Tomlinson et al., 2009). For some coastal waters with large quantities of organic matter,

fluorescence data from the MODIS and MERIS sensors have the potential of providing better estimates of bloom extent (Hu et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2010).

B. CoralRobinson, Institute for Oceanographic Studies, 2010 (Ian, Discovering the Ocean from Space [electronic resource] The unique applications of satellite oceanography / by Ian S. Robinson., BA and MA Mechanical Sciences, Cambridge University, PhD Engineering Magneto-hydrodynamics, University of Warwick, 1973, Higher and Senior Scientific Officer, Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Bidston, Lecturer, senior lecturer and reader, University of Southampton Department of Oceanography, Head of Department of Oceanography, Professor, University of Southampton School of Ocean and Earth Science, Professorial Fellow, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

However, there is one aspect of reef biology in which the wider overview provided by satellite oceanography techniques has become essential , and important enough to require this subsection to itself. This is the issue of coral bleaching, and the role that satellite monitoring of sea surface temperature (SST) plays in identifying regions where reefs are at risk of bleaching. Corals are underwater animals that attach themselves to stony substrates. The order of corals known as stony corals, or scleractinians, are found as large colonies of individual coral polyps, each of which produces limestone deposits. Over the years these deposits have created the large reef systems found in shallow tropical and temperate seas, which provide a unique habitat for rich and complex ecosystems (see, e.g., pp. 117–141 in Barnes and Hughes, 1999). Corals thrive by hosting within their cells symbiotic algae called Zooxanthellae, which provide the coral with oxygen and organic compounds resulting from photosynthesis, while themselves obtaining from the coral carbon dioxide and other chemical compounds needed for photosynthesis. The algae give coral reefs their rich coloration and the symbiotic relationship is essential for the health of the whole reef ecosystem. Coral bleaching is the name given to the situation when corals are subject to physiological stress and respond by ejecting the zooxanthellae. The departure of the algae is visually evident because corals lose the pigments that give them their yellow or brown coloration. In this case the white limestone substrate that the corals have deposited shows through the translucent cells of the polyps which then appear pale or even white. If the stress is quickly removed the algae return within a few weeks and the corals recover, but if the stress is prolonged for many weeks the corals will die and continue to appear stark white. The loss of live corals eventually causes damage to the whole reef ecosystem. Consequently coral-bleaching events pose a serious threat that is taken seriously by marine environmental managers.

Critiques

2AC: Capitalism

Science reveals ecological destruction that exposes the contradictions of capitalismOreskes 2014 (Scaling Up Our Vision Author(s): Naomi Oreskes Source: Isis, Vol. 105, No. 2 (June 2014), pp. 379-391 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676574)

Environmental historians have taken issue with the term “environment” in part because, when one views the world from the perspective of human societies, it seems clear that there is no “environment” separate and apart from the people in it. But when one considers the deep ocean, the argument becomes murkier, as until extremely recently almost no human spent any time at all in the deep ocean and most human rubbish that was dumped was dropped in shallow, near-coastal seas. Today technology has changed that situation, yet the total number of humans who have spent even a modicum of time in the deep ocean remains very small. What has changed is that human investigations have led to a radical revision in scientific views of the ocean, while human activities have substantially altered the ocean itself. Environmental historians also struggle with the notion of “natural agency,” in part because their work demonstrates that the construct of an “environment” separate and apart from humans is difficult to sustain, as is the idea of a culturally independent nonhuman “nature.” Perhaps this is one reason environmental historians have not paid more attention to the ocean—it has tended to defy these conclusions. Our ideas of the ocean are quite evidently culturally constructed , but the ocean itself has seemed to stand apart. For centuries, it seemed to be distinct from those aspects of geography that men and women had so evidently transformed. It was scarcely affected by those who sailed across it; the ocean transformed them far more than they transformed it. But this seems no longer to be true. By the middle of the twentieth century, it was clear that earlier views of the deep-ocean environment were incorrect. Scientists came to understand that the deep ocean does sustain life, it does sustain currents, and while it is vast and has been used for disposal of the diverse products of industrial life , including various forms of nuclear waste, garbage, and wreckage, its capacity to absorb those wastes is not infinite. By the end of the century, scientists also concluded that human activities were changing the ocean, not merely in the shallow regions close to where people lived, but in its entirety. As we move into the twenty-first century, and both atmospheric and oceanic warming have become measurable (with the former characterized by scientists as “unequivocal”), it has become clear that the ocean’s capacity to serve as a sink for the waste heat of industrial civilization is not infinite, as at least the surface layers of the ocean are, indeed, warming. This shift in understanding—from the ocean as deep, dark, vast, and mostly inaccessible and not (except to mariners and fishermen) terribly important to the ocean as a vast abode of life, both familiar and strange, and a place on which all life, both marine and terrestrial, depends—is one of the most important cultural and scientific shifts of the twentieth century. It is a shift from the ocean as a world not only without us but without much of anything to a world of profound significance and import.16 It is a shift from a void to a plenum. It is a shift from something viewed as static to something now seen as highly dynamic, a driving force in diverse physical, biological, and social systems. This is one of the important reasons to pay attention to the

