Environmental Harms Toolbox - Scholars

8/14/2019 Environmental Harms Toolbox - Scholars

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/environmental-harms-toolbox-scholars 1/180

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Scholars Environmental Harms

Environmental Harms Toolbox

Environmental Harms Toolbox.......................................................................................................................................1DA Turns Case – NW – General.....................................................................................................................................4***Desertification***.....................................................................................................................................................4Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Decreasing.................................................................................................5

Desertification: Impact – Large Scale.............................................................................................................................6Desertification: Impact – War/Laundry List...................................................................................................................7Desertification: Impact – Biodiversity (I/L)...................................................................................................................8Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity (I/L)................................................................................................................9Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity => Fire/Air Pollution...................................................................................10Desertification: Impact – Refugees (I/L)......................................................................................................................11Desertification: Impact – Refugees => Conflict...........................................................................................................12Desertification: Impact – Global Warming (+) Feedback Cycle...................................................................................14Desertification: AT Gender Equity Turn.......................................................................................................................15***AT Desertification***.............................................................................................................................................16AT Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Up.......................................................................................................17AT Desertification: Turn – Prioritizing the Environment.............................................................................................18AT Desertification: Turn – Gender Equity....................................................................................................................19

AT Desertification: Reversible......................................................................................................................................20AT Desertification: Alt Cause.......................................................................................................................................21AT Desertification: Alt Cause.......................................................................................................................................22AT Desertification: GM Solves.....................................................................................................................................23AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Now..............................................................................................................24AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Solves...........................................................................................................25AT Desertification: Pastoralism Solves.........................................................................................................................26AT Desertification: Wind Breaks Solve........................................................................................................................27AT Desertification: Cacti Solve....................................................................................................................................28***Air Pollution Harms***..........................................................................................................................................29Air Pollution – It’s Up...................................................................................................................................................30Air Pollution=Species Extinction..................................................................................................................................32***Air Pollution Answers***.......................................................................................................................................33Air Pollution Answers – It’s Down...............................................................................................................................34Air Pollution Answers – DA Turns Case – NW............................................................................................................35***Water Pollution Answers***...................................................................................................................................36Water Pollution Answers – It’s Down...........................................................................................................................37***Dioxin***................................................................................................................................................................38Dioxin Bad – Laundry List...........................................................................................................................................39Dioxin Bad – Dioxin Impact.........................................................................................................................................40Dioxin Bad – Dioxin = Destroy BioD..........................................................................................................................41***Dioxin Answers***.................................................................................................................................................42Dioxin Answers – Dioxin Levels Low..........................................................................................................................43Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms............................................................................................................................44Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms............................................................................................................................45Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms............................................................................................................................46Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms............................................................................................................................47

Dioxin Answers – AT: Trout..........................................................................................................................................48***Endocrine Disruption***........................................................................................................................................50Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction................................................................................................................................51Endocrine Disruptors Bad- Reproduction.....................................................................................................................52***Endocrine Disruptors Answers***..........................................................................................................................54A2: Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction ........................................................................................................................55A2: Endocrine Disruptors – No Harms.........................................................................................................................56***Ozone Hole***.......................................................................................................................................................57Ozone Hole Up..............................................................................................................................................................58Ozone Hole – Key To UV.............................................................................................................................................59Ozone Hole – A2: Natural ............................................................................................................................................60





Ozone Hole – Antarctica ..............................................................................................................................................62Ozone Hole – Impacts – Plankton ................................................................................................................................63Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation .............................................................................................................................64Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn Ev................................................................................................65Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn.....................................................................................................66Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn ....................................................................................................67

Ozone Hole – Impacts – Extinction .............................................................................................................................68Ozone Hole – Impacts – Cataracts ...............................................................................................................................69***Ozone Hole Answers ***........................................................................................................................................71Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing...............................................................................................................................72Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing...............................................................................................................................73Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural .............................................................................................................74Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural .............................................................................................................75Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Health...............................................................................................................................77Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Agriculture........................................................................................................................79Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton............................................................................................................................80Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton............................................................................................................................81Ozone Hole Answers – Nuclear War Turns – Kills Ozone ..........................................................................................82***Species Extinction***.............................................................................................................................................83Species Impact – OW Other Enviro Harms..................................................................................................................84Species Impact – Each Species Key.............................................................................................................................85Species Impact – Each Species Key.............................................................................................................................86Species Impact – A2: NUQ – Species Down................................................................................................................87Species Impact – Hot spots ..........................................................................................................................................88Species Impact – Invisible Threshold...........................................................................................................................89Species Impact – Intrinsic value...................................................................................................................................90Species Impact – A/T Speciation .................................................................................................................................91***Species Extinction Answers***..............................................................................................................................92A2: Species – NUQ.......................................................................................................................................................93A2: Species – NUQ.......................................................................................................................................................94A2: Species – Invisible Threshold Bad ........................................................................................................................96A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species............................................................................................................................97A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species............................................................................................................................98

A2: Species – No Impact: Geographic Diversity..........................................................................................................99A2: Species – No Impact: Tech Solves.......................................................................................................................100A2: Species – No Impact: Migration .........................................................................................................................101A2: Species – No Impact: Resilience..........................................................................................................................102A2: Species – No Impact: A/T biggest wave of extinctions ......................................................................................103A2: Species – No Impact: A/T Intrinsic worth............................................................................................................104A2: Species – Turn: Speciation...................................................................................................................................105A2: Species – DA Turns Case – NW = Species Extinction........................................................................................106***Water Scarcity***.................................................................................................................................................106Water Scarcity Bad – Failed States.............................................................................................................................107Water Scarcity Bad – Timeframe................................................................................................................................109Water Scarcity Bad – Laundry List.............................................................................................................................110Water Scarcity Bad – Agriculture................................................................................................................................111

Water Scarcity Bad – US Econ....................................................................................................................................112Water Scarcity Bad – Climate Refugees.....................................................................................................................113***Water Scarcity Answers***..................................................................................................................................117AT Water Wars- Solved Now......................................................................................................................................118AT Water Wars- People Migrate..................................................................................................................................119AT Water Scarcity -- General......................................................................................................................................120***Climate Refugees Answers***.............................................................................................................................121AT Climate Refugees- No Data...................................................................................................................................122AT Climate Refugees- Alt Cause................................................................................................................................123***Warming Answers***...........................................................................................................................................124A2: Warming = Fires – Turn: Decreases Fires............................................................................................................125





A2: Warming = Species Extinction.............................................................................................................................126***Oil Spills***.........................................................................................................................................................127Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [1/2].................................................................................................................................128Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [2/2].................................................................................................................................129Oil Spills Bad-Econ-Tourism......................................................................................................................................130Oil Spills Bad-Sea Food Industry ..............................................................................................................................131

**Oil Spills Good**....................................................................................................................................................132Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Detergent...................................................................................................................133Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Coral..........................................................................................................................134Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Indict.................................................................................................................135Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Spills = Natural.................................................................................................136Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-No Long Term Effect........................................................................................137Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Large Fish...............................................................................138Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Shipping Lanes Solve.............................................................139Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Shipping lanes solve.........................................................................................140Oil Spills Answers – DA Turns Case-War..................................................................................................................141***Deforestation***...................................................................................................................................................142Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss.............................................................................................................143Impact Deforestation – Global Disease Spread/Extinction.........................................................................................144Impact Deforestation – Extinction..............................................................................................................................145Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss.............................................................................................................146Impact Deforestation – Poverty..................................................................................................................................147AT – Deforestation ...................................................................................................................................................148***Deforestation Answers***....................................................................................................................................149Turn – Deforestation Good – Economy/Food.............................................................................................................150Turn – Deforestation Good – Economics....................................................................................................................151Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling.............................................................................................................152Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling.............................................................................................................153AT – Deforestation Causes Flooding..........................................................................................................................154AT – Deforestation Causes Flooding..........................................................................................................................155AT – Deforestation Causes Flooding..........................................................................................................................156AT – Deforestation - Exaggerated ..............................................................................................................................158AT – Biodiversity Loss................................................................................................................................................159

AT – Biodiversity Loss................................................................................................................................................160AT: Defo – DA Turns Case – NW...............................................................................................................................162Deforestation ............................................................................................................................................................163Deforestation ............................................................................................................................................................164***Toxic Waste Answers***......................................................................................................................................165Toxic Waste Answers- No Health Risk.......................................................................................................................166Toxic Waste Answers - Exaggerated...........................................................................................................................167Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Power Plant Emissions..................................................................................................168Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Waste Water ..................................................................................................................169Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Brownfield Waste..........................................................................................................170***Econ Tools***.......................................................................................................................................................171A2: Resilience 1/1.......................................................................................................................................................172Econ Resilient 1/1.......................................................................................................................................................174

Growth = inflation 1/1.................................................................................................................................................175Growth decreases inflation 1/1...................................................................................................................................176US Key to World Econ 1/1..........................................................................................................................................177US Not Key to World Econ 1/1...................................................................................................................................179A2: Growth solves war 1/1.........................................................................................................................................180





DA Turns Case – NW – General

Nuke war kills the environment – Causes pollution, deforestation, crazy weather, species

extinction, and an ice age

Crutzen et al. 84 (Paul J. Crutzen, Ian E. Galbally and Christoph Brühl, Climatic Change, Volume 6, Number 4

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h8jq3735g0587602/)

During a large nuclear war, the atmosphere would be loaded with huge quantities of pollutants, which

are produced by fires in urban and industrial centers, cultivated lands, forests and grasslands. Especiallydetrimental are the effects of light absorbing airborne particles. An analysis of the amounts of the varioustypes of fuels which could burn in a nuclear war indicates that more than 1014 g of black smoke could be

produced by fires started by the nuclear explosions. Due to this, the penetration of sunlight to the

earth's surface would be reduced greatly over extended areas of the northern hemisphere, maybe evenglobally. This could temporarily cause extreme darkness in large areas in midlatitudes and reduce crop

growth and biospheric productivity. This situation would last for several weeks and cause very

anomalous meteorological conditions. Much solar radiation would be absorbed in the atmosphere instead of at the earth's surface. The land areas and lower atmosphere would, therefore, cool and the overlying

atmosphere warm, creating strong vertical thermal stability in a highly polluted atmosphere. For

extended periods and in large parts of the world, weather conditions would be abnormal. The resulting

cold, probably freezing, temperatures at the ground would interfere severely with crop productionduring the growing season and cause extreme conditions for large sections of the biosphere. Thecombination of lack of sunlight, frost and other adverse meteorological conditions would add enormously tothe already huge problems of the survivors.

***Desertification***





Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Decreasing

Arable land is steadily decreasing.

Jiao 8 [Wu, China Daily, “Arable land reserves continue to decline,” April 17,http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-04/17/content_6624879.htm]

The country's arable land bank fell by 40,700 hectares last year, to 121.73 million hectares, still above

the government's 120 million "critical" mark , the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR) said yesterday.The figures were published in the 2007 National Land and Resources Communiqu. The total arable land

area at the end of 2006 was 122 million hectares, the MLR report said.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-04/17/content_6624879.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-04/17/content_6624879.htm





Desertification: Impact – Large Scale

Desertification could affect one third of all land and one billion people.

Munir 4 [Shafqat, September 1, “Desertification, Drought hit sustainable development, food security”http://www.jdhr.org/publications/papers/Desertification%20Article%20for%20PE.pdf

Desertification has long been recognized as a major economic, social, and environmental problem of concern to many countries in all regions of the world. Desertification is the degradation of land in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas. Primarily human activities and climatic variations cause desertification. Itdoes not refer to the expansion of existing deserts. It occurs because dry-land ecosystems, which cover

over one third of the world's land area, are extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation and

inappropriate land-use. Poverty, political instability, deforestation, overgrazing, and bad irrigation practicescould all undermine the land's productivity. Over 250 million people are directly affected by

desertification in the world. In addition, some one billion people in over 100 countries are at risk.

These people include many of the world's poorest, most marginalized, and politically weak citizens.





Desertification: Impact – War/Laundry List

Desertification results in food insecurity, droughts, and wars – hundreds of thousands die.

Koohafkan 96 [A.P., Senior Officer, Environment and Sustainable Development, “Desertification, drought andtheir consequences,” http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/epan0005.htm]

By impoverishing the natural potential of the ecosystems, desertification also reduces agricultural yields,

making them more unpredictable. It therefore affects the food security of the people living in the

affected areas. The people develop a survival strategy in order to attend to their most urgent

requirements, and this in turn helps to aggravate desertification and hold up development. The most

immediate and frequent consequence of these survival attitudes is the increased over-exploitation of

accessible natural resources. This strategy is often accompanied by a breakdown in solidarity within thecommunity and within households, and encourages individualism and exclusion. It leads to conflict

between different ethnic groups, families and individuals. Lastly, desertification considerably heightens

the effects of climatic crises (droughts) and political crises (wars), generally leading to migration,

causing suffering and even death to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

These consequences, in turn, weaken the economies of the developing countries affected by

desertification, particularly when they have no other resources than their agriculture. This is

particularly true in the African countries in the dry zones: their economy is unable to offset the increasinglyserious effects of desertification, and they have to deal with emergency situations created by drought anddesertification despite the increasing debt burden that is reducing their possibility of making productiveinvestment in order to break the spiral of underdevelopment.





Desertification: Impact – Biodiversity (I/L)

Desertification destroys biodiversity, which destroys food supplies and medical

opportunities.


Another consequence of desertification at the local and global level is the reduction in biodiversity, since

it contributes to the destruction of the habitats of animal and vegetable species and micro-organisms.

It encourages the genetic erosion of local livestock and plant varieties and species living in fragile

ecosystems. It is extremely difficult to put a figure on this loss because of our inadequate familiarity with thefeatures, the siting and the economic importance of the biodiversity of the dry zones. A substantial part of it isstill fairly unknown to scientists, even though the local people are very familiar with it. Reducing the

biodiversity directly affects the food and health of the local people who rely on a large number of

different animal and vegetable species. But it is also a loss to the whole of mankind. Many genetic

strains of cultivated plants which form the basis of the food and health of the world's population

originate from the dry zones: their disappearance can affect the possibility of producing plant-based

medicines to combat specific diseases or epidemics.

Desertification destroys biodiversity – specific scenario.

Safriel 97 [Uriel N., Professor, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, “Relations Between Biodiversity,Desertification, and Climate Change,” Israel Environment Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1, http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Communiques/1997/RELATIONS%20BETWEEN%20BIODIVERSITY-%20DESERTIFICATION%20AN]

When the transformation of rangeland to irrigated cropland results in desertification, the effect on biodiversity is in the loss of natural ecosystems. When the overexploitation of rangeland results in

desertification, the effects on biodiversity are first expressed in the direct loss of plant species and the

animals associated with them, and later in the loss of topsoil and the potential for rehabilitating

biodiversity. These biodiversity losses, both in goods and services, further exacerbate desertification in

the affected areas. They also affect adjacent and other areas, that used to enjoy some of the services,

such as aquifer recharge for example.





Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity (I/L)

Desertification leads to drought.


Droughts occur frequently in the areas affected by desertification, and are generally a feature of their

natural climate. The relations between desertification and drought on the one hand, and human influence onthe other, are complex. Occasional droughts (due to seasonal or inter-year variations in rainfall) and

long-term droughts covering wide areas are both caused or aggravated by the influence of man on the

environment (the reduction in vegetation cover, the change in the Albedo effect, changes in the localclimate, the greenhouse effect, etc.). Human influence can also hasten desertification and aggravate thenegative consequences on man. But the degradation of land due to desertification has a serious

compounding effect on drought, and thereby reduces the chances of the local people to cope with

difficult periods.

Desertification depletes ground water reserves.


Lastly, desertification directly reduces the world's fresh water reserves. It has a direct impact on river

flow rates and the level of groundwater tables. The reduction of river flow rates and the lowering of

groundwater levels leads to the silting up of estuaries, the encroachment of salt water into water tables, the

pollution of water by suspended particles and salination, which in turn reduces the biodiversity of

fresh and brackish water and fishing catches, interfering with the operation of reservoirs and irrigationchannels, increasing coastal erosion and adversely affecting human and animal health. Lastly,desertification leads to an accelerated and often unbridled exploitation of underground fossil water

reserves, and their gradual depletion.

Desertification destroys quality water sources.

Diallo 4 [Hama Arba, UNCCD Executive Secretary, “Joining Up to Stop Desertification,”http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/733/tfu.2004.02(17-18).e.pdf]

Desertification also has serious natural consequences. It can make land areas more flood-prone, cause soilsalinisation and lead to the deterioration of water quality. Unsustainable irrigation practices can dry the

rivers that feed large lakes; the Aral Sea and Lake Chad, for example, have both seen their shorelines

shrink dramatically in recent years. Land degradation is also a leading source of land-based pollution in

the oceans.





Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity => Fire/Air Pollution

Drought causes fires and air pollution.

UNCCD 8 [“Human Health Severely Affected by Desertification and Drought, says the World HealthOrganization,” January 17, http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/pressrel/showpressrel.php?pr=press10_12_00]

Furthermore, drought increases the susceptibility of some forests and rangelands to fire, often resulting

in severe episodes of air pollution, which may also affect neighbouring countries. This biomass burningcan cause acute respiratory disease and exacerbate chronic respiratory disease in children and adults.





Desertification: Impact – Refugees (I/L)

Desertification risks displacing 50 million by 2017 – it’s the biggest threat to stability.

Reilly 7 [William M., UPI U.N. Correspondent, “The Challenge Of Desertification,” June 28,http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Challenge_Of_Desertification_999.html]

But, it's mass migration that raises the greatest fear of international instability.

One-third of all people -- about 2 billion -- are potential victims of desertification's creeping effect, UNUsaid.Left unchecked, the number of people at risk of displacement due to severe desertification is an

estimated 50 million over the next 10 years -- migrants worldwide equal in number to the entire populationof South Africa or South Korea.

Desertification results in mass refugee movements.

Diallo 4 [Hama Arba, UNCCD Executive Secretary, “Joining Up to Stop Desertification,”http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/733/tfu.2004.02(17-18).e.pdf]

Desertification is at the root of many political and socioeconomic problems and poses a threat to the

ecosystem stability of affected regions. The land’s loss of productivity exacerbates poverty and can

stimulate the large-scale movement of peoples. In the next years, for example, some million peopleare expected to move from the degraded areas of sub-Saharan Africa towards northern Africa and Europe. Infact, million people —equivalent to the population of Germany and France combined— are at risk of

being displaced as a consequence of desertification.





Desertification: Impact – Refugees => Conflict

Migration from desertification sparks multiple scenarios for conflict.

Scholz 7 [Dr Imme, Head of Department, Environmental Policy and Management of Natural Resources, GermanDevelopment Institute, “The Role of Governance in Combating Desertification,” Febraury,http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/07-0302.pdf

Desertification can also be a dangerous mechanism for the transmission of conflict. Environmental

migration means hardship not only for the people who have to leave their homes to seek a new living,but also for those already living in the regions into which they move.

Already adept at competing for fertile land, water, food and other resources in their homelands, the

migrants are a significant threat for the residents in destination areas. Add in ethnic tensions or border

conflicts, for example, and you set the scene for confrontation. Look no further than Rwanda and the

Democratic Republic of Congo, the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia and neighbouring countries, and especiallySudan, where you find all the ingredients for polarisation and violence: severe soil degradation, lack of

water, and animosity between settled and nomadic population, between Africans and Arabs.

Pressure put on governments by environmental refugees can result in ethic conflict.

Mouat1 8 [David, Desert Research Institute, “Desertification and Societal Uncertainties,” June, Air Lands Newsletter, No. 60, http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln60/mouat.pdf]

Environmental refugees are typically poor and need shelter, food and medical care. Additionally, theymay bring different customs, religions, agricultural practices and diseases with them, and many

governments, at national or local scale, simply do not have the resources to deal with this situation

(Tickell 2003). An influx of refugees into an area already experiencing environmental stress (such asdesertification) and depletion of resources is, according to Liotta (2003), likely to result in ethnic clashes

and infrastructure collapse. Adaptation is an infinitely preferable option, but may not be viable if decisionsare put off until it is too late.





Drought causes fires and air pollution.

UNCCD 8 [“Human Health Severely Affected by Desertification and Drought, says the World Health

Organization,” January 17, http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/pressrel/showpressrel.php?pr=press10_12_00]Furthermore, drought increases the susceptibility of some forests and rangelands to fire, often resulting

in severe episodes of air pollution, which may also affect neighbouring countries. This biomass burningcan cause acute respiratory disease and exacerbate chronic respiratory disease in children and adults.





Desertification: Impact – Global Warming (+) Feedback Cycle

Desertification and global warming contribute to each other – solving either problem will

solve the other.


Climate change, mainly global warming, results from non-sustainable development: emission of greenhousesgases coupled with destruction of their natural sinks vegetation. Reduction of soil plant cover in drylands

due to the desertification process causes further reduction of sinks, i.e., global warming, which in turn

exacerbates desertification. Warming increases evapotranspiration hence aridity, thus bringing more

drylands under the risk of desertification. Loss of surface moisture due to desertification releases solar

energy, otherwise expended on evaporation, to warming of the lower atmosphere. This increases

warming and reduces rainfall. Thus, desertification and climate change are interlinked by positive

feedback relations. Desertification and climate change are therefore a manifestation of non-sustainabledevelopment. Desertification can result from non- sustainable water resource development and use, andclimate change may further reduce water supplies.





Desertification: AT Gender Equity Turn

Desertification subjects women to violence and loss of educational opportunities.

Mwanundu and Lubbock 6 [Sheila, senior technical adviser for environment and natural resourcemanagement, Annina, senior technical adviser for gender and poverty targeting, IFAD “Gender and Desertification:Expanding Roles for Women to Restore Drylands,” May, http://www.ifad.org/pub/gender/desert/gender_desert.pdf]

Lack of access to water is also a serious constraint that has grown dramatically in recent years due to the privatization of water services, poor service delivery and increasing population. It is dependent on land rights, control over resources, capacity, and social networks, allof which are more severely restricted among women than among men. Land allocation policy is thus crucial to understanding water rights and allocations. Local norms can curtail women’s ownership and rights of access to water resources (Gender and Water Alliance,2003). Experience has shown that water rights are generally appropriated by the more powerful, and this does not lead to a proper distribution and use of water resources. There is often fierce competition for irrigated land, and, because they have less social or political

power, women tend to be disadvantaged. The commonly held view that women cannot contribute fully to irrigation system maintenanceexcludes them. However, in some countries, women are as active as men in digging irrigation canals and maintaining them (IFAD,2001a). In areas of water scarcity, women lose out unless gender-sensitive policies have been adopted (Venkataswaran, 1995). In

addition, desertification forces poor women and children (most often girls) to travel ever greater distances

from home to fetch water for domestic use and livestock (as well as for fuelwood), sometimes exposing

them to violence and forcing girls to drop out of school to assist in these tasks. The alternative thatmany overburdened women are forced to accept is a severe shortage of water for consumption, which

threatens the health of their families.

Increased responsibilities from desertification have not empowered women – all benefits

are illusory and confined to household decisions.


Women are significantly affected when erosion and diminished soil fertility result in decreased crop and livestock productivity, thereby

reducing the sources of income derived from these products. Beyond the deterioration in the physical environment, women claim

that desertification has changed the entire context of their lives (Leisinger and Schmitt, 1995).Besides the resulting increase in workloads, women are particularly affected by the migration of growing numbers of men. Asenvironmental conditions worsen, more men migrate for longer periods, sometimes even permanently. Meanwhile, household and farm

chores are becoming not only more difficult but also more crucial to survival. The migrating men are contributing less and less to familyincomes. Women are therefore trying to expand their productive role to earn incomes and ensure living standards above mere survivalfor their households.

As women increase their contributions of farmlabour and household maintenance, they are also becoming

responsible for more decision-making if long-term migration means that major decisions, such as the

purchase or sale of livestock or changes in cropping patterns, cannot wait for the men’s return. Women

are becoming de facto heads of households, and this is increasing the vulnerability of families to extreme poverty as women assume traditionally male responsibilities without the same levels of access to financial,

technological and social resources. Women’s workloads and responsibilities have become greater, but

women have not enjoyed a corresponding rise in influence and opportunities.

Many alternative causes for local patriarchy.


Despite their multiple, major roles in agricultural, water and forestry management, women are not able to

access the full range of extension and advisory services, inputs and knowledge of new technologies thatare provided to men in the same communities. This is due to many factors, including: • high rates of

illiteracy • lack of land ownership • cultural restrictions on women’s mobility and participation in

public events • an extreme shortage of free time to attend training sessions and meetings • women’s ownlack of confidence • commonly held gender biases in institutions related to these sectors that view onlythe men as the farmers and thus limit their outreach activities to men, wrongly assuming that somehowknowledge will be conveyed to women.





***AT Desertification***





AT Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Up

No starvation – plenty of arable land and agricultural transitions solve.

Phair 8 [John Today’s Farmer, “Earth has enough resources for both food and fuel, U.S.-based researcher says,”April 26, http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=98&x=story&xid=396234]

Nelson says there is enough arable land available to grow all the food and fuel the world needs, as well

as providing manufacturers with a source of affordable feedstocks and raw materials. “I want to make itvery clear that we can get all the material we need for all the products we need from the crops we grow.”

Nelson was a keynote speaker at the Growing the Margins conference in London. He said the it’s an amazingtime for farmers, but warned no one should underestimate the amount of transition and change that

agriculture must undergo in the near future. “There is a major re-alignment of agri-business, chemical,

bio-tech and petroleum companies already in progress and that will change the entire face of

agriculture. I can’t stress that too much.”

http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=98&x=story&xid=396234







AT Desertification: Turn – Prioritizing the Environment

Desertification leads to adaptation which solves


While the survival attitudes caused by desertification have often led to a decline in agricultural know-how,they have conversely encouraged the development of technical know-how, particularly relating to the

environment and conservation. The micro-undertakings that have been implemented in many places over the past fifteen years have made it possible to build up a store of know-how to be able to implement newapproaches. In many regions, the perception by the rural people of the importance of their environment

and the priority given to a better relationship with the environment, have also changed. Moreincreasingly, rural people are realising that:

-a fragile environment on which they depend for their survival is being neglected or over-exploited,

and it is now necessary to rehabilitate it and manage it sustainably;

-the environment belongs primarily to them, and that they must take the responsibility for the land

and set up organisations (groups, cooperatives, village development associations and other localassociations). Greater awareness at the highest level of government has also made it possible to draft and

adopt the International Convention on Desertification, and the undertaking by the Heads of State of most of the world's countries to enter a partnership contract to effectively combat desertification by taking a

participatory approach.





AT Desertification: Turn – Gender Equity

A. There are unequal gender relations now in regions at risk of desertification.

UNEP 3 [United Nations Environment Programme, Chapter 4: “Women and desertification:a dynamic relationship,” http://www.unep.org/pdf/women/chapterfour.pdf]

Despite all those efforts, women living in drylands also tend to rank among the poorest of the poor, withlittle power to bring about real 50 change. They are often excluded from participation in land

conservation and development projects, from agricultural extension work and from policies that directlyaffect their livelihoods. Ownership and decision-making over livestock is normally in the male domain,

and even in female-headed households there is still an element of male decision-making in the form of

extended family members.

B. Desertification reverses unequal gender relations – women gain control of land.


But desertification also leads to a positive change in certain behaviour patterns . These include, in particular, the attitude of the women who have to cope with the problems caused by the absence of the

men, who have to leave to seek work elsewhere. The extra burden of work and the responsibilities

which the women have to undertake are having two consequences:

-women are now demanding greater ease of access to the land, particularly the land they manage

themselves. Women are gradually acquiring the permission of their communities, and are causing land

title rules to develop. Combating desertification cannot ignore or under-estimate the new power

relationship that is thus being created;

-women are becoming increasingly aware of the need to space births. In many places in the world, however,they frequently come up against cultural and religious taboos, the disapproval of the men, and reluctance of their government to support them.







AT Desertification: Alt Cause

They don’t solve the main causes for desertification.

IFOAM 6 [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, “Organic Agriculture’s Role in CombatingDesertification,” http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/pdfs/IFOAM_Role_of_OA_in_ combating_ desertification.pdf]

Desertification refers to land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from variousfactors, including climatic variations and human activities like conventional agriculture. Desertification is

caused mainly by overcultivation, overgrazing, deforestation and poor irrigation practices, which

result in organic matter loss, soil contamination, erosion, soil compaction and sealing, salinization and

long-term loss of natural vegetation.

Various human activities cause desertification.


Even though the cycles of drought years and climatic changes can contribute to the advance of desertification, it is mainly caused by changes in the ways man uses the natural resources, mainly by

over-grazing, land clearance, over-cropping cultivated land and wood formations and more generally

using land in a way that is inappropriate for the local conditions. Human activities connected withagriculture, livestock and forestry production vary widely from one country and from one type of society toanother, as do the strategies for land-use and the technologies employed.

Unsustainable agriculture, in its myriad of forms, causes desertification.

UNCCD 8 [United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, “World Day to Combat Desertification 17 June2008,” June 17, http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/june17/2008/menu.php?newch=l3]

Unsustainable agriculture has direct and strong impact on the soil to the point that it cannot regenerate

naturally. Soil nutrients and organic matter begin to diminish as intensive agriculture removesquantities of nutrients greater than the soil’s natural regeneration capacities. As a consequence, the soil

is unable to recover, as it does during fallow periods, resulting an ever-increasing spiral of landdegradation and desertification.

The principal causes exacerbating land degradation derives from the farmers’ determination to maximize soil productivity, which include: crops cultivated in areas at high risk from drought; shortening of crop

cycles and the reduction of fallow periods; insufficient use of fertilizer after harvesting; inadequate crop

rotation or worse, monoculture; intensive labour; intense breeding and overgrazing with pressure onvegetation and soil trampling by livestock; separation of cattle rearing and agriculture, eliminating a

source of natural fertilizer or organic matter used to regenerate the soil; deforestation; bush and forest

fires; in mountainous regions, crops are cultivated along the downward sloping face rather than following thenatural contour lines of the mountain; deterioration of terraces and other soil and water conservation

techniques.

http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/pdfs/IFOAM_Role_of_OA_in_%20combating_








AT Desertification: Alt Cause

High population and government policy are amongst the causes of desertification.


Desertification refers to the process of land degradation that results from various factors in arid, semi-aridand dry sub-humid areas. It is a process by which drylands lose their productive capacity, leading to foodinsecurity and poverty, in a cause-effect relationship. Characterized by climate variability, these lands sustain

pastoralists and small-scale farmers, but are susceptible to desertification as a result of increasing human

population, inappropriate government land-use policies, settlement, climate change, deforestation,

expropriation of rangelands, land clearance, overgrazing, inappropriate irrigation practices, political

instability and poverty. The livelihoods of over 1.2 billion people inhabiting dryland areas in 110 countriesare currently threatened by drought and desertification.

Salinization is the main cause of desertification.

Nasr 99 [Mamdouh, Center for Development Research, Bonn, “Assessing Desertification and Water Harvesting inthe Middle East and North Africa: Policy Implications,” Discussion Papers on Development Policy, No. 10,http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/zef_dp/zef_dp10-99.pdf]

Salinization is the main desertification problem in irrigated agriculture. Salinization involves a number

of interrelated processes occuring in the soil, for example waterlogging, increasing salt content, and

alkalinization, in which some nutrients can no longer be absorbed due to the increasing pH-value of

the soil. This problem is caused by the overuse of water through unsuitable irrigation techniques ,accompanied by inefficient drainage systems. This type of desertification is to be seen in some of theirrigated agriculture in Iraq and Egypt.





AT Desertification: GM Solves

Genetically modified food could be grown in desertified regions – prevents starvation.

