Case NEGNYCUDL 2014 2015Statement2Aquaculture NEG3Arctic NEG9Warming NEG18

Statement

NEG work for 10/20/2014

Jeff Zhang

Aquaculture NEG

Federal agencies already did the plan in 2011 didnt solveBryan Walsh 7/8/11, senior editor at TIME, Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?, TIME, http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/print/The federal government has shown signs that it wants to jumpstart the domestic aquaculture industry. Last month NOAA and the Department of Commerce finalized a new set of national aquaculture guidelines, with particular attention paid to growing shellfish production and potentially opening aquaculture in the rich Gulf of Mexico. This is going to provide a national approach to sustainable domestic marine aquaculture, Larry Robinson, the assistant secretary for conservation and management at NOAA, told reporters last month. By developing sustainable domestic marine farming we increase food security, keep dollars here and support working waterfronts. All of those goals are possible, but its going to take more than official guidelines. Americans will need to decide that a domestic aquaculture industry is worth having, worth supportingand worth the space. Fish farming is one of the most efficient ways to produce protein, and we can and should be doing more of it, says NOAAs Rubino. But whether we choose that path remains to be seen.

Plan doesnt cause commercialization not economical James Kirkley July 2008, Professor of Marine Science in the Department of Fisheries Science at the College of William and Mary, The Potential Economic Ramifications of Offshore Aquaculture, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf Despite apparent evidence that offshore aquaculture is not only economically feasible but also capable of generating substantial contributions to the U.S. economy, there remain many obstacles which may hinder its development and adoption. In this study, it was demonstrated that production of five species popular with U.S. consumers is economically feasible, provided certain conditions prevailed. Foremost among these conditions is that prices received will hold at certain levels. Given the increasing level of imports, it is quite possible that prices received for the primary products will decrease. Also, if resource conditions do improve in the future, the landings of wild-caught cod and winter flounder would likely expand. The sea scallop resource is already at a high level of biomass. In addition, all of the species can be produced near-shore as opposed to offshore, and there are likely to be cost savings for inshore or near-shore operations. There remain many other concerns which may limit the development of offshore aquaculture outlined in other chapters in this report. There are potential uncertainties about obtaining loans, which will be necessary for satisfying up front investment costs. In all instances, these investment costs are quite high and will likely deter individuals or firms from investing in offshore aquaculture. There is considerable uncertainty about what constitutes best management practices (BMPs) for various operations. Present analysis does, however, support the development of offshore aquaculture in waters within 25 nautical miles of shore. Finally, it is concluded that operations farther offshore will require larger projects, or farms, and higher levels of investment.

States solve in the squo California provesEric Bradley 1/8/14, Press-Telegram, California Coastal Commission approves aquaculture facility off Long Beach shore, http://www.presstelegram.com/business/20140108/california-coastal-commission-approves-aquaculture-facility-off-long-beach-shoreThe California Coastal Commission on Wednesday approved the states first aquaculture farm to be located in federal waters about eight miles offshore of Long Beach. Known as Catalina Sea Ranch, the facility by KZO Sea Farms will primarily grow Mediterranean mussels on 45 lines anchored in the sea floor and suspended horizontally by buoys from a depth of a few feet to 200 feet, in a 100-acre patch of ocean near two existing oil production platforms. The willingness of KZO to agree to extensive monitoring for its first-of-a-kind project helped earn unanimous approval from commissioners. Phillip Cruver, co-founder of Long Beach-based KZO, said the ranch, which was previously approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will put a small dent in the nations $10-billion annual seafood importation deficit. According to National Marine Fishery Service data, 33.7 million pounds of live farmed mussels were imported into the United States in 2012, most of it from Prince Edward Island in eastern Canada. We could grow our own (mussels) and save that 3,500 air miles of carbon footprint, Cruver told the commission. Organizations like Heal the Bay, though not opposed to the project, argued for frequent inspections and video reviews of the site. I think its imperative that we are monitoring almost every aspect of this project, said Dana Murray, a Heal the Bay marine and coastal scientist. She also was concerned about KZOs plan to cultivate nonnative Pacific oysters, but Coastal Commission staff said the species, though not native, has already been introduced to California waters and is the No. 1 planted and harvested oyster in the state. Concerns were ameliorated further when KZO said it would consent to monitoring at the facility beyond the five years outlined in its consistency certification. Catalina Sea Ranchs business plan calls for six years of operation to produce a good return for investors, though the life of the equipment is 10 years, according to Cruver. He told the Los Angeles News Group last year that the farm could produce 774,000 pounds of mussels and 18,000 pounds of oysters in the first year of operation worth more than $1.5million.

Regulations not key scientific hurdles offshore aquaculture development Gulf provesKristen M. Fletcher 2004, Marine Affairs Institute @ Roger Williams University School of Law, Law & Offshore Aquaculture: A True Hurdle or a Speed Bump?, Efforts to Develop a Responsible Offshore Aquaculture Industry in the Gulf of Mexico: A Compendium of Offshore Aquaculture Consortium Research, Bridger, C.J., editor, http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/law-and-offshore-aquaculture.pdfThe legal and regulatory environment surrounding offshore aquaculture is cited consistently as one of the major hurdles to its development in the United States. Despite the adoption of the National Aquaculture Act in 1980, the lack of a sound legal and regulatory structure is still cited as the culprit for lack of a U.S. industry. In reality, the present regulatory regime is inadequate because it is based upon laws that were adopted to address issues or industries other than aquaculture. Because aquaculture facilities affect traditionally governed areas such as water supply, the use of navigable waters, food production, and environmental protection, multiple federal and state agencies have jurisdiction over the industry. While these agencies have excelled at regulating and permitting land-based aquaculture regimes with refined and stream-lined licensing procedures and regulations, the offshore aquaculture regulatory structure looks significantly different with no single lead agency and differences in regulations between states and regions. Many claim that these issues must be resolved before a sustainable industry can emerge. Law and policy research conducted in tandem with the environmental and technological research of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium revealed some specific legal mechanisms that need to be addressed but highlighted the reality that offshore aquaculture can develop within the present structure. This chapter describes some of these immediate legal hurdles but concludes that political and scientific issues serve as much greater hurdles than the legal and regulatory regime.