ocean, for it provides us with one of the clearest, and perhaps most alarming, consequences of human global environmental reach. For not only is the ocean measurably warming in response to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is also acidifying as it responds to and equilibrates with those greenhouse gases. As far as scientific evidence is able to indicate, this is affecting life at the very base of the food chain. Surely a shift of this magnitude and import is worthy of serious and sustained study. It is the job of scientists to study the thing in itself, but it is our job, as historians of science, to understand the scientific activities that describe and document it, as well as the cultural responses to scientists’ conclusions. This is what is suggested by Dipesh Chakrabarty in his recent essay “The Climate of History: Four Theses,” in which he turns his attention to global climate change. Chakrabarty suggests that we are at a turning point in history as a discipline. Regardless of how we have viewed the matter in the past, it is now clear that we can no longer sustain a demarcation between natural history and human history. “What scientists have said about climate change challenges not only the ideas about the human that usually sustain the discipline of history but also the analytic strategies that postcolonial and postimperial historians have deployed in the last two decades in response to the postwar scenario of decolonization and globalization .” He suggests that our historical training has left most of us ill equipped to understand these changes, acknowledging even that his own extensive readings in “theories of globalization, Marxist analysis of capital, sub-altern studies and post-colonial criticism” had not prepared him for “making sense of this planetary conjuncture within which humanities finds itself today.”17 While most environmental historians would probably argue that every aspect of human life has always depended, to some degree or another, on the natural world in which we live, and that humans have always interacted with their natural environments in ways that altered it, two things stand out as new. The first is that every aspect of the natural world is touched by human fingerprints. While one may argue about the reality versus the idea(l) of “untrammeled nature,” something existed before the genus Homo evolved, and the evidence is strong that for quite a while most of that “something” was not very much altered by the presence of that new genus. This has now changed. The second is that historians recognize this fact in a way that they have not until now generally done. It becomes increasingly clear that the development of human societies and cultures can no longer be properly analyzed without attention to the rapidly shifting character of global, regional, and local environments. Whether or not the “environment” was ever an effectively static (or very slowly changing) backdrop, it surely is no longer that. The physical and biological environment in and with which we live is now changing on human timescales. Perhaps ironically, Marxist analysis (which has not played a very major role in the thinking of most historians of science post Boris Hessen) now comes back to the fore, as we think about the problem of climate change, the relationship of scientific communities to sources of political and economic power, and the capacity of scientists to speak truth to that power.18 I am referring here to the essential fact that climate change (indeed—all environmental change, to the extent that such changes may be viewed as harmful, hurtful, or damaging) is a market failure.19 As Erik Conway and I argued in Merchants of Doubt, what climate change denial had in common with the other areas of science that faced organized doubt-mongering campaigns was that it highlighted a failure of capitalism: its failure to account adequately for external (or social) costs.20 It is one of the ironies of recent history that it was not economists , doing economic research, who identified these market failures but, rather, scientists, doing science. We have argued that this explains why scientists not otherwise politically engaged found themselves facing harsh scrutiny, corrosive skepticism, and even Congressional subpoenas and direct political attack. It also explains how and why new doubt-mongering campaigns continue to emerge, denying the scientific evidence of the harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, for