Rocky Mountain News 4 [“Issues of Dignity Focus of U.S.-Vatican Ties,” September 2,http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3155316,00.html]

Nicholson: We don't have convergence of this issue, though I'm working to try to persuade them otherwise.About 80 percent of our corn and soybeans are the product of genetically modified seed, which is

tremendous because yields are heavier, it's better for the environment, uses less water, herbicides and

pesticides, and it's easier to cultivate in harsher climates. There's no science that supports any claim of

deleterious health effects. But the Vatican has basically sat idly by while the European community protectsits growers from foreign competition and makes what are largely bogus claims about food security. The big

problem is the effect on Africa, where millions are starving. The odd thing is the argument the Europeanshave been able to sell to the African nations, which is that if you ever allow genetically modified food intoyour countries some people are going to grow it but you'll never be able to export it to Europe. And this issaid to countries with whole populations under duress.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299







AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Now

The UNCCD has a framework set up that uses a diverse set of techniques to bring organic

agriculture anywhere.


The UNCCD is providing a universal legal policy and advocacy framework for its 193 Parties to

combat desertification and land degradation. In implementing the Convention, the great leverage has been

made through the unique participatory process of local stakeholders, including farmers and rural

populations that offer a number of possibilities to illustrate. In addition, capacity building, sharing of best

practices and case studies, partnership development and awareness raising are some of the areas to be

refocused under the newly adopted Ten-year strategic plan and framework to enhance the

implementation of the Convention (2008-2018). The UNCCD supports member Parties to combat landdegradation for sustainable agriculture as the way for future.

The UNCCD has a program to preserve valuable traditional knowledge that promotes

sustainable agriculture.


There are many local initiatives and traditional knowledge that comes from indigenous people and small

communities that can play an important role in promoting sustainable agriculture and protect soils and

water resources. Traditional knowledge and technology can actually be a key tool for the generation of

better livelihoods, incomes and sustainable land management trough sustainable agricultural activities.The three Rio conventions (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCCD and United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change) are promoting initiatives to rescue and compile knowledge

produced by local and indigenous populations as well as to assess possibilities of adapting them to

modern production conditions. One example is the case of the “bio-mass increase” technology, known

in Honduras by the indigenous people as “Quezungual.” The technology involves the development of

agricultural activities and the protection of existing vegetation and biodiversity. The effectiveness of Quezungal has been recognized by the World Bank and can be verified through the weaker damages

caused by the Mitch hurricane in regions where this technology was used relative to other regions.





AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Solves

Organic agriculture solves all the root causes of desertification.

IFOAM 6 [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, EU, “Organic Agriculture’s Role inCombating Desertification,” http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/pdfs/IFOAM_Role_of_OA_in_ combating_ desertification.pdf]

Organic Agriculture increases the resilience of soils to both water stress and nutrient loss. It

contributes to combating desertification by preventing soil erosion and land degradation as well as by

helping rehabilitate degraded land.

Organic Agriculture helps: Improve soil fertility by maintaining and building a fertile living soil

through frequent organic matter inputs, sustained soil cover, crop rotations and intercropping. OrganicAgriculture farming systems integrate crops and animals and can therefore reduce overgrazing and

facilitate nutrient recycling on the farm. Prevent wind and water erosion of the soils through a better,more stable soil structure and texture and through persistent and diversified soil cover and agro-

forestry. Improve water infiltration and retention capacity through high levels of organic matter and

permanent soil cover, such as cover crops or mulch, which substantially reduce the amount of water

needed for irrigation. Reduce surface and ground water consumption and subsequent soil salinization

through increased water retention capacity, reduction of water evaporation, and the creation of suitablemicro-climates in dry areas through diversified organic agro-forestry systems that can attract and

retain atmospheric humidity. Reduce ground and surface water contamination by refraining from the

use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, thereby protecting the little water available in dry areas from pesticide contamination and nitrate and phosphate leaching.

Organic agriculture promotes a wide range of techniques to solve desertification.

IFOAM 8 [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, EU, “How Organic Agriculturecontributes to combat Desertification,” June 16, http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=23735]

Combating desertification requires an integrated approach. Organic Agriculture [1], including

techniques such as windbreaks, shelterbelts and reforestation, should be promoted and strengthened with

socio-economic measures that address insecure land tenure systems and promote sustainable human

settlements.Organic Agriculture helps to improve soil fertility, prevent wind and water erosion, improve water

infiltration and retention capacity and reduce surface and ground water consumption and

contamination – all measures contributing to bringing land back to life.

Gerald A. Hermann, IFOAM’s President, emphasizes that “Farm practices that do not take care of the soil

and its organic and living content undermine the very resource agriculture depends on – the land.”









AT Desertification: Pastoralism Solves

WISP is promoting pastoralism – the most economically effective way to counteract

desertification.

Davies 5+ [Jonathan, World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, “Global Changes in Pastoral Policy,” mostrecent reference, http://www.inweh.unu.edu/inweh/drylands/IYDD_Conference_2006-Abstracts.pdf]

The future of the drylands lies in the hands of mobile pastoralists. In direct contrast to popular opinion,pastoralism is essential to dryland ecosystem health and it is one of the few production systems that are

genuinely environmentally friendly to the drylands. Furthermore, and also in contrast to popular opinion,pastoralism is the most economically viable means of managing the drylands. Nevertheless, many

governments, particularly in the developing world, still consider pastoralism to be the scourge of both

development and the environment and they create policies that deliberately undermine it. Yet somegovernments around the world are slowly recognising the value of pastoralism and are beginning toaccommodate mobility within policy.The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) is a global network for knowledge

management on pastoralism and sustainable land management. This paper from WISP will presentfindings of a global review on the economics of pastoralism that illustrate the importance of pastoralism todeveloping country economies, the policy failures that undermine pastoralism, and policy trends from aroundthe world. The paper will stress the importance of pastoralism in protecting drylands ecosystems andwill illustrate how this attribute is consistently under-valued, and thus is being lost.





AT Desertification: Wind Breaks Solve

Windbreaks can prevent desertification.

USGS 97 [Publications Service Center, “Desertification,” Oct 29, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/At the local level, individuals and governments can help to reclaim and protect their lands. In areas of sand dunes, covering the dunes with large boulders or petroleum will interrupt the wind regime near

the face of the dunes and prevent the sand from moving. Sand fences are used throughout the MiddleEast and the United States, in the same way snow fences are used in the north. Placement of straw grids,each up to a square meter in area, will also decrease the surface wind velocity. Shrubs and trees planted

within the grids are protected by the straw until they take root. In areas where some water is availablefor irrigation, shrubs planted on the lower one-third of a dune's windward side will stabilize the dune.

This vegetation decreases the wind velocity near the base of the dune and prevents much of the sand frommoving. Higher velocity winds at the top of the dune level it off and trees can be planted atop these flattenedsurfaces.





AT Desertification: Cacti Solve

Cacti can reverse the effects of desertification.

IFAD 7 [August 20, “Opuntia spp: an efficient tool to combat desertification,” http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/tans/7.htm]

Marginal lands are fragile ecosystems, and when subjected to ploughing and indiscriminate vegetationremoval the result has been large-scale degradation and destruction of vegetative cover. The increasingscarcity, if not disappearance, of several plant species indicates the magnitude of genetic and edaphic losses.Significant achievements in desertification control using cactus to reverse the desertification trend and

restore the vegetative cover in marginal arid and semi-arid areas, appropriate integrated packages can

be applied for rangeland monitoring, livestock husbandry, and natural resources conservation.

Spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica), a drought- and erosion-tolerant plant, is being used advantageously

in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco to slow and direct sand movement, enhance the restoration of

vegetative cover, and avoid the destruction by water of the land terraces built to reduce runoff.

Cacti can adapt to desertified regions.


The increased importance of cacti, such as Opuntia species, in arid zones is because of their ability to (i)grow in “deserts” and their drought tolerance; (ii) produce forage, fruit, and other useful products;

and (iii) mitigate long-term degradation of ecologically fragile environments.The various Opuntiaspecies have developed phenological, physiological and structural adaptations favouring survival in arid

environments, in which water is the main factor limiting the development of most plant species. Pre-eminentamong these adaptations are asynchronous reproduction and its crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM),which combine with structural adaptations, such as succulence, to allow this plant to continue the

assimilation of carbon dioxide during long periods of drought. In this way, acceptable productivity levels

are attained even in years of severe drought.

They can develop in severely degraded soils, which are inadequate for other crops. Opuntia spp. have a greatcapacity for adaptation and are ideal for responding to global environmental changes. Their rootcharacteristics avoid wind and rain erosion, encouraging their growth in degraded areas.

Empirically cacti have been used successfully to counteract desertification.


In central and south Tunisia, cactus plantations provide a large amount of fodder for livestock and play a

key role in natural resources conservation. Land terraces are easily damaged by water runoff, but use

of cactus helps to stabilize them, with its deep and strong rooting system. Two rows of cactus pads are planted on the inner side of the terraces (Figure 1). The rooting system is enhanced by the availability of thewater collected at the base of the terrace. Roots are widely spread on the elevated land part and penetrate

deeply in the soil to ensure stability of the terraces. In addition, cut-and-carried pads provide feedresources during drought spells.Cactus can be used in combination with cement barriers or cut palm leaves to stop wind erosion and sand

movement. It will fix the soil and enhance the restoration of the vegetative plant cover (Figure 2).CommonAl planting techniquesSpineless cactus has been used for several years on a very large scale in aridand semi-arid areas of North Africa. About 500000 ha have been planted in Tunisia for rangeland

improvement and erosion control in areas where rainfall ranges from 150 to 400 mm/year.

http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/tans/7.htm#7_1








***Air Pollution Harms***





Air Pollution – It’s Up

Decreases are uneven – Concentrations harm millions

EPA 8 (7-18, http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ozone/ozonetech/airtrends/intro.html)

In 2003, ozone levels nationwide were the lowest they have been since 1980. Yet ozone continues to be a pervasive air pollution problem, affecting many areas across the country and, at times, harming millions of people, sensitive vegetation, and ecosystems. This report analyzes ozone levels in 2003, summarizes the progress we have made in reducing levels of ozone since 1980, investigates how we have made progress, andlooks at our current challenges and long-term prospects for continuing to reduce ground-level ozone. Thisreport does not provide all of the answers, but may bring us closer to understanding the ozone problem,including the links between emission reduction programs, changes in emissions and meteorology, and ozoneair quality.

More ev…

EPA 8 (7-18, http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ozone/ozonetech/airtrends/intro.html)The VOC and NOx emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone have decreased 54% and

25%, respectively, since 1970 despite significant increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (155%), population (39%), energy consumption (45%), and the economy (176%). These emissions declined duringthe 1980s and 1990s and showed continued reductions in 2003.Looking at 2003 alone, more than 100 million people lived in the 209 counties with poor ozone air quality

based on the nation’s 8-hour ozone standard. Most of these counties are located in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and California, with smaller numbers of areas in the South and south-central UnitedStates.The most consistent and substantial improvements in 8-hour ozone levels occurred in the Northeast andsouthern West Coast. In other areas, where regional transport of emissions is significant, ozone trends appear flatter, indicating the need for greater attention to sources of long-range transported pollutants.Meteorologically adjusted trends in many eastern U.S. cities reveal interesting patterns in similar ozone

behavior. Many eastern cities exhibited increases in ozone levels during the mid-1990s followed byimprovements since the late 1990s.

Improvements in eastern ozone air quality since the mid-1990s coincide with continued decreases in VOCstogether with NOx emission reductions from the Acid Rain Program and vehicle emission reduction programs. EPA recently proposed rules to reduce transported precursors of ozone and particulate pollutionfrom stationary sources. These rules, along with rules on vehicles and off-road engines, will provideadditional NOx emission reductions.Since 1990, most eastern national parks and other federal lands experienced generally improving ozone air quality. However, air quality in western parks appeared to degrade. Ozone trends in eastern national

parks/federal lands appear to closely track air quality changes in nearby urban areas.Over the next 10 to 15 years, scheduled regional emission reductions are expected to result in significantlyfewer areas with unhealthy ozone. However, in several highly populated sections of the country,supplemental local emission control measures will be needed to attain the national air quality standards for ozone. Existing emission control measures are not expected to achieve attainment in those areas even as lateas 2015.





Air Pollution=Extinction

Air pollution will cause extinction

Salvador 7 (Lourdes, The American Chronicle [http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/24238] HumanExtinction/ April 14, 2007)

The most common pattern of macroevolutionary trends is extinction. In short “when a species is no

longer adapted to a changed environment, it may die. Extinction seems, in fact, to be the ultimate fate of all species” (Relethford, 2005). One has to wonder the fate of the human race as the world becomes

more and more toxic and people become more ill. Are 60% (Ray & Oakley, 2003) of Americans taking psychiatric medications because they are really mentally ill or is it our society that is sick and we the victimsof trying to adapt to a bad environment? How can we justify that 60% is a MAJORITY of the population thatis labeled as mentally ill? How long can we deny the damage of modern pollution to the human body

before we take action? How long can we sustain reproductive damage before we can no longer

reproduce and have children to share our tales of an earlier generation with? Occasionally I have heardstatements such as “we will evolve to tolerate air pollution.” Such statements are absurdities. Naturalselection only operates on variations that are present. If no genetic variation occurs to aid in breathing

polluted air, natural selection will not help us. Even in cases where genetic variation is present, the

environment may change too quickly for us to respond to natural selection. All we have to do is examinethe fossil record to see how inaccurate this misconception is—that 99% of all past species are extinct

shows us that natural selection obviously doesn't always work” (Relethford, 2005). If natural selectiondoes not work and we will not evolve to handle the ever increasing toxic burden then what hope is there for

us as the world becomes more and more toxic? How can we ensure our future survival as our bodies

become laden with mercury, lead, fire retardants, PCB’s, PBDE’s, Pesticides, Dioxins, pFA’s Phthalates,Bisphenols, and other chemicals of modern day living while the powers that be deny any connection in thename of profits?





Air Pollution=Species Extinction

Air pollution causes species extinction

Foreman 4 (Dave [http://www.rewilding.org/thesixthgreatextinction.htm] Rewilding North America/ 2004)

Pollution, whether localized or global (acid rain, greenhouse gases), can poison the waters and soils that

are habitat for sensitive species, or leach away needed nutrients. Global warming and atmospheric ozone

depletion—major threats to life forms worldwide—are caused largely by air pollution.

Air pollution causes biodiversity loss

Swedish NGO Secretariat 97 ([http://www.acidrain.org/pages/publications/factsheet/biodiv.htm] Air pollution and biodiversity/ October 1997)

Air pollution is a serious threat to the diversity of life. This factsheet deals primarily with the effects of acidification, nitrogen fallout, and ground-level ozone – where the specific pollutants are sulphur dioxide,compounds of nitrogen and volatile organic substances. Another potentially serious threat is climate change,only touched upon here, resulting from anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere of greenhouse gases. In

general it can be said of the effects of air pollutants on biological diversity that: Lower life forms are

usually more affected than higher forms Whereas the effects on larger organisms may be more noticeable,those that can be seen on lower forms of life are far more extensive, as regards both the number of

species that are affected and sensitivity of individual species. Especially hard hit are lichens, bryophytes,fungi, and soft bodied aquatic invertebrates. On land, plants are more affected than animals, but not infreshwater By nature plants are less able to adapt to sudden changes in pollution levels and climate thananimals, which can often migrate or change their source of food. A wide survey of the literature (Tickle et al.1995) gave evidence of more than three times as many terrestrial plants being affected by pollution asanimals. In freshwater ecosystems on the other hand the decline is greater among animal species than among

plants. It has been found in studies of benthic fauna in Sweden that the diversity of animal species declined by 40 per cent with a reduction of the water's pH value by one unit, as against a decline of only 25 per centfor plant species.

Air pollutions causes biodiversity loss and species extinction

Swedish NGO Secretariat 97 ([http://www.acidrain.org/pages/publications/factsheet/biodiv.htm] Air pollution and biodiversity/ October 1997)

Air pollution is a significant contributory factor to the global decline in biodiversity To date, research

suggests that air pollution has been involved in the decline and attenuation of species, rather than their extinction. It is likely, however, that if the trend continues, particularly sensitive groups in temperate

regions will continue to decline until they have become extinct. This is, for example, a real possibility for some lichens. Pollution effects in some areas of the tropics, which are now becoming ever more

widespread, can also lead to extinction of species, since both biodiversity and ecosystems are more

fragile there than in temperate regions.





***Air Pollution Answers***





Air Pollution Answers – It’s Down

Air pollution decreasing

The Economist 8 ([http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751367] Five-ringcircus/ July 17, 2008)

Officials say that, notwithstanding Beijing’s semi-permanent shroud of haze, air quality is improving and

should get even better. For two months, beginning on July 20th, drivers will only be able to use their

vehicles on alternate days depending on their licence-plate numbers. The city plans this month to open

two new underground-railway lines and a rail link to the airport, which could help reduce car traffic

further. The worst-polluting factories in Beijing and its environs are being ordered to cut production or

stop work altogether.

Air pollution is down and trend is up

EPA 8 (7-18, http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ozone/ozonetech/airtrends/intro.html)Ozone levels have decreased over the past 10 to 25 years, and these reductions resulted from emissioncontrol programs. In 2003, the improved air quality resulted mainly from favorable weather conditions and

continuing reductions in emissions.Ozone is at its lowest level nationally since 1980, but the downward trend is slowing. One-hour levels have

been reduced by 29% and 8-hour levels by 21%. Ozone levels are still decreasing nationwide, but the rate of decrease for 8-hour levels has slowed since 1990.The VOC and NOx emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone have decreased 54% and25%, respectively, since 1970 despite significant increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (155%),

population (39%), energy consumption (45%), and the economy (176%). These emissions declined duringthe 1980s and 1990s and showed continued reductions in 2003.

More ev…

Bailey 5 (Ronald, science correspondent – Reason Mag, http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html)

Just in time for Earth Day, the American Enterprise Institute and the Pacific Research Institute released their

annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2005. The 2005 Index looks at trends in air and water quality, the amount of toxic materials being released into the environment, and forest growth in the UnitedStates. Some the best news is on air quality trends. The Index finds that "air pollution fell again in the UnitedStates to its lowest level ever recorded." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that since1976, when national measuring began, levels of ozone in the air have dropped 31 percent, sulfur dioxides aredown 72 percent, nitrogen dioxide was cut by 42 percent, carbon dioxide plunged 76 percent, and particulates(smoke and dust) fell by 31 percent. Air quality in the 10 largest metropolitan areas (four of the five mostimproved are in California) has improved an average of 53 percent since 1980.

Status quo will solve for long term air pollution

Schwartz 3 (Joel, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research[http://www.aei.org/books/filter.,bookID.428/book_detail.asp] Why Air Pollution Will Continue to Decline/ June 11,

2003)Claims that air pollution will increase are not only false, but the exact opposite what will actually

happen. As a result of fleet turnover, and already-adopted regulations, most remaining air pollution

will be eliminated during the next 20 years or so--even without adoption of any new regulations. The

long-term problem of air pollution has thus already been solved. Remaining air pollution concerns arenow a near-term problem. Yet air pollution policy is being driven by the false premise that air pollution willrise unless we redouble our efforts to reduce it. For example, regulators continue to focus on expensive

policies to reduce long-term emissions, such as electric vehicles, transit, and restrictions on

suburbanization. In reality, no one can stop continued and substantial improvements in air quality.Policymakers should therefore focus on flexible, least-cost measures to more quickly mitigate remainingnear-term pollution, rather than imposing costly and restrictive ongoing new requirements on the public.





Air Pollution Answers – DA Turns Case – NW

Even a limited nuclear war would release massive amounts of soot in the air

AP 8 (CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/08/tech/main4001130.shtml] Study: Small Nuclear War Would Shred Ozone/ April 8, 2008)

American scientists have determined that a regional nuclear war would put the world in havoc for at leasta decade by shredding large areas of Earth's protective ozone layer. The countries involved would bedevastated as well as fall victim to the ozone disaster, the scientists' analysis says. Massive fires resulting

from even a limited conflict would blast enough soot into the atmosphere to create an ozone hole over

heavily populated areas, the researchers warned in a paper published Monday in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.pnas.org/







***Water Pollution Answers***





Water Pollution Answers – It’s Down

Water pollution is down

Bailey 5 (Ronald, science correspondent – Reason Mag, http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html)

More problematic are water quality trends. Not because they are getting worse, but becausescientists have never devised a good system for tracking water quality trends in rivers and lakes.The problem is that droughts, floods, seasonality and many other variables affect water quality inany given body of water at any given point. The EPA, trying to remedy this data insufficiency, haslaunched the Wadeable Streams Assessment program which will monitor streams at 500 randomlyselected locations. Nevertheless, Lake Erie is no longer "dead;" the Potomac, which in the 1960s was lined with signswarning against coming into contact with the water, now has beavers swimming under the KeyBridge connecting Roslyn and Georgetown; and the Cuyahoga River, which infamously caughtfire, is now an upscale riverfront dining and entertainment district. The Index points out that theUnited States has spent nearly a $1 trillion on water quality since 1970. As a result, the wastes from165 million Americans are today treated at modern sewage plants, up from 86 million in 1968.





***Dioxin***





Dioxin Bad – Laundry List

Dioxin causes a wide range of health problems from cancer to autism

Campell 8(Jonathan, Health consultant, Natural Therapies for Chronic Illness & Health Maintenance, July 1,

http://www.cqs.com/edioxin.htm)

We now know that dioxin exhibits serious health effects when it reaches as little as a few parts per

trillion in your body fat. Dioxin is a powerful hormone disrupting chemical. By binding to a cell'shormone receptor, it literally modifies the functioning and genetic mechanism of the cell, causing a wide

range of effects, from cancer to reduced immunity to nervous system disorders to miscarriages and

birth deformity. Because it literally changes the functioning of your cells, the effects can be very obviousor very subtle. Because it changes gene functions, it can cause so-called genetic diseases to appear, and

can interfere with child development. There is no "threshold" dose - the tiniest amount can cause damage,and our bodies have no defense against it.Unfortunately, according to the EPA, much of the population of the U.S. is at the dose at which there can

be serious health effects. How did this happen? For about 40 years we have seen a dramatic increase in themanufacture and use of chlorinated organic chemicals and plastics. For chemicals, it was insecticides andherbicides (weed killers). For plastics, it was primarily polyvinyl chloride (PVC). From phonograph recordsto automobile seat covers to wire insulation to shampoo bottles to handbags to house siding to plumbing

pipes to wallpaper, we are literally surrounded by PVC. When these chemicals and plastics are manufacturedor burned, dioxin is produced as an unwanted (but inevitable) by-product. Dioxin is also formed in paper

bleaching, so that most paper products are contaminated. This exposes people who use chlorine-bleachedcoffee filters (most of the products available), as well as compounding the risks of cancer of those whosmoke cigarettes.Dioxin had been a little-known threat for many years near factories that produce PVC plastic or chlorinated

pesticides and herbicides, and where those pesticides and herbicides have been heavily used, such as onfarms, near electric and railway lines, apple orchards, paper company forests. It became better known when

Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese civilians, exposed to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange,

became ill. It has been a hazard downstream of paper mills (where chlorine bleach combines with naturalorganics in wood pulp and produces dioxin).Several towns and cities have become contaminated as a result of chemical spills or manufacturing

emissions, some that needed to be evacuated. Love Canal (Niagara Falls, N.Y), Seveso (Italy), Times

Beach (Missouri), Pensacola (Florida), and the entire city of Midland, Michigan have high concentrations of dioxin.Bizarre health effects, such as cancer, spina bifida (split spine) and other birth defects, autism,

liver disease, endometriosis, reduced immunity, chronic fatigue syndrome, psychological disorders, and

other nerve and blood disorders have been reported.





Dioxin Bad – Dioxin Impact

Dioxin kills tens of thousands every year

Hesse 00 (Stephen, Japan Times, Professor of Law Chu University, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-

bin/fe20000717sh.html)

The U.S. is not the first to admit the dangers of dioxins. In 1998, the World Health Organization dramaticallycut their standard for a tolerable daily intake of dioxin, from 10 picograms per day to between 1 and 4

picograms per kilogram of body weight per day (a picogram is a trillionth of a gram). WHO experts warn

that "subtle effects occur in the general population in developed countries at background levels of 2 to

6 picograms per kg body weight and day."

The EPA report notes that about 7 percent of daily cancer deaths in the U.S., or 100 out of 1,400, could bedue to dioxin. According to the London-based Guardian newspaper, the EPA report concurs with a reportreleased last year by a group of German scientists who concluded that dioxins could be responsible for 12

percent of human cancers in industrialized countries.

Dioxins are not produced deliberately, but rather are "unwanted byproducts of many chemical industrial

processes and of all combustion processes," according to a 1999 UNEP Chemicals report. UNEPChemicals is a division of the United Nations Environment Program. The report, released last May, is titled"Dioxin and Furan Inventories, National and Regional Emissions of PCDD/PCDF."

Using 1995 as a reference year, UNEP determined that total dioxin emissions from 15 of the mostdeveloped nations were between 8,300 grams and 36,000 grams annually, with a central estimate of

10,300 grams.





Dioxin Bad – Dioxin = Destroy BioD

Dioxin pollution kills freshwater trout

Steiner 3 (Christopher, Nov. 11, Reporter, Knight Ridder Newspaper, http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/il/111103_great_lakes.htm)

American Indians knew them as the namaycush, or "tyrant of the lakes," and before their mystifyingdisappearance in the middle of the last century, lake trout sat atop the Great Lakes food chain as a

prodigious predator. When the fish disappeared, it devastated the Great Lakes commercial fishingindustry, opened the door for invasive species to run wild and left scientists with a riddle: What killed off the lake trout? A new federal study strongly suggests that there was an invisible perpetrator that eradicatedthe lake trout, one that finally explains how the king of the largest freshwater system in the world vanished ina few decades. The results of the 15-year study suggest that minute traces of a type of industrial pollution -dioxins - likely played a large role in killing off the fish. "This is as close to a smoking gun as we'vefound," said Stephen Wittman, spokesman for the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute in Madison.The findings challenge old theories that overfishing and the invasion of sea lampreys drove down thenumbers of the fish. Lake trout need clean, deep, cold water to survive. This makes their populations one of

the most fragile in the freshwater world. The fish's deep-orange meat resembles a fresh salmon filet minusthe shiny silver skin. The fish mature slowly and have long life spans, sometimes more than 20 years.

Trout are a keystone species

CalTrout 8 (Trout Warriors, July 15, http://www.caltrout.org/pages/conservation/Trout_Conservation_101.asp)

Trout are important for a number of reasons but perhaps their primary importance is as an "indicator species". When trout disappear from a lake or river, that watershed is in trouble. Trout are referred to as"cold water fish" because, unlike a number of other species, they prefer cold, clean and often free-flowingwater. When our streams and rivers, slow down, dry out or heat up, it's the trout that are the first to feel it.Trout are also considered by ecologists to be a 'keystone' species for watersheds. Keystone species arethose that, if they die off, leave critical gaps in the ecosystem that cannot be filled by other species. If trout

are removed from a river system, for instance, the many aquatic insects that they feed on overpopulate,

resulting in destruction of aquatic vegetation. Meanwhile, bears and birds and other land vertebrates

that feed on trout are left without an important food source.





***Dioxin Answers***





Dioxin Answers – Dioxin Levels Low

Dioxin levels are already low due new technology and dioxin has not been proven to cause

health problems

Fleming 94 (Bruce, Feb. 1994, Pulp and Paper, English Professor at the U.S. Naval Academy ,Annapolishttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3636/is_199402/ai_n8732335/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)

According to EPA, bleach plant changes will prevent between 2 and 30 cancer cases/year by eliminatingdioxins and furans that accumulate in fish. The changes would also permit lifting 20 to 28 dioxin-relatedfishing advisories.The benefit of reduced cancer cases may not exist. The predicted 2 to 30 cancer cases results from

lengthy extrapolation and is a theoretical calculation based on unverified assumptions. It is

controversial whether any cancer can result from low-level dioxin exposures. (1) (2) Even at extremely

high doses (as in Seveso, Italy) evidence indicates dioxin is, at worst, a weak carcinogen for humans. (3)Dioxin elimination is being achieved without taking drastic measures that will force mill closures. Accordingto the Vancouver Sun, dioxin levels in aquatic animals have dropped so fast that officials are consideringlifting the fisheries bans imposed in British Columbia during 1988. (4) British Columbia mills were notrequired to eliminate chlorine and install oxygen bleaching to eliminate dioxin. They achieved it primarily byhigh CIO sub 2 substitution--exactly what has been done in the U.S.An AFPA/NCASI report shows the U.S. pulp industry has eliminated 90% of dioxin discharges

compared with 1988. In 1992, the entire U.S. industry released only 4 oz--a minute amount headed for

zero as more mills reach "nondetectable" status.





Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms

There is no risk of cancer from Dioxin – Studies prove

Stettler 4 (Jeremiah, reporter, the Saginaw News, April 4, http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/the_saginaw_news2.html)

"Flying an airplane is more of a risk than developing some life-threatening health problem because of dioxin," he said. What Dow says Dow maintains that residents along the Tittabawassee are not exposed to an undue health risk. Though some soil

samples have revealed dioxin levels that exceed the state safety standard of 90 parts per trillion, Dow officials believe exposure to the

pollutant is limited. "With regard to dioxin and health, there's a great deal of conflicting information, and we understand that people areconcerned," said Susan Carrington, vice president and director of Dow's Michigan Dioxin Initiative. "Please remember, however, that the dioxins and (arelated compound called) furans have to come off the dirt and get into your body - actually into your bloodstream - before there is any potential for a healthrisk."Based on everything we know, it's unlikely that anyone in this community has absorbed enough dioxin from soils to have any health effects." Companyofficials noted that some of the highest samples were unearthed more than a foot beneath the soil - depths that leave little opportunity for exposure.

Dow said proof of dioxin-related health effects remains elusive to the science community. Officials cited 17

studies of company employees who were exposed to the contaminant but have exhibited cancer rates

no higher than the general population.The studies track nearly 2,200 employees of Dow's herbicide production facility, dating to 1940, that were exposed to high levels of dioxin. Though thecompany has not sampled employees' blood, it found a severe acne-like condition in 11 percent of the workers, which typically denotes high exposure.

Carson said the studies have revealed no increase in cancer rates, diabetes or other major health problems

There are no risks of cancer because of Dioxin, even with direct contact

OneNews.com 5 (“Study finds no cancer dioxin link”, Dec. 12, http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425826/638754)

The Ministry of Health says a new study shows residents of Paritutu in New Plymouth do not have an

increased risk of cancer despite being exposed to dioxin from an agrichemical plant.The study looked at the incidence and death from cancers in New Plymouth compared to the rest of New Zealand from 1970 to 2001, which includes the period that 245T was manufactured at the Ivon Watkins Dow plant.The ministry's director of public health Dr Mark Jacobs says the study found no evidence of an increased cancer risk related to the period of 245T

manufacture.The ministry's director of public health Dr Mark Jacobs says the study found no evidence of an increased cancer

risk related to the period of 245T manufacture.He says there were higher cancer rates during 1970 to 1974. But says because cancer takes more than 20 years to develop after exposure, it is not possible tomake a link between the figures and dioxin exposure

The authors of the study suggest that chance, unknown exposures or higher levels of fugitive emissions in the early

manufacturing period are possible explanations for the higher cancer rates.