Fishing is inevitably doomed climate change MSC Mar 16, 2010 (Marine Stewardship Council, committed tobeing the worlds leading certification program for sustainable wild-capture seafood, Climate change and fish Mar 16, 2010. http://www.msc.org/about-us/program-improvements 7/4/14 J.M.)Our oceans and fish stocks may be under threat from changing water temperatures. Fisheries and communities around the world could be affected. If our climate changes, the temperature of oceans, seas and lakes will change too. We dont yet know the full impact on fishing and marine ecosystems, but it seems likely that vulnerable marine species will be under more pressure. Many fisheries will be seriously affected as the ecosystems that underpin them face new and uncertain challenges. How will climate change affect fish and fisheries? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that: as sea temperatures change, fish numbers will change and fish will move to different areas some species will go extinct in particular areas predators and prey will move to different areas, disrupting food chains wetlands and other low lying habitats where fish reproduce will be covered by rising sea levels water in lakes will get warmer bad weather may stop fishers going to sea These changes may affect fisheries worldwide, but the impacts are likely to be particularly damaging for fishers in developing countries.

Too many barriers to offshore aquaculture no technology, investment risk, price competition, and foreign subsidizationUpton and Buck 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources Policy @ CRS, August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture, http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdfSince open water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential operators are inexperienced with the technical requirements for open ocean facilities. Historically, development has been limited by technology that requires water depths of 100-150 feet; this narrow band of acceptable depth exists from mile to about 50 miles offshore, depending on location. Open ocean aquaculture facilities, moored or floating miles off the coast in a high-energy environment, experience numerous environmental conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture operations, including exposure to wind and wave action from all directions, short and steep wave patterns, strong currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen-lacking) conditions, and other severe ocean conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access their cages for days to weeks.7 Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage designs that do not deform under strong current and wave loads, submersible cages, and single-point moorings. Cage-mounted autonomous feeding systems have been developed that can operate both at the surface and submerged. Others have developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to address environmental concerns. Universities and private-sector research interests are developing automated buoys that can monitor the condition of stock and feed fish on a regular basis for weeks at a time. Other research groups are working on automated, floating cages that would travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite.8 These ship-like structures could float on favorable oceanic currents or be held in the same location with low-energy thrusters. Financing Estimating profitability and securing financing is difficult for new open ocean aquaculture companies because of an uncertain regulatory environment, the risk associated with operating in exposed open ocean locations, the risk of catastrophic events (e.g., severe storms), limited operational experience, and high capital start-up costs. [] More pessimistic critics suggest that open ocean aquaculture is unlikely ever to have an adequate economic return on investment, and that investment should rather be focused on improving nearshore or shore-based aquaculture. Eventually, the level of capital investment in open ocean aquaculture will likely depend on whether its rate of return is competitive with investment alternatives. Economic Potential The economic potential of U.S. aquaculture will likely depend on both operational costs and product prices. Costs will largely depend on several factors, including U.S. regulation, the technology adopted, and national and international economic conditions. Economic conditions will determine labor, energy, capital, and other input costs. Prices of U.S. aquaculture products will likely depend on world demand and the prices of competing products. Competing products include similar imported cultured products, similar wild species, and other agricultural product substitutes such as chicken, pork, and beef. The level of government support in other countries is often greater than that provided in the United States. Some say that government assistance could promote the initial development of a U.S. open ocean aquaculture industry, but global market forces would likely determine whether it matures or withers. The United States has been, for the most part, a technological innovator, and the use of marine resources to farm new species with high market value could give the United States a competitive edge. On the other hand, operating costs and environmental standards in other countries are often lower. In addition to capital costs, the location of aquaculture facilities further from shore will necessitate higher costs for fuel, security, and/or surveillance. Land-based aquaculture products are also likely to compete with offshore aquaculture. [] They also state that, without domestic financial support, aquaculture innovation will likely come from other countries already providing greater investment in technology development.

Offshore aquaculture causes dead zones aff cant solve without creating EXPLICIT regulationsTim Eichenberg 6/8/06, Director, Pacific Regional Office, The Ocean Conservancy, Testimony before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY STUDY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg64706/html/CHRG-109shrg64706.htmOpen ocean aquaculture is promoted as a solution to the ocean's diminishing resources. However, it also poses significant risks, including escapement of fish, damage to the surrounding environment, harmful effects on native fish populations, and pollution. These risks, and their consequences, are largely dependent upon the location of the operation, its size or scope, the management practices, the capacity of the receiving water body, and the choice of species to be raised in a particular area. Fish Escapement: Perhaps the single greatest ecological and economic threat associated with the growth of offshore aquaculture is the potential to introduce invasive species to the surrounding ecosystem and nearby coastal communities. Millions of farmed fish escape from fish farms because of storms, human error, and predators. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and many other authorities, escapes result in harmful interactions with native fish, including competition with wild stock for food, habitat and mates; transfer of potentially deadly diseases and parasites to wild stocks; and genetic modification of wild stocks through inter- breeding.\6\ Farmed fish are vastly different and can weaken the genetic makeup of wild populations.\7\ Threat of Disease and Pollution: Offshore aquaculture also presents numerous additional biological threats to ocean ecosystems. Fish farms, like animal feed lots, produce enormous pollution. The excreta from an average floating cage farm can produce nutrients and fecal matter equal to a city of 20,000-65,000,\8\ and the potential wastes for a $5 billion U.S. industry--called for by NOAA--would discharge annually the nitrogen equivalent of the untreated sewage of 17 million people.\9\ Depending upon pollutant composition and the cumulative effects of similar cages in a particular area, discharges may cause harmful effects on the surrounding environment. Fish farms can change the chemical and biological structure of the sediment under net pens, and in severe cases cause ``dead zones.'' [] Without careful legislative coordination of NOAA's jurisdiction and responsibilities with those of other agencies, we believe problems will persist, with potentially serious environmental consequences. Moreover, it is imperative that any management regime address specifically and comprehensively the potentially serious risks of offshore aquaculture to marine ecosystems, consumer health and safety, fisheries, and fishing communities.