example, and suppressing possible evidence of harms related to cellular telephones, gun violence, shale gas development, and the excessive use of road salt.21 Scientists have found themselves unprepared and ill equipped to deal with these challenges for many reasons, including their training and personalities, but above all because they have been trained to believe something that is clearly no longer true in the modern world, if it ever was. It is the Baconian conceit that knowledge is power. Power is power, and those who have it may use scientific knowledge if they see advantage in doing so—which, as Michael Reidy and Helen Rozwadowski note in their contribution to this Focus section, and many historians have stressed, imperial powers often did. But they may equally ignore, deny, or attempt to discredit that knowledge if they do not. Knowledge alone, without power, means little and does less. Scientists have assumed that those in power generally welcome what scientists have to offer. Recent history defies this generalization. If scientific knowledge produces information that is not merely inconvenient but strikes at the heart of prevailing economic systems—as the evidence of anthropogenic climate change does—then the best scientists can hope for is that it is simply ignored. But this is not what has happened of late. One credible estimate suggests that the fossil fuel industry has spent as much as $1.5 billion challenging the scientific evidence of global climate change, and lobbying against political action based on it, in the United States alone. If this number is correct, it suggests that the amount of money spent on challenging climate science competes with the amount of money spent in creating it.22 One factor that contributes to the vulnerability of scientific knowledge—and the ease with which it is often deconstructed—is its uncertainty. Climate science is rife with uncertainties—that is one of the few denialist claims that is surely true—but there is more to be said about the matter than simply agreeing that climate science is uncertain, for all science is ultimately uncertain. The issue for us is the character and nature of scientific uncertainty and the ways in which scientists try to stabilize knowledge in the face of persistent uncertainty, topics that fall well within our brief as historians of science. One of the main sources of epistemic uncertainty in climate science involves the ocean. The response of the oceans is one of the most important variables determining the rate of observable climate change and sea-level rise, and this has also been one of its most scientifically uncertain aspects. Data and materials on heat and material transfer into the deep ocean have been scant, and even now they remain insufficient to answer many important scientific questions with confidence.

Acidification disproportionally effects poor populations Powell 2009(A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ECONOMICS OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION By Hauke L. Kite-Powell THE JOURNAL OF MARINE EDUCATION Ph.D. a Research Specialist at the Marine Policy Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a former Lecturer in the Ocean Engineering/ Ocean Systems Management Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Kite-Powell’s research focuses on the application of systems analysis to public and private sector management issues for marine resources and the economic activities that depend on them)

The acidification of the oceans is a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and is one of the features of climate change arising from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The global economic cost of the effect of lower ocean pH on the ability of shellfish, crustaceans, and coral reef organisms to build and maintain their carbonate-based shells is highly uncertain, but could be in the 10s of billions of dollars per year within the next century if carbon

emissions continue unchecked. At this level, the effects of ocean acidification will account for a small fraction (likely less than 1%) of the estimated total cost of future climate change; however, it is important to better quantify these ecological and economic impacts, both to inform marine resource management planning and adaptive measures, and to contribute to a more accurate global damage function for climate change and carbon tax policies. OCEAN ACIDIFICATION—A GLOBAL THREAT TO THE WORLD’S OCEANS The acidification of the world’s oceans is a direct consequence of higher concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. By absorbing CO2 from the air, the oceans have taken up between 30% and 50% of post-industrial anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Sabine et al. 2004; IPCC 2007), which has reduced average ocean surface pH from the preindustrial level of 8.2 to 8.1 (Caldeira and Wickett 2003). Over the next 50 years, rising atmospheric CO2 is expected to decrease average ocean surface pH to 7.9 or 7.8, and to decrease the saturation states of calcite and aragonite by about 25% (Guinotte and Fabry, this edition). One of the known consequences of ocean acidification is a slowing or reversal of the growth of the calcium carbonate shells of marine plants and animals, including commercially valuable shellfish and crustaceans and corals. Over time, marine ecosystems will respond to the combined pressures of changes in temperature, pH, and other environmental factors (including fishing effort and anthropogenic pollution inputs) with shifts in the geographic range of species and with other adaptations. This process may include the partial or complete loss of some commercially valuable species. In this paper, I consider the potential consequences of ocean acidification, and efforts to mitigate these consequences, from a global economic perspective. While we can project the physical consequences of ocean acidification, such as changes in seawater chemistry, with some confidence, anticipating the biological and economic effects is more difficult, because biological organisms (including people) will adapt to changes in ocean chemistry in ways that we may not yet know about. Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and there is no obvious way to prevent ocean acidification on a large scale, other than to reduce atmospheric CO2. While ocean acidification and its effects are a rationale for policies to limit CO2 in the atmosphere, they are best considered as part of the larger set of effects that follow from climate change. GLOBAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF FISHERIES AND CORAL REEFS The economic consequences of ocean acidification will depend on the combined adaptations of marine ecosystems and human resource management to the changes outlined above. Although these consequences are difficult to predict, it is possible to say something about the general scale of economic value generated by fisheries and coral reefs, to suggest the order of magnitude of economic value that might be affected by acidification, and to place these values in the broader context of the economics of climate change. The estimates of economic value I will discuss in the following sections are “order of magnitude” approximations; however, economic losses from ocean acidification, like many other effects of climate change, may well fall disproportionately on relatively poor and under-resourced people; for example, residents of developing countries who depend on reef fisheries or wild shellfish for subsistence (Figure 1). It is a general feature of climate change that the populations most severely affected are often those who have contributed the least, historically, to the problem of carbon emissions. This is an argument for international aid from developed industrial nations to poor countries likely to be hard hit by climate change effects.