Studies about Dioxin are flawed and there is no conclusion on its effects

Fumento 4 (Michael, Environmental lawyer, Feb 26, http://www.fumento.com/military/agent.html)

Both findings were statistically significant, meaning there was only a 5 percent probability they occurred just by chance. That sounds pretty convincing, unless you bothered to actually read the study.You'd first notice that a control group of vets in the evaluation that never sprayed herbicides in Vietnam hadsimilarly high prostate-cancer levels. That leaves only the high melanoma rate as unique to the RanchHanders. Further, for all cancers combined there was no significant excesses of disease or death for

Ranch Handers compared either to the general population or the control vets. Indeed, they had only

about half the stomach-cancer rate compared to both groups . If you believe Agent Orange or dioxincaused the excess prostate and skin cancers, you must also accept that it prevented stomach tumors. Butnobody will say that; certainly nobody in the media mentioned the stomach cancers. The case further

crumbles if you consider studies of occupational and accidental mass exposures to dioxin that date back half a century. These include an accidental release in a Bremerhaven, Germany, chemical plant in 1953 andanother in Seveso, Italy, in 1976 when a plant exploded. There are four major groups of these exposed

persons, along with many smaller ones. In all of them, dioxin exposures dwarf that of the Ranch

Handers. Yet all their findings have in common is a lack of commonality.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/stomachcancer.html




http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/6573/6573.pdf










There is no consensus on the effects of Dioxin

Milloy 0 (Steven, reporter, Fox News, July 8, http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn081800.htm)

Scary stuff, certainly. And what’s a consumer to do? The only health effect that scientists agree dioxin

may cause is severe but temporary acne from very high exposures — as occurred in some of the population surrounding a chemical facility in Seveso, Italy that exploded in 1976. Still, the EPA and theenvironmentalists press their case that dioxin is far more dangerous.That’s where Ben & Jerry’s ice cream comes to the rescue.As I was enjoying some Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at one of their “scoop shops” last summer, I noticed a Ben& Jerry’s marketing brochure titled “Our Thoughts on Dioxin.” The brochure stated, “Dioxin is known tocause cancer, genetic and reproductive defects and learning disabilities... The only safe level of dioxinexposure is no exposure at all.” Knowing that dioxin is in virtually all food, Dr. Michael Gough and I putBen & Jerry’s ice cream to the test. Gough is a former government scientist who chaired the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services advisory panel on the effects of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange on U.S.Air Force personnel in Vietnam and served as one of EPA’s science advisers in the 1994 review of dioxin.We measured the level of dioxin in a sample of Ben & Jerry’s “World’s Best Vanilla” ice cream. We

presented the results at the Dioxin 2000 scientific conference held this week in Monterrey, California.

Two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of the ice creamcontained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPAstandard. Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by awhopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound

child.

Dioxin is harmless – their claims of the impacts are bogus


But since Ben & Jerry’s intends to continue selling its “dioxin-laden” ice cream, that can only mean thatdioxin is not dangerous — in which case an appropriate new flavor might be “World’s Best Hypocrisy.”Despite our tests, the Greens and others will likely persist in fearmongering about dioxin. Why? The answer is simple — politics and money.Promoting the dioxin scare is an effective fund-raising strategy for environmental activists. Forcinglower emissions of dioxin on industry provides the EPA with greater regulatory power. Vietnam veteranshave already bullied the federal government into compensating them for a variety of illnesses allegedly dueto Agent Orange. Now they want a monument to supposed “casualties” of Agent Orange.Researchers have enjoyed over $1 billion in federal funds over the last 20 years. University of Texasresearcher Arnold Schecter, who also has worked with the activists at the Environmental Defense Fund,wants money to investigate alleged Agent Orange-associated health effects among the Vietnamese

population. Conceivably, Vietnam may be working through U.S. environmental activists to extort“compensation” from the U.S.Ben & Jerry’s isn’t the only business trying to exploit the dioxin scare for profit. Two firms, Toronto-basedBio Business International and a Denver-based Natracare LLC, are marketing dioxin-free tampons in the

midst of an “anonymously” started e-mail scare campaign that even the Food and Drug

Administration has decried as a hoax.






Dioxin is not a dangerous chemical


Two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of the ice creamcontained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA standard.Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a

whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.If dioxin is so dangerous — as Ben & Jerry’s and Greenpeace, the ice cream-maker’s science adviser, seemto think it is — then how can Ben & Jerry’s sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the company care about “thechildren?” — a segment of the population continually exploited to promote the political and social agendasof the EPA and environmental activists. The answer, of course, is that the low-levels of dioxin in our food

and the environment are not dangerous. The story gets better. The EPA and a California-based activistgroup, Communities for a Better Environment, are attacking a San Francisco-area gasoline refinery operated

by the Tosco Corp for its discharges of dioxin into San Francisco Bay. Tosco’s wastewater is permitted by theEPA to contain 0.14 trillionths of a gram of dioxin per liter. Last November, the EPA moved to reduce thislevel to zero. But based on our testing, a single serving of Ben & Jerry’s contains about 2,285 times more

dioxin than an 8-ounce “serving” of gasoline refinery wastewater at the permitted level.

None of this is to say that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is dangerous. But here’s the conundrum for the pushers of dioxin hysteria, including their ally and financial backer Ben & Jerry’s.If dioxin was so dangerous, it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry’s would be selling ice cream. Certainly, anappropriate new flavor would be “Tasty Toxics.”

There is no scientific conclusion on the effects of Dioxin


Further, for all cancers combined there was no significant excesses of disease or death for Ranch

Handers compared either to the general population or the control vets. Indeed, they had only about

half the stomach-cancer rate compared to both groups . If you believe Agent Orange or dioxin caused theexcess prostate and skin cancers, you must also accept that it prevented stomach tumors. But nobody will saythat; certainly nobody in the media mentioned the stomach cancers. The case further crumbles if you consider studies of occupational and accidental mass exposures to dioxin that date back half a century. These includean accidental release in a Bremerhaven, Germany, chemical plant in 1953 and another in Seveso, Italy, in1976 when a plant exploded. There are four major groups of these exposed persons, along with many

smaller ones. In all of them, dioxin exposures dwarf that of the Ranch Handers. Yet all their findings

have in common is a lack of commonality.

Some indicate significantly higher levels of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but of no other cancers. Some

find only higher levels of soft-tissue sarcoma, while others find only higher levels of lung cancer. Somehave found higher rates of stomach cancer. Meanwhile, some studies show no excesses of individual

cancers during one evaluation but significant excesses a few years earlier or later.What does it tell us about the harmfulness of dioxin or the findings of this latest Ranch Hand evaluationwhen alleged effects appear and disappear like the smile of the Cheshire Cat? "If you're dealing with a real

human carcinogen," says Robert Golden, president of the Maryland-based consulting firm ToxLogic ,

"one would expect some consistency from country to country, study to study, and from plant to plant."







http://www.toxlogic.com/












Studies on the effects of Dioxin are completely flawed


Agent Orange is every bit as bad as environmentalists, anti-war activists and veterans victim groups havealways claimed. Or so sayeth the media, with headlines like "Study Finds Sharply Increased Risk of Cancer among Dioxin-Exposed Vietnam Veterans" (Agence-Presse France) and "Study: Agent Orange Linked toCancer Risk" (Associated Press Online). These and myriad similar stories are based on a study of veterans of Operation Ranch Hand published in the February Journal of Occupational Medicine. Ranch Handers werethe ones who sprayed the Agent Orange herbicide and thus are the only group of vets known to have

exposure to it and its infamous trace ingredient, dioxin. They've been tracked for 22 years and anevaluation is published every three. This time researchers found over twice as many cases of malignantmelanoma (an often-fatal skin cancer) as among the national population, with about 50 percent more prostatecancers.Both findings were statistically significant, meaning there was only a 5 percent probability they occurred

just by chance. That sounds pretty convincing, unless you bothered to actually read the study.

You'd first notice that a control group of vets in the evaluation that never sprayed herbicides in

Vietnam had similarly high prostate-cancer levels. That leaves only the high melanoma rate as unique to

the Ranch Handers

http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/yfis_nowar_leaflet.html


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/melanoma.html









Dioxin Answers – AT: Trout

Dioxin levels in trout are harmless

Tresague 8 (Matthew, Reporter, Houston Chronicle, July 13, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5886473.html)Flounder, red drum and black drum were found to be safe. It remains unclear why the speckled trout andcatfish had higher concentrations of the chemicals, but experts point to the diet and physiology of the fish as

possible explanations. Lester described the warning as conservative, saying there would be less risk in

eating speckled trout than an equivalent amount of canned tuna and other fish with high concentrationsof mercury. Although PCBs are five times more toxic, the measured amount in the trout is 10 times less

concentrated, he said. Hanadi Rifai, an environmental engineering professor at the University of Houstonwho has studied pollution in the Ship Channel for the state, said she is taking sediment and water samplesfrom the bay to determine whether the problem is getting worse. Although dioxin and PCBs are no longer

in production, both contaminants degrade slowly in the environment.

There are multiple causes for trout decline

Rasmussen 2 (Ray, Conservationist, June 7, http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/trout.html)

During the last 25 years there has been a significant reduction in both the number and distribution of BullTrout, primarily as a result of over fishing, changes in habitat attributable to poor forestry and oil &

gas exploration practices, and deliberate depletion of Bull Trout stocks due to incorrect knowledge of therole of the Bull Trout in the fishery ecosystems.In the early 1900s, fish-stocking programs brought new species to many streams. Some anglers saw BullTrout as unwanted predators that fed on the more savoured trout species introduced by Man. From the 1930sto the 1950s, the removal of large Bull Trout from some streams was an accepted practice, because itwas believed this removal would improve the survival of the other fish. Although the stocking of trout inthese waters provided anglers with a greater variety of fishing opportunities, it also greatly increased thefishing pressure on the Bull Trout to the extent that its numbers began to decline steadily. At present, mostanglers are not aware of the vulnerable state of Bull Trout populations and they have difficulty distinguishingthis species from other trout and char.In additon, poor land management practices has contributed to the dramatic decline of this species.Alberta has limited numbers of the clean, sediment-free, groundwater-fed streams that bull trout need for

spawning. Any alteration that causes erosion, increased silt, or changes in flow or temperature affects thenumber of trout that hatch and their ability to survive to maturity.

Dioxin is not a dangerous chemical


Two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of the ice creamcontained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA standard.Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a

whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.If dioxin is so dangerous — as Ben & Jerry’s and Greenpeace, the ice cream-maker’s science adviser, seemto think it is — then how can Ben & Jerry’s sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the company care about “the

children?” — a segment of the population continually exploited to promote the political and social agendasof the EPA and environmental activists. The answer, of course, is that the low-levels of dioxin in our food

and the environment are not dangerous. The story gets better. The EPA and a California-based activistgroup, Communities for a Better Environment, are attacking a San Francisco-area gasoline refinery operated

by the Tosco Corp for its discharges of dioxin into San Francisco Bay. Tosco’s wastewater is permitted by theEPA to contain 0.14 trillionths of a gram of dioxin per liter. Last November, the EPA moved to reduce thislevel to zero. But based on our testing, a single serving of Ben & Jerry’s contains about 2,285 times more

dioxin than an 8-ounce “serving” of gasoline refinery wastewater at the permitted level. None of this is to say that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is dangerous. But here’s the conundrum for the pushers of dioxin hysteria, including their ally and financial backer Ben & Jerry’s.If dioxin was so dangerous, it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry’s would be selling ice cream. Certainly, anappropriate new flavor would be “Tasty Toxics.”









***Endocrine Disruption***





Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction

Endocrine Disruptors Risk Human Extinction

Illinois Pesticide Review 6 (“Endocrine Disruptors, Pesticides”, November 2, 2006,

http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/newsletter/ipr8-96/endocrine.html)Research has suggested that the average male sperm count has plunged by almost a half in the past 50

years. Synthetic chemicals such as pesticides, plastics, detergents, and toiletries are suspected as

interferring with the human hormone system. Skeptics question, however, why (if sperm counts aredropping) infertility rates have stayed fairly constant. John Peterson Myers states that "it's possible we're not

only eroding our humanity but putting our species at risk of extinction," while Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, says that "it's innuendo on top of hypothesis on topof theory." The debate will no doubt rage on well into the future.





Endocrine Disruptors Bad- Reproduction

Endocrine Disruptors Impact Female Fertility And Menstrual Cycles

Stamati and Pitsos 1 (Nicolopoulou and M.A, Professors of Pathology At the University of Athens, Oxford

Journals, 2001, http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/323)

Over the last decades, many tons of man-made chemicals have been produced and released into the

environment. Many of these chemical substances have the ability to modulate the action of hormones

and are called endocrine disrupters. Cell receptors that have been pure receptors for thousands of yearshave (due to industrialization), become susceptible to the action of exogenous chemicals. The balance of the

endocrine system is very important in the human body especially in females because the menstrual

cycle and fertility are very sensitive to hormone imbalances. This review considers the mode of exposureand action of endocrine disrupters and focuses on their impact on the female reproductive system,including female hormone concentrations, menstrual cycle, fertility, spontaneous abortion and the

development of endometriosis. An attempt is made to elucidate the impact of endocrine disrupters on thefemale reproductive system, while admitting that most scientific data come from experimental animals andthe conclusions cannot be applied to humans easily. The aim is to present available information, highlightingthe impact of endocrine disrupters on the female reproductive system, in order to stimulate re-evaluation inidentifying hormone disorders.

Endocrine Disruptors Cause Male Reproductive Health Problems

Skakkebaek 1 (Niels E., Professor of Growth and Reproduction at the University of Copenhagen,

September 3, 2001, http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=58100)

Over the last couple of generations, we have been exposed to an increasing number of endocrine disrupters

in our environment, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), PCB, certain pesticides, the phthalateDBP, synthetic steroids in meat and many other agents (table 1), which act as agonists or antagonists of sex

steroids. Although biologists working with wildlife have been concerned about the possible effects of thesechemical agents on animal reproduction, it appears that clinicians have been less concerned about possiblehealth effects in humans. However, the increasing incidence of hormone-dependent cancers, including

cancer of the breast, prostate and testis, and signs of an increasing incidence of male reproductive

health problems should alert us to the possible association between exposure to endocrine disrupters

and the current high frequency of reproductive problems. In Denmark, for example, 5% of all childrenare now born after assisted reproduction (intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization, donor insemination and intrauterine insemination) and 1% of all (mostly young) men develop testicular cancer.Evidence exists to support the concept that hypospadias, undescended testis, poor semen quality andtesticular cancer are symptoms of an underlying testicular dysgenesis syndrome, which may be becomingincreasingly common due to adverse environmental effects. Experimental and epidemiological evidencesuggests that testicular dysgenesis syndrome is a result of disruption of fetal programming and gonadaldevelopment during fetal life.





Endocrine Disruptors Bad- Reproduction

Roeleveld 8 (Dr. N., “Project: Effects of Environmental Disruptors on Male and Female Reproduction”,

Narcis Research, September 2008,

http://www.narcis.info/research/RecordID/OND1298981/Language/en/;jsessionid=14b3znbglr7gv)

Environmental endocrine disruptors, e.g. PCBs, dioxins, organic solvents and pesticides, are hypothesized tocause male reproductive disorders, such as reduced sperm quality, testicular cancer, hypospadias, andcryptorchidism (Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome), and other congenital defects due to intra-uterine exposure.Direct exposure at reproductive age may cause male and/or female infertility, prolonged time-to-pregnancy,spontaneous abortion and premature birth. In a comprehensive approach, this entire range of effects is studiedin all relevant time-windows. The innovative Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome hypothesis will be explored in4 case-referent studies with similar design. For parents of boys with and without cryptorchidism or hypospadias the exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors will be assessed by postal questionnaires, arecently developed instrument for exposure assessment, and estrogen activity in blood. For mothers of

patients with reduced sperm quality or testicular cancer, exposure to environmental endocrine disruptorsduring pregnancy will be estimated using modified questionnaires and exposure assessment models. Other adverse reproductive effects are evaluated in several case-cohort studies attached to current studies onorganic solvents and pesticides. One study pertains to occupational exposure to organic solvents among

construction painters compared to carpenters. Postal questionnaires are followed up by detailed studies on prolonged time-to-pregnancy, preterm birth, and congenital malformations. In the pesticides study, male andfemale workers in flower greenhouses are compared to cleaners and retail workers, using reproductivequestionnaires, sperm quality parameters, ovarian function, and biological monitoring of pesticides. Inaddition, 3-4 case-cohort studies on other reproductive outcomes will be performed, including detailedexposure assessment. According to the same model, a study will be developed among female workers onvineyards and apple farms in South Africa with high-level exposure to pesticides. The combined results of these studies will elucidate the role of environmental endocrine disruptors in the etiology of male and femalereproductive disorders and will provide leads for prevention.





***Endocrine Disruptors Answers***





A2: Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction

Scientific Studies On Endocrine Disruptors Are Mere Speculation- They Can’t Be Certain

About Effects On Humanity

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online 7 (“Are Your Products Safe? You Can’t Tell”, JS

Online, November 24, 2007, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=689731)Because the effects of endocrine disruptors may take years to reveal themselves, it is almost impossible

to say that a particular chemical caused a certain disease. There also is a lot of uncertainty about how

these chemicals work inside your body. So, scientists extrapolate. They can't test their theories on

humans. Instead, they have to rely on animal studies and try to figure out the implications for people.

Studies Prove Endocrine Disruptors Aren’t Harmful To Humans

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online 7 (“Are Your Products Safe? You Can’t Tell”, JS

Online, November 24, 2007, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=689731)"Science supports our side," said Marty Durbin, federal affairs managing director for the American

chemistry Council, the trade group representing the plastics industry. They say there is no reason to fear thetoys, baby bottles and other products containing the chemicals because none of their studies has

proved that the chemicals cause harm to people. Chemists for the industry say you would have to

consume 1,300 pounds of canned and bottled foods each day to notice any effects from the chemicals

those products contain. "I'm very comfortable with my kids and grandkids using these products, and that'sreally my bottom line," said James Lamb, an industry consultant and former EPA regulator. "And it is

because I believe the industry has done the studies that need to be done and that they're interpreting

them properly.





A2: Endocrine Disruptors – No Harms

Studies are not replicable

Milloy 1 (Steven, Fox News [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25065,00.html] Coming Soon: MoreChemical Scares Than Anyone Dreamed Possible/ May 20, 2001)

The endocrine-disruptor scare flared up about five years ago with the publication of the book Our

Stolen Future, an alarmist compendium of anecdotal tales of chemicals allegedly wreaking havoc on the hormonal processes of humans and wildlife.

The twist with the endocrine disruptor scare was the novel but unsubstantiated notion that even very

low exposures to certain chemicals, below what were previously viewed as safe levels, could be harmful.After five years and $5 million of taxpayer-funded research, the case for the Our Stolen Future theory has only weakened. Though the Our Stolen

Future activists have little more than assertions, they advance their cause with financial support from left-wing foundations and

their political connections. Their claims are based in the work of Our Stolen Future cult leader and University of Missouri researcher Frederick vom Saal. His experiments on laboratory mice supposedly show that very

low doses of some chemicals — thousands of times lower than current safe standards — increased

prostate weight in male mice and advanced puberty in female mice. No other laboratory has been able

to reproduce vom Saal's work. Traditionally, reproducibility of experiments is necessary before results

may be considered "scientific." But vom Saal all but guaranteed that his work will never be reproduced. His experiments

involved a unique strain of mice that he inbred in his laboratory for about 20 years. When the mice

stopped producing the results he wanted, he killed them. Without the same strain of mouse, vom Saal'sexperiments can't be reproduced by others and his work can't be thoroughly evaluated.

Fruits and veggies confound studies

Avery 99 (Dennis, Journal of Commerce [http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/oct99/consumer_ave0317.html]Scare tactics on pesticide/ March 17, 1999)

One of their biggest multipliers was for "endocrine disruption." But why? No one has ever demonstrated

any health risk from endocrine disruption - from pesticides or anything else. Some activists claim

pesticides disrupt the functioning of the body's endocrine system, which controls hormone secretion.

However, there are vastly more "endocrine disrupters" in fruits and vegetables themselves - and even

Consumer Reports agrees those are mostly good for you.

Geographical disparities in studies prove that the effects of endocrine disruption aren’t bad

Gough 97 (Michael, Cato Institute [http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-mg121597.html] Endocrine Disrupters,Politics, Pesticides, the Cost of Food and Health/ December 1997)

The chemicals that have those activities were called "environmental estrogens" or "endocrine disrupters."There was no more evidence to link them to every abnormality in wildlife than there had been in the

1960s to link every human cancer to chemicals. The absence of evidence wasn't much of a problem. Colborn and her colleagues believed that chemicals were the culprit, and the press and much of the public, nutured on the idea that chemicals were bad, didn't require evidence. Even so,Colborn had a problem that EPA faced in its early days. Soon after EPA was established, the agency leaders realized that protecting wildlife and theenvironment might be a good thing, but that Congress might not decide to lavish funds on such activities. They were sure, however, that Congress wouldthrow money at programs that were going to protect human health from environmental risks.(3) Whether Colborn knew that history or not, she apparently

realized that any real splash for endocrine disrupters depended on tying them to human health effects. Using the same techniques she'd

used to catalogue the adverse effects of endocrine disrupters on wildlife, she reviewed the literature

about human health effects that someway or another might be related to disruption of hormoneactivity. The list was long, including cancers, birth defects, and learning disabilities, but the big hitter on thelist was decreased sperm counts. According to Colborn and other's analyses of sperm counts made in

different parts of the world under different conditions of nutrition and stress and at different time

periods, sperm counts had decreased by 50 percent in the post-World War II period. If there's anything thatcatches the attention of Congress, it's risks to males. Congress banned leaded gasoline after EPA released a report that said atmospheric lead was a cause of heart attacks in middle-aged men. The reported decrease in sperm counts leaped up for attention, and attention it got. Congressional hearings were held,

magazine articles were written, experts opined about endocrine disrupters and sexual dysfunctions. And then it fell apart. Scientists found

large geographical variations in sperm counts that have not changed over time. Those geographical

variations and poor study designs accounted for the reported decrease. That scare went away, butendocrine disrupters were here to stay.

http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-mg121597.html#N_3_








***Ozone Hole***





Ozone Hole Up

Ozone hole is getting bigger.

National Academy of Sciences 3 (THE OZONE DEPLETION PHENOMENON,

http://www.earthplatform.com/getting/bigger)Like an infection that grows more and more virulent, the continent-size hole in Earth's ozone layerkeeps

getting bigger and bigger. Each year since the late 1970s, much of the protective layer of stratospheric

ozoneabove Antarctica has disappeared during September, creating what is popularly known as the

ozone hole. The Antarctic hole now measures about 9 million square miles, nearly the size of North

America. Less dramatic, still significant, depletion of ozone levels has been recorded around the globe.With less ozone in the atmosphere, more ultraviolet radiation strikes Earth, causing more skin cancer, eyedamage, and possible harm to crops.





Ozone Hole – Key To UV

Ozone depletion is key to reducing UV radiation.

WHO 8 (World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/globalchange/ozone_uv/en/)

Depletion of the ozone layer is likely to aggravate existing health effects caused by exposure to UVradiation, as stratospheric ozone is a particularly effective UV radiation absorber. As the ozone layer

becomes thinner, the protective filter provided by the atmosphere is progressively reduced.Consequently, human beings and the environment are exposed to higher UV radiation levels, andespecially higher UVB levels that have the greatest impact on human health, animals, marine

organisms and plant life. Computational models predict that a 10% decrease in stratospheric ozone could

cause an additional 300,000 non-melanoma and 4500 melanoma skin cancers and between 1.6 and 1.75

million more cases of cataracts worldwide every year.

Ozone hole controls UV levels.

Heidorn 93+ (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+

agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)With the loss of stratospheric ozone, the atmosphere becomes more transparent to solar ultraviolet

radiation. Only a certain type of UV is affected however, that UV radiation band known as UV-B

(wavelengths from 280 to 315 nm). As ozone declines, the intensity of UV-B increases and the spectral

composition of solar radiation shifts toward more radiation in the shorter wavelengths. The currentestimated increase in biologically active UV radiation in the Northern Hemisphere is 5% per decade at 30oNand about 10% per decade in the polar regions. In the southern hemisphere, the decrease at 30oS is also 5%

per decade while in the polar regions (85oS) the increase has been 40% per decade. In contrast, little changehas been found in the equatorial regions (Mandronich et al, 1991).





Ozone Hole – A2: Natural

Ozone depletion is anthropogenic. And increasing in size.

GeoConnexion 7 (Oct. 5, http://www.geoconnexion.com/geouk_news_article/Metop-A-satellite-measures-

ozone-hole/2301)The main cause of the depletion of the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer is the release of chlorinated

fluorocarbons. This depletion, which is most noticeable over the Arctic and Antarctic regions, is of particular environmental concern as the resulting increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause seriousdamage to human health, agriculture, forests and water ecosystems. The DLR noted a strong reversal in

the spreading of the ozone hole in mid-September because of an unusual meteorological constellation

in the south polar stratosphere. An unusually high intensity of planetary waves – which cause air circulation around the world – resulted in the thinning of the ozone layer, especially over the south Atlanticand South America. At the same time, the ozone level rose over Australia and the ozone hole was at its

minimum size on 20 September.





Ozone – Origin – Anthropogenic and Natural

Holes in the ozone layer are both anthropogenic and natural.

ESA 2 (European Space Agency, Feb. 26, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mVY9PKMuSGYJ:www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html%3Fpid%3D7542+%22ozone+hole%22+%22anthropogenic%22+%22caused+by+human%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us)

The Earth atmosphere resembles a Swiss cheese. There many ozone holes in the stratosphere as well asin the troposphere. In the stratosphere chlorine acts as the aggressive catalytic. The ozone holes over the

Antarctic, the arctic as well as the middle latitudes are clearly man-made. They are a consequence of

the anthropogenic introduction of CFC's. In contrast in the troposphere bromine is acting as the catalytic.So far two ozone holes over the arctic (January until March) and one over the Antarctic (autumn) have

been identified. In these cases it is a natural phenomenon caused by the destructive effect of bromine

which originates in seawater. There are still many unsolved matters in the climate who-dunnit. For Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson the detail work comes first. "We are currently investigating with the computer ", saysPaul Crutzen, "Whether reactive halogens - chlorine, bromine und iodine - can also play a role in ozonechemistry in other regions and seasons."





Ozone Hole – Antarctica

Ozone depletion is Antarctica’s biggest threat.

World Ecological Problems 5 (“Antarctica - Effects of global warming”

http://ecologicalproblems.blogspot.com/2007/12/antarctica-effects-of-global-warming.html)

Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and fifth largest continent with area of 14.4 million square kilometers (5.4 millionsquare miles), overlying the South Pole. About 98 % of Antarctica is covered with ice and this ice is thick in averageabout 1,6 kilometers (1 mile), but will it stay this thick in future? Very unlikely with the current global warmingsituation which affects Antarctica much more than other continents because of the continent's icy mass. This

particularly applies to Antarctic Peninsula that is warming five times more than average. Melting of the ice causes

sea level increase and the biggest ice melting so far (according to NASA) happened in 2005 when a mass of ice

about the size of California briefly melted and refrozed as the result of high temperatures. The area of

Antarctic Peninsula had significant increase in annual average temperature at about 2,5 °C in the past 50

years which is almost three times faster than in the rest of the world. Global warming especially affects the areaof Antarctic Peninsula. But ice melting isn't the only problem in Antarctica, there is a giant ozone hole over

Antarctica that continues to grow as we speak and was caused with the emission of chlorofluorocarbons into theatmosphere. Ozone layer protects Earth from dangerous UVB ultraviolet light from the Sun by absorbing it.

Very high UVB levels have some very damaging effects on human health, particularly in form of skin cancer.Collapsing of ice shelves is really a trend in Antarctic Peninsula and this negative trend will continue in futuretoo as scientists agree that temperature of Antarctica will rise over the next 50 years causing even more collapsingand sea level increase. Life on Antarctica is also affected since for instance in last 30 years Adelie Penguin

populations shrunk by more than 30 % because of Antarctica's changed weather conditions. As said beforeAntarctic area is extremely sensitive to global warming because of its icy mass and therefore deserves special

attention when talking about current ecological problems. Many agree that global warming is currentlyecological problem No.1, and if we accept this fact than we really have to do something with areas like Antarcticaand its opposite Africa that are least to blame for global warming, but ironically mostly exposed to global warmingeffect.





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Plankton

Increased UV radiation kills plankton.

Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, 08 (May 22, http://www.environment.no/T

ema/Klima/Ozonlaget/)Increasing amounts of UV radiation may have a negative impact on the production of plankton and

other tiny organisms at the base of the marine food web. These organisms are the ultimate source of

food for all other living organisms in the oceans. A large increase in UV radiation may also disrupt manyecosystems on land, significantly reducing yields and causing food shortages.

UV radiation stops plankton from photosynthesis.

Sparling 1 (Brien, May 30, NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division,http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/radiation.html

The penetration of increased amounts of UV-B light has caused great concern over the health of

marine plankton that densly populate the top 2 meters of ocean water. The natural protective-res)ponceof most chlorophyll containing cells to increased light-radiation is to produce more light-absorbing pigments

but this protective responce is not triggered by UV-B light. Another possible responce of plankton is to sink deeper into the water but this reduces the amount of visible light they need for photosynthesis, and

thereby reduces their growth and reproduction rate. In other words, the amount of food and oxygen

produced by plankton could be reduced by UV exposure without killing individual organisms. Thereare several other considerations: Ultraviolet levels are over 1,000 times higher at the equator than at the

polar regions so it is presumed that marine life at the equator is much better adapted to the higher

enviromental UV light than organisms in the polar regions. The current concern of marine biologists is

mostly over the more sensitive antarctic phytoplankton which normally would recieve very low doses

of UV. Only one large-scale field survey of Anarctic phytoplankton has been carried out so far [Smith et.al _Science_1992] ; they found a 6-12% drop in phytoplankton productivity once their ship entered the area of the spring-time ozone hole. Since the hole only lasts from 10-12weeks this translates into a 2-4%loss overall,a measurable but not yet catastrophic loss.

UV radiation devastates plankton.

Heidorn 93 + (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)

Over the millennia, the ocean ecosystem has developed an equilibrium with incident solar radiation. The

thinning of the ozone layer disrupts this delicate balance with serious consequences for aquatic

productivity and ecosystem function. UV-B radiation 1) affects adaptive strategies, 2) impairs

important physiological functions, and 3) threatens many marine organisms during their development

stages (Hader, Worrest and Kumar, 1991). Phytoplankton at the bottom of the food chain are at

particular risk (SCOPE, 1992). Phytoplankton presently convert 104 billion tons of atmospheric carbon

annually into organic material (Houghton and Woodwell, 1989). Therefore, scientists have also

expressed concern the ozone-induced loss of phytoplankton may trigger a positive feedback in the

global carbon cycle which would further exacerbate the greenhouse effect (Hader, Worrest and Kumar,1991; SCOPE, 1992). A number of short-term studies have shown that phytoplankton production is reduced by increasing levels of UV-B. Eggs and larvae of many marine organisms are also sensitive to UV radiation.Marine organisms have a number of mechanisms which increase their tolerance to ambient UV radiation, butlittle is currently known about the impact of sustained increases in UV-B (SCOPE, 1992). Plankton orient

themselves within the water column using external factors; most, however, do not possess UV-B

photoreceptors and thus cannot avoid high levels of UV-B radiation (Hader, Worrest and Kumar, 1991).Work by Hader and Worrest (1991) indicates that mobility/orientation mechanisms in phytoplankton are

impaired by solar UV radiation. This inability to adjust to increased UV-B radiation may result in

massive inhibition of photosynthesis.

http://www.environment.no/T

http://www.environment.no/T





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation

Heidorn 93+ (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)

The impact of UV radiation on vegetation has been extensively studied through growth chamber studies,

greenhouse studies and field studies. Impacts on chloroplasts have been determined using in vitro techniques.These studies conclude that UV-B radiation may affect terrestrial plants through changes in: 1)

Photosynthesis and transpiration, 2) plant growth, 3) competitive balance in a community, 4)

pollination and flowering, 5) yield, 6) DNA and cellular damage, and 7) susceptibility to disease,

environmental stress and pollution (Tevini and Teramura, 1989; Teramura et al., 1991; Stapleton, A.E.,1992; SCOPE, 1992). Approximately two thirds of 300 plant species and cultivars studied appear to be

susceptible to damage from increased UV-B radiation (Sullivan and Teramura, 1989). The effect of, andsensitivity to, UV-B varies widely among species as well as among genotypes of a species (Tevini andTeramura, 1989). Some of the specific impacts are summarized below.