Turns the case dead zones destroy fish reproduction and cause species extinction American Chemical Society 3/29/06, Ocean 'dead zones' trigger sex changes in fish, posing extinction threat, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/acs-oz032906.phpOxygen depletion in the worlds oceans, primarily caused by agricultural run-off and pollution, could spark the development of far more male fish than female, thereby threatening some species with extinction, according to a study published today on the Web site of the American Chemical Society journal, Environmental Science & Technology. The study is scheduled to appear in the May 1 print issue of the journal. The finding, by Rudolf Wu, Ph.D., and colleagues at the City University of Hong Kong, raises new concerns about vast areas of the worlds oceans, known as "dead zones," that lack sufficient oxygen to sustain most sea life. Fish and other creatures trapped in these zones often die. Those that escape may be more vulnerable to predators and other stresses. This new study, Wu says, suggests these zones potentially pose a third threat to these species an inability of their offspring to find mates and reproduce. The researchers found that low levels of dissolved oxygen, also known as hypoxia, can induce sex changes in embryonic fish, leading to an overabundance of males. As these predominately male fish mature, it is unlikely they will be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers to maintain sustainable populations, Wu says. Aquaculture in squo hurts the environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2014, Impact of aquaculture on environment, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14894/enMuch of the current controversy is centered around environmental degradation resulting in some cases from inadequate coordination and management of development, as well as from irresponsible practices by some entrepreneurs risking to bring the whole aquaculture sector into disrepute. Major environmental impacts of aquaculture have been associated mainly with high-input high-output intensive systems (e.g. culture of salmonids in raceways and cages) the effects of which included discharge of suspended solids, and nutrient and organic enrichment of recipient waters resulting in build-up of anoxic sediments, changes in benthic communities (alteration of seabed fauna and flora communities) and the eutrophication of lakes. Large-scale shrimp culture has resulted in physical degradation of coastal habitats, for example, through conversion of mangrove forests and destruction of wetlands, salinization of agricultural and drinking water supplies, and land subsidence due to groundwater abstraction. However, misapplication of husbandry and disease management chemicals, collection of seed from the wild (bycatch of non-target species occurring in the collection of wild seed) and use of fishery resources as feed inputs, are also causing concern. [] Environmental interactions between aquaculture farms, can include self-pollution and transmission of diseases and occur in areas where the high density of farms forces use of water contaminated by neighbouring installations, with significant losses of farmed stocks and financial returns. Effects can also occur at a distance with interchange of living material between farms and a consequent spread of disease. The pressure to use resources more efficiently, to increase competitiveness and to respond to market forces is resulting in some areas in trends toward intensification of aquaculture production. These are associated with more sophisticated farm management, shift to monoculture of high-value species, and the targeting of more affluent consumers. There is an increased risk that such trends to intensification will increase environmental impacts if inappropriate planning and management of such farming systems and, in particular, the inefficient use of resources and inputs such as equipment and chemicals, are not avoided.

Chemicals used in aquaculture spread destroys local ecosystems.NPI 01 NPI National Pollutant Inventory. (2001) Emission estimation technique manual for aggregated emissions from temperate water finfish aquaculture. Environment Australia, June 2001.Outbreak of disease is more common in farming operations than the wild as a result of higher levels of stress in fish, high stocking densities and establishment of conditions conducive to incubation of disease organisms. Aquaculture provides opportunity for amplification of disease, though notably it also facilitates early detection of outbreaks due to frequency of testing to protect valuable fish stocks. Additionally, increased food resources near farm cages attract large concentrations of escaped and wild fishes, which may act as vectors for the transfer of disease and parasites to other native fish. The use of chemotherapeutants, such as antibiotics, is a concern because residuals not absorbed by the fish can potentially enter the environment in uneaten feed and faeces. [] Chemicals are used in finfish aquaculture for a wide range of applications. Not only are they used in fish health, but also to control nuisance organisms on equipment such as nets, and to disinfect and improve water quality. The use of such chemicals raises a number of environmental concerns, and they must be registered with the National Registration Authority before use.

Arctic NEG

The Arctic Councils status quo mapping activities solve the entire aff better than their single-country effort couldCCPP, 6/18 Climate Change Policy & Practice, a knowledgebase of UN and intergovernmental activities addressing global climate change; Arctic Council to Produce Harmonized Map Covering Region, 6/18/2014, http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/arctic-council-to-produce-harmonized-map-covering-region 18 June: The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the Arctic Council's biodiversity working group, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guide national mapping organizations in the Arctic in producing a harmonized map covering the entire Arctic region, with data on, inter alia, climate and biodiversity. The aim of the Arctic Spatial Data Infrastructure (Arctic SDI) is to help harmonize, combine and integrate diverse data sets. A wide range of data with a spatial component has been generated in the Arctic. However, the management of such data has mainly been national or issue-specific and, thus, many of the existing datasets are distributed among many organizations. Thus, the Arctic SDI will also contribute to improved sharing and analysis across the Arctic, and will be critical in helping to understand the impacts of climate change on nature, biodiversity management, and the adaptability and sustainable use of all living resources in the Arctic. Spatial data can be used in the Arctic as a tool for integrated planning. Arctic SDI users include: the Arctic Council Working Groups; scientific groups engaged in Arctic research; governmental authorities involved in decision regarding the Arctic; and the broader public, including the private sector, NGOs and media. The national mapping organizations participating in the project are from the US, Canada, the Russian Federation, Denmark and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

Specifically, the NOAA has enough maps of the Arctic our ev post-dates and is from a NOAA expertClark, 3/17 Kate Clark, Acting Chief of Staff for NOAAs Office of Response and Restoration; NOAA and Private Industry Share Data to Improve Our Understanding of the Arctic, 3/17/2014, http://usresponserestoration.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/noaa-and-private-industry-share-data-to-improve-our-understanding-of-the-arctic // MS Gathering data and information about Arctic air, lands, and waters is critical to NOAAs missions. We work to protect coastal communities and ensure safe navigation, healthy oceans, effective emergency response, and accurate weather forecasting. But we need to be able to access remote areas of land and ocean to get that information in the first place. The expansive, harsh Arctic environment can make this access risky, expensive, and at times impossible. The U.S. Arctic is a unique ecosystem that requires unique solutions for solving problems. To continue improving our understanding of the Arctic, NOAA must seek innovative ways to gather essential data about the climate, ocean, and living things in this part of our world. The Rules of Sharing We recognize that no single agency or organization has enough resources to do this alone. We have to collaborate our research efforts and share data with others working in the Arctic. An innovative agreement between NOAA and industry [PDF] was signed in August 2011 to help identify and pursue data needs in the Arctic. This agreement between NOAA, Shell, ConocoPhilips, and Stat Oil sets up a framework for sharing Arctic data in five areas: meteorology. coastal and ocean currents, circulation, and waves. sea ice studies. biological science. hydrographic services and mapping. Before we incorporate this data into NOAA products and services, we will conduct stringent quality control on all data provided to us under this agreement. Having access to additional high-quality data will improve NOAAs ability to monitor climate change and provide useful products and services that inform responsible energy exploration activities in the region. We are committed to openness and transparency in our science. In addition to reviews to ensure the quality of the data that we receive, NOAA will make the data obtained under this agreement available to the public. Exactly what data is shared and how it is shared is laid out in a series of annexes to the overarching agreement. NOAA and the three companies have identified the need for at least three annexes. The first [PDF] and second [PDF] are complete. The third, which covers hydrographic services and mapping, is being drafted now. Why Sharing (Data) Is Caring This collaboration will leverage NOAAs scientific expertise and these companies significant offshore experience, science initiatives, and expertise. By establishing this data-sharing agreement and the associated annex agreements, NOAA is better equipped to protect the Arctics fragile ecosystem. We will be providing the publicincluding energy companies, mariners, native communities, fishers, and other government agencieswith a stronger scientific foundation, which we believe will better support decision making and safe economic opportunities in this rapidly changing area. NOAA envisions an Arctic where decisions and actions related to conservation, management, and resource use are based on sound science and support healthy, productive, and resilient communities and ecosystems. We are working hard, in an era of shrinking budgets, to make sure that we are good stewards of the natural resources found in the Arctic. We will hold our industry partners to our high standards, and make sure that as we learn more, we also prepare for and minimize the risks involved in Arctic oil and gas development and increased maritime transportation. We look forward to working with these industry partners to implement this data-sharing agreement. This agreement is the type of innovative partnership wed like to build with other entities willing to share data and work with usleveraging the best of what we each can bring to the table.