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn Ev.

UV hurts photosynthesis and transpiration.

Heidorn 93+ (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-

qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)Photosynthesis and transpiration - When plants in a growth chamber are exposed to high UV-B levels, the

effects on photosynthesis as measured by CO2- assimilation were generally negative (Tevini andTeramura, 1989). One possible explanation for the decrease in some species may be linked to stomatal

closure by enhanced UV-B, thereby reducing the uptake of CO2. Reductions in transpiration in UV-B

sensitive seedlings such as cucumber and sunflower also suggest UV-B induced stomatal closure (Teviniand Teramura, 1989).

UV hurts plant growth

Heidorn 93+ (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+

agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)UV-B radiation reduces growth characteristics such as plant height and leaf area in sensitive species

and cultivars (Tevini and Teramura, 1989). Reduced growth rates in cucumbers continued throughout

the development of the plant whereas with soybeans, the effects varied with plant growth stage. Three

out of ten conifer species showed reduced seedling growth under enhanced UV-B radiation (Sullivanand Teramura, 1988). After three years of irradiation, Sullivan and Teramura (1991) found tree biomass

was significantly reduced by as much as 20%. They suggest that the effects may accumulate and that

increased UV-B radiation could significantly reduce the growth of loblolly pine over its lifetime. Six of

sixteen rice cultivars showed a statistically significant decrease in total biomass with increased UV-B

radiation under a 20% ozone reduction scenario over the Equator (Teramura et al., 1991). In the

sensitive cultivars, photosynthetic capacity, leaf area and tiller numbers were also reduced.

UV hurts competitive balance in community.


Enhanced UV-B radiation can cause changes in the growth form of plants without necessarily directly

decreasing plant photosynthetic production (Teramura et al., 1991). Reduction in leaf length, increased

branching and increased leaf numbers seem to be rather general impacts among different crop and

weed species. Such changes, while not important in a single species stand, may have major

consequences in a mixed community as species compete for available light and nutrients. For example,

in a mixed wheat and wild oat field, the wheat was favoured under enhanced UV-B radiation because

wild oat showed greater reductions in stem elongation and leaf blade lengths than the wheat. This

differential response allowed the wheat to dominate the field. In this study, neither species showedreduced photosynthetic capacity as a result of the increased radiation (Tevini and Teramura, 1989; Teramura

et al., 1991).





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn

UV hurts pollination and flowering.


qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)Pollen is well protected from UV-B radiation. Several in vitro studies support the possibility of UV-B impactson pollen germination; however, no in vivo conformation of these results has been reported (Tevini andTeramura, 1989). UV-B radiation may indirectly influence pollination in some species by detrimental

effects on the pollinators and flowering. Flowering was shown to be inhibited in some species by

increased UV-B radiation (Tevini and Teramura, 1989). In addition to reducing flower numbers, it is

suggested that the timing of floral presentation may be altered by changes in the UV radiation flux.

Advancing or delaying flower emergence may disrupt the timing of the pollination cycle (Hale, 1993).

UV causes DNA and cellular damage.

Heidorn (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-

qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)Ultraviolet radiation, especially at the shorter wavelengths, is known to damage DNA as well as

physiological processes (Stapleton, 1992). UV damage to DNA could be the cause of many of the other

observed effects. In addition, UV damage to cell membranes, chloroplasts and its functions, protein

destruction, and hormone inactivation may also alter a plant's biological functions. The impact of UV

radiation may result from an increase in energy across the spectrum or, an increase in energy within a

specific waveband, or both (Stapleton, 1992). Plants have several mechanisms by which to response todamage by normal UV radiation levels, but little is yet know concerning their ability to respond to higher,

sustained levels of UV-B.

UV makes plants Susceptible to disease, environmental stress and pollution


Preliminary research indicates that exposure to a UV-B dose prior to inoculation with disease led to

greater disease development in cucumber cultivars including a disease-resistant variety (Teramura at al.,1991). The study found that the effects of the irradiation varied according to the timing of the exposure andthe tissue age. Younger tissue seems most affected. Carrying this finding further suggests that the most

critical stage for negative impact may be in the spring when young tissue is most prevalent. This is also

the time of peak ozone depletion in the higher latitudes. Exposure to enhanced UV-B radiation has

also been shown to cause increased impacts of air and soil pollutants and stresses induced by soil water

and mineral deficiencies (Tevini and Teramura, 1989, Teramura et al., 1991). For example,most water-stressed plants irradiated with enhanced levels of UV-B lost their ability to close stomata (thus reducingwater loss) while those under normal light conditions displayed expected stomatal behaviour (Tevini and

Teramura, 1989). Plants exposed to additional UV-B radiation have shown enhanced adverse effectswhen toxic pollutants such as heavy metals are present (Teramura et al., 1991).





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn

UV hurts agriculture and crops.


qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)Much of the research concerning the impacts of UV radiation on terrestrial vegetation has come as a result of studies on agricultural crop species. However, because of the importance of agriculture to the humancondition, a few specific comments are presented. Dr. Malcom Whitecross of the Australian State Universityhas reported that a 10% increase in UV-B radiation early in the growing season (the prime time for

high-latitude ozone depletion) can cause stunting of growth in wheat, rice, corn, soybeans and other

crops, a set-back from which the crop will not likely recover (CBC, 1992). Dr. Beverly Hale of theUniversity of Guelph in Ontario feels many food crops are at risk (Hale, 1993). Her preliminary researchindicates that elevated UV-B can initiate far-reaching changes in plants including size, height, shape,

rate of growth and productivity. Internal chemical changes in the composition of proteins,

carbohydrates and amino acids may have a substantial impact on their nutritional content. She feelsthat research must focus on the identification and development of UV-B tolerable varieties (Personalcommunication, 1993).





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Extinction

Ozone depletion can culminate into extinction.

Beijing 2008, 06 (Sept. 15, http://en.beijing2008.cn/01/36/article212043601.shtml)Ozone depletion results in greater amounts of UV-B radiation that will have an impact on terrestrial

and aquatic biogeochemical systems. Biogeochemical cycles are the complex interactions of physical,

chemical, geological and biological processes that control the transport and transformation of

substances in the natural environment and therefore the conditions that humans experience in the

Earth's system. The increased UV-B radiation impinging on terrestrial and aquatic systems, due to ozonedepletion, results in changes in the trace gas exchange between the continents, oceans and the

atmosphere. This results in complex alterations to atmospheric chemistry, the global elemental cycles,

such as the carbon cycle, and may have an impact on the survival and health of all organisms on Earth,

including humans.





Ozone Hole – Impacts – Cataracts

Ozone depletion results in 830,000 cases of cataracts.

BMJ 5 (British Medical Journals, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7528/1292-d?ck=nck)

Ozone depletion may result in up to 830 000 additional cases of cataract by 2050 in the United States,new research shows. The excess cost of such a rise in the number of cases would be $2.8bn (£1.6bn; €2.4bn), say the authors of the report in the American Journal of Epidemiology (2005;162:1080-8). "We

believe that our estimates represent the most reasonable model to date of an ocular health effect and

the consequences of ozone depletion. This model demonstrates the magnitude of the increase in cortical

opacity that might result and the importance of vigilance in adopting sun avoidance behaviours," wrotethe authors, who are from the Wilmer Eye Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, theInstitute for Global Risk Research, Fairfax, Virginia, and the Joint Global Change Research Institute, CollegePark, Maryland.









***Ozone Hole Answers ***





Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing

Ozone hole has peaked and will decline.

AGBM 7 (Sept. 26, Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20070926.shtml)

The Antarctic ozone hole is back and although it’s almost as big as previous years, the long term

outlook for a return to better ozone levels remains good. Over the past ten years the destruction of

ozone has resulted in large ozone holes appearing over the Antarctic each spring with almost all

growing to an area of more than 25 million square kilometres (about three times the size of Australia).This year, the Bureau of Meteorology reports that the hole has already reached that size but has not grown aslarge as the record 28 million square kilometre holes that developed during 2000, 2003 and 2006. Ozoneholes develop during spring because sunlight returning to the polar regions trigger chemical reactions thathave remained dormant during the darkness of winter. The size and depth of the hole is determined by factorsincluding the concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals such as Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), as well asthe temperature of the lower stratosphere. It is also influenced by broad scale atmospheric circulation patternswhich vary significantly from year to year. Though recent Antarctic ozone holes have been very large,

measurements show that the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances in the lower atmosphere,

such as CFCs, have peaked and are now slowly declining. In its most recent assessment of ozone

depletion, compiled last year, the World Meteorological Organization stated that ozone levels areexpected to return to pre-ozone-hole conditions between 2060 and 2075.

Ozone hole is going to recover.

ABC News 5 (Nov. 10, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/11/10/1502996.htm, CSIRO=CommonwealthScientific and Industrial Research Organisation )

This year, the hole is about three-and-a-half times the size of Australia. The CSIRO's Paul Fraser says the

amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere has dropped. He says this means it is unlikely

the hole will ever get bigger than it was in 2003 - the worst year on record. "We hope within the next

five years to start to see a slow recovery," he said. "I think we're in that period between when it's getting

worse and when it should start to improve." He says clear signs of a recovery are expected in the next

five to 10 years, with a complete recovery not expected for another 50. "Ozone loss over Antarctica is stillat a maximum and we haven't yet seen signs of ozone recovery," he said. "I suppose the good bit of news isthat the ozone depletion isn't getting worse."

Ozone hole is on it’s way to recovery- 50 years.

BBC News 00 (December 3, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm)An international group of scientists is predicting that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica will

shrink and close within 50 years. It says a ban on the chemicals that thin the Earth's protective film of

gas is showing signs of success and the ozone layer should soon start to repair itself - as long as

countries stick to the ban. The forecast was made following a conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where300 climate scientists scrutinised new data. But the experts warn that governments must tackle the wider issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, if any real progress on ozone is to be achieved. The prediction

is based on evidence that levels of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the lower atmosphere are falling.CFCs break down ozone, the three-atomed oxygen molecule, which shields the surface of the planet fromharmful rays. An international ban on CFCs, once widely used in aerosols, has been in place since 1987,when the Montreal Protocol was introduced. Scientists studied fresh data at the Stratospheric Processes andtheir Role in Climate (SPARC) Second General Assembly in Buenos Aires.





Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing

Ozone hole on its way to recovery- 50 years.

BBC News 00 (December 3, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm)Alan O'Neill, chair of the SPARC 2000 Scientific Committee, told BBC News Online: "Scientists have

gained a detailed understanding of how man-made substances (containing chlorine and bromine)

destroy ozone. "We can explain why much more ozone is destroyed over the Antarctic than over the

Arctic, and why the ozone hole is bigger during some years than during others. "The biggest ever

ozone hole was witnessed over Antarctica in early October 2000. "But we are now seeing evidence that

the international bans or controls on ozone destroying substances are now taking effect: amounts of

these substances are, overall, falling in the lower atmosphere and our prediction is that ozone amounts

will recover over the next 50 years or so." The recovery was not likely to start for a few years yet,Professor O'Neill said, and it would not happen steadily because of natural fluctuations in weather

patterns from one year to the next. And a cooling of the lower atmosphere due to greenhouse gas emissionscould delay the closing of the ozone hole, perhaps by a decade or so. Commenting on the report, BrianGardiner, one of the British Antarctic Survey scientists who discovered the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985, said

political will was needed to tackle the other huge environmental issues facing the planet. "The MontrealProtocol is the first international treaty that holds out the promise of solving a global environmental problem

before it becomes a disaster," he told BBC News Online. "We should learn from that and attack the bigger problem of climate change by achieving intergovernmental agreement to limit the burning of fossil fuels before the consequences of that become a disaster."





Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural

Ozone hole is natural. It was just a political scheme.

Thursby 3 (Rowena, August 8, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:jJVFWP6joNgJ:www.indymedia.ie/article/60766+%22ozone+hole%22+scam&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us)The hole in the ozone layer has more to do with politics than deodorants, a respected French scientist toldreporters recently. Outspoken Haroun Tazieff claims that the disintegration of the ozone layer by the infamous

CFC gases "Is a complete lie," he told me vehemently, when we met in Paris recently. "The ozone hole is a

natural hole which appears above the Antarctic at the beginning of October and has disappeared by the end

of December. In Europe, I think I'm the only person to refute it, and I have never been officially contradicted,neither by ecologists nor by scientists." Yves Cochet, spokesman for the French ecology party, Les Verts, admits:"Although the majority of scientists say that DFC gases probably have a lethal effect on the ozone layer, nothing

has been proved." He adds: "We are obliged to talk of an ozone hole in the media, because then people get a

very visual impression, but of course, it is much more diffuse than that." At 80, Tazieff remains as clear-thinkingas ever. He argues that many of France's leading ecologists have no scientific background. A former boxer, hetrained first as an agronomist and then as a geologist, which led to a lifetime study of volcanoes. One of thefounding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural andtechnological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of

France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a"campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led tomillions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It

seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when

most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere.

Ozone thinning is only seasonal and natural

Tech-archive.net 5 (Feb. 6, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:7nRTqyyPeREJ:sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.energy/2005-02/0239.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22agriculture%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=57&gl=us)

The so-called theory on which the "ozone hole/depletion" scare is based maintains that chlorine and

other halogen atoms in the stratosphere, resulting from a breaking up of CFCs etc which have reached

such heights, "are destroying ozone" there. The scare propaganda increased enormously in volume after an "ozone hole" over the Antarctic purportedly was "discovered" in 1985. This was "proof" that a depletionof the global ozone layer was actually taking place, the propaganda said. But this "ozone hole" over the

Antarctic had existed long before CFCs came into common use, earlier research in fact had shown. It's

not really a "hole" but only a rather large seasonal thinning-out, due to the particularly low

temperatures and some other factors typical precisely for the Antarctic continent - and not present in

the Arctic regions either. In September-October each year , the ozone layer over the Ant- arctic is thinnedout to some 100 DU - which poses no danger to life there or anywhere else - because a meteorological

vortex temporarily stops those winds from the tropics which otherwise are brining replenishment of

the continent's ozone. Around March each year, this "hole" has disappeared completely; the ozone layer over the Antarctic then has thickened again to its normal maximum of 450-500 DU.





Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural

Insufficient data for anthropogenic ozone depletion.

Singer 97 (S. Fred, Ph.D., president science and environment policy project, December,http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/ozon-agu.html)

The evidence from ground stations and satellites is not yet compelling to identify a long-term trend of

anthropogenic ozone depletion. UN reports [1] do not squarely address problems of data

contamination and instrument calibration [2]. A separate issue, inadequately discussed, is the

shortness of the global record, making the removal of the natural variations a daunting task [2].Another fact is the absence of any credible evidence for a corresponding long-term upward trend of solar UVradiation at the earth's surface. The widely publicized claim for such a trend [3] is acknowledged to bespurious and based on a faulty statistical analysis [4]. Yet, ozone depletion is entirely plausible and to beexpected. But chlorine (from CFCs) may not be a major destroyer of ozone molecules in the lower

stratosphere where most of the ozone resides. Important clues are provided by the existence of the

Antarctic ozone hole and the pronounced ozone depletion caused by the Pinatubo eruption; they

indicate that the presence of particles is essential [5]--something not anticipated nor predicted by the

CFC-ozone theory of Rowland-Molina, which applies more appropriately to the upper stratosphere.Another clue comes from the absence of ozone destruction in the middle stratosphere [6]; it suggests

that global depletion of ozone is related to the increasing levels of lower-stratospheric sulfate aerosols [7]. Inaddition, there is evidence, both from theory [8] and from observations [9], that radicals derived from water vapor are the most effective ozone destroyers in the lower stratosphere; their concentration may be rate-limiting. But stratospheric WV is known to be rising [10], likely because of the increasing production of methane by human activities [11].





Ozone – Solvency Turn – Increases Warming

A recovery of the ozone layer could cause severe warming effects over Antarctica.

Perkins, 2008 (Sid, June 12th, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33200/title/Unintended_consequences)

Via a complicated cascade of effects, a full recovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the coming

years could significantly boost warming of the atmosphere over and around the icy continent. After years of decline, the springtime concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere high over Antarctica have begunto increase — a sign that the ozone hole is recovering (SN: 12/24&31/05, p. 418). Stratospheric ozone blocksmuch of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation that would otherwise reach Earth’s surface and boost rates of skincancer. In one sense, however, the ozone hole is somewhat beneficial: It has kept Antarctica cooler than

it otherwise would have been, says Seok-Woo Son, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University.Because the lower stratosphere over Antarctica lacks ozone in the springtime, it doesn’t absorb much

ultraviolet radiation and therefore is much cooler than normal. This, in turn, increases the

temperature difference between air over the mid-latitude regions of the Southern Hemisphere and the

air over Antarctica, Son notes. That temperature gradient is the driving force for strong, steady winds

that blow from the west over the seas off Antarctica’s coast at latitudes of about 50°S — the

circumpolar westerlies. The ozone hole has strengthened this wall of winds in recent decades,

preventing many storm systems that head south from temperate latitudes — as well as the large

quantities of warm air they contain — from reaching central Antarctica. Now, Son and his colleagueshave investigated how ozone recovery might affect Antarctic climate. Seven of the simulations they usedaccount for changes in atmospheric chemistry, and five of those suggest that the increases in ozoneconcentrations would cause significant warming in the lower stratosphere. The climate changes resulting

from full ozone recovery, expected sometime later this century, could be substantial, the researchersspeculate in the June 13 Science. Warming of the lower stratosphere would tend to slow the circumpolar westerlies but strengthen winds at lower latitudes, a combination that would significantly shift weather

patterns. Much of Australia would become drier, and portions of South America would, on average, receivemore precipitation, the models suggest.

More ev…

ERL 8 (Evironmental Research Web, A Community website from IOP Publishing, Institute of Physics,

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/34812)A new "coupled chemistry" climate model suggests that increasing stratospheric ozone levels in the

southern hemisphere could cause this region to warm by several degrees centigrade. The model alsoshows that these changes in ozone might weaken westerly winds here and near the surface. These winds

currently protect Antarctica from warmer air masses circulating nearby. The results suggest that a full

recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole could significantly change the climate in the southern

hemisphere, and, surprisingly, even intensify warming in the Antarctic. While Earth's average surface

temperatures have been increasing, the interior of Antarctica has been showing a unique cooling trend

during the austral summer and autumn caused by ozone depletion, according to Judith Perlwitz of theCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a joint institute of CU-Boulder and NOAA."If the successful control of ozone-depleting substances allows for a full recovery of the ozone hole over

Antarctica, we may finally see the interior of Antarctica begin to warm with the rest of the world," sheadded.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/authored/id/21/name/Sid_Perkins

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/authored/id/21/name/Sid_Perkins





Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Health

Effects of ozone hole are exaggerated.

Lieberman 2 (senior policy analyst for CEI. 10/16 “Avoid environmental sensationalism” www.heartland.org<http://www.heartland.org> )

One important lesson is to avoid environmental sensationalism. The Antarctic ozone hole, though real, has

proven to be an exaggerated phenomenon. The frequently-repeated speculation about ozone depletion-

induced increases in skin cancers, cataracts, and environmental damage has yet to be confirmed, even

after decades of research. Little wonder, since the feared increase in ultraviolet radiation turned out to

be considerably smaller than originally predicted. The ozone hole “crisis” is not being solved so much

as it is proving to have been less of a crisis in the first place.

Science is exaggerated – radiation increase is trivial.

Singer 95 (S. Fred, November 1, Washington Times,http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:YItL5uwXgYQJ:www.sepp.org/key%2520issues/ozone/oznobel.html+Time+and+again,+journalists+have+run+with+a+story+that+amounts+to+little+more+than+%22science+by+press+releas

e.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)Time and again, journalists have run with a story that amounts to little more than "science by press

release." They have succumbed to tales of blind sheep and rabbits, plankton death, and the

disappearance of frogs--all blamed on ozone depletion. Yet a little common sense could help to stem thetide of scare stories, punitive regulations, and politically motivated Nobel prizes. From the very outset it

has been clear that the feared global ozone depletion would lead to a trivial increase of ultraviolet

radiation at the Earth's surface, equivalent to moving just 60 miles closer to the equator, the distance

from Washington to Richmond. This equivalence has been openly acknowledged by ozone scientists in

press conferences and Congressional hearings. It puts the lie to fears of cataract epidemics, immune

system failures, and various ecological disasters. The problem now is that the action of the SwedishAcademy is being viewed as a scientific endorsement, not only of ozone depletion but of all of the horror stories put out by activist groups. Awarding the Nobel prize with the science still unsettled only says thatfacts are irrelevant, that data don't matter. What does seem to matter, at least to the Academy, is "salvation."









Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Agriculture

UV radiation good for agriculture

Tech-archive.net 5 (Feb. 6, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:7nRTqyyPeREJ:sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.energy/2005-02/0239.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22agriculture%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=57&gl=us)

To that ultraviolet radiation which reaches the earth's surface, all human, animal and plant life of

course has adopted itself. This goes both for those higher intensities of it which are normal in some

regions and for the lower ones in other regions. For most of those plants used in agriculture, tropical

UV levels are best. Concerning human adaption, it may be of interest in this connection to mention someresults of research on the origins and the various evolutions of mankind which apparently have been widelyaccepted as correct.





Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton

UV radiation doesn’t affect plankton.

Bio- Medicine.Org 3 (“Plankton are not affected by ozone depletion”, http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/Plankton-are-not-affected-by-ozone-depletion-11907-1/)

The ozone hole above Antarctica may not be damaging life in the ocean below after all. If Californianresearchers are right, then increased ultraviolet radiation is having scarcely any effect on the growth of

marine plankton, the base of the ocean's food chain. The team, led by Kevin Arrigo of StanfordUniversity in Palo Alto, has created computer models of phytoplankton growth over a year in the

southern hemisphere before and after the ozone hole appeared in the 1980s. They included such factors

as the position of the ozone hole, cloud cover, and UV-B strength, the type of ultraviolet radiation thatincreases as atmospheric ozone declines. To find out what increased UV-B did to phytoplankton, theresearchers compared two models: one based on data from 1992, a year with a yawning ozone hole and theother with the same parameters except for the ozone levels, which were taken from 1978, a year of "normal"conditions before the hole appeared. Over the southern hemisphere ecosystem as a whole, they found that

primary phytoplankton production decreased by only about 1 per cent in 1992, which is significantly lower than other estimates. Arrigo's work does not discount the results of a number of studies showing that

increased UV-B can stunt phytoplankton growth by 10 per cent or more in localised areas or in thelaboratory (New Scientist, 8 August 1998, p 24). The difference is that his study looked at the big picture

of UV-B for the whole ocean. In previous studies, researchers scaled up measurements of plankton growth beneath the hole and elsewhere to calculate an overall effect for the whole Southern Ocean. But althoughthey knew that factors such as cloud cover were important, they are difficult to include in such

calculations.

The affect of UV radiation on plankton is very small.

Parson 8 (Robert, 8/22, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/ozone-depletion-uv/13-What-effects-does-increased-UV-have-on-marine-life.html)

In one field study, [Smith et al.]. measured the photosynthetic productivity of the phytoplankton in the"marginal ice zone" (MIZ), the layer of relatively fresh meltwater that lies over saltier deep water. Since the

outer boundary of the ozone hole is relatively sharp and fluctuates from day to day, they were able tocompare photosynthesis inside and outside the hole, and to correlate photosynthetic yield with

shipboard UV measurements. They concluded that the UV-B increase brought about an overall

decrease of 6-12% in phytoplankton productivity. Since the "hole" lasts for about 10-12 weeks, thiscorresponds to an overall decrease of 2-4% for the year. The natural variability in phytoplankton productivityfrom year to year is estimated to be about + or - 25%, so the _immediate_ effects of the ozone hole, whilereal, are far from catastrophic. To quote from [Smith et al.]: "Our estimated loss of 7 x 10^12 g of carbon per year is about three orders of magnitude smaller than estimates of _global_ phytoplankton production and thusis not likely to be significant in this context. On the other hand, we find that the O3-induced loss to a naturalcommunity of phytoplankton in the MIZ is measurable and the subsequent ecological consequences of the

magnitude and timing of this early spring loss remain to be determined." It appears, then, that overall

loss in productivity is not large.





Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton

Radiation has small effects on plankton.

ABC 0 (Feb. 17, “Oceans resistant to ozone hole?”, http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2000/101184.htm)

The food basket of the Southern Oceans - its plankton population - may not have been dealt such asevere blow by soaring ultraviolet (UV-B) light levels as previously thought. In recent years the ocean

has been bombarded with high levels of UV light getting in through the hole in the ozone layer, which

normally shields our planet from damaging UV rays. Now Californian researchers reporting in NewScientist magazine have modelled what would have happened to phytoplankton levels before and after thehole appeared. The "before" picture was based on data from 1978, when there was no hole to speak of, and"after" taken from 1992 when the ozone hole was near as large as it has been. Phytoplankton is crucial tosustaining all ocean life. It is the first link in the food chain, turning energy from the sun into a primary foodsource through photosynthesis. The Californian team, led by Kevin Arrigo of Stanford University, modeled

phytoplankton growth using a computer. He took into account the position of the ozone hole, cloud cover,and UV-B strength. When phytoplankton growth was compared between 1978 and 1992, the researchers

found that over the southern hemisphere ecosystem as a whole, primary phytoplankton production

decreased by only about one per cent, which is significantly lower than other estimates. Previousstudies had shown that higher UV-B levels can stunt phytoplankton growth by 10 per cent or more inlocalised areas or in the laboratory (New Scientist, 8 August 1998). The difference is that his study looked

at the big picture of UV-B for the whole ocean. Arrigo suggests that cloud cover may be an importantfactor. "On a cloudy day under a deep hole, there's still not nearly as much UV flux as on a clear day with nohole." It may also be that around 80 per cent of the southern hemisphere's ozone hole is over ice most of thetime, so only a small part of the ocean is exposed to the impact of ozone depletion. Dr Harvey Marchant whoheads Australia's Antarctic Biology Program said that no change in plankton biomass or photosynthetic effortdidn't necessarily mean there was no change in the ecosystem. He said the southern ocean contains more than500 different species of plankton, and they all do slightly different things and have different UV sensitivity.Diatoms, for example, play an important role in the ocean carbon sink process, because they assimilatecarbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) at the ocean surface and relocate it down to the depths, where the carbonmay remain for thousands of years. Yet diatoms are very UV-sensitive, and a change in their population mayin the longer term change carbon assimilation in the oceans. Raymond Smith from the University of California has done landmark research on the effect of increased UV-B on phytoplankton. He said that

marine plankton have adapted to cope with the hole. "It's obvious that (the impact) isn't going to becatastrophic," he told New Scientist. "We've had the ozone hole for a decade and a half and the system

is still there."

http://www.newscientist.com/


http://www.antdiv.gov.au/



http://www.antdiv.gov.au/





Ozone Hole Answers – Nuclear War Turns – Kills Ozone

Even a small-scale nuclear conflict completely turns case.

Science Daily, 08 (Apr. 8, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407172710.htm)

According to the computer simulations, fires ignited in large cities by nuclear explosions would sendseveral million metric tons of soot into the upper stratosphere, which would be heated by massive

smoke injections. Higher temperatures would accelerate catalytic reaction cycles in the stratosphere,

particularly reactions of nitrogen oxide gases known collectively as NOx that destroy ozone, Mills said.In addition to ozone losses of 25 percent to 40 percent at mid-latitudes, the models show a 50 percent to 70

percent ozone loss at northern high latitudes, said Mills. "The models show this magnitude of ozone losswould persist for five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years,"he said. The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous

"nuclear winter" and "ultraviolet spring" scenario calculations following nuclear conflicts, said Toon,chair of CU-Boulder's oceanic and atmospheric sciences department. A 1985 National Research CouncilReport predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere'sstratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years. "The missing piece back then was that themodels at the time could not account for the rise of the smoke plume and consequent heating of thestratosphere," said Toon. "The big surprise is that this study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional

nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted

following a full-scale nuclear war."





***Species Extinction***





Species Impact – OW Other Enviro Harms

Species extinction represents a greater threat to human survival than pollution, warming,

and thinning of the o-zone layer.

Washington Post 8(Joby, Warwick, staff writer 7/1/08)

Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of thedinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct

in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. (For details see links below.) A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants

and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are onlydimly aware of the problem, a poll says. The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's

gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer,according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History.The poll's release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded

than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history.

"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those[extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and

prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum's survey. [Note: the last mass extinctioncaused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.]Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass

extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could

disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant andanimal habitats. Among the dissenters, some argue that there is not yet enough data to support the view that a massextinction is occurring. Many of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the global destruction of rain forests and other rich habitats. Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears to have made relativelylittle impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biologicaldiversity, and barely half ranked species loss as a "major threat." The scientists interviewed in the Louis Harris pollwere members of the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, a professional society of morethan 5,000 scientists.





Species Impact – Each Species Key

The natural balance of the earth is upset by human activity. Artificial destruction of a

single species could spell the destruction of the planet.

CNN 3 (8/21/03 Strieker, Gary http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html)

(CNN) -- The complex web of life on Earth, what scientists call "biodiversity," is in serious trouble. "Biodiversity includes all living things that we depend on for our economies and our lives," explained BrooksYeager, vice president of global programs at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C."It's the forests, the oceans, the coral reefs, the marine fish, the algae, the insects that make up the living world

around us and which we couldn't do without," he said. Nearly 2 million species of plants and animals are

known to science and experts say 50 times as many may not yet be discovered. Yet most scientists agree that

human activity is causing rapid deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging, mining,agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting nature's balance and driving many species to

extinction. There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period of mass extinction not

seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future

food supplies, our search for new medicines, and on the water we drink and the air we breathe. Estimates vary, but extinction is figured by experts to be taking place between 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural "background"extinction. At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago, world leaders signed a treaty to confront thiscrisis. But its results have been disappointing. According to Yeager, "It hasn't been a direct kind of impact that someof us had hoped for." One hundred eighty-two nations are now parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.The United States is the only industrial country that has failed to ratify it. But there is wide agreement that the treatyhas had virtually no impact on continuing mass extinction. The treaty is more like a political statement than a plan of action, setting very broad goals instead of real targets, and leaving it to national governments to decide how to reachthem.