Status quo solves Arctic information US Navy has it coveredReuters, 2/27 U.S. Navy Eyes Greater Presence In Arctic As Sea Ice Melts, 2/27/2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/us-navy-arctic-presence_n_4871313.html // MSWASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is mapping out how to expand its presence in the Arctic beginning about 2020, given signs that the region's once permanent ice cover is melting faster than expected, which is likely to trigger more traffic, fishing and resource mining. "The Arctic is all about operating forward and being ready. We don't think we're going to have to do war-fighting up there, but we have to be ready," said Rear Admiral Jonathan White, the Navy's top oceanographer and navigator, and director of the Navy's climate change task force. "We don't want to have a demand for the Navy to operate up there, and have to say, 'Sorry, we can't go,'" he said. The Navy this week released an "aggressive" update to its 2009 Arctic plan after a detailed analysis of data from a variety of sources showed that seasonal ice is disappearing faster than had been expected even three years ago. The document said the Bering Strait was expected to see open water conditions about 160 days a year by 2020, with the deep ocean routes of the Transpolar transit route forecast to be open for up to 45 days annually by 2025. The document includes dozens of specific tasks and deadlines for Navy offices, including calling for better research on rising sea levels and the ability to predict sea ice thickness, assessment of satellite communications and surveillance needs, and evaluation of existing ports, airfields and hangars. It also puts a big focus on cooperation with other Arctic nations and with the U.S. Coast Guard, which is grappling with the need to build a new $1 billion ice-breaking ship. The Navy is conducting a submarine exercise in the Arctic next month, and plans to participate in a joint training exercise with the Norwegian and Russian military this summer. White said the Navy's new projection was aimed at answering "the billion dollar question" of how much it would cost to prepare for an increased naval presence in the Arctic, and trying to determine what investments were needed when. "We're trying to use this road map to really be able to answer that question," White said, noting that early smaller-scale investments could help avert bigger bills in the future. He said efforts were under way now in the Navy to identify specific requirements for weather-hardened ships and other equipment, land-based infrastructure, and better bandwidth for satellite and shore-based communications capabilities. The Office of Naval Research and the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are already funding numerous Arctic-focused projects with industry, White said, predicting increased public-private projects in recent years. He said he realized U.S. military budgets are under pressure, but hoped the plan would help undergird Arctic-related budget requests in coming years by showing lawmakers that the Navy had carefully studied and evaluated its options. "As far as I'm concerned, the Navy and Coast Guard's area of responsibility is growing," White said. "We're growing a new ocean, so our budget should be growing in line with that." The Navy's plan does not alter any current funding, but calls for identification of future ships and other weapons by the third quarter of fiscal 2014, which ends Sept. 30, in time to be considered for future budget deliberations. "Our challenge over the coming decades is to balance the demands of current requirements with investment in the development of future capabilities," Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert wrote in an introduction. "This roadmap will ensure our investments are informed, focused, and deliberate as the Navy approaches a new maritime frontier." The Navy has long operated submarines in the region, and flies surveillance and unmanned aircraft as needed, but by 2020 it plans to boost the number of personnel trained for Arctic operations. By 2030, as the Arctic Ocean becomes increasingly ice-free, the Navy said it would have the training and personnel to respond to crises and national security emergencies. The Navy's updated road map noted that the Arctic has significant oil, gas and mineral resources, including some rare earth minerals now supplied mainly by China, and estimated hydrocarbon resources of over $1 trillion. Those resources are attractive to big multinational corporations and other countries, but they face big financial, technical and environmental risks due to the harshness of the environment, and the unpredictable weather, White said. "If we do start to see a rush, and people try to get up there too fast, we run the risk of catastrophes," he said, urging a more gradual, measured move into the region by the private sector. "Search and rescue in the cold ice-covered water of the Arctic is not somewhere we want to go." (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Ken Wills) Arctic shipping isnt competitive Waldie 14 - Paul Waldie has been an award-winning journalist with The Globe and Mail, (A reality check on the Northwest Passage boom, January 7, 2014, http://prosperitysaskatchewan.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/a-reality-check-on-the-northwest-passage-boom///nemo)There are other challenges as well. The Panama Canal is being widened, meaning larger ships will be able to pass through. And Russia has been far more assertive in staking its claims in the Arctic and developing its own passageway, the Northern Sea Route, which stretches from the Barents Sea to the Bering Strait. The Russians have five Arctic icebreakers with plans to build three nuclear-powered ones. They are also building 10 navigational and rescue centres and already have a network of ports along the route. Transit traffic along the Northern Sea Route has increased from 34 ships in 2011 to about 50 this year. China has demonstrated an interest in the Northern Sea Route and another shorter option sending ships across the top of the world along the Transpolar Route which skirts the North Pole. By contrast Canada is building one icebreaker and a fleet of eight patrol boats. Much of the increased shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic has been from cruise ships, government vessels and barges used to resupply remote communities. The Coast Guard is also developing Northern Marine Transportation Corridors, a network of waterways through the Arctic that are most commonly used which would then be provided with marine services. But none of these Arctic routes will ever be more than of limited use, says Malte Humpert, executive director of the Washington-based Arctic Institute. Arctic shipping cant compete with the Panama Canal, Suez