Artificial extinction of one species guarantees extinction of exponentially more species

whose interconnectedness guarantees total extinction

MSNBC 4 (9/4/04 “Study sees far deeper species extinction http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:qk-JkBCtr_0J:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5951649/+species+extinction+environment+single&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

Study co-author Heather Proctor, of Canada’s University of Alberta, said in a statement that "what wefound is that with the extinction of a bird, or a mammal or a plant, you aren’t just necessarily wiping out just

one, single species. We’re also allowing all these unsung dependent species to be wiped out as well.” The team

used a mathematical model to look at what's termed "coextinction," adding the study marked the first time

the phenomenon had been quantitatively estimated. Not just mites, lice In many cases, species facing

coextinction tend to be things like mites and lice. But some others are more likely to be missed by humans,

such as a type of butterfly from Singapore that disappeared after the vines that had provided food for its

larvae became extinct. Overall, the researchers said, the loss of one species when a different one becomes

extinct shows how interconnected the world is. “What we wanted to learn was, if the host goes extinct, how

many other species will go with it,” Proctor said. “It would be easy if there were always a one-to-one

relationship with a host and its affiliate; however, not all parasites, for example, are restricted to a single host

species,” Proctor said. “The trick was in trying to determine how many other species could act as hosts and factoringthat degree of dependence into the study.” Beetles, butterflies at risk, too Using their model the group calculated

that extinction of the 6,279 plants listed as threatened or endangered by the International Union for

Conservation of Nature would also result in the loss of 4,672 species of beetles and 136 types of butterfly. Loss

of the 1,194 threatened birds could also mean disappearance of 342 species of lice and 193 types of mites. If

the 114 endangered primates were to go extinct, they said, there could also be the loss of 20 types of

nematodes, 12 lice and nine fungi to depend on the primates. "While coextinction may not be the most importantcause of species extinctions, " the researchers concluded, "it is certainly an insidious one."





Species Impact – Each Species Key

Each species performs a necessary function in its ecosystem-death of any single species can

destroy that ecosystem and the entire planet

NOVA 6 (“Science in the news”

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:iWVZFXPsVK8J:www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm+species+extinction+key+each&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)

A certain level of biodiversity (biological diversity) is necessary to keep our ecosystems healthy. This is

because each species performs a different function within an ecosystem. For example, some species allow

pollination to occur, some recycle nutrients, some maintain soil fertility. Species interact with each other and

rely on each other. One species may be a source of food for another, or may help keep another's population in

check.

As well as allowing natural ecosystems to function in a healthy manner, biodiversity is important for other

reasons (Box 3: Australia's biodiversity). Extinction has always occurred; the important thing today is that the

rate has greatly accelerated. This increased rate of extinction has already led to unstable ecosystems as well as

to the loss of potentially useful species. For instance plants provide us with all of our food (directly or indirectly),as well as one-quarter of our medicines. The potential of many plants to supply food, medicines or other commodities remains unexplored. And what other useful compounds could exist in unknown plants?

Each species is critical to the planet due to its environmental niche. These niches are criticalto ecosystem survival.

Hance 8 (Jeremy, staff writer for “Mongabay”4/29/08 http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:aeWHIJUA9E4J:news.mongabay.com/2008/0429-hance_biodiv.html+species+extinction+key+each&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Scientists from Brown University have discovered that an ecosystem's productivity is directly linked to

its diversity of plant species. The discovery has granted biodiversity new importance in the fight against

climate change: the more productive the ecosystem the more carbon it captures. "It's a double whammy,"Osvaldo Sala explained. "We not only are disturbing our planet by putting more carbon into the atmosphere,

but we're reducing the ability of ecosystems to capture and store it." Sala is the director of the EnvironmentalChange Initiative and the Sloan Lindeman Professor of Biology at Brown. The Brown scientists conducted their study for six years in Patagonia. They divided an area into ninety plots then began to systematically remove

native species from each plot and chart the changes in the plot's productivity. Productivity dropped as species

were removed. The scientists believe that productivity is linked to the diversity of species because of "nichecomplementarity". In other words, in an intact environment each species has evolved its own niche without

interrupting other species' niches. This harmony between species allows them to positively interact with eachother and fully utilize the resources of a given space. In the experiments "the water is the same, the nitrogen is thesame, the sunlight is the same, what is different is the diversity of the plants," said Sala. Artificial landscapes provedfar less productive than natural ones. According to the paper: "In contrast [with artificial landscapes] naturalecosystems presented mature individuals, populations, and species coexisting for long periods of time in naturalsoils without chemical treatments and low artificial disturbance regimes."

http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010glo.htm#biodiversity



http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010glo.htm#ecosystem



http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010box03.htm



http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010box03.htm





Species Impact – A2: NUQ – Species Down

The non-unique doesn’t account for the placement of extinct species. Species in watershed

ecosystems have not YET gone extinct but are on the brink now.

ABC 7 (American bird conservatory “The alliance for zero extinction”

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:pfL9voNaaZIJ:www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/alliances/AZE.html+species+extinction+key+each&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us)

Across the Americas, large numbers of bird species are facing extinction, and more than one hundred

of these are now restricted to a single remaining site. It is time for practical, immediate steps to halt this

crisis-this is why ABC is dedicating a major effort to the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE), a global

initiative of biodiversity conservation organizations, which aims to prevent extinctions by identifying and

safeguarding key sites where species are in imminent danger of disappearing. The goal of the Alliance is to

create a front line of defense against total extinction by eliminating threats and restoring habitat to allow

species populations to rebound. Not only will this initiative help birds, but many other species, along with key

watersheds and unique habitats, will also be protected as a result. In 2001, biodiversity conservation scientists

came together over a common concern: that landscape-based conservation approaches alone could not

conserve all species, and that many extinctions would occur imminently if key sites were not identified and

protected. These concerns led to the formation of AZE, which set about creating a global plan to avoid site-based

species extinctions. The Alliance aims to prevent extinctions by identifying and safeguarding key sites, each one of which is the last remaining refuge of one or more Endangered or Critically Endangered species.To date, AZE hasidentified 595 sites that each represent the last refuges of 794 of the world's most highly threatened species. Fromthe start, ABC has been a leading member of AZE, identifying key bird sites in the Americas, and helping tocoordinate AZE's work. We are also actively involved in conservation at a number of AZE sites.

http://zeroextinction.org/








Species Impact – Hot spots

Megadiverse areas of the world contain 70% of all species on the planet and are critical to

planetary survival

Australian Gov.7 (Department of the environment, water, heritage, and the arts “Australia’s biodiversity”

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:NZQFQtGQVo0J:www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html+hot+spots+biodiversity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Australia is one of seventeen countries described as being 'megadiverse'. This group of countries has

less than 10% of the global surface, but support more than 70% of the biological diversity on earth. The

concept was first developed by Russell Mittermeier in 1988, as a way to prioritise conservation action. Based on

an analysis of primate conservation priorities, he found that four countries accounted for two-thirds of all

primate species. The analysis was then expanded to include other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,

plants and selected groups of insects. This resulted in 17 countries being identified, representing more than

two-thirds of all (known) life forms and the majority of tropical rainforests, coral reefs and other priority

systems. The results of the assessment were published in the Megadiversity: Earth's biologically wealthiest nations(Mittermeier, Gil and Mittermeier eds. 1997. Cemex, Mexico). Australia is home to between 600,000 and 700,000species, many of which are endemic, that is they are found nowhere else in the world. These include, for example,84% of our plant species, 83% of mammals, and 45% of birds. Australia's biodiversity - the plants, animals, micro-

organisms and their ecosystems - is threatened from the impacts of human activities. Since European settlement,more than 50 species of Australian animals and over 60 species of Australian plants are known to have becomeextinct. Refer to our SPRAT database for listings and details of threatened flora and fauna.

Sustaining hotspot ecosystems is critical to halt planetary destruction

Australian Gov. 7 (Department of the environment, water, heritage, and the arts “Australia’s biodiversity”http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:NZQFQtGQVo0J:www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html+hot+spots+biodiversity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Biodiversity hotspots are areas that support natural ecosystems that are largely intact and where

native species and communities associated with these ecosystems are well represented. They are also areas

with a high diversity of locally endemic species, which are species that are not found or are rarely found

outside the hotspot. The current, planned or potential management activities in hotspots place the natural

values at risk, and it is likely this risk will increase in the future in the absence of active conservation

management. Because the natural values of hotspots are largely intact, undertaking action now to maintainthese values has the potential to provide value-for-money in contributing to our efforts in biodiversity

conservation.

Hotspots account for only 1.4% of the earth’s surface but contain 44% of the earth’s

species. Their destruction guarantees total destruction

Environmental Literacy Council 8 (“Hotspots of Biodiversity,http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BzVT5fEDfJoJ:www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory.php/202.html+hot+spots+biodiversity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us)

In order to concentrate resources on those areas that are most vulnerable, conservationists have

identified certain areas as biodiversity “hotspots.” The term, first used by British ecologist Norman Myers in

1988, designated areas losing habitat at a high rate in which there is a disproportionate number of species

found nowhere else. In 2000, Myers and others identified 25 “hotspots” that together comprise only 1.4

percent of the Earth's surface, yet contain 44 percent of all species of higher plants and 35 percent of all land

vertebrate species. Conservation International has since adopted the concept as the base of its conservation

management strategy.

http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora



http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna


http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna





Species Impact – Invisible Threshold

Loss of even one species can push an ecosystem over the invisible threshold which results in

its destruction

Earth’s tree news 7(Livejournal, 206 edition

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:tOuV0Sbbt3YJ:olyecology.livejournal.com/54410.html+biodiversity+%22Invisible+threshold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us)

We lived in cloud forest when we first arrived," Mr. Fogden says. "It's not cloud forest anymore, really."Besides losing potential ingredients for new drugs or other useful compounds, scientists worry about more lost

benefits as species vanish. Healthy ecosystems are complex. Complexity lends resilience, the ability to ride out

disturbances. A resilient ecosystem will continue delivering the "services" humans expect, whether it's

harvesting abundant tuna from the sea or tapping fresh water as it tumbles down a mountainside. Each

species removed from an ecosystem brings it closer to a largely invisible threshold of collapse. Scientists tend

to use this economic reasoning about nature's importance when talking with journalists.





Species Impact – Intrinsic value

Animals of all species deserve to exist.

Earth’s tree news 7 (Livejournal, 206 editionhttp://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:tOuV0Sbbt3YJ:olyecology.livejournal.com/54410.html+biodiversity+%22Invisible+threshold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl

=us)We lived in cloud forest when we first arrived," Mr. Fogden says. "It's not cloud forest anymore, really."

Besides losing potential ingredients for new drugs or other useful compounds, scientists worry about more lost benefits as species vanish. Healthy ecosystems are complex. Complexity lends resilience, the ability to ride outdisturbances. A resilient ecosystem will continue delivering the "services" humans expect, whether it's harvestingabundant tuna from the sea or tapping fresh water as it tumbles down a mountainside. Each species removed from

an ecosystem brings it closer to a largely invisible threshold of collapse. Scientists tend to use this economic

reasoning about nature's importance when talking with journalists. When pressed, though, they make a

different argument. Species "should be preserved because of their intrinsic value," says Kayri Havens, director of the Institute for Plant Biology and Conservation at the Chicago Botanic Garden, "because they deserve to exist.

Just as we do." Resplendent quetzals, iridescent tropical birds that he used to observe feeding frogs to their young,are scarcer. Quetzal hatchlings may have lost a vital source of protein and calcium with the disappearance of once-abundant amphibians, he reasons. Keel-billed toucans, meanwhile, have moved up from the foothills to themountain, perhaps competing with the quetzal. So has the morpho, a bright blue lowland butterfly. Snakes, whichalso fed on the frogs, are much harder to come by even as lowland honeybees that previously avoided the mountain'shive-infesting fungi now swarm up the mountain.





Species Impact – A/T Speciation

Speciation is not confirmed to be true and even if it were it would take too long to prevent

extinction

Boxhorn 95 (Joseph, talk origins archive. “Observed Instances of Speciation”http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ZNuUlV9V_ZcJ:www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-

speciation.html+Speciation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a)The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an

observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only onereview that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciationevents. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humbleopinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this asettled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks haveactually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in thedepartment where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature.Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the

people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that therewere papers in the literature. Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to

human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The

literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it hasexamples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time. Third, the

literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of thesecases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur. Finally, most of the current

interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What

they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms. Most of the reports, especially the recent

reports, can be found in papers that describe experimental tests of hypotheses related to speciation. Usuallythese experiments focus on questions related to mechanisms of speciation. Examples of these questions include:Does speciation precede or follow adaptation to local ecological conditions? Is speciation a by-product of genetic

divergence among populations or does it occur directly by natural selection through lower fitness of hybrids?

How quickly does speciation occur? What roles do bottlenecks and genetic drift play in speciation? Canspeciation occur sympatrically (i.e. can two or more lineages diverge while they are intermingled in the same place)

or must the populations be separated in space or time? What roles do pleiotropy and genetic hitchhiking play inspeciation? It is important to note that a common theme running through these questions is that they all attempt toaddress the issue of how speciation occurs.





***Species Extinction Answers***





A2: Species – NUQ

Alt. caus.-your salvation of even 100 species pales in comparison to the 16,0000 at risk

Sydney Morning Herald 4 (11/18/04, “Nearly 16,000 species threatened with extinction)Nearly 16,000 of the world's plant and animal species face extinction largely because of the

destructive behaviour of mankind, says a major new environmental report . Over-exploitation, climate change

and habitat destruction are to blame for a crisis that has wiped out at least 27 species from the wild over the

last two decades, according to the World Conservation Union's (IUCN) red list of threatened species. The report

says more than 7000 animal species are threatened with extinction. They include 32 per cent of amphibians,

42 per cent of turtles and tortoises, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds. Among the casualtiessince last year's report, the IUCN confirms the Hawaiian thrush has gone the way of the dodo with no sighting

of the bird for 15 years. Costa Rica's golden toad has also been listed as extinct largely through climate

change, pollution and disease.More than 8000 plants are listed as threatened with the St Helena olive tree the latestto be declared extinct after the last remaining seedling withered and died in November last year without any seedskept.

N/U-30% of all species became extinct in the last 35 years.

CBC 8 (5/16/08 Canadian Broadcasting company http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/16/species-decline.html)

Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on Earth every year, a global

environmental report said Friday. The Living Planet Index, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the ZoologicalSociety of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and

amphibians has dropped by almost a third in the last 35 years. "You'd have to go back to the extinction of thedinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report. The main reasons for speciesextinction are pollution, farming and urban expansion, overfishing and hunting, the report said. Between 1960 and

2000, the world's population doubled, said Ben Collen, one of the authors of the report. Decline 'caused by

humans' "Yet during the same period, animal populations have declined by 30 per cent on average. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans," he said. The report tracks birds, fish, mammals, reptilesand amphibians around the world. Marine bird species alone have fallen by 30 per cent between 1995 and 2005, itsaid. As well, between 1970 and 2005, land-based species fell by 25 per cent, marine by 28 per cent and

freshwater by 29 per cent. "Biodiversity underpins the health of the planet and has a direct impact on all our lives, so it is alarming that despite anincreased awareness of environmental issues we continue to see a downtrend trend," said WWF campaign head Colin Butfield. The report comes in the lead up to theConvention on Biological Diversity in Bonn next week. More than 5,000 delegates will gather from May 19-30 to "discuss the protection and the preservation of species and habitats, a sustainable use of biological diversity as well as a fair distribution of access and exploitation," the conference website says.

N/U- One species goes extinct every twenty minutes

Science Daily 2 (1/10/02http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:Ys6ffti2ncsJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm+One+species+extinct+20+minutes&hl=en&ct=clnk &cd=1&gl=us

Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring

in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said inthe January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. The co-author is Levin's son, Phillip S. Levin, a

National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an expert on the demography of fish, especially salmon.Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes.

Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research

shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great

periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth. "The numbers are grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of

Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly

20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in

the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past." Biological

diversity ultimately recovered after each of the five past mass extinctions, probably requiring several million

years in each instance. As for today's mass extinction, Levin said some ecologists believe the low level of speciesdiversity may become a permanent state, especially if vast tracts of wilderness area are destroyed.





A2: Species – NUQ

N/U-We’re in the midst of a mass extinction

ENN 98 (Environmental news network, Ayres, Ed Sept. 16, 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20011222210519/www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1998/09/091698/fea0916_23526.asp)

Seven out of 10 biologists believe the world is now in the midst of the fastest mass extinction of livingthings in the 4.5 billion-year history of the planet, according to a poll conducted by the American Museum of

Natural History and the Louis Harris survey research firm.That makes it faster even than the crash which occurred when the dinosaurs died some 65 million years ago.

Unlike that and other mass extinctions of the pre-human past, the current one is the result of human activity,

and not natural phenomena, say the scientists.

The scientists surveyed rated biodiversity loss as a more serious environmental problem than the depletion of

the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and contamination. A majority (70 percent) said they believe that

during the next 30 years as many as one-fifth of all species alive today will become extinct, and a third of the

respondents think as many as half the species on Earth will die out in that time.





Marine Hotspots

Marine Ecosystems are vital to human survival and 80% of marine hotspots are adjacent

to terrestrial hotspots furthering there importance

Zubi 8 (Teresa, coastal scientist Deutsche Naturwissenschaften studieren http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wer+ist+Teresa+Zubi&btnG=Search)Oceans cover 71 percent of earth's surface. Oceans have long been considered limitless places where

human activities have little or no impact. But the coral reefs, the richest of the tropical marine habitats, are at

risk of disappearing at an incredibly fast rate! Worldwide, already 25 percent of coral reefs have been

destroyed or badly degraded. Some scientist reckon, that by 2020 up to 70 percent might be permanently lost. In

2002 researchers identified global priority areas for coral reef conservation and prepared a list with the

world's top 10 coral reef hotspots. These are areas rich in marine species which are found only in small area.Therefore they are highly vulnerable to extinction. These 10 hotspots contain just 24 percent of the world's coral

reefs, or 0.017 percent of the oceans, but claim 34 percent of restricted-range species. An interesting fast is, that8 of the 10 coral reef hotspots are adjacent to a terrestrial hotspot. Those are regions of the world that harbor

the highest concentrations of species on land and are also at the greatest risk. In addition to the correlation

with terrestrial biodiversity hotspots, the paper notes that tropical reef ecosystems include "wilderness"

areas, which remain far less impacted by people, are rich in species, and relative to degraded areas, stillcontain abundant populations of reef species that have already but disappeared from overexploited reefs. Why 11marine hotspots? In 2002 the global environmental group Conservation International presented a strategy toconcentrate conservation efforts on these hotspots. This strategy prioritizes and targets conservation investmentswhere they have the greatest impact. They name 25 Biodiversity Hotspots (on land and in the sea) and divided

the so called Coral Triangle (Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea) in three different regions (Philippines,Sundaland, Wallacea). I therefore added another hotspot to the list from the Centers for Applied Biodiversity Science(CABS) resulting in 11 hotspots.





A2: Species – Invisible Threshold Bad

The “Invisible threshold” leads to oversimplification of policy decisions and a downward

spiral

Fox 3(Douglas, Freelance science writer More than Meets the Eye: Behavior and Conservation

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:HPdca1eso6MJ:www.conbio.org/CIP/article43mor.cfm+biodiversity+%22Invisible+threshold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

Population models can be powerful tools for making policy decisions. But these tools can also

dangerously oversimplify reality, as a result overestimating how much exploitation a population can sustain

— or failing to predict the point where population decline crosses the invisible threshold into an accelerating

downward spiral. “The opportunity we’re really missing,” says William Sutherland, a population biologist at the University

of East Anglia in the U.K., “is to create population models from an understanding of behavior. The reason that’sincredibly important is we want to predict what will happen under novel conditions” such as exploitation or habitatalteration.

The extinction of a single species does not spell destruction of the planet

Corneilius van Kooten &. Bulte 0 ( G, Cornelius , Erwin. A.R.E. Sinclair, University of British Columbia, Tilburg University andUniversity of BC, Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity: insights from biology, ethics and economics, eds. Van Kooten, Bulte and Sinclair, p. 6)

The neoclassical paradigm is the antithesis of the ecological view that natural capital imposes severe

constraints on growth —that economic collapse might be brought about by ecosystem collapse. The neoclassicalview is that, as biological resources become scarce, their relative values will rise, which leads to greater investmentsin their conservation. These points are made by Simpson and Sedjo. The neoclassical view is that the elasticity of substitution between natural capital and reproducible capital is high. Further, this view argues that loss of species isexaggerated and that species loss does not result in ecosystem dysfunction, and possibly not a loss in geneticdiversity. It is possible to substitute some species for others. In Chapter 9, Bulte et al. explicitly argue that aneconomist’s approach to conservation of nature and biodiversity is likely consistent with further conversion of natural capital into alternative assets that are useful to society at large. They illustrate this point with several casestudies.

Biological history disproves that each species is key to survival

DALLAS MORNING NEWS 97, (October 27, 1997, p. lexis-nexis. (BLUEOC 0114)Even though populations are disappearing quickly, Hughes said that the second "Science" paper is "a bright

spot in all this," describing how the tree of life could survive serious pruning. Even if 95 percent of all species arelost, 80 percent of the underlying evolutionary history remains intact, write Nee and Sir Robert May, also a biologistat Oxford. The scientists came up with equations to describe how much evolutionary history would remain after some species went extinct. And they found that it didn't really matter whether they killed off species at random or ina particular pattern. Choosing particular species to save didn't preserve much more evolutionary history than savingspecies at random, the research shows. The work has implications for conservation biologists, who struggle withchoosing which species are the most important to protect. "It turns out that it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference," Dr. Nee said.





A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species

Niche theory models are flawed

Botkin et al. 7 (Daniel, professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology UC Santa Barbara “Forecasting the effects of global warming on biodiversity” http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/03-07.pdf)

However, niche-theory models have a number of limitations (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). First, they areprimarily correlative, using observed statistical relationships between occurrences of a species and its

environment. Second, they assume that observed distributions are in equilibrium (or quasi-equilibrium) with

their current environment, and that therefore species become extinct outside the region where the

environment, including the climate, meets their present or assumed requirements—contradicting the data

reviewed earlier, as well as many natural history observations of transplanted species, that show species have

survived in small areas of unusual habitat (Pearson 2006), or in habitats that are outside the well-established

geographic range but actually meet their requirements. Thus niche-theory models are likely to overestimate

extinctions, even when they realistically suggest changes in ranges of many species. Another problem with

niche-theory models, as with most models, is that they are difficult to validate, and few have been adequately

validated. For example, Lawler and colleagues (2006) compare six approaches to modeling the effects of global warming on fauna, but do not attempt to validateany of the models independently. Indeed, bioclimatic models vary greatly in their projections of extinction (e.g., Thuiller et al. 2005, Lawler et al. 2006, Pearson et al.2006). An additional complication is that the relationship between the occurrence of a species and climatic variables is not always correlated with the mean. For example, amphibian declines due to outbreaks of a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) are related to the annual range of temperatures, not to

the mean temperature (Pounds et al. 2006).

Niche theory flawed

Guisan and Thuiler 5 (Le Science Laboratoire de Biologie de la Conservation (LBC), Département d’Ecologie et d’Evolution (DEE) “Predictingspecies distribution: offering more than simple habitat models” http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2qpaAV-eH1YJ:www.will.chez-alice.fr/pdf/GuisanThuillerEL2005.pdf+Guisan+and+Thuiller+2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

A useful framework for clarification was recently proposed by Pulliam (2000), who proposed four

theoretical views of the relationship between niche and distribution: (a) the Grinellian niche, where a species

occurs wherever the environmental conditions are suitable (i.e. fundamental niche, with a population growth rate‡ 1); (b) the realized niche of Hutchinson, where a species is excluded from part of its fundamental niche by a

competitor or a predator, (c) the source-sink dynamics, where a species commonly occurs in a sink habitat

where its population growth rate is < 1, and thus where it would disappear without constant immigration

from source habitats, and (d) the dispersal limitation situation, where a species is frequently absent from

suitable habitats because of recurring extinction events and limited dispersal ability preventing full

recolonization (e.g. Svenning & Skov 2004). Traditionally, plant ecologists have relied on niche concepts (a)

and (b), whereas zoologists have been keener to additionally consider scenarios.

Predictions of species destruction are wrong-six reasons

Guisan and Thuiler 5 (Le Science Laboratoire de Biologie de la Conservation (LBC), Département d’Ecologie et d’Evolution (DEE) “Predictingspecies distribution: offering more than simple habitat models” http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2qpaAV-eH1YJ:www.will.chez-alice.fr/pdf/GuisanThuillerEL2005.pdf+Guisan+and+Thuiller+2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

The species–area method of forecasting changes in biodiversity under global warming has six

limitations (most summarized by Lewis 2006). First, it assumes an equilibrium (or very slowly changing)relationship between species number and area. Second, the future climate probably will not be an exact

analog of the current one, so “moving” a bioclimatic zone for an ecological type may not be accurate

(Malcolm et al. 2006). Third, topographic variation, which affects the species–area curve shape,may be greateror less in the future zone. Fourth, factors relating to the shape of areas and the amount of their fragmentation

suggest that an al ternative “endemics–area curve”may enable more accurate predictions (Harte et al. 2004).Fifth, the correct z value must be chosen: It must apply to the entire area under consideration, and it must

also consider the type of area and timescale applicable (Rosenzweig 1995). Sixth,many species are not

confined to a particular vegetation zone or type. For the species–area relationship to predict species

extinctions, the area must be for closed communities. Thomas and colleagues (2004) used individual speciesdistributions as the basis for their analysis. They examined changes in realized niches without taking into accountthe likelihood of changed interactions and adaptation, and thus the new areas that they predicted were probably toosmall. How these area changes relate to changes in area of closed communities is unclear





A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species

Species models can’t be used theoretically or practically

Guisan and Thuiler 5 (Le Science Laboratoire de Biologie de la Conservation (LBC), Département d’Ecologie et d’Evolution (DEE) “Predictingspecies distribution: offering more than simple habitat models” http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2qpaAV-eH1YJ:www.will.chez-

alice.fr/pdf/GuisanThuillerEL2005.pdf+Guisan+and+Thuiller+2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a) In the last two decades, interest in species distribution models (SDMs) of plants and animals has grown

dramatically. Recent advances in SDMs allow us to potentially forecast anthropogenic effects on patterns of

biodiversity at different spatial scales. However, some limitations still preclude the use of SDMs in many

theoretical and practical applications. Here, we provide an overview of recent advances in this field, discuss theecological principles and assumptions underpinning SDMs, and highlight critical limitations and decisions

inherent in the construction and evaluation of SDMs. Particular emphasis is given to the use of SDMs for the

assessment of climate change impacts and conservation management issues. We suggest new avenues for incorporating species migration, population dynamics, biotic interactions and community ecology into SDMs atmultiple spatial scales. Addressing all these issues requires a better integration of SDMs with ecological theory.





A2: Species – No Impact: Geographic Diversity

Geographically peripheral species check


However, the prospective loss of biodiversity due to global warming may still be mitigated by an exploitationof the genetic diversity of species living in the semiarid ecosystems of Israel. There is a growing amount of evidence supporting a theory which suggests that geographically peripheral populations of a species, ascompared to the populations of the same species inhabiting core areas of its geographical distribution, are

living under low environmental stability, have high within-species diversity, high evolutionary

potential, and most importantly high resistance to environmental changes, hence persistence under the

forecasted climatic change. There are therefore climate change scenarios that will cause core populations of drought-resistant species to become extinct due to their low genetic diversity (hence a lack of drought-resistant genotypes), whereas peripheral populations will persist and could be used to rehabilitate the

core areas of distribution of their species. This is not to say that the semiarid peripheral populations, if

protected from development and desertification, will not be affected by climate change. Climate change willact as a selection agent, that will eliminate the non-resistant genotypes and thus will reduce genetic diversity.But the populations will persist and will be used for rehabilitation of the core areas. The rehabilitated

population of a given species will differ in its genetic structure as compared to the extinct one it will becomposed predominantly of drought-resistant genotypes, originating in the semiarid region. But the species

will persist, and the ecosystems will not be damaged.





A2: Species – No Impact: Tech Solves

Technological advances have substantially reduced the negative effects of species extinction

Whitmore, Sayer 92 ( T. C. And J. L. Editors), “Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction”extinction came to scientific prominence in 1979 with my debate opponent Norman Myers's book The Sinking

Ark. It then was brought to an international public and onto the U. S. policy agenda by the 1980 Global 2000 Reportto the President. These still are the canonical texts. Global 2000 forecast extraordinary losses of species

between 1980 and 2000. "Extinctions of plant and animal species will increase dramatically. Hundreds of

thousands of species -- perhaps as many as 20 percent of all species on earth -- will be irretrievably lost as

their habitats vanish, especially in tropical forests," it said. The actual data on the observed rates of species

extinction are wildly at variance with Myers's and following statements, and do not provide support for the

various policies suggested to deal with the purported dangers. Furthermore, recent scientific and technical

advances -- especially seed banks and genetic engineering, and perhaps electronic mass-testing of new drugs

-- have reduced the importance of maintaining a particular species of plant life in its natural habitat. But the bandwagon of the species extinction issue continues to roll with ever-increasing speed. Society properly isconcerned about possible dangers to species. Individual species, and perhaps all species taken together, constitute avaluable endowment, and we should guard their survival just as we guard our other physical and esthetic assets. Butwe should strive for as clear and unbiased an under-standing as possible in order to make the best possible

judgments about how much time and money to spend in guarding them, in a world in which this valuableactivity must compete with guarding and supporting other valuable aspects of civilization.





A2: Species – No Impact: Migration

Natural and assisted migration solve species extinction

Zimmer 7 (Carl, Writer for New York Times. 1/23/07 “A Radical Step to Preserve a Species: Assisted Migration”)

Conservation biologists are talking seriously about assisted migration because the effects of climate

change are already becoming clear. The average temperature of the planet is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit higher

than it was in 1880. Dr. Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the University of Texas, reviewed hundreds of studies onthe ecological effects of climate change this month in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, andSystematics. Many plant species are now budding earlier in the spring. Animals migrate earlier as well. And

the ranges of many species are shifting to higher latitudes, as they track the climate that suits them best. This

is hardly the first time that species have moved in response to climate change. For over two million years, the

planet has swung between ice ages and warm periods, causing some species to shift their ranges hundreds of

miles. But the current bout of warming may be different. The earth was already relatively warm when it began.

“These species haven’t seen an earth as warm as this one’s going to be in a long, long time,” said Dr. Mark Schwartz, a conservation biologist at the University of California, Davis.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_texas/index.html?inline=nyt-org


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org





A2: Species – No Impact: Resilience

Species are too resilient for the impacts to occur

Sedjo 0 ( Roger, Sr. Fellow, Resources for the Future, “Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity: insights from biology,ethics and economics”, eds. p. 114)

As a critical input into the existence of humans and of life on earth, biodiversity obviously has a very highvalue (at least to humans). But, as with other resource questions, including public goods, biodiversity is not aneither/or question, but rather a question of “how much.” Thus, we may argue as to how much biodiversity isdesirable or is required for human life (threshold) and how much is desirable (insurance) and at what price, just associeties argue over the appropriate amount and cost of national defense. As discussed by Simpson, the value of water is small even though it is essential to human life, while diamonds are inessential but valuable to humans. Thereason has to do with relative abundance and scarcity, with market value pertaining to the marginal unit. This water-diamond paradox can be applied to biodiversity. Although biological diversity is essential, a single species has onlylimited value, since the global system will continue to function without that species. Similarly, the value of a pieceof biodiversity (e.g., 10 ha of tropical forest) is small to negligible since its contribution to the functioning of theglobal biodiversity is negligible. The global ecosystem can function with “somewhat more” or “somewhat less”

biodiversity, since there have been larger amounts in times past and some losses in recent times. Therefore, in theabsence of evidence to indicate that small habitat losses threaten the functioning of the global life support system,

the value of these marginal habitats is negligible. The “value question” is that of how valuable to the life supportfunction are species at the margin. While this, in principle, is an empirical question, in practice it is probablyunknowable. However, thus far, biodiversity losses appear to have had little or no effect on the functioning of theearth’s life support system, presumably due to the resiliency of the system, which perhaps is due to the redundancyfound in the system. Through most of its existence, earth has had far less biological diversity. Thus, as in the water-diamond paradox, the value of the marginal unit of biodiversity appears to be very small.





A2: Species – No Impact: A/T biggest wave of extinctions

The wave of mass extinctions forecasted by the aff has already come and gone

Motluk 2 (Alison, literary critic, Salon.com, book review, “Future Evolution” by Peter Ward, January 29,http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/01/29/ward/)

But Ward's Big Idea is a fascinating one. (Good thing, too, as this isn't the first book he's written on thetopic.) Unlike the doomsayers out there, he doesn't think there's another mass extinction looming. Rather, he'sconvinced it's well underway, and that the worst is already over. Most of the big mammals that are going to die off already have. Among those no longer with us are the mastodons, the mammoths, the saber-toothed tiger, the giantshort-faced bear. "It is visible in the rear-view mirror, a roadkill already turned into geologic litter -- bones not yeteven petrified -- the end of the Age of Megamammals," he writes.





A2: Species – No Impact: A/T Intrinsic worth

The intrinsic worth of any species is less than the intrinsic worth of humanity. We must

seek to preserve our own species

Randall & Farmer, (Alan, Michael Professors at Ohio State, 1995, “Handbook of Environmental Economics”

http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/eeeenvchp/)Recognition of other co-equal or superior values, moral principles, or individual concerns returns us to the slick terrain. The case for biodiversity is always circumstantial, that is, relative to the possibilities that are available andthe strength of the competing claims. Ehrenfeld (1988) claimed the high ground by resisting all the circumstantialapproaches as mere manifestations of the moral repugnancy of homocentrism. But, his victory is empy, since itdepends on first-principle or preeminent value status for biodiversity, and such status is unlikely to survive scrutinygiven the powerful appeal of many other candidates.





A2: Species – Turn: Speciation

Species loss is a natural process that allows for evolution of more resilient species.

Raup 91 (David, Dr. of Zoology. University of chicago., EXTINCTION: BAD GENES OR BAD LUCK, p.187 (MHHAR3474)

In Chapter 1, I suggested that without species extinction, biodiversity would increase until some saturation level wasreached, after which speciation would be forced to stop. At saturation, natural selection would continue to operateand improved adaptations would continue to develop. But many of the innovations in evolution, such as new body

plans or modes of life, would probably not appear. The result would be a slowing of evolution and an approach tosome sort of steady-state condition. According to this view, the principal role of extinction in evolution is toeliminate species and thereby to reduce biodiversity so that space -- ecological and geographic -- is available for innovation.







Water Scarcity Bad – Failed States

Water scarcity globally creates failing states that threaten national security.

Sandia Lab 06 (Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory. “Address water scarcity, water quality issues around the world now, Sandia/CSIS report says” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 31, 2006http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/waterpol.html accessed July 5, 2008)

Why does Sandia care if there is adequate potable drinking water in places other than the U.S.? The reason,says Ray Finley, manager of Sandia’s Geohydrology Department, is that Sandia, as a national securitylaboratory, has the responsibility to help provide for the security of the U.S. That includes regions of theworld that are of strategic importance to the U.S. and can impact this country’s national security. “The lack

of clean water can create conditions that lead to destabilization in regions of the world that are already

poor and having problems,” he says. “Lack of potable water can result in famine, conflict over

resources, and poor governance. Failed and failing states threaten U.S. security because of their

potential to harbor terrorist groups.” Examples are instability in the Middle East and Africa — both places where fresh water for both consumption and sanitation is in short supply. The report expands thistheme, saying that “global trends of increasing population, increasing resource consumption, and

decreasing natural resource availability — including fresh water — have pushed many human social,

economic, and political systems to an important tipping point. We face large-scale future dislocations

and crises unless significant action is taken now by leaders in both developed and developing

countries.”

Water key to social, economic, cultural, and political wellbeing among isolated, poor

regions sharing sources

Sandia Lab 06 (Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory. “Address water scarcity, water quality issues around the world now, Sandia/CSIS report says” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 31, 2006http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/waterpol.html accessed July 5, 2008)

The white paper included several other findings. They include: • Water is a foundation for human prosperity.Adequate, high-quality water supplies provide a basis for the growth and development of human social,

economic, cultural, and political systems. Conversely, economic stagnation and political instability will

persist or worsen in those regions where the quality and reliability of water supplies remain uncertain.

• Water problems are geopolitically destabilizing. Water scarcity and poor water have the potential to

destabilize isolated regions within countries or regions sharing limited sources of water. There is an

increasing likelihood of social strife and armed conflict resulting from pressures of water scarcity and

mismanagement. • Poor governance and poor economies in regions around the world where water is

scarce impair the application of innovative technology and innovative policies.

Water wars are real and dangerous in both cases of water scarcity and flooding

WP 07 (Doug StruckWashington Post Staff Writer. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts”Washington Post Monday, August 20, 2007; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967_pf.html accessed July 5, 2008)

The potential for conflict is more than theoretical. Turkey , Syria and Iraq bristle over the Euphrates

and Tigris rivers. Sudan , Ethiopia and Egypt trade threats over the Nile. The United Nations has said

water scarcity is behind the bloody wars in Sudan's Darfur region. In Somalia, drought has spawnedwarlords and armies. Already, the World Health Organization says, 1 billion people lack access to

potable water. In northern China, retreating glaciers and shrinking wetlands that feed the Yangtze River prompted researchers to warn that water supplies for hundreds of millions of people may be at risk. "The

government is talking about harmony between man and nature. But we still haven't seen the turning

point," Ma Jun, author of "China's Water Crisis," said in a phone interview from Beijing. Even where global

warming brings more precipitation, it may come at the wrong time. If precipitation that traditionallyfeeds a glacier comes too early, as rain instead of snow, the result is a quick torrent followed by months of

meager trickle. And if the rain comes in torrents, it brings scenes like those this summer from Texas andIndia.

MidEast at risk for volatile water conflicts

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/waterpol.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967_pf.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Turkey?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Syria?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sudan?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ethiopia?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Egypt?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations?tid=informline



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Darfur?tid=informline



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Somalia?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/World+Health+Organization?tid=informline



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/China?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yangtze+River?tid=informline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Beijing?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Texas?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/India?tid=informline
















http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yangtze+River?tid=informline



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/India?tid=informline





Podesta and Ogden 08 (John Podesta is the President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, Peter Ogden is Chief of Staff at American Progress specializing in energy policy. “G8 Must Consider the Security Risks of Global Warming” Peter Ogden June 30, 2008http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/g8_ogden_podesta_column.html/print.html accessed July 5, 2008)

We should also begin to plan for the implications of increased water scarcity due to climate change in

the Middle East. The water politics of the region are enormously complex and volatile: The Jordan River

physically links the water interests of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority; the Tigrisand Euphrates links Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. While we are not likely to see “water wars” per se, these

countries will have no choice but to pursue more aggressively the kinds of technological and political

arrangements that will enable them to survive in this water-stressed region.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/OgdenPeter.html



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/g8_ogden_podesta_column.html/print.html


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/g8_ogden_podesta_column.html/print.html





Water Scarcity Bad – Timeframe

Water Scarcity is an urgent problem globally, needs global action

IRC 07 (“Climate change: billions could face water scarcity by 2100” IPCC report Updated: Monday 19 February2007 http://www.irc.nl/page/32665 accessed July 5, 2008)

By 2100, water scarcity could impact between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people, says a leaked draft of anIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due to be published in April 2007. The reportfocuses on the consequences of global warming and options for adapting to them. In February 2007 the panelreleased a report on the scientific basis of climate change. The IPCC predicts critical water shortages in

China and Australia, as well as parts of Europe and the United States. Africa and poor countries such

as Bangladesh would be most affected because they were least able to cope with drought. One way to

deal with acute (drinking) water shortages, would be to ship water by tanker. This was alreadyhappening between France and Algeria and Turkey and Israel, said Daniel Zimmer, executive director of theWorld Water Council (WWC). In France, forty-five nations called for the establishment of a United

Nations Environment Organization (UNEO) to slow global warming and protect the planet, a body

that potentially could have policing powers to punish violators. The effort is led by President JacquesChirac of France, who also proposed an accompanying UN declaration of environmental rights, coveringrights to water and clean air, and responsibilities, such as emissions reductions.

http://www.irc.nl/page/32665







Water Scarcity Bad – Laundry List

Diouf 07 (Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General of FAO, the coordinating agency within the UN system for WorldWater Day this year “Coping with water scarcity” Q&A with FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf 22 March2007 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2007/1000521/index.html accessed July 5, 2008)

How serious is the problem of water scarcity? Global water use has been growing at more than twice the

rate of population growth in the last century. Water scarcity already affects every continent and more than40 percent of the people on our planet. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions

with absolute water scarcity, and two-thirds of the world’s population could be living under water

stressed conditions. In order to really understand how serious the problem is we first must take stock of theimmense impact water has on our daily lives and our ability to provide for a better future. Lack of access to

adequate, safe water limits our ability to produce enough food to eat or earn enough income. It limits

our ability to operate industries and provide energy. Without access to water for drinking and proper

hygiene it is more difficult to reduce the spread and impact of life-threatening diseases like HIV/AIDS.

Every day, 3 800 children die from diseases associated with a lack of safe drinking water and proper

sanitation.

Is water scarcity being caused by climate change? The water scarcity situation is being exacerbated by

climate change, especially in the driest areas of the world, which are home to more than 2 billion

people and to half of all poor people. The human impact on the earth’s environment and climate must be

addressed in order to protect the world’s water resources. But there are other factors involved, such asincreases in the amount of water needed to grow the food for a growing population. Agriculture is the

number-one user of freshwater worldwide. Also, the trend towards urbanization and increases in

domestic and industrial water use by people who live in more developed areas are factors that lead to

growing water use. Ultimately, though, the problem is one of the way in which we manage existing

water resources and whether we as a global community truly have the political will to support policies

and invest in programmes that protect our natural environment, conserve water and use less water to

do more.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2007/1000521/index.html

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2007/1000521/index.html





Water Scarcity Bad – Agriculture

Diouf 7 (Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General of FAO, the coordinating agency within the UN system for WorldWater Day this year “Coping with water scarcity” Q&A with FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf 22 March2007 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2007/1000521/index.html accessed July 5, 2008)

You say that agriculture is the world’s number-one user of freshwater. Shouldn’t the solution to water scarcity

lie in agriculture? First of all, there is no magic wand, no flip of the switch that is going to suddenlyeliminate water scarcity. But there are concrete ways to turn the tide against water shortages. We at FAOrecognize that the agriculture sector must take the lead in coping with water scarcity by finding more

effective ways to conserve rain-fed moisture and irrigate farmlands. There is no question that growing

enough food is fundamental to fighting hunger and improving lives on every continent. But agriculture

consumes about 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawn and up to 95 percent in several developing

countries. To tackle water scarcity even as the demand for food increases, we must support initiatives

to produce more food with proportionally less water. Again, this means protecting our waterways, keeping our forestshealthy and improving the way in which we irrigate crops and manage livestock. Can you give an example of how you would do that?By thinking both big and small. First FAO advocates short-term, small-scale irrigation projects at the village level, including thedevelopment of low-cost and relatively simple, cost-effective methods which can be used by small farmers to irrigate crops. We haveorganized and supported pilot programmes in places like South Africa, Turkey and Mexico that focus on small scale irrigation or community-based systems for harvesting rainfall. Often, one must help people to recover from severe water and food shortages by

providing new crops and livestock while setting up irrigation projects, as we are doing right now with the support of the government and

international donors in Niger. But the secret to long-term success is to break out of the cycle of responding toone water emergency after another and to put into place workable, sustainable long-term programmes.

This requires policy changes and cooperation on a larger scale. It means upgrading and improving the

management of the facilities and then working across national borders to develop and protect water

basins.

Water scarcity creates irrigation problems in both the US and developing countries

WP 7 (Doug StruckWashington Post Staff Writer. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts” WashingtonPost Monday, August 20, 2007; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967_pf.html accessed July 5, 2008)

Humans have long attempted to reconcile nature's inconstancies with giant plumbing: reservoirs anddams that hold back floodwaters for more gradual release; dikes and other barriers to protect developedareas; canals and pipelines to take water from wet areas to dry. But that kind of infrastructure is expensive,

especially for Third World governments. Environmentalists decry the impact on wildlife. And buildingdams in earthquake zones tempts disaster. Even in rich California, "there's been no significant reservoir construction for many years," said Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the state Farm Bureau. "Reservoir construction is terribly expensive. It's easier to block a reservoir than to build one." Researcher Seager suggests that humans ought to bend more to nature than trying to bend nature. "We're not going to be

able to carry on like we are," he said. "Do we really want to keep growing irrigated alfalfa in the high

desert, in New Mexico and Arizona? It really makes no sense." But Mark McKean, a Fresno Valley farmer,had to leave some of his fields of cotton unwatered when the flow in the irrigation canals stopped thissummer. But he chafes at Seager's suggestion. "Sure, my tomatoes can be grown in other parts of the world,"he said. "But do we want to give up the economic base that supports small, rural towns? Do we want to

ignore child labor growing our food somewhere else? Do we want to know if pesticides are being used?

What are we willing to pay for all that?"



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Mexico?tid=informline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Arizona?tid=informline




http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Mexico?tid=informline






Water Scarcity Bad – US Econ

Water scarcity is hurting the public economy both in perception and costs

Ostroff 8 (Jim, “Drought's Impact on Businesses Gaining Scrutiny: Lenders, investors and customers are becoming increasingly aware of how water shortages can be a negative for businesses.” The Kiplinger Washington Editors, June 3, 2008http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/drought_impact_on_firms_gains_scrutiny_080603.html accessed July 5, 2008)

Droughts plaguing many parts of the U.S. are nabbing the attention of lenders and investors. They arezeroing in on businesses' exposure to water supply risks and how they might affect customer service

and costs. Power plants, food processors, mining companies and semiconductor makers could see

disruptions that hurt the bottom line and their reputation with customers and investors. If outagesforce a firm to cut production or close facilities, higher costs ensue. Banks are including that assessment

when conducting due diligence on companies' accounting or contingency plans. Look for banks and

Wall Street to hone in on water supply disruption risks when mulling loan applications and evaluating

the outlook for public firms. "[Public] companies provide a great deal of information about potential risksto their operations, earnings, profits, but they don't do an adequate job of disclosing the risks they face in theevent of water shortages -- even short-term ones," says Marc Levinson, an economist with JPMorgan Chase."Most companies that think about water supply risks at all are very shortsighted...they figure they cantruck in water...not only is it very expensive to truck in water, but they'll be in competition with scores of

hundreds of others scrounging to get water at the same time." The risks affect companies in many

parts of the nation. Water shortages loom over many firms in the Southwest, Southeast and parts of theMidwest and Northwest. Warming temperatures that reduce snowfall in the mountains will prolong

periods of drought. The spring runoff from snow in California, critical to its water supply, is forecast to

be 55% of normal, forcing summer water restrictions.

Companies face reputational risk with investors and customers with water shortage

Ostroff 8 (Jim, “Drought's Impact on Businesses Gaining Scrutiny: Lenders, investors and customers are becoming increasingly aware of how water shortages can be a negative for businesses.” The Kiplinger Washington Editors, June 3, 2008http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/drought_impact_on_firms_gains_scrutiny_080603.html accessed July 5, 2008)

Water shortage risks are already an issue in emerging economies, such as in China, India and SouthKorea. In those nations and in the U.S., even the potential for problems related to water can influence

perceptions of companies held by individual and commercial customers and investors. Craig Hanson,deputy director of the World Resources Institute program for people and ecosystems, says: "Companies

should expect they'll face a reputational risk over water usage...[and] companies that are perceived as

water hogs in areas where water is becoming scarce will become targets of community groups."





Water Scarcity Bad – Climate Refugees

Increased water shortage is creating more climate refugees


Global warming threatens water supplies in other ways. Much of the world's fresh water is in glaciers

atop mountains. They act as mammoth storehouses. In wet or cold seasons, the glaciers grow with snow. Indry and hot seasons, the edges slowly melt, gently feeding streams and rivers. Farms below are dependent

on that meltwater; huge cities have grown up on the belief the mountains will always give them

drinking water; hydroelectric dams rely on the flow to generate power. But the atmosphere's

temperature is rising fastest at high altitudes. The glaciers are melting, initially increasing the runoff,

but gradually getting smaller and smaller. Soon, many will disappear. At the edge of the Quelccaya Glacier,the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes, Ohio State University researcher Lonnie Thompson sat in a cold tent at ararified 17,000 feet. He has spent more time in the oxygen-thin "death zone" atop mountains than any other scientist,drilling ice cores and measuring glaciers. He has watched the Quelccaya Glacier shrink by 30 percent in 33 years. Downthe mountain, a multitude of rivulets seep from the edge of Quelccaya to irrigate crops of maize, the water flowingthrough irrigation canals built by the Incas. Even farther downstream, the runoff helps feed the giant capital, Lima,another city built in a desert. "What do you think is going to happen when this stops?" Thompson mused of the water."Do you think all the people below will just sit there? No. It's crazy to think they won't go anywhere. And

what do you think will happen when they go to places where people already live?"

Agricultural problems will force migration from Mexico to the US


The spacing of tree rings suggests there have been numerous periods of drought going back to A.D. 800, hesaid. But, "mechanistically, this is different. These projections clearly come from a warming forced by

rising greenhouse gases." Farmers in the Central Valley, where a quilt of lush, green orchards on brownhills displays the alchemy of irrigation, want to believe this is a passing dry spell. They thought a wet 2006ended a seven-year drought, but this year is one of the driest on record. For the first time, state water authorities shut off irrigation pumps to large parts of the valley, forcing farmers to dig wells. Farther south

and east, the once-mighty Colorado River is looking sickly, siphoned by seven states before dribbling intoMexico. Its reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are drying, leaving accusatory rings on the shorelinesand imperiling river-rafting companies. Seager predicts that drought will prompt dislocations similar to

those of the Dust Bowl. "It will certainly cause movements of people. For example, as Mexico dries out,

there will be migration from rural areas to cities and then the U.S.," he said. "There is an emerging

situation of climate refugees."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Ohio+State+University?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lima?tid=informline




http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Colorado+River?tid=informline


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mexico?tid=informline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lake+Mead?tid=informline








http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mexico?tid=informline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lake+Mead?tid=informline





Reuters 08 (Story by Emma Graham-Harrison. “China Drought Underlines Hydropower Reliance Risks” Reuters News Service Jan 18, 2008, http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=46494 accessed July 5,2008)

A major drought has squeezed electricity output at big dams across southwest China, highlighting the risks of Beijing's massive hydropower expansion plans on coal and oil markets in a warmer, drier world. Ships are stranded,

millions are short on drinking water, and power supplies to big consumers in several Chinese provinces have beencut back, industry officials and local media have said. And while building more dams will help Beijing meet more of its electricity demand using resources within its own borders, it also risks short-term surges in consumption of oil,coal or natural gas to generate emergency power when rivers run low. The world's number-two energy user alreadygets 15 percent of its electricity from hydropower and aims to increase capacity by more than half to 190 gigawatts

—over double Britain's entire stock of power plants -- by the end of the decade. But Australia's similarly ambitiousSnowy Hydro power scheme, designed more than half a century ago as a lifeline for the fertile yet dry Murray-Darling river basin, offers a grim warning. Normally the provider of three quarters of the mainland's renewableenergy, it has seen output tumble and drowned towns re-emerge from shrinking reservoirs after years of poor rains."The Australian example shows how risky hydropower is, from the point of view of droughts," said CLSA analystSimon Powell. "The Snowy system really is not being dispatched at all. And that has caused a tightening of supplyon the generation side, resulting in a spiking of wholesale electricity prices." Other countries like Pakistan andVietnam that are heavily reliant on hydropower have been forced to step up imports of fuel oil or buy power fromneighbours during dry spells, driving up costs for producers and unsettling regional oil markets.

SHORTAGES CREEP BACK In 2004, China endured its worst power shortages in decades as new plant construction lagged far behind rapideconomic growth. Many businesses turned to diesel-fired generators to stave off blackouts, causing oil demand tosurge by 15 percent, a key factor behind oil prices' first ascent above US$50 a barrel. The International EnergyAgency estimated that up to 350,000 barrels per day of oil demand, or over a third of total consumption growth thatyear, went to power generation. That strain has since eased, as China builds new power stations at a rateunprecedented anywhere in the world; installed capacity has grown by half since the end of 2004. But in some areasthe shortage of local resources -- from coal to water -- is emerging as a new cause of an old problem. SouthwesternYunnan and Sichuan provinces are both facing electricity shortages because of low water levels in rivers. The strainis so serious in Sichuan that it has affected supplies to major users like metals smelters. Nearby Guizhou province isalso suffering from outages because tight supplies of thermal coal are compounding problems caused by low water levels. Water levels on the country's longest river, the Yangtze, are the lowest since records began in 1866, state

media reported, though reservoirs at its massive Three Gorges project -- the world's biggest hydroelectric plant --remain healthy. "This year's dry season came a month earlier than usual and water levels fell sooner than expected,"the China Daily quoted an unnamed government official saying on Thursday. The dry spell is not a one-off. Lastyear also saw historic droughts in some parts of the country and officials have repeatedly warned that climatechange is already affecting China. "With the impact of global warming, drought and water scarcity are increasinglygrave," the State Council, or cabinet, said in a recent directive. Beijing's fight to curb greenhouse gas emissionsincludes boosting the role of renewables in powering its economy, which has the added attraction of cutting relianceon oil imports. "In terms of energy security the government is right to push for hydropower. China also has a lot of water resources that are untapped," said Donovan Huang, research analyst at Nomura.

WORSE TO COMEBut the country has naturally low per capita water resources, and China's top water official has warned that thechallenge of managing scarce supplies is compounded by climate change. The frequency of both the droughts and

floods that regularly batter China are expected to increase in a warmer world. And rural demands could compoundthe impact of short supplies, because China tends to time releases of water to suit the needs of farmers rather than

power companies. For instance, water levels behind major reservoirs nationwide rose 6 percent in early Januaryfrom 2006, but only because dam operators are stocking up ahead of spring planting season. Below dams, boattraffic piled up on drought-stricken rivers, and authorities had to release water from behind the Three Gorges Dam toease cargo ship stranding downstream. That may have helped power wholesalers in the manufacturing hub of Guangdong, which is looking to the dam for extra supply to help tide over expected summer shortfalls, local mediareported. But if the dam cannot deliver, generators will have to chase tight coal or pricey fuel oil supplies, pushing

prices up in a cycle that global warming could make unpleasantly familiar.

http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=46494

http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=46494





Christian Science Monitor 08 (“Is water becoming ‘the new oil’? Population, pollution, and climate put thesqueeze on potable supplies – and private companies smell a profit. Others ask: Should water be a human right?” ByMark Clayton: Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. May 29, 2008 editionhttp://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/is-water-becoming-‘the-new-oil’/ accessed July 5, 2008)Water, Dow Chemical Chairman Andrew Liveris told the World Economic Forum in February, “is the oil of this

century.” Developed nations have taken cheap, abundant fresh water largely for granted. Now global populationgrowth, pollution, and climate change are shaping a new view of water as “blue gold.” Water’s hot-commoditystatus has snared the attention of big equipment suppliers like General Electric as well as big private water companies that buy or manage municipal supplies – notably France-based Suez and Aqua America, the largest US-

based private water company. Global water markets, including drinking water distribution, management, wastetreatment, and agriculture are a nearly $500 billion market and growing fast, says a 2007 global investmentreport. But governments pushing to privatize costly to maintain public water systems are colliding with a

global “water is a human right” movement. Because water is essential for human life, its distribution is best

left to more publicly accountable government authorities to distribute at prices the poorest can afford, those

water warriors say. “We’re at a transition point where fundamental decisions need to be made by societies

about how this basic human need – water – is going to be provided,” says Christopher Kilian, clean-water program director for the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. “The profit motive and basic human need

[for water] are just inherently in conflict.”

Will “peak water” displace “peak oil” as the central resource question? Some see such a scenario rising.“What’s different now is that it’s increasingly obvious that we’re running up against limits to new [fresh water]supplies,” says Peter Gleick, a water expert and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Envi-ronment, and Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Oakland, Calif. “It’s no longer cheap and easy to drill another

well or dam another river.” The idea of “peak water” is an imperfect analogy, he says. Unlike oil, water is not

used up but only changes forms. The world still has the same 326 quintillion gallons, NASA estimates. But

some 97 percent of it is salty. The world’s remaining accessible fresh-water supplies are divided among industry(20 percent), agriculture (70 percent), and domestic use (10 percent), according to the United Nations. Meanwhile,fresh-water consumption worldwide has more than doubled since World War II to nearly 4,000 cubic

kilometers annually and set to rise another 25 percent by 2030, says a 2007 report by the Zurich-basedSustainable Asset Management (SAM) group investment firm. Up to triple that is available for human use, so

there should be plenty, the report says. But waste, climate change, and pollution have left clean water supplies

running short. “We have ignored demand for decades, just assuming supplies of water would be there,” Dr.

Gleick says. “Now we have to learn to manage water demand and – on top of that – deal with climate change,too.”

Population and economic growth across Asia and the rest of the developing world is a major factor driving

fresh-water scarcity. The earth’s human population is predicted to rise from 6 billion to about 9 billion by 2050, theUN reports. Feeding them will mean more irrigation for crops.

Increasing attention is also being paid to the global “virtual water” trade. It appears in food or other products thatrequire water to produce, products that are then exported to another nation. The US may consume even more

water – virtual water – by importing goods that require lots of water to make. At the same time, the US exports

virtual water through goods it sells abroad.

In the US today, about 33.5 million Americans get their drinking water from privately owned utilities that make upabout 16 percent of the nation’s community water systems, according to the National Association of Water

Companies, a trade association.“While water is essential to life, and we believe everyone deserves the right of access to water, that doesn’t

mean water is free or should be provided free,” says Peter Cook, executive director of the NAWC. “Water should

be priced at the cost to provide it – and subsidized for those who can’t afford it.”

But private companies’ promises of efficient, cost-effective water delivery have not always come true. Boliviaejected giant engineering firm Bechtel in 2000, unhappy over the spiking cost of water for the city of Cochabamba.Last year Bolivia’s president publicly celebrated the departure of French water company Suez, which had held a 30-year contract to supply La Paz.In her book, “Blue Covenant,” Maude Barlow – one of the leaders of the fledgling “water justice” movement – seesa dark future if private monopolies control access to fresh water. She sees this happening when, instead of

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/is-water-becoming-'the-new-oil'/#

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/is-water-becoming-'the-new-oil'/


http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/is-water-becoming-'the-new-oil'/#






curbing pollution and increasing conservation, governments throw up their hands and sell public water

companies to the private sector or contract with private desalination companies.

“Water is a public resource and a human right that should be available to all,” she says. “All these companies are

doing is recycling dirty water, selling it back to utilities and us at a huge price. But they haven’t been as

successful as they want to be. People are concerned about their drinking water and they’ve met resistance.”Private-water industry officials say those pushing to make water a “human right” are ideologues struggling to

preserve inefficient public water authorities that sell water below the cost to produce it and so cheaply it iswasted – doing little to extend service to the poor.

Water and war: Will scarcity lead to conflict?Cherrapunjee, a town in eastern India, once held bragging rights as the “wettest place on earth,” and still gets nearly40 feet of rain a year. Ironically, officials recently brought in Israeli water-management experts to help manage andretain water that today sluices off the area’s deforested landscape so that the area can get by in months when no rainfalls.“Global warming isn’t going to change the amount of water, but some places used to getting it won’t, and

others that don’t, will get more,” says Dan Nees, a water-trading analyst with the World Resources Institute.“Water scarcity may be one of the most underappreciated global political and environmental challenges of

our time.” Water woes could have an impact on global peace and stability.

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cited a report by International Alert, a self-described peacebuilding organization based in London. The report identified 46 countries with a combined population of 2.7

billion people where contention over water has created “a high risk of violent conflict” by 2025.

In the developing world – particularly in China, India, and other parts of Asia – rising economic success means a

rising demand for clean water and an increased potential for conflict.China is one of the world’s fastest-

growing nations, but its lakes, rivers, and groundwater are badly polluted because of the widespread dumpingof industrial wastes. Tibet has huge fresh water reserves.While news reports have generally cited Tibetans’ concerns over exploitation of their natural resources by China,little has been reported about China’s keen interest in Tibet’s Himalayan water supplies, locked up in rapidly meltingglaciers.“It’s clear that one of the key reasons that China is interested in Tibet is its water,” Dr. Gleick says. “They don’t

want to risk any loss of control over these water resources.”

The Times (London) reported in 2006 that China is proceeding with plans for nearly 200 miles of canals to

divert water from the Himalayan plateau to China’s parched Yellow River. China’s water plans are a major

problem for the Dalai Lama’s government in exile, says a report released this month by Circle of Blue, a branch of

the Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.Himalayan water is particularly sensitive because it supplies the rivers that bring water to more than half a

dozen Asian countries. Plans to divert water could cause intense debate.

“Once this issue of water resources comes up,” wrote Elizabeth Economy, director of Asia Studies at the Councilon Foreign Affairs, to Circle of Blue researchers in a report earlier this month, “and it seems inevitable at this pointthat it will – it also raises emerging conflicts with India and Southeast Asia.”

Tibet is not the only water-rich country wary of a water-poor neighbor. Canada, which has immense fresh-water

resources, is wary of its water-thirsty superpower neighbor to the south, observers say. With Lake Mead low inthe US Southwest, and now Florida and Georgia squabbling over water, the US could certainly use a sip (or gulp)

of Canada’s supplies. (Canada has 20 percent of the world’s fresh water.)

But don’t look for a water pipeline from Canada’s northern reaches to the US southwest anytime soon. Water

raises national fervor in Canada, and Canadians are reluctant to share their birthright with a United States

that has mismanaged – in Canada’s eyes – its own supplies. Indeed, the prospect of losing control of its water

under free-trade or other agreements is something Canadians seem to worry about constantly.A year ago, Canada’s House of Commons voted 134 to 108 in favor of a motion to recommend that its federalgovernment “begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.”.





***Water Scarcity Answers***





AT Water Wars- Solved Now

Existing development programs solve water scarcity and resource wars.

IRDC 97 (“Helping the Thirsty to Solve Their Water Crisis” IDRC 1997-11-25 http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5522-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html accessed July 16, 2008)

Bridge over Troubled Waters IDRC has supported a number of research initiatives to deal with water as

a source of conflict in places where the potential exists and in the Middle East, where water has been

the key natural-resource issue for at least 3 000 years. Dr David Brooks, an IDRC chief scientist and anexpert in this field, writes that "no other region of the world embraces such a large area, with so many peoplestriving so hard for economic growth on the basis of so little water." IDRC was part of the Canadianrepresentation on the team discussing water issues during the Middle East peace talks. The talks broughttogether Israeli and Palestinian researchers who, until then, did not know, and were unlikely to speak to, oneanother. The two teams of researchers are now seeking peaceful and effective means to manage jointly

the Mountain Aquifer, the region's largest source of quality drinking water. The researchers have

identified the problems and defined alternative management options. A second phase of the research isseeking ways to select among the options. Researchers will also try to define who -- Israel or Palestine andwhich group within each country -- would win or lose under each option. This kind of project enables

Canada to contribute to peace and security in a volatile region. IDRC water projects also showcase

Canada's considerable expertise. Hans Schreier says some of the data he collects in his IDRC-funded

research in Asia and the Middle East could be important to Canada. The kinds of storms he is studying in theHimalayas could provide an indication of what Canada can expect if it experiences significant climatechange. He regards IDRC as "quite unique" in its use of research to seek a solution to what he calls "the crisisof the year 2000.