Canal or Strait of Malacca near Singapore, which sees up to 60,000 ships annually. Container ships in particular wont travel through the Far North because these ships typically make several stops during a transit. As a transit route I really dont see the Arctic happening where someone says, Oh we have Japanese computer screens or cars going to Europe. That will never happen, Mr. Humpert said. Its too unreliable, the season is just two or three months at the moment. Even if the ice melts dramatically it will never be a year-round season because the ice will always be there during winter.No internal link Arctic shipping is seasonal which kills its economic valueCBC, 4/27 CBC, Canadian news agency citing a report by the US Government Accountability Office; No Benefit To Developing Arctic Shipping: U.S. Report, 4/27/2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/27/arctic-shipping-routes-report_n_5222172.html // MS A new report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office suggests there's no benefit to developing shipping infrastructure in the Arctic. The organization serves as a watchdog for federal spending, and says deep-water ports, mapping and other infrastructure improvements will only go so far in attracting more ships. For the container-ship companies, the report says one problem is Arctic routes would be seasonal, while that industry needs steady, year-round schedules. The report also says mainstream cruise lines aren't drawn to the Arctic because the 10-day journey, typically in Alaska, is too long, the scenery unvarying and interesting ports too scarce.Shipping doesnt solve additional concernsCampbell 12 - Caitlin Campbell USCC Policy Analyst, Foreign Affairs and Energy , (U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Staff Research Report, China and the Arctic: Objectives and Obstacles, April 13, 2012, http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China-and-the-Arctic_Apr2012.pdf//nemoThe benefits shipping companies might gain from a shortened Arctic passage could be offset, however, by logistical and technical challenges. First, shippers would have to contend with unpredictable and often violent weather conditions. These include ice storms, extreme temperatures that can impair deck machinery, and destructive and undetectable blocks of ice.29 Such obstacles can block passages in the region and cause costly delays. The affirmative will drastically increase air pollutionACCESS 13 -ACCESS is the arctic climate change economy and society, L. Marelle*1 , J. L. Thomas,1, A. Roiger2 , J. C. Raut1 , K. S. Law1 , H. Schlager 2 , C. Granier 1 , L. Granier 1 , T. Onishi 1 , J. D. Fast 3 , W. I. Gustafson 3, 1UPMC Univ. Paris 06; Universit Versailles St-Quentin; CNRS/INSU; UMR 8190, LATMOS-IPSL, Paris, France 2 Institut fr Physik der Atmosphre, Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany 3Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA, 2013, http://www.klimabuero-polarmeer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Pictures/activities/Gateway/gateway-poster/marelle2-gateway-poster.pdf//nemo)The Arctic is undergoing very rapid changes, such as decreasing sea-ice extent during summer. As a result, transit shipping via the Northern Sea Route, along the northern coast of Scandinavia and Russia, is already occurring. As shipping through the Arctic increases, emissions of air pollutants (aerosols, ozone, and their precursors) into the lower troposphere are likely to become more significant. In addition to shipping, emissions linked to extraction of Arctic oil/gas deposits and associated infrastructure will also increase. As part of the EU ACCESS project, we are investigating the role of current and future anthropogenic activities in the Arctic on regional air pollution and the concentrations of short-lived climate forcing agents in the Arctic troposphere.Air pollution causes extinction Driesen 3 (David M., Associate Professor Syracuse University College of Law, Fall/Spring, Sustainable Development and Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies with Cleaner Alternatives, 10 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, Lexis)Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable developments meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. 4 Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns. Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides have historically threatened urban air quality in the United States. This review will focus upon tropospheric ozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide, because these pollutants present the most widespread of the remaining urban air problems, and did so at the time of the earth summit. 6 Tropospheric ozone refers to ozone fairly near to the ground, as opposed to stratospheric ozone high in the atmosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects human health and the environment from ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion causes problems. By contrast, tropospheric ozone damages human health and the environment. 8 In the United States, the pollutants causing "urban" air quality problems also affect human health and the environment well beyond urban boundaries. Yet, the health problems these pollutants present remain most acute in urban and suburban areas. Ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate cause very serious public health problems that have been well recognized for a long time. Ozone forms in the atmosphere from a reaction between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. 10 Volatile organic compounds include a large number of hazardous air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides, as discussed below, also play a role in acidifying ecosystems. Ozone damages lung tissue. It plays a role in triggering asthma attacks, sending thousands to the hospital every summer. It effects young children and people engaged in heavy exercise especially severely. Particulate pollution, or soot, consists of combinations of a wide variety of pollutants. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to formation of fine particulate, which is associated with the most serious health problems. 13 Studies link particulate to tens of thousands of annual premature deaths in the United States. Like ozone it contributes to respiratory illness, but it also seems to play a [*29] role in triggering heart attacks among the elderly. The data suggest that fine particulate, which EPA did not regulate explicitly until recently, plays a major role in these problems. 16 Health researchers have associated carbon monoxide with various types of neurological symptoms, such as visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks. The same pollution problems causing current urban health problems also contribute to long lasting ecological problems.