Cooperative water sharing negotiations will solve for now, even with conflicts of interest

Spillmann 5 (Kurt R., “Attention is increasingly being drawn towards rivalries around the precious resourcewater.” Science Life Published: 06.10.2005, 06:00 http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/kolukrsp3.htmlWater wars? Accessed July 16, 2008)

In his painstaking analysis of all conflicts related to water listed by the FAO, Aaron T. Wolf concludes thatpredictions of water wars are exaggerated and that willingness to co-operate and co-operative solutions

are more often employed to resolve this type of altercation. The German scientist Petra Holtrup has alsofound many examples proving the capability, in practice, of numerous non-binding action programmes

which enable those involved to agree on a co-operatively regulated, and therefore non-violent, use of waterways that flow through more than one country. The Research Center for Security Studies at ETHZurich has also shown, within framework of the NCCR North-South Programme, how co-operation can be

fostered with regard to scarce water supplies in the basin of the Nile by the means of so-called

"dialogue workshops“ (1).Such co-operative solutions nevertheless come in for some fundamental criticism. Co-operation calls for renunciation, says John Waterbury, political scientist and President of the American University in Beirut.Waivering one's right to something is fundamentally irreconcilable with one's own interests, he states,and this is the reason why the problem-solving power of such regulations was, at best, only a "Utopianvision". It was difficult in practical terms to grasp the concept of "for the common good", which

counted for far less with the individual than costs that touched him or her directly.





AT Water Wars- People Migrate

Water alone can’t cause a violent enough resource war—people migrate instead.

Spillmann 5 (Kurt R., “Attention is increasingly being drawn towards rivalries around the precious resourcewater.” Science Life Published: 06.10.2005, 06:00 http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/kolukrsp3.htmlWater wars? Accessed July 16, 2008)

One area that is plagued by extreme drought is the belt stretching from Morocco in Africa's north-east allthe way to Oman. Individuals living in this region have less than 500 cubic metres of water per year at

their disposal, which is the equivalent of less than 1,400 litres per day. When the 70 per cent employed inagriculture and the 20 per cent used by industry are deducted from this, it leaves only around 10 per cent–

roughly 140 litres per person per day–for household and personal use. (By comparison Europeans use200 to 300 litres and North Americans 500 litres a day for their personal and household needs.) The crux of the matter is that precisely in these regions the population is strongly increasing. Under these conditions

isn't it inevitable that armed conflict will result over available water supplies and the courses of rivers?

As unfortunate as the current situation and predictions are for this region, from historical experience we can

deduce that, to date, water alone has never been the sole source of violent conflict or war.

Conflicts about water reflect the nature of this commodity. In contrast to land, water cannot be

occupied and thus become immovable property. Water flows, falls as rain, sometimes here, sometimesthere, floods, disappears; it is not hard, like a stone, durable like a mountain or solid like a piece of land.

Water doesn't seem to engage our feelings in the same way as the ownership of a plot of earth does andthis is why skirmishes about water are generally less intractable. Just as water flows around obstacles or avoids them, faced with a glut or scarcity of water people react with mobility–usually by fleeing, and

water conflicts appear to be carried out with less aggression than conflicts over land.





AT Water Scarcity -- General

New and existing infrastructure is definitely sufficient for solving water scarcity

Azam 2 (By M. Zaki Azam “Solving water scarcity problem” May 6, 2002,http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/06/ebr3.htm accessed July 16, 2008)

The study warned that the water scarcity would be a major constrain on food production, human health

and environmental quality. Many of the countries on food production, human health and environmentalquality. Many of the countries in this category, including Pakistan, will have to divert water from

irrigation to supply their domestic and industrial needs and will need to import more food. However

the study concluded that around 50 per cent of the increase in demand for water by the year 2025, can be

met by increasing the effectiveness of irrigation. While some of the remaining water development needs

can be met by small dams and conjunctive use of aquifers. In some cases medium and large dams mayalso be needed. The productivity of irrigation water can be increased in four ways: (i) increasing the

productivity per unit of transpiration; (ii) reducing flows of usable water to sinks and converting this into productive use; (iii) controlling salinity and pollution and (iv) reallocating water from lower valued to higher valued crop.

Market Forces solve water scarcity

Zubrzycki 6/4 (Carly Zubrzycki “The rain in Spain…” Adam Smith Institute Saturday, 4 June 2008http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/ accessed July 16, 2008)

While on the other hand, when costs and the decreasing availability of water actually had an effect,

farmers moved towards more efficient irrigation methods and crops that required less water.

Incentives matter. Governments shouldn’t be subsidizing unsustainable lifestyles in arid locations,

especially when that will only worsen the situation. If farming is only economically sustainable withsubsidized water, people should not be farming there. Water should be more expensive where it’s scarce or

hard to access, even if that means fewer farmers or a shift in population towards more fertile areas. As

water gets scarcer, a more market-based system would surely also do more to encourage the

development of private desalination plants and water-saving technology, as opposed to simply pouring

billions of taxpayer dollars into such projects. If farming isn’t working out, Spain should move towardsless water-intensive industries in those areas and import crops from places with more adequate resources anda comparative advantage. Very high water prices would encourage even the resorts and golf courses to

find ways to reduce water usage rather than search for bureaucratic loopholes. People find ways

around bureaucracies, but it’s much harder to find a way around the market.





***Climate Refugees Answers***





AT Climate Refugees- No Data

Studies on climate refugees and conflict are speculative and unqualified—empirically,

cooperation trumps violence

UNDEP 7 (“Climate Change and Conflict: The Migration Link” International Peace Academy members Nils

Petter Gleditsch, Ragnhild Nordås and Idean Salehyan UNDEP May 2007, PDF accessed July 16, 2008)One concrete link between climate change and violent conflict is suggested by the TAR, which observes that“much has been written about the potential for international conflict (hot or cold) over water resources.” Thereport comments that a change in water availability has the potential to induce conflict between different

users. But such disputes need not be violent; they could even stimulate cooperation. The sources cited

by the IPCC provide weak support for the idea of conflict over scarce water resources.The writings of Peter Gleick,Michael Klare, and others suggest a potential for water wars,but other scholars such as Peter Beaumont and Aaron Wolf argue that cooperation generally trumps conflict in handling shared water

resources. Statistical studies have found that neighboring countries that share rivers experience low-

level interstate conflict somewhat more frequently, but that they also tend to cooperate more. Whether

conflict or cooperation will dominate is not a simple function of scarcity but depends on other variables

such as mediation and dispute resolution mechanisms, the nature of property rights, and the ability to

enforce agreements The overall impression from the IPCC report is that the link between climate change

and conflict is unclear.Where such a link is mentioned, it is weakly substantiated with evidence.The SternReview on the economics of climate change invites the same charac- terization. Its references to how conflict“may” occur as a result of climate change are mostly based on second-hand sources of the same nature asthose used by the IPCC. The expected causal link from climate to conflict seems to be cited uncritically fromone source to the next.

The link between warming, migration, and conflict is too shaky for you to vote on this

impact.

UNDEP 7 (“Climate Change and Conflict: The Migration Link” International Peace Academy members NilsPetter Gleditsch, Ragnhild Nordås and Idean Salehyan UNDEP May 2007, PDF accessed July 16, 2008)

The link between climate change, migration, and conflict remains conjectural. Because it is difficult to

isolate different causes of migration, it is unclear whether specific population movements have

occurred as a direct result of environmental stresses rooted in climatic shift.There is good evidence

linking conflict and emigration in sending areas and immigration and conflict in receiving areas. On theother hand, there is a lack of consensus and systematic data on the effects of climate change on

migration and on the effect of climate-induced migration on conflict. Clearly identifying the sources of environmentally- induced migration and environmental conflicts is a difficult, yet much needed endeavor.Empirical evidence can only reveal patterns of social behavior that have already occurred. Much of the

debate about climate change involves future forecasts and possible scenarios.It is quite possible that themost disruptive effects of climate change will occur at some point in the future. Thus, preparation for futureevents must be rooted in an analysis of best and worst case scenarios and firm theoretical foundations





AT Climate Refugees- Alt Cause

Tension over environmental factors is based on the community background, not simply

scarcity.

UNDEP 7 (“Climate Change and Conflict: The Migration Link” International Peace Academy members Nils

Petter Gleditsch, Ragnhild Nordås and Idean Salehyan UNDEP May 2007, PDF accessed July 16, 2008)Secondly, environmental stress may lead to resource conflicts, and these conflicts may produce

refugees. Each type of migration may lead to conflict in receiving areas; however, they may not have the

same effects. Migration directly caused by environmental factors may lead to social tensions and

sporadic violence in receiving areas, but is not likely to cause sustained, organized armed conflict. In

contrast, political refugees from violent regions are more likely to become involved in militant

activities, although even this is not a foregone conclusion.

No water wars from migration—at worst, there will be small unorganized riots.

UNDEP 7 (“Climate Change and Conflict: The Migration Link” International Peace Academy members NilsPetter Gleditsch, Ragnhild Nordås and Idean Salehyan UNDEP May 2007, PDF accessed July 16, 2008)

Purely environmental migrants, on the other hand, often do not have political agendas in their home

region and they do not necessarily regard themselves as victims of persecution deserving justice. If

people flee for economic or environmental reasons rather than because of armed conflict, the risk of importing organized and sustained conflict should be lower. Current migration patterns are instructive inthis regard. Across Europe and North America, hundreds of thousands of economic migrants gain access eachyear. Although racist attacks, ethnic riots, and murders do occur, such incidents have generally been

short-lived and without large-scale organization.





***Warming Answers***





A2: Warming = Fires – Turn: Decreases Fires

Climate change decreases forest fires

Bergeron et al 98 (Another Look at the Little Ice Age Yves Bergeron, Mike Flannigan and David W. Schindler BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 11 (Nov., 1998), pp. 884-885)

However, our own research indicates that there is a large regional variation in the response of fire

activity and lake levels to climate warming. Contrary to what is portrayed by Schindler for northwesternOntario, the warming after the end of the Little Ice Age (c. 1850) in Quebec's boreal forest has led to a

decrease in forest fire activity (Bergeron and Archambault 1993) and an increase in lake water levels

(Begin and Payette 1988, Tardif and Bergeron 1997). Schindler argues that climatic warming implies anincrease in temperature, which in itself may cause an increase in fire activity as well as increasedevapotranspiration and lake level decline. However, increased temperature is often associated with an

increase in precipitation that often can more than compensate for the effect of increased temperature

on the water balance. Our work strongly suggests that decreased forest fire activity and increased

lake levels in Quebec's boreal forest are related to a more positive water balance since the post- Little

Ice Age warming began. This interpretation has been confirmed by simulations of the Fire Weather Index(FWI) for a doubling of carbon dioxide scenario using a general circulation model (GCM; FWI integratesweather variables that control fire intensity and spread and is inversely related to the water balance.

Simulations showed that except for Central Canada, where the FWI might increase significantly, most of the boreal forest would be characterized by a decreased or un- changed maximum or mean FWI. In arecent study (Flannigan et al. in press), we were able to show that historical frequency of forest fires

observed in the Canadian boreal forest was indeed what was predicted by the GCMs. Although wetend to agree with Schindler that boreal forests are threatened, we think that the scientific arguments on

climatic warming developed in his article do not properly take into account large regional differences

in the climate and in the response of the ecosystem to changes in the climate.





A2: Warming = Species Extinction

Projections of species destruction are overestimated and fail to consider multiple factors


Now that it is widely accepted that global warming is happening, there is a growing demand for accurateforecasts of its effects, and much concern about its effects on biological diversity. Specialists know thattheoretical models of these effects are limited—although useful in certain contexts when all the provisions,

preconditions, and limitations of a given model are understood—and should not be taken literally. Often,however, the media do not convey these caveats. It is no wonder that policymakers and the general public areconfused. The purpose of an environmental forecast is either to support a decision process or to test a

scientific hypothesis. To support a decision process, it must be clear which decisions the forecast expects to

improve. To mitigate the effects of global warming on biodiversity, two distinct kinds of actions are needed: long-term actions, such as reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and short-term ones, such as designing an appropriatenature reserve. Fossil evidence and recent ecological and genetic research, along with specific problems with presentforecasting methods, lead us to believe that current projections of extinction rates are overestimates. Previous

work has failed to adequately take into account mechanisms of persistence. We note a Quaternary

conundrum:While current empirical and theoretical ecological forecasts suggest that many species could be at

risk from global warming, during the recent ice ages few extinctions are documented (Willis et al. 2004). Thepotential resolution of this conundrum gives insights into the requirements for more accurate and reliable

forecasting.

Projections of species extinction are overestimated-fossil records prove


Fossil evidence and recent ecological and genetic research, along with specific problems with present

forecasting methods, lead us to believe that current projections of extinction rates are overestimates. Previous

work has failed to adequately take into account mechanisms of persistence. We note a Quaternary

conundrum:While current empirical and theoretical ecological forecasts suggest that many species could be at

risk from global warming, during the recent ice ages few extinctions are documented (Willis et al. 2004). The

potential resolution of this conundrum gives insights into the requirements for more accurate and reliableforecasting.

Their conception of biodiversity is oversimplified


Among the many meanings of the term “biodiversity,” it is important to select one as the focus for

each specific forecast. Most of the existing literature on forecasting the effects of global warming on

biodiversity seems to assume that “biodiversity” has some universally accepted meaning, and that readers

already know what this is. However, biodiversity is a complex concept, and its meanings are becoming both

more complex and more quantitative as greater emphasis is placed on DNA analysis as a determinant of

genetically distinct units. As if distinctions among different levels of organization of biodiversity (genes,

species, ecosystems, etc.) were not already complex, there are even more fundamental distinctions betweendifferent ways of valuing biodiversity: intrinsic value (species’ value independent of human use and needs)

and use value (the human use of diversity, ranging from the desire to harvest one species to the ability to see

and appreciate complex ecosystems).





***Oil Spills***





Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [1/2]Oil spills push tuna over the brink to extinctionENS`6 (Enviromental News Service, Lebanon Oil Spill a Biodiversity Disaster, Cleanup Blocked ATHENS, Greece, August 8,2006, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2006/2006-08-08-01.asp)

Marine species such as the commercially important bluefin tuna are believed to have been affected by

the oil spill. �This oil slick definitely poses a threat to biodiversity," said marine biologist Dr. EzioAmato of Italy, who arrived in Damascus today to assess the spill. Dr. Amato is a specialist in the impact of human activities on marine benthic ecosystems, fate and effects of pollutants in these ecosystems. He isfrom ICRAM, the Istituto Centrale per la Ricerca scientificae tecnologica Applicata al Mare, an Italianresearch institute that is part of a group of organizations cooperating to address the spill. �Because tuna’s

eggs and larvae float on the water surface, they can be directly affected by this oil slick, with potential

serious consequences for the tuna population in the Mediterranean," Amato said. The largest of the

tunas, bluefin tuna migrate from the Atlantic Ocean to the eastern Mediterranean and form spawning

aggregations. The species is already at risk due to overfishing, warned WWF in a July report, sayingcurrent levels of fishing are 2.5 times higher than the bluefin tuna populations can sustain. �Atlantic bluefin

tuna stocks risk imminent commercial collapse,� said Roberto Mielgo Bregazzi, CEO of Advanced TunaRanching Technologies and author of the WWF report. �In the race to catch shrinking tuna stocks,

industrial fleets are switching from traditional fishing grounds to the last breeding refuges in the

eastern Mediterranean,� he said. At this time of year, critically endangered Mediterranean green turtles

nest on a beach in Lebanon, but the coast is coated with oil from the spill. "I saw many fish and crabs dead by the Ramlet al-Baida beach," environmental activist Iffat Edriss told the "Daily Star," describing thesituation as a disaster for the marine ecosystem. Ramlet al-Baida is the only public beach in Beirut.

B) Tuna key to herring-A keystone speciesVelasquez-Manoff`7 (Moises, Can we save the bluefin tuna? Can the world act fast enough to save the disappearingtuna?, Christain Science Monitor, 12.27.2007 http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=1219)

The warm-blooded bluefin, the largest of the tuna species, travels vast distances during its life. Living up to 30 years, adultsfatten up in highly productive northern waters, like, historicall y, those in the Gulf of Maine, and then spawn in the warmer waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean.Since the early 1980s, managers have treated North Atlantic bluefin as two separate populations: eastern and western. A north-south line that bisects the Atlantic divides the twostocks. Many scientists assumed a mere 4-to-5 percent exchange between eastern and western tuna. But "no fisherman that I know of ever believed for a second that the two-stock theory was viable," says Mayhew. Enabled by new tagging technology, studies conducted during the past decade substantiate Mayhew's hunch. "Since the late '90s, we'veconfirmed that the mixing is much greater than assumed," says Dr. Lutcavage – up to 30 percent. The new evidence has US scientists worried about what's happening in the East, particularly in the Mediterranean. Even by European scienti sts' account, bluefin catches there are currently at unsustainable levels. The Standing Committee on Research andStatistics (SCRS) recommended a quota of 15,000 tons in 2007. But the ICCAT set the allowable catch at 29,500 tons. Worse, studies put the actual catch somewhere around50,000 tons. And, says Lutcavage, while 73 inches (about 250 pounds) is the minimum harvest size in US waters, it was only 10 kgs (22 lbs.) in European waters unti l recently. Inlate November, ICCAT raised the minimum catch size there to 30 kgs (66 lbs.). "If you 're taking 70,000 metric tons [77,000 t ons] and it's much smaller fish, the number of fishyou're taking is much greater," she says. For each 250-pounder caught here, up to 10 were potentially removed there. Presumably, these fish never came west. The Gulf of Mexicoand the Mediterranean leave distinct chemical signatures on fish that swim their waters. A laboratory at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, is currently analyzing bluefin ear bones to better determine their origin, the results of which should be available early next year, says Dr. Porch. Calls for a moratorium ignored In October, meanwhile,Bill Hogarth, director of NMFS, called for a t hree-to-five year moratorium on bluefin fishing. In November, the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling for the same.But despite warnings from both sides of the Atlantic that collapse was imminent, ICCAT implemented only a small reduction. By 2010, the eastern quota will drop to 25,000 tonsyearly. The World Wildlife Foundation called the decision the "final blow for Mediterranean tuna." Rich Ruais, executive director of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association inSalem, N.H., and an adviser to the American delegation to ICCAT, characterizes it as "an utterly preposterous inadequate response to the crisis at hand.... The EuropeanCommunity has just totally refused to address the issue." The fault, he and others say, lies with tuna-farming interests in the Mediterranean. The recent boom in capturing andfattening tuna in mobile sea pens has created a powerful lobby worried about recoupin g its investment. "There's nowhere else to point the finger," Mr. Ruais says. But other ocean

anomalies have some thinking that eastern fishing fleets aren't the only stress on western tuna. The few tuna that still swim the western Atlantic are showing

up quite lean. "The quality of the fish that I've seen has definitely declined over the last few years," says Bob Campbell, manager of the Yankee Fisherman's Cooperativein Seabrook, N.H. After analyzing 14 years' worth of Mr. Campbell's logbooks, Walter Golet, a PhD candidate in Lutcavage's lab, agreed. Bluefin "come here for one reason – t heycome here to feed," says Mr. Golet, who recently published his findings in the journal Fishery Bulletin. But "they don't seem to be obtaining the forage that they were getting 10 to

15 years ago." (This year, which was not included in the study, has seen a slight rebound in tuna quality, says Campbell.) This thinning has some

wondering about what bluefin eat, particularly herring, a keystone species in the northern Atlantic. Herring

biomass seems high, similar to the way it was before the advent of modern industrial fishing fleets in

the 1960s. But both fishermen and conservationists consider this five-inch-long fish important

enough that they've formed an alliance devoted to its protection. Known as CHOIR, the Coalition for the Atlantic HerringFishery's Orderly, Informed, and Responsible Long-Term Development, has repeatedly called for large herring trawlers to leave New England waters. The coalition fears that if herring numbers greatly diminish, everything that feeds on them, from tuna to cod, will suffer. Indeed, while herring biomass seems healthy, scientists have noted that an individualfour-year-old herring is smaller than in the past. "The size at that age has decreased over the last decade or so," says Bill Overholtz, a senior scientist wi th NMFS in Woods Hole,

Mass. The most obvious cause is the "density effect," he says: There are so many herring that each one eats less, making them

smaller. And smaller herring could mean that feeding tuna have to work harder for each meal.





Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [2/2]

C) Extinction

Diner`94 (David, JD Ohio State, Military Law Review, Winter, 1994)

4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is better than simplicity. As the current

mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend

occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the

number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems

are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These

ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the

more successfully it can resist stress... [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several

strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which iscut anywhere breaks down as a whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially

simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. Thespreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States arerelatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal

or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem

collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanicremoving, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.





Oil Spills Bad-Econ-Tourism

Oil spills kill tourism

Tre`7 (Tuoi, Oil spills attack Vietnam’s most beautiful beaches, 4/21/2007,http://english.vietnamnet.vn/travel/2007/04/687502/)Local residents said as of 3.30 pm yesterday that many oil clods had melted and absorbed into the sand. Mr.

Nguyen Dinh Khoa, Vice President of Nha Trang urban Environment Company, said, “If they aren’t timelycollected, these oil clods can melt and be absorbed into the sand, polluting beaches even more.” Around April14, oil spills also appeared at Ngang Beach within Van Phong Bay. Yesterday morning, the investigation team fromthe Department of Natural Resources and the Environment also discovered coalesced substances along 800 m of Doc Le Beach in Van Phong Bay. Oil spills also appeared and have been collected within the Tri Nguyen Islandarea. Oil clods are causing a general concern for Nha Trang tourism. Many think that if oil spills can drift as

far as the beach right at the centre of Nha Trang city, they will certainly attack other beaches within Nha TrangBay. As of yesterday morning, however, some islands within Nha Trang Bay said they hadn’t seen any oil spills yet.The Khanh Hoa Department of Natural Resources and the Environment said, “It isn’t clear where the coalesced oilrecently discovered at Doc Let Beach as well as Nha Trang’s central beach came from, but unlike the oil thatappeared at Dam Mon Beach, it can’t spread to pollute a wider environment. But since oil spills appear at

frequently-visited beaches, tourism will be significantly affected. Oil spills may continue to drift to beaches.”

B) Tourism key to economic growthMakova`7 (Patrice, ZBC News, African News Network, Tourism key to promoting economic development, February 14,2007, http://www.newsnet.co.zw/index.php?nID=9810)

Tourism is a key factor for promoting the economic and social development of people as well as anessential means of fostering communication, cooperation and mutual understanding. The industry generates

employment and wealth, at the same time it enables countries to open up to the world and project their

profile abroad and brings into play all the natural, historical, artistic and cultural assets that nations

have to offer. According to the World Tourism Organisation, international tourism continues to perform

favourably, surpassing expectations and proving to be resistant to external factors and effectively

challenging traditional arguments. Last year, it is estimated that world tourism grew by four percent andthe African continent, especially the sub-Saharan region, had an excellent performance, which saw thenumber of foreign tourists’ arrivals increasing by 12 percent.

C) ExtinctionBearden`2k (Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000,http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm)

Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising,

it is inevitable that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations

on others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as

fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction

weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its

perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range

missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic

collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw

in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the

great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have

about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm





Oil Spills Bad-Sea Food Industry

Oil spills hurt the sea food industry

Tucker`7 (Jill, San Francisco Chronicle, Seafood industry feeling pinch of the oil spill, November 13, 2007,http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/13/MN6ITB1TU.DTL&feed=rss.news)

Kevin Lunny stood near the bow of his 18-foot oyster boat Monday morning and scanned the calm water of

Drakes Bay with binoculars, praying he wouldn't see any more rainbow sheen on the surface of the high tide.The co-owner of Drakes Bay Family Farms searched 90 minutes for any trace of the fuel oil that spilled outof the cargo ship Cosco Busan after it hit the base of a Bay Bridge tower Wednesday. By Friday, the oil

drifted out of San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate and up the coast into Drakes Estero, where

millions of Lunny's oysters grow. Midday Friday, Lunny spotted the slick , a few hundred feet wide,shimmering on the surface of the water over his oyster beds. Within hours, the state health department

shut him down. Monday, Lunny didn't see any oil. But even as experts calculate the long-termenvironmental impact related to last week's oil spill, local seafood businesses are already feeling it in their

wallets. On a busy day, 100,000 oysters are harvested out of Drakes Estero - fetching 50 cents each,

wholesale. Health officials could determine that the amount of oil was too small to harm oysters and other shellfish. Or they could require laboratory testing to make sure. Lunny, whose farm harvests 3.6 million

pounds of oysters annually, accounting for 60 percent of the state's total crop, hopes to know more

within the next day or two. "Weeks could kill us," he said. How much the oil will affect the state's $4.5

million oyster industry is unknown, said Robin Downey, executive director of the Pacific Coast ShellfishGrowers Association. "It's going to depend on what happens with prevailing winds and the currents."

Nonetheless, diners might not notice an oyster shortage at Bay Area restaurants, which typically offer oystersfrom a variety of regions. At San Francisco's Swan Oyster Depot, there will continue to be plenty of Washington and British Columbian oysters available raw on the half shell, said worker Brian Dwyer. But notthe saltier, grittier local oysters many people prefer. "We won't be getting those for a while," Dwyer said.Crab and herring catches will be impacted by the oil as well, said Zeke Grader, executive director of thePacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Crabbers asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to delaythe sport-fishing season opening to ensure that no tainted crab products land on store shelves or restaurant

plates. Commercial crab season in the Bay Area was scheduled to begin Nov. 15, but local fishermen votedSaturday to delay it indefinitely. For the rest of the West Coast, crab season begins Dec. 1. Herring fishermenalso asked for a delay of the season, scheduled to start Dec. 2. More than 4,000 tons of herring are pulled outof the bay each year - a $2.7 million annual catch. In Drakes Estero, even if the oysters are deemed safe to

eat, those that come into contact with fuel oil might not be very desirable to slurp from the half shell."They could still have a bit of a smell or a bit of a taste," said Downey of the shellfish growersassociation. Just up the coast from Drakes Estero, Terry Sawyer of the Hog Island Oyster Co. has spent thelast few days waiting for high tide at the mouth of Tomales Bay, searching the waves for that same rainbowshimmer.





**Oil Spills Good**





Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Detergent

Cleaning it up is worse-The detergent used is more toxic than the oil

Choi`7 (Charles, Live Science, Bad to Worse: Oil Spills Cleaned with Deadly Detergent, July 13, 2007,http://www.livescience.com/environment/070731_corals_oil.html)

Oops— the detergents often used to clean up oil spills appear more toxic to coral reefs than the oil itself ,

scientists now find. In 2006, some 13,000 metric tons of oil were accidentally spilt from tankers and similar vessels, compared with the 37,000 metric tons spilt from the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. When spills

happen near tropical coral reefs or shorelines, government authorities commonly use detergents to

disperse the oil into smaller and supposedly less harmful droplets, much as soap helps break stains

down. To see what effects these detergents might have on corals, researchers exposed millimeters-sizedclumps of two different Red Sea coral species to six commercial oil dispersants and six differentconcentrations of crude oil under lab conditions. More toxic The detergents and the dispersed oil droplets

all proved significantly more toxic to the coral than the crude oil itself, causing rapid, widespread death

or stunted growth rates, even at doses recommended by the dispersant manufacturers. The team'sfindings are detailed in Aug. 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. Oil can kill corals

by directly enveloping and suffocating them. Toxins in the oil can also dissolve in water and poison

corals. Although the detergents help break up oil slicks and prevent them from smothering coral, the

increased surface area the smaller droplets present "means that more toxic components of the oil can

come out," explained marine biologist Buki Rinkevich at the Israel Oceanographic and LimnologicalResearch. There are other considerations, however. Oil spills that are not dispersed can kill birds and other wildlife. Amy Merten, an environmental scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), said the study gives information on a worst-case scenario that should be consideredin trade-off decisions. This includes choosing whether to disperse oil into the water and risk harming coralversus getting the oil slick off the surface of the water "so birds, mangroves, and nesting turtles aren't asaffected," she said. Few alternatives Rinkevich and his colleagues recommended banning these detergentsfrom anywhere near coral reefs and to only use them in emergencies, when oil slicks are shore-bound. Still,"there are limited alternatives for responding to spills," Merten said. "Essentially, there are mechanicalmethods [such as skimmers], in-situ burning or dispersants," Merten explained. "Generally, in open water,there is a very short window for using any method since the slick will spread and move with the wind andcurrents. Dispersants will continue to be considered as an option. After the oil spills, no one wins. Our job isto try to minimize further impacts, and there may be a time when dispersants help us do that for a portion of

the spill."

The clean up of oil spills is just as destructive

NHS, No date (Needham Highschool, Advanced HIghschool, Oil Spills and Effects on Wildlife, Informational handoutexcerpt, http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Envir98_99/p1/emtp1/oilspills.htm)

Oil is one of the main pollutants in our oceans and can be very harmful to the environment. Oil spills near theshoreline have proven to be far more damaging than the spills that occur in the open sea. The spills closer tothe shore contaminate the beaches and the land nearby as well as the entire body of water and are much moredifficult to clean up. Because these shoreline oil spills contaminate the entire surrounding area of the spill,the effect on wildlife can be larger and more dangerous. Oil spills in general have severe affects on alldifferent forms of wildlife, but it does not stop there; not only are the oil spills bad for the environment, butthe clean up techniques can be destructive as well. HOW ARE THE ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFEEFFECTED BY OIL SPILLS? RECREATION AND COASTAL ACTIVITIES: The contamination of coastal

areas is very common in oil spills. Coastal areas are not only damaged by the spill itself, but clean-uptechniques can further damage the area. The United States usual form of oil spill clean-up is risky and

has been known to cause more problems in the environment. The U.S. uses special ships to vacuum up theoil or dispersants, solvents and detergent chemicals are sprayed over the oil spill to break it into smaller

sections so it does not reach the coast. If these forms of clean-up are used incorrectly, the chemicals are

hazardous to the environment and are powerful enough to harm coastal areas.

http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070716_llm_red_sea.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/coral_reef_041207.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_051025_coral_reefs.html


http://www.livescience.com/animals/070727_rescued_penguins.html


http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp-1.html


http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070716_llm_red_sea.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/coral_reef_041207.html








Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Coral

Cleaning up oil spills kills coral

ACS`7 (American Chemical Society (2007, July 31). Oil Spill Clean-up Agents Threaten Coral Reefs. ScienceDaily . RetrievedJuly 18, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730172426.htm)

In a setback for efforts to protect endangered coral reefs from oil spills, researchers in Israel report that oil

dispersants -- the best tool for treating oil spills in tropical areas --are significantly more toxic to coralthan the oil they are used to clean up. Their study, which urges caution in the use of these materials, isscheduled for the August 1 issue of ACS' Environmental Science & Technology. Called the 'rainforests of thesea,' coral reefs are an endangered ecosystem and are disappearing at an alarming rate due to numerousthreats, including over-fishing, global warming and pollution, particularly oil spills. Besides hosting a rich

diversity of marine organisms, these habitats are also potential sources of life-saving medicines and

food for humans. Scientists looking for better ways to protect this important habitat have recently focusedon the environmental impact of oil dispersants, detergents used break down oil spills into smaller, lessharmful droplets. In the new report, Shai Shafir and colleagues evaluated the effects of both crude oil and

six commercial oil dispersants under laboratory conditions on the growth and survival of two

important species of reef corals. The dispersants and dispersed oil droplets were significantly more

toxic to the coral than the crude oil itself, the scientists report. The dispersants caused "significant

harm," including rapid, widespread death and delay in growth rates, to the coral colonies tested even

at doses recommended by the manufacturers, they add. "Decision-making authorities should carefullyconsider these results when evaluating possible use of oil dispersants as a mitigation tool against oil

pollution near coral reef areas," the report said.

B) Extinction

McMichael`3 (Anthony J, National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health Director, Climate Change and HumanHealth: Risks and Responses, p. 254,http://books.google.com/books?id=tQFYJjDEwhIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=coral+reefs+critical+human+survival&source=web&ots=PpvyXNZ_Ve&sig=HuTi0RaOUUfhEhs1_zYoDQhJFz0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1)

Coral reefs are one of the most threatened global ecosystems and also one of the most vital. They offer

critical support to human survival, especially in developing countries, serving as barriers for coastal

protection; major tourist attractions; and especially as a productive source of food for a large portion of the population (39, 40). Coral reefs supply a wide variety of valuable fisheries, including both fish andinvertebrate species (41). Some fisheries are harvested for food, others are collected for the curio andaquarium trades.





Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Indict

The true impact can’t be assessed-Little is known and the science is biased

ITOPF`7(International Tankers Owners Pollution Federal, Effects of Oil Spills, 2007, http://www.itopf.com/marine-

spills/effects/)

Many spill impacts have been documented in the scientific and technical literature, and although not all the

effects of oil pollution are completely understood, an indication of the likely scale and duration of damagecan usually be deduced from the information available. However, it can be difficult to present a balanced

view of the realities of spill effects, given the often highly charged and emotional nature of a spill and

its aftermath. The scientific community can become polarised into opposing camps with one side intent

on quantifying every aspect of damage, and the other emphasising the capacity of the environment to

recover naturally. The simple reality is that sometimes significant damage occurs, sometimes not and

the aim of these pages is to draw together what general information is known about spill effects and

their longevity.





Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Spills = NaturalMost oil spills are naturalCurrent`8 (Current.com recent events website/blox, facts from Fox, Study: 63% of Oil Spills Natural Seepage; Mother

Nature Declines Comment, July 14, 2008,http://current.com/items/89103304_study_63_of_oil_spills_natural_seepage_mother_nature_declines_comment)

A National Academy of Science study recently estimated that about 47 percent of the oil entering the

marine environment is a result of natural seepage from subsurface reservoirs. The Gulf of Mexico is anarea where such natural seepage occurs at a very high rate. Oil exploration and extraction are

responsible for only 3 percent of the petroleum that enters the sea. Another 47 million gallons seep into

the ocean naturally from the seafloor. Of the 200,000 metric tons of oil seepage that is thought to occur each year, about 150,000 metric tons escapes from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. Oil exploration and

extraction are responsible for only 3 percent of the petroleum that enters the sea. Another 47 million

gallons seep into the ocean naturally from the seafloor. Aerial, surface, and underwater investigations

reveal that natural seeps off Coal Oil Point, California, introduce about 50 to 70 barrels (approximately8,000 to 11,000 liters) of oil per day into the Santa Barbara Channel. The resulting slicks are several hundredmeters wide and are of the order of 10-5 centimeters thick; tarry masses within these slicks frequently washashore. The situation varies somewhat from ocean to ocean. In the Pacific Ocean, areas of high seep potentialare by far the major contributors. In the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern oceans, areas of moderate seep

potential are most significant because areas of high seep potential are relatively rare in these realnis. The

circum-Pacific area is the area of greatest seepage; it contributes about 40 percent of the world's total.





Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-No Long Term Effect

Oil spills are just a short term problem-There’s no long term effect on ecosystems

Edwards`2 (Rob, It's natural to panic about oil spills, but how bad are they in theSunday Herald, The. Nov 24, 2002.FindArticles.com. 18 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20021124/ai_n12579324)

But the pollution, worrying as it can be, does not last for ever. Oil is a naturally occurring mineral that is

eventually broken down by bacteria in the sea. So an oil spill, although it can inflict immediate damage,rarely causes long-lasting or irreversible harm to natural ecosystems. "It is a natural reaction after a

major incident to get out the dictionary of superlatives and talk about disaster and catastrophe," saysJohn Baxter, the national oil spill advisory officer with the government conservation agency Scottish NaturalHeritage. "While in the short term major spills can have a dramatic impact on certain species, such as birds,the marine environment is extremely robust and will recover quite quickly." Baxter estimates that it

would only take five to 10 years for the diversity of wildlife to return to oil-polluted areas. "It is a major event when it occurs, but in ecological terms it is only a short- term problem," he explained.





Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Large FishOil Spills aren’t that bad for big fish

Under Water Times`6 (Under Water Times, Marine Magazine, Group: Impact of Lebanese Oil Spill Not as Bad asFeared; 'We Don't Have Corals Here', August 25, 2006, http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=35081496271)

The impact on marine life of an oil slick off the Lebanese coast, caused by Israel's bombing of a power

plant, might not be as devastating as had been feared, a Lebanese environmentalist group said on Friday.Shellfish, fish larvae and baby turtles have been badly hit but larger fish have survived virtually

unscathed, the group, Bahr Loubnan (Lebanon's Sea), said. Bahr Loubnan said it was not trying to playdown the impact of the slick, which it described as dire, but rather to inject a dose of realism into the

debate over how to tackle it.

Big fish go to deeper water Under Water Times`6 (Under Water Times, Marine Magazine, Group: Impact of Lebanese Oil Spill Not as Bad asFeared; 'We Don't Have Corals Here', August 25, 2006, http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=35081496271)

Some environmentalists have said the oil could kill large fish and even dolphins , but Bahr Loubnan said

that was unlikely. "People don't seem to want to look into the scientific aspects of this," said Manal Nader, a group member and director of the institute of the environment at Balamand University in northernLebanon. "The impact on fish larvae and immature fish is quite extensive because they live close to the

shoreline, but big fish migrate to deeper waters where the oil is not mixing." Sarji, whose scuba teaminspected 10 sites between the southern port of Sidon and the northern city of Tripoli, said the impact onmarine life would have been worse had the slick occurred in winter, when the eastern Mediterranean can bechoppy. "We've got around three months before storms start churning up the waters," he said. "It's essentialwe start cleaning it up as soon as we can." Bahr Loubnan said it was safe to eat Lebanese fish.

http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=35081496271





















Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Shipping LanesSolve

Changed shipping lanes keep the oil away from major marine habitats

Doyle`2k (Jim, San Francisco Chronicle, Shipping Lanes Moved Farther Out New routes should keep oil spills from reaching Central California coast, June 1, 2000, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/01/MN54659.DTL)

The new shipping lanes are aimed at preserving the rugged Central California coastline, especially thewaters of four national marine sanctuaries that commercial cargo vessels pass through. The Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary, the nation's largest offshore refuge, has the greatest biodiversity of cold-water marine life in the world. Its kelp forests provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife, including rare sea otters,sea birds, fish and invertebrates, many of which are particularly susceptible to the effects of an oil spill. `Àmajor spill can kill thousands of animals,'' said Holly Price, water quality director for the sanctuary. ``The

name of the game here is prevention -- preventing that oil from reaching the coast.''





Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Shipping lanes solve

Shipping lanes are farther out-It solves their impacts

Doyle`2k (Jim, San Francisco Chronicle, Shipping Lanes Moved Farther Out New routes should keep oil spills from reaching Central California coast, June 1, 2000, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/01/MN54659.DTL)

Large ships will be cruising farther off the Central California coast, thanks to a landmark agreementdesigned to reduce the risk of a catastrophic oil spill. A coalition of government regulators, shippers

and conservationists took years of informal talks, negotiations and approvals at various levels to

hammer out the voluntary compromise. Environmentalists had pressed for mandatory regulations, whichshippers opposed. The new sea lanes are `à major environmental victory,'' said Warner Chabot, aregional director for the Center for Marine Conservation. `Ìf they could, the cormorants and sea otters andother marine life would applaud you,'' Chabot told an assembled group of bureaucrats, maritime industryofficials and others who labored to put together the agreement. The new sea lanes, approved last week by theInternational Maritime Organization in London, are designed to prevent collisions and groundings by the

thousands of commercial vessels that ply the waters between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the busiestshipping corridor in the United States. VALDEZ SPILL CONCERNS The new routes were prompted in

part by Alaska's nightmarish Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and also by a vexing spill last year off CoosBay, Ore. In that incident, rough seas prevented rescue workers from recovering a freighter's fuel before it

washed ashore. Officials of the National and Oceanic Atmospheric Association and the U.S. Coast Guardhighlighted the fine points of the agreement yesterday at a news conference on Yerba Buena Island. The newsea lanes are slated to go into effect in less than six months, once U.S. and foreign shippers are notified andnavigation charts are altered. Similar to freeway lanes, the sea lanes include northbound and southboundcorridors for large commercial vessels, as well as separate routes for ships carrying hazardous materials suchas liquefied gases and other toxic chemicals. NEW LANES AVOID ACCIDENTS ``This helps keep an

accident from happening,'' said Scott Gudes, a NOAA official, who praised the unique partnership betweenfederal and state regulators, the shipping and oil industries, bar pilots, port officials, fishermen andenvironmentalists that led to ratification of the proposal. `Ìt's very encouraging that these diverse groupscame together and hashed out the details,'' said Vice Admiral Ernest Riutta, commander of the Coast Guardfor the Pacific Area. ``The fact that we're all here today and still talking to each other reflects the spirit of theagreement.'' More than 4,000 large vessels make their way along the Central California coast every year,most traveling between 2.5 and 15 miles offshore. Each carries up to 1 million gallons of bunker fuel, a

heavy fuel similar to crude oil, which they use in their engines. Routing vessels farther offshore, officialssaid, will provide more time for rescue tugs and aircraft to respond to disabled vessels to prevent them

from grounding and spilling their fuel. The new routes also will further separate commercial traffic

from the fishing boats and recreational vessels that typically travel closer to shore.





Oil Spills Answers – DA Turns Case-War

War empirically increases terrestrial and coastal oil spillsSIA`2 (Science In Africa, Africa’s first continental science network, Threats to the environment posed by war in Iraq,http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/war.htm)

In 1991 BirdLife International and RSPB (BirdLife in the UK) sent three teams of scientists to the Gulf region to collaborate with the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (BirdLife inSaudi Arabia) to assess the environmental impacts of the war and resulting toxic oil pollution. The resultsof these and other assessments were published in 1993 in Sandgrouse, the Journal of the OrnithologicalSociety of the Middle East. These and other published data show that the 1990-1991 Gulf War resulted in

by far the largest marine oil spills in history with 6-8 million barrels of crude oil spilled, severely

polluting 560km of coast, totally obliterating intertidal ecosystems and resulting in large-scale oil

slicks. Severe damage to marine environments in the northern Arabian Gulf resulted. Extensive mechanical

damage by the manoevering armies also harmed the fragile desert crust and its ecosystem. Theenvironmental damage resulting from the 1990-1991 Gulf War was judged to be unprecedented according toa number of sources. On 19th January 1991, crude oil from five bombed oil tankers moored off the MinaAl-Ahmadi oil terminal and nearby oil pipelines in Kuwait produced a slick extending south-eastwardsover 1,500km2. At the same time another major oil slick was reported from the Mina Al-Bakr terminal

in Iraq. Other oil spills occurred at Basrah refinery at the mouth of the Shatt Al-Arab, from refineries onthe coast of Kuwait, and from the storage depot at Al-Khafji just south of the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian

border. At the end of the Gulf War in March 1991 a total of 650 inland oil wells were left ablaze, 76gushing crude oil and a further 99 were damaged. This resulted in 25-30 million barrels of crude oil

spilling onto land with the larger of the numerous oil lakes estimated to cover 19km2. The last of thegushing wells were capped after nine months in November 1991.





***Deforestation***





Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss

Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and human extinction

Akhand Jyoti 3 (Akhand Jyoti is the leading magazine in Mathura, India. “The Disaster of Deforestation” March-April 2003.

http://www.akhandjyoti.org/?Akhand-Jyoti/2003/Mar-Apr/Deforestation/)Imagining Earth without forests is a horrifying picture to conceive. As its knowledge base has expanded and

deepened, mankind has realised that forests are extremely important to the survival of humans and other lifeforms on earth. Yet deforestation continues unabated in different parts of the world. According to the World Resource Institute based atWashington DC (U.S.A.), the rates of rainforest destruction are 2.4 acre per second, 149 acres per minute, 214000 acres per day and 78million acres per year. Literature survey and research by Stephen Hui reveals that British Columbia has about 40% of its original forests

remaining, while Europe has less than half; the United States have approximately 1-2% of their original forest cover; more than

80% of the planet’s natural forests have already been destroyed.1 This article examines the importance of forests,the effects of deforestation on health and environment and an effective remedy to replenish the flora already lost. Plants and animals,along with microorganisms, comprise life on Earth. Herbivorous animals sustain their life by consuming plants. Carnivorous animalsand birds kill herbivorous animals for food; therefore indirectly they also depend on plants. Sea creatures eat aquatic plants and humansconsume crop plants. A large variety of birds feed on seeds. There would rarely be any animal or bird who do not use plants directly or indirectly to satisfy their food requirements. It is thus not surprising that tropical forests are the home to 70% of the world’s plants and

animals (more than 13 million distinct species) 30% of all bird species and 90% of invertebrates.2 Loss of forests has led to the

extinction of thousands of species, estimated to be 50000 species annually. Besides being the source for

food, plants help us in a number of other ways. Animals, including humans, inhale oxygen and exhale

carbon dioxide; plants take up carbon dioxide and in return they release oxygen – this exchange is very

important. Forests in particular act as a huge carbon dioxide sink. If there were not enough trees to

absorb carbon dioxide, its accumulation would make the environment poisonous. Over the last 150 years, theamount of carbon dioxide has increased by about 25%.3 Carbon-dioxide also contributes to global warming.





Impact Deforestation – Global Disease Spread/Extinction

Deforestation causes human extinction through new disease outbreaks

Butler 7 (Rhett Butler has been researching and studying rainforests since 1995. “INCREASE OF TROPICAL DISEASES”

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0904.htm)The emergence of tropical diseases and outbreaks of new diseases, including nasty hemorrhagic fevers like ebola

and lassa fever , are a subtle but serious impact of deforestation. With increased human presence in the

rainforest, and exploiters pushing into deeper areas, man is encountering "new" microorganisms with

behaviors unlike those previously known. As the primary hosts of these pathogens are eliminated or

reduced through forest disturbance and degradation, disease can break out among humans. Although

not unleashed yet, someday one of these microscopic killers could lead to a massive human die-off as

deadly for our species as we have been for the species of the rainforest. Until then, local populations will continueto be menaced by mosquito-borne diseases like dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, and malaria, and water-borne diseases like cholera.Many emergent and resurgent diseases are directly linked to land alterations which bring humans in closer contact with such pathogens.For example, malaria and snailborne schistosomiasis have escalated because of the creation of artificial pools of water like dams, rice

paddies, drainage ditches, irrigation canals, and puddles created by tractor treads. Malaria is a particular problem in deforested anddegraded areas, though not in forested zones where there are few stagnant ground pools for mosquito breeding. These pools are mostabundant in cleared regions and areas where tractors tear gashes in the earth. Malaria is already a major threat to indigenous peoples whohave developed no resistance to the disease nor any access to antimalarial drugs. Malaria alone is cited as being responsible for killingan estimated 20 percent of the Yanomani in Brazil and Venezuela. Malaria—caused by unicelluar parasites transferred in the saliva of mosquitoes when they bite—is an especially frightening disease for its drug-resistant forms. Thanks to poor prescribing techniques onthe part of doctors, there are now strains in Southeast Asia reputed to be resistant to more than 20 anti-malarial drugs. There is seriousconcern that global climate change will affect the distribution of malaria, which currently infects roughly 270 million people worldwideand kills 1-2 million a year— 430,000-680,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The outbreak of disease in the tropics does notaffect only the people of those countries, since virtually any disease can be incubated for enough time to allow penetration into the

temperate developed countries. For example, any Central African doctor infected with the ebola virus from a

patient can board a plane and land in London within 10 hours. The virus could quickly spread,

especially if airborne, among the city's population of 8 million. Additionally, every person at the

airport who is exposed can unknowingly carry the pathogen home to their native countries around the

world.





Impact Deforestation – Extinction

Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and extinction

Rochen and Stock 98 (Andy Rochen and Jocelyn Stock are undergraduate researchers at the University of Michigan. “Deforestationand Society” http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm)

To understand why deforestation is such a pressing and urgent issue, forests must first be given credit for

what they bring to global ecosystems and the quality of life that all species maintain. Tropical Rainforests

presently give a place to call home for 50% - 90% of all organisms, 90% of our relatives, the primates, and

50 million creatures that can live no place but the rich rainforests (World Rainforest Movement 16). Not only

are other species at risk, but the human race also benefits from what the trees give. From something as minor asthe spices that indulge food to life giving medicines, the rainforests amplify and save lives. According to the WorldRainforest Movement, 25% of medicines come from the forests (28). This is a number that does not do

justice to all the cures that have yet to be discovered or that have been destroyed. The forests give life, not

only to other species, but they help to prolong the human race. The forests have global implications not just onlife but on the quality of it. Trees improve the quality of the air that species breath by trapping carbon and other particles

produced by pollution. Trees determine rainfall and replenish the atmosphere. As more water gets put back in theatmosphere, clouds form and provide another way to block out the sun’s heat. Trees are what cool and regulates the earth’sclimate in conjunction with other such valuable services as preventing erosion, landslides, and making the most infertile soilrich with life. Mother earth has given much responsibility to trees.





Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss

Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and extinction

Abiola 97 (Jayeola Omotola Abiola is an Undergraduate, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, College of Environmental

Resources Management, University of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2240, AbeoLuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. “FORESTRY FOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT: TOWARD THE 21st CENTURY” http://www.fao.org/forestry/docrep/wfcxi/publi/V8/Ee/V8E_E1.HTM)

Forest degradation as a result of deforestation ignites a lot of problems for human existence and the

problem if unchecked can cause further ecological problems leading to human extinction. Forest clearing dueto logging, land degradation resulting from shifting cultivation social and economic development, range10 depletion as a result of

overgrazing, project execution without environmental impact assessment (EIA) leads to climatic changes, global warming,

loss of biological diversity pollution and desertification. The tropical forest ecosystem which has been

described as home to more than half the earth's species (Spore 59 1995) has been disappearing at the rate of tens of thousands of square kilometers per year. Over this period, tropical deforestation rate increased by more than 50 percent and the world

lost 10% of its tropical forest . Loss of biological diversity is another major area of` concern in forestry for

sustainable development. Countless plants and animals have been driven into extinction through

deforestation, thus contributing to the build up of green house gases. Biodiversity is a comprehensive word for thedegree of nature variety including both the number and frequency of ecosystems, species and genes in a given assemblage (Mc Neely

1988). Biological diversity is a word which embraces both species richness and genetic diversity of an

ecosystem, both of which are threatened. Throughout the world, species extinction and a reduction ingenetic variability is taking place at rates never before witnessed, especially in the tropical forests

which are often thought of as being the richest area. These losses can be attributed to various factors including

pollution, physical disturbance of the forest, exploitation for food and other uses, deliberate extirpation, habitat loss and fragmentation .





Impact Deforestation – Poverty

Deforestation causes poverty

Jakarta Post 7 (“Avoiding deforestation will help eradicate poverty” http://westpapuafree.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/avoiding-

deforestation-will-help-eradicate-poverty/)Many understand that deforestation contributes a lot to global warming, but few are aware that forest

plundering will lead to poverty. On the sidelines of the UN climate change conference in Bali, Papua’s

Governor Barnabas Suebu, one of Time’s Hero of the Environment awardees, talked to The Jakarta Post contributor I.

Christianto about his efforts to combat poverty through the protection of 31-million hectares of forest remaining

in the province. Question: You often mention Papua’s forests are rich but the people are poor. What are you trying to say? Answer:

Papua is impoverished. The state of people’s health, their nutrition, education, housing and clean water,

to name a few, is still very poor. It will worsen if the forest is destroyed. Therefore we are trying to protect

our forest and stop deforestation. There must be a funding mechanism from the international community, an issue that we have

discussed with some parties like Greenpeace. The fund must go to the people to improve their welfare. No single tree can be felled. The

benefit of forest exploitation for the local government and people is trivial, but the impact is devastating,

including the loss of rich biodiversity inside the forest. There’s no benefit at all to plunder the forest, as it

is the people who are then made to suffer. Logging activities, for example, have impoverished the people.

A timber log is valued at US$10, but the price can climb to more than $10,000 after being processed into wooden goods. That’s why wehave introduced a policy aimed at benefiting both the government and people.




Scholars Lab File Title

AT – Deforestation

Despite decreased deforestation, rates are rising and forests are still at risk

WWF 7 (The WWF is the largest multinational conservation organization in the world. “Amazon Deforestation Rates Decreasing,Rainforests Still Threatened” http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2007/WWFPresitem6285.html)

New data from the government of Brazil shows that deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon from

August 2006 to July 2007 have fallen for the third consecutive year - and are the lowest registered for the region since 1991.

While these rates have reached historic lows, deforestation in the Amazon still proceeded at an

alarming speed. During the government's survey period more than 2.7 million acres disappeared -

equaling about four football fields of rainforest per minute. There are also indications that

deforestation rates may be on the increase since the end of the reporting period.





***Deforestation Answers***





Turn – Deforestation Good – Economy/Food

Deforestation is key to industry, food production, housing and economic growth

Fiset 7 (Nathalie Fiset, M.D., is an expert author at ezinearticles.com. “Benefits of Deforestation” March 2007.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Benefits-of-Deforestation&id=504455)Whenever people talk about deforestation, usually the things that spring to mind are negative thoughts brought on mostly by mediahypes and environmentalist drives. People think about global warming, depletion of natural resources, and the casual extinction of

indigenous fauna and flora. Yet people don't seem to realize that there are actually quite a few benefits of deforestation.

One of the easiest benefits of deforestation to spot are the economic ones. Lumber products are one of the most staple

constructive materials in human society. Whether it's raw lumber used for making tables and houses, or paper and other

wood by-products, we simply cannot live without the use of lumber. Like steel and stone, wood is one of the most basicnatural resources, and unlike steel and stone, it is renewable simply by growing more trees. The only real trick to balancing it's

consumption is to grow more trees to replace the ones taken. On a similarly related note, keep in mind that a lot of jobs revolve

around the use of lumber. Wood cutters aside, there are those who work in processing plants to make

glue from wood sap, process pulp into paper, and others. This is another benefit of deforestation; it

opens more job opportunities for people who would otherwise be unemployed. These job opportunities are more than simply a

humanitarian concept; society at large would suffer if all of the people working in the wood industry were to

suddenly find themselves jobless. This benefit of deforestation not only covers the people who cut down

trees and process them, but also extends to the people who "clean up" after them. For every patch of forest

cut down, arable land becomes available for farmers, or can be used as an area to place urban living

sites like apartments, houses, and buildings. The number of people employed by such a construction project are many andvaried. Or, if the city/government mandates replanting trees to replace the lost ones, then jobs are also provided for those people who do

the seeding after a patch of forest is stripped. Thinking about it, the cleared areas are places which provide a lot of

potential for growth, and this is yet another benefit of deforestation. As stated above, arable land is

valuable, and the act of deforestation to clear a place for farm land provides a much needed additional

food source for man. More often than not, the soil in a forest is much richer than that of regular farm lands because of the widevariety of life it supports. This new land area grants a much needed place to grow a food supply to deal with the planet's steadily

expanding population of humanity. Then, of course, there is the fact that these cleared areas may be razed for urban renewal. Given

our burgeoning population growth, additional living areas made on cleared forest land is another

benefit of deforestation. These places can be converted into more than just housing areas. Buildings which can house offices for work, or factories to produce clothing and other essential items, or even research facilities for things like new medical or technologicaladvances can be placed in these deforested areas. Lastly, another benefit of deforestation to consider is the access it provides to other

natural resources that may lay within the forest's land area. Some places with heavy forests are home to iron ore, mineral, and even oildeposits which can be used for man's needs. These natural resources would otherwise lay dormant and untapped unless people accessthem. The act of deforestation may not be entirely necessary to get at these deposits sometimes, but coupled with the advantages givenabove, the combination of opening up a new mine or oil well when taken with extra living spaces or farm lands for food makes a lot of

sense. So, given all of the benefits of deforestation outlined above, you can see that more often than not, the good

outweighs the bad. The planet's environment may indeed suffer from the effects of deforestation, but

that is due to irresponsible use of the resources and other benefits provided, not the deforestation itself.As people living on the planet, our duty is not to "hold back" and stop cutting trees. It is to use what we glean from the Earth responsiblyand wisely for humanity and the planet's benefit.





Turn – Deforestation Good – Economics

The economic benefits of deforestation outweigh the costs

Andersen 97 (Lykke E. Andersen, Professor, Department of Economics University of Aarhus, Demmark. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon” Rio de Janeiro, January 1997 www.ipea.gov.br/pub/td/td0455.pdf)This paper has attempted to collect the best available evidence on the total economic value of standing

Amazonian rain forest. Estimates were calculated for both a low discount rate of 2% and a higher discount rate of 6%. The lowdiscount rate is most compatible with the rate a global social planner would adopt. At this rate the total economic value of a standing rain

forest is estimated at roughly $l8,000/hectare (in 1990 US$). The value of a standing forest was compared with

estimares of the net present value of different agricultural land uses. It was shown that a sequence of

land uses provides the optimal development strategy. Loggers should first be allowed to extract the

commercially valuable timber from the virgin forest. Then smallscale farmers should be granted

property rights and be allowed to use the land as they find optimal. This is likely to be unsustainable slash-and- burn cultivation of annual crops initially, but as the area develops and population densities and land prices increase, there will be anatural intensification in the use of land and the area will eventually be covered with sustainable perennial crops. This sequence of land

uses yields an estimated net present agricultural value of roughly $24,000/hectare. With spill-over effects to the urban

sector the total net present value of agricultural land increases to about $l20,000/hectare. The potential

benefits of deforestation thus seem to exceed the costs at the current level of deforestation. However, these

two estimares of the costs and the benefits of deforestation only represent one point on the cost curve and one point on the benefit curve,namely the points associated with approximately 10% deforestation. As the level of deforestation increases, the global costs of deforestation will rise, and it will eventually pass the value of agricultural land. At that point, the international comunity has to provideincentives to induce Brazil to preserve the remainder of the forest. The external benefits of a standing rain forest amounts to roughly$9,000/hectare at the current level of deforestation. At the optimal level it will be much higher. Thus, international transfers in excess of $9,000/hectare will be needed to secure that deforestation in the world largest remaining rain forest will not exceed the globally optimal

level.





Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling

Despite increases in CO2, deforestation causes global cooling

Bala et al. 7 (G. Bala, K. Caldeira, M. Wickett, T. J. Phillips, D. B. Lobell, C. Delire, and A. Mirin, “Combined climate and carbon-cycle

effects of large-scale deforestation” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871823)

Atmospheric CO2 content is greater in the Global deforestation experiment by 381 ppmv because of both

the release of carbon stored in trees in the early 21st century and the loss of CO2 fertilization of

forested ecosystems seen in the Standard simulation (Fig. 1). Despite higher atmospheric CO2

concentrations, the global- and annual-mean temperature in the Global case is cooler by ≈0.3 K than the

Standard case. Thus, on a global-mean basis, the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are

overwhelmed by the cooling biophysical effects. Relative to the Standard case, the atmospheric CO2 concentration ishigher by 299, 110, and 5 ppmv in the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal cases. The global-mean temperature differences relative to theStandard case in year 2100 in the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal experiments are +0.7 K, −0.04 K, and −0.8 K, respectively (Fig. 1),implying that the combined carbon-cycle and biophysical effects from tropical, temperate, and boreal deforestation are, respectively, netwarming, near-zero temperature change, and net cooling. These latitude-band experiments thus suggest that projects in the tropics

promoting afforestation are likely to slow down global warming, but such projects would offer only little to no climate benefits whenimplemented in temperate regions and would be counterproductive, from a climate-perspective, at higher latitudes. The linear sum of thearea-weighted global-mean temperature change over all of the latitude-band experiments is −0.1 K in the year 2100. This value is close

to the corresponding −0.3 K temperature change of the Global deforestation simulation, suggesting a near-linear behavior of the large-scale climate system despite the many nonlinear processes represented by the INCCA model. The linear sum is slightly larger because,in the latitude-band experiments, our dynamic vegetation model allows the forests to expand in the regions that are not deforested (23,26), and forests have lower albedo and absorb more solar radiation than grasses. The presence of trees in the latitude-band deforestationexperiments and the consequent higher CO2 fertilization causes the linear sum of CO2 changes from the Tropical, Temperate, andBoreal experiments to be lower than that of the Global case by 67 ppmv in year 2100. Because the linear sum of the temperatureresponse from latitude-band experiments is approximately equal to that of the Global case (Fig. 1), we focus our analysis on our global-scale deforestation simulation for brevity. The removal of forests in the Global case results in an atmospheric CO2 concentration at year 2100 that is 381 ppmv greater than in the Standard simulation (1,113 vs. 732 ppmv; Fig. 1). In the Standard A2 scenario, 1,790 PgCcarbon is emitted to the atmosphere over the 21st century (Fig. 2). By year 2100, the terrestrial biosphere in the Global deforestationexperiment has 972 Pg less carbon than in the Standard case. Approximately 82% (799 PgC) of this carbon resides in the atmosphere,with the oceans taking up the remaining 18% (173 PgC). The ocean uptake increases in the Global case (444 vs. 271 PgC in Standard)

because the higher atmospheric CO2 concentration drives an increased flux of carbon into the oceans.





Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling

Deforestation causes net global cooling

Bala et al. 7 (G. Bala, K. Caldeira, M. Wickett, T. J. Phillips, D. B. Lobell, C. Delire, and A. Mirin, “Combined climate and carbon-cycle

effects of large-scale deforestation” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871823)

The prevention of deforestation and promotion of afforestation have often been cited as strategies to

slow global warming. Deforestation releases CO2 to the atmosphere, which exerts a warming influence on Earth's climate.

However, biophysical effects of deforestation, which include changes in land surface albedo, evapotranspiration, and cloud

cover also affect climate. Here we present results from several large-scale deforestation experiments performedwith a three-dimensional coupled global carbon-cycle and climate model. These simulations were performed by using a fully three-

dimensional model representing physical and biogeochemical interactions among land, atmosphere, and ocean. We find that global-

scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth's climate, because the warming carbon-cycle

effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and

evapotranspiration. Latitude-specific deforestation experiments indicate that afforestation projects in the tropics would be clearly beneficial in mitigating global-scale warming, but would be counterproductive if implemented at high latitudes and would offer onlymarginal benefits in temperate regions. Although these results question the efficacy of mid- and high-latitude afforestation projects for

climate mitigation, forests remain environmentally valuable resources for many reasons unrelated to climate.





AT – Deforestation Causes Flooding

New studies prove that deforestation does not cause flooding

Monga Bay News 5 (“Deforestation does not cause flooding says new study FAO/CIFOR news release”http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1012-fao-cifor.html)

Deforestation and logging do not increase the risk of major floods according to a new report from the

UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Center for International Forestry Research

(CIFOR). The study, citing evidence showing that the frequency and extent of major floods has not

changed over the last century despite significant reductions in forest cover, challenges