New shipping routes will uniquely carry invasive species Luis 14 - Alvarinho J. Luis Ph. D. National Centre for Antarctic ... Polar Remote Sensing, (Melting Arctic opens new passages for invasive species, 5/30/2014, http://www.ncaor.gov.in/files/Science_News/arctic-news-30-05-14.pdf//nemo)Two new shipping routes have opened in the Arctic: the Northwest Passage through Canada, and the Northern Sea Route, a 4800-km stretch along the coasts of Russia and Norway connecting the Barents and Bering seas. While new opportunities for tapping Arctic natural resources and inter-oceanic trade are high, commercial ships often inadvertently carry invasive species. Organisms from previous ports can cling to the undersides of their hulls or be pumped in the enormous tanks of ballast water inside their hulls. Now that climate change has given ships a new, shorter way to cross between oceans, the risks of new invasions are escalating. Trans-Arctic shipping is a game changer that will play out on a global scale. The economic draw of the Arctic is enormous. Whether it's greater access to the region's rich natural resource reserves or cheaper and faster inter-ocean commercial trade, Arctic shipping will reshape world markets. If unchecked, these activities will vastly alter the exchange of invasive species, especially across the Arctic, north Atlantic and north Pacific oceans. The first commercial voyage through the Northwest Passage -- a carrier from British Columbia loaded with coal bound for Finland took place in September 2013. Meanwhile, traffic through the Northern Sea Route has been rising rapidly since 2009. The scientists project that at the current rate, it could continue to rise 20% every year for the next quarter century, and this does not take into account ships sailing to the Arctic itself. For the past 100-plus years, shipping between oceans passed through the Panama or Suez Canals. Both contain warm, tropical water, likely to kill or severely weaken potential invaders from colder regions. In the Panama Canal, species on the hulls of ships also had to cope with a sharp change in salinity, from marine to completely fresh water. The Arctic passages contain only cold, marine water. As long as species are able to endure cold temperatures, their odds of surviving an Arctic voyage are good. That, combined with the shorter length of the voyages, means many more species are likely to remain alive throughout the journey. Though the routes pose major risks to the north Atlantic and north Pacific coasts, the Arctic is also becoming an attractive destination. Tourism is growing, and it contains vast stores of natural resources. The Arctic holds an estimated 13% of the world's untapped oil and 30% of its natural gas. Greenland's supply of rare earth metals is estimated to be able to fill 20 to 25% of global demand for the near future. Until now the Arctic has been largely isolated from intensive shipping, shoreline development and human-induced invasions, but the scientists said that is likely to change drastically in the decades to come. The good news is that the Arctic ecosystem is still relatively intact and has had low exposure to invasions until now. This novel corridor is only just opening. Now is the time to advance effective management options that prevent a boom in invasions and minimize their ecological, economic and health impacts."ExtinctionNSF 10 (National Science Foundation Press Release 10 -244, What Triggers Mass Extinctions? Study Shows How Invasive Species Stop New Life, 12/29/10, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118292)An influx of invasive species can stop the dominant natural process of new species formation and trigger mass extinction events, according to research results published today in the journal PLoS ONE. The study of the collapse of Earth's marine life 378 to 375 million years ago suggests that the planet's current ecosystems, which are struggling with biodiversity loss, could meet a similar fate. Although Earth has experienced five major mass extinction events, the environmental crash during the Late Devonian was unlike any other in the planet's history. The actual number of extinctions wasn't higher than the natural rate of species loss, but very few new species arose. "We refer to the Late Devonian as a mass extinction, but it was actually a biodiversity crisis," said Alycia Stigall, a scientist at Ohio University and author of the PLoS ONE paper. "This research significantly contributes to our understanding of species invasions from a deep-time perspective," said Lisa Boush, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. "The knowledge is critical to determining the cause and extent of mass extinctions through time, especially the five biggest biodiversity crises in the history of life on Earth. It provides an important perspective on our current biodiversity crises."New invasive species also collapses our military readiness Pratt 04 (Robert Pratt, Colonel, Masters in Strategic Studies, USAWC, Invasive Threats to the American Homeland, Parameters, Spring 2004, http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume2/april_2004/4_04_2_pf.html)One of the primary effects of a terrorist introduction of an invasive species would be economic damage. The 1999 Cornell University study estimated the cost of invasive species to be $138 billion annually in their effects and control measures in the United States.29This equates to more than one-third of the funding allocated to the total military budget in the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. According to the Congressional Budget Office, discretionary spending for defense as a percentage of the total GDP has been decreasing from 1962 to 2001. Domestic needs compete heavily for tax dollars. Given the drastic increases forecast in spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the years ahead, expenditures for national defense will undoubtedly be constrained. If an adversary chooses the right invasive species, the additional cost to counter its effects could be dramatic. Coupled with a strained economy and a tight budget, it could become difficult to sustain the funds to fully man and equip US military forces at current levels. It might become extremely difficult to fund costly transformation forces. Therefore, the second- or third-order effects of an invasive species attack could mean less money for discretionary spending and ultimately a weakened military. Second, military resources could also be diverted to meet an emerging crisis. Military forces could be needed to cordon off infested areas or to assist in caring for the sick from an invasive bacteria or virus. Consider an outbreak of Ebola or smallpox. National Guard forces would be diverted for homeland security missions and thus not be available for contingencies elsewhere or to support major regional wars. Military forces also would suffer direct casualties from such an attack, as the same invasive microbes or pathogens that attack the civilian population would attack military personnel. Whole Army divisions and specialized units could be rendered physically ineffective from an invasive disease. The ensuing psychological impact would be immense. Third, invasive species could diminish the industrial capability and productivity of the United States to support a war. Resources used to mobilize the nation's industrial base conceivably would be diverted to control the effects of the invasive species. Personnel needed to support industry and augment military forces could be incapacitated or be unwilling to work in areas where they would be exposed to infectious bacteria. Invasive species might directly attack timber or other natural resources used as raw material for industry, thereby forcing the United States to rely on imports or other expensive alternatives for raw materials.New shipping lanes exacerbates warmingStorey 14 - Ian Storey is a Senior Fellow at ISEAS, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, (Will Arctic Shipping Routes Eat Singapores Lunch? Not Anytime Soon, and Maybe Never, April 28, 2014, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/documents/publication/ISEAS_Perspective_2014_27-Arctic_Shipping_Routes_rev2.pdf//nemoWill increased shipping on the NSR mitigate climate change? Not necessarily. While the NSR reduces the geographical distance between Europe and Asia, ice will always be present along the route even during the summer, and pushing through ice requires ships to burn more fuel than on the open sea. Vessels traversing Arctic waters require heating for crew members and even for certain kinds of cargo which can be damaged by low temperatures, both of which increase fuel burn. Ice-strengthened ships are heavier than other kinds of vessels and consume greater amounts of fuel. Most importantly, ocean-going vessels today burn low-quality fuels that emit a fine particulate matter known as black carbon. Deposits of black carbon in the Arctic reduces the reflectivity of ice thus increasing heat absorption and hence ice-melt.16 Until green ship technologies become widely available, therefore, increased traffic on the NSR could actually exacerbate global warming.

Opening the NSR will cause an inevitable oil spill AI 13 ArticInfo, Infrastructure of the Northern Sea Route and Environmental Protection in the Arctic (Federal Media Monitoring: August 19-25, 2013, http://www.arctic-info.com/FederalMonitoringMedia/Page/infrastructure-of-the-northern-sea-rofute-and-environmental-protection-in-the-arctic--federal-media-monitoring--august-19-25--2013-//nemo)The route is very beneficial for us, but it also creates problems. How can we effectively monitor all the possible types of environmental pollution? How can we react quickly to emergency situations? At present - and this figure also was mentioned at the Conference - the time taken for rescue equipment to reach the Arctic in the event of a disaster is, on average, 7 days. This is not just a long time; if we are talking about a fire on the rig, for example, or a burst oil pipeline, it is an eternity. What can be done? This is why the countries of the Arctic Council meet at these conferences. This is because, if there is a major disaster - and all the Arctic countries agree on this point - no one country will be able to cope on its own [] But, as recent events have shown, international environmental organisations do not trust Rosnefts statements, basing their scepticism on data which indicates that the state company occupies one of the top spots in terms of oil spills. [] Oil spills are a regular occurence at the companys facilities, argues Greenpeace, and the total amount is supposedly such that Rosneft occupies first place in terms of spillages among the world's largest oil companies. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen with the Arctic waters, if such careful workers set about exploring the deposits at the bottom of the sea. By some strange coincidence, this unenviable leadership of Rosneft is barely featured on the television programme Oil on the channel Rossiya 24. At least the various successes and triumphs of Rosneft are mentioned in this programme much more often. This is probably exactly what Rosneft considers objective information (Rosneft covers up an Arctic disaster, Sobesednik, 23.08.2013).ExtinctionWWF 10 World Wildlife Foundation funded by the NOAA, (Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky, 2010, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling_for_Oil_in_the_Arctic_Too_Soon_Too_Risky.pdf?1345753131%27)Planetary Keystone The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. Heat balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its regulatory and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect far-reaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years. In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet. [] But until now, a major spill has not occurred in the Arctic. This is not due to an exemplary safety record, but to the fact that most of the Arctic has been inaccessible to offshore oil and gas exploration because of its remoteness and extreme environment. However, as rising global temperatures start to melt the sea ice that has been the Arctics first line of defense against an encroaching world, all this is changing. Within 20 yearsperhaps sooner, according to some researchersthe Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer.5 The long-sought Northwest Passage will soon be open to transoceanic shipping throughout much or even most of the year. New oceanic routes made possible by changing sea ice conditions mean more shipping, with increased probabilities of accidents and oil spills.6 Existing routes will become more congested with vessel traffic carrying oil both as cargo and fuel. New sea routes will be exposed to the risk of pollution and spills for the first time. The worlds major oil companies also are gearing up for what, if it is not carefully managed, could be the next Gold Rusha race to mine Arctic waters for what the U.S. Geological Survey describes as possibly the largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.7 Indeed, the rush has already started. In 2008, its last year in office, the Bush Administration opened a vast area of the Chukchi Sea to leasing for the first time in more than a decade. Oil companies bid nearly $3.4 billiona record amounton 488 blocks within the nearly 30 million acres opened for drilling, in spite of the fact that little is yet known about the impacts drilling would have on the marine environment.8 Marine spills can result from any phase of oil extraction, storage or transportation: from well blowouts during subsea exploration or production, acute or slow releases from subsea pipelines, releases from on-land storage tanks or pipelines that travel to water, or accidents involving oil transportation vessels or vessels carrying large quantities of fuel oil. Dynamic ice cover, low temperatures, reduced visibility or complete darkness, high winds, and extreme storms add to the probability of an accident or error in the harsh Arctic environment.9 The sea ice may be melting, but the Arctic is, and will remain, among the harshest, coldest and most remote places on Earth. Just as the risks of a spill could be greater in the Arctic, so could the impacts. Shipping creates acidification hot spots Hasselov et al 13 -- Ida-Maja Hassellv1,*, David R. Turner2, Axel Lauer3,4 andJames J. Corbett,Ida-Maja Hassellv (Shipping emissions can lead to high local ocean acidification, july 18, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/337na5.pdf//nemo)Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal hot spots of ocean acidification, a recent study finds. These hot spots, in ocean areas close to busy shipping lanes, could have negative effects on local marine ecology and commercially farmed seafood species. Shipping emissions can lead to high local ocean acidification Oceans have become more acidic since pre-industrial times. The average global ocean pH which decreases with increasing acidity has dropped by 0.1 because the seas have absorbed 30-40% of manmade CO2. However, it is not only CO2 that can acidify oceans. Shipping emissions, a significant source of atmospheric pollution, annually release around 9.5 million metric tons of sulphur and 16.2 million metric tons of nitric oxides. When dissolved in seawater, these pollutants are converted into the strong sulphuric and nitric acids, adding to ocean acidification. Increasing acidity poses a threat to marine ecosystems, harming species such as coral and algae, as well as commercial aquaculture species, such as shellfish. The researchers used state of the art computer modelling techniques and datasets to create a high resolution simulation of global shipping emissions effects on ocean acidity. The simulation calculated the acidifying impacts of shipping sulphur and nitric oxide emissions on a month by month basis, over one year. In addition to shipping-related influences on acidity, the model also included many physical and environmental factors, such as ocean surface water mixing and atmospheric effects. The results agreed with previous studies of the average annual ocean acidification, but, importantly, revealed significant differences between regions and seasons. Ocean acidification was highest in the northern hemisphere, occurring in hot spots close to coastal areas and busy shipping lanes during the summer months. These hot spots coincide with peak activity of some biological processes, such as plankton blooms and fish hatching, where they may cause greater harm. On a local scale, the acidification a pH drop of 0.0015-0.0020 was equal to CO2s global annual acidifying effects. The model did not include some coastal ocean areas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as there were limitations in the oceanographic atlases used. However, acidification is likely to be high in these areas given the heavy shipping traffic from ports. International regulation is in place to reduce shipping atmospheric sulphur emissions through the International Maritime Organizations Emission Control Areas (ECA), which are in force in four ocean areas, including the Baltic and North Seas. One technology commonly used to achieve ECA targets is seawater scrubbing, where exhaust pollutants are removed using seawater. This study drew on data from 2000 and 2002, prior to the enforcement of ECAs. However, the researchers note that seawater scrubbing, without additional steps to neutralise the acids that it produces, causes acidification in regions where biodiversity or commercial aquaculture may be most negatively affected. These previously overlooked sources of ocean acidification and policy impacts could be used to inform future discussions of controls relating to shipping emissions or ocean acidification. Acidification devastates the arctic, causes extinctionSolbu 13 - Erlend Lnke Solbu works for the The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and writes for ScienceNordic, (Arctic waters growing alarmingly acidic, May 11, 2013, http://sciencenordic.com/arctic-waters-growing-alarmingly-acidic//nemo)The seas of the world are becoming increasingly acidic and the Arctic is hardest hit. [] As the food chains in the Arctic are relatively short and simple, marine ecosystems are succeptible to changes when external factors impact key species. Something totally unique is happening. This is the first time we humans are actually changing the entire planet. We are acidifying the oceans. Our most optimistic prediction is that the seas will be twice as acidic within a few decades by the end of this century, says the marine and evolutionary biologist Sam Dupont of the University of Gothenburg in a press release. Dupont points out that this problem is accelerating in the Arctic. So the big question is what consequences the ocean acidification will have on the arctic species, ecosystems and the functions they have. A global problem The researcher group writes that the oceans ability to absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide has strongly diminished. The CO2 currently in the atmosphere and that which will be discharged in coming decades will make ocean acidification a global problem. [] One example is the possible extinction of types of the starfish brittle stars. If you expose their eggs to the degrees of acidification we expect in a few decades they die within a few days, says Dupont. He points out that while we might not care about this species, other species that live on brittle stars will be impacted when they die out: Scientists think that similar effects will occur in the Arctic and that they can be even more severe in this region. Impacting life in the Arctic Humans will also be the losers as marine ecosystems collapse. It will affect commercial fishing in the rich northern waters and undermine the way of life and food supplies for indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Changes in the sea will affect human life in the Arctic in many ways, primarily economically. When fish get scarcer, those whose lives are based on fishing will be impacted. The same goes for the fishing industry, points out Professor Rashid Sumaila of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit of University of British Columbia. We will also notice an effect on tourism and outdoor life. People come from all over the world to experience animal life in the Arctic. This too will be affected by the changes. If there are no animals to see, nobody will come.

Warming NEG

They cant solve developing countries emitting CO2means they cant prevent largest emissions

Lefeber 12 Doctor Chair in International Environmental Law the University of Amsterdam, 12 (Rene, Polar Warming: An Opportune Inconvenience, Online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151241)The single biggest environmental threat for the Polar Regions, however, is global warming. Global warming is addressed by the international community through the regulation of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that have an anthropogenic origin (mitigation).91 The temperature in the Polar Regions rises faster than anywhere else on Earth. The causes are not yet fully understood, but it is presumed that specific regional features, such as the observed decrease in the power of snow and ice to reflect sunlight (albedo effect), contribute significantly to the relative fast rise of the temperature. This is caused, amongst others, by the deposit of smut in the Polar Regions which was released into the atmosphere by the emission of black carbon (or soot). Developing countries are the main source of emissions of black carbon in the 21st century. The emissions of industrialized countries have been significantly reduced in the second halve of the last century. Public health considerations were the main reason for the implementation of various measures, such as the use of catalysts in cars, to achieve emission reductions of black carbon. Black carbon is a greenhouse gas under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Climate Change Convention), but it is not subject to the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol to that Convention (Art. 3.1 and Annex A). Furthermore, developing countries are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol emission targets even though these countries are now the main source of contemporary emissions of this greenhouse gas

Warmings not an existential risk adaptation, mitigation, geoengineering, and empirically no runaway.

Muller, Writer on Ethics and Existential Risks, 12 (Jonatas, Analysis of Existential Risks, Online: http://www.jonatasmuller.com/x-risks.pdf)

A runaway global warming, one in which the temperature rises could be a self- reinforcing process, has been cited as an existential risk. Predictions show that the Arctic ice could melt completely within a few years, releasing methane currently trapped in the sea bed (Walter et al. 2007). Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Abrupt methane releases from frozen regions may have been involved in two extinction events on this planet, 55 million years ago in the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, and 251 million years ago in the PermianTriassic extinction event. The fact that similar global warmings have happened before in the history of our planet is a likely indication that the present global warming would not be of a runaway nature. Theoretical ways exist to reverse global warmings with technology, which may include capturing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, deflecting solar radiation, among other strategies. For instance, organisms such as algae are being bioengineered to convert atmospheric greenhouse gases into biofuels (Venter 2008). Though they may cause imbalances, these methods would seem to prevent global warming from being an existential risk in the worst case scenario, but it may still produce catastrophic results.

Plan is too little, too late enough CO2 in the atmosphere that were past the tipping point

Garnet, Senior Analyst at Investology, 2010(Slowing CO2 emissions cannot end global warming, but removing CO2 from the atmosphere will, http://theenergycollective.com/andre-garnet/41653/slowing-co2-emissions-cannot-end-global-warming-removing-co2-atmosphere-will)Scarcely a day goes by without some announcement as to yet another effort to limit CO2 emissions, here or there, for the purpose of fighting global warming. Yet, all such attempts are futile given that so much CO2 has already accumulated in the atmosphere that even if we ended all CO2 emissions today, global warming would probably continue to increase unabated. However, as explained below, we do have the technology to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and it is due to inept thinking on the part of United Nations scientists that we are not applying it. Before going into details, it might be useful to frame the problem: It is since the advent of the industrial revolution circa 1,850 that factories and transportation caused a large and enduring increase in the amount of CO2 emissions. This phenomenon has been compounded by the rapid increase in the population given that humans emit CO2 as they breathe. As a result, an enormous quantity of CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere given that we emitted more than could be absorbed by plants and by the sea. So much so, that the amount of new CO2 that we emit nowadays is a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of CO2 that has already accumulated in the atmosphere since around 1,850 as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased by about 30%. It is this enormous quantity of atmospheric CO2 that traps the heat from the Sun, thus causing about 30% of global warming. The point is that, if we are to stop or reverse global warming, we need to extract from the atmosphere more CO2 than we emit. 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?

CO2 doesnt cause ocean feedback loops its all natural

Beisner, Associate Professor of interdisciplinary Studies in Government and Public policy at University of St. Andrews, 10(Calvin, Forget Global Warming Mini Ice Age May Be on Its Way, Online: http://www.rightsidenews.com/201001128144/energy-and-environment/forget-global-warming-mini-ice-age-may-be-on-its-way.html)The UK's MailOnline did just that this week under the headline The mini ice age starts here. Lead paragraph? "The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate scientists." Right. MailOnline reporter David Rose doesn't call them "the world's leading climate skeptics." He calls them "some of the world's most eminent climate scientists"--and he goes on to cite "Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," "Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group," and "William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University." Contrary to fears of inexorably diminishing Arctic sea ice, Rose cites the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center as reporting that "Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007." Though snow's been unusual for most of the southern half of the United Kingdom in recent decades, the Mail published the accompanying satellite photo of Great Britain during the recent cold snap. The island is essentially all covered with snow. Rose reported record lows as far south as Cuba--something I can attest to, living near Miami in south Florida, where we experienced sub-freezing weather over the weekend. He quoted Tsonis as saying that last week 56% of the United States was covered by snow--something that hasn't happened in several decades. And the "'Arctic oscillation'--a weather pattern that sees the development of huge 'blocking' areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south . . . is at its strongest for at least 60 years. As a result, the jetstream--the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain--is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar." Consequently, most of the Northern Hemisphere is much colder this winter than it's been in decades--and the Southern Hemisphere is cooler, too. According to Rose, Latif, Tsonis, and other scientists attribute the cold shift primarily to a shift in the world's dominant ocean circulations--the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation--from a warm phase to a cool phase, something that happens about every 20 to 30 years. "The scientists' predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a 'warm mode' as opposed to the present 'cold mode'." That's a point made by Dr. Roy W. Spencer in the science chapter of the Cornwall Alliance's new document A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming and illustrated in the graph below. "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles," said Latif, "perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling." Tsonis also believes that the ocean current cycles dominated global climate change in the 20th century, including the post-1970s, the period many point to as driven by human greenhouse gas emissions, but he doesn't venture to attribute specific percentages to the natural and human causes. "I do not believe in catastrophe theories," Rose quoted him as saying. "Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years." Gray went farther: "Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural. Very little was down to CO2--in my view, as little as five to ten per cent." Gray, Tsonis, and Latif all agreed that the findings about the ocean currents undermined the credibility of the computer climate models on which the IPCC and other alarmists rely.

No extinction

NIPCC, Bipartisan nongovernmental organization, 11 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC, Online: http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html)In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present," describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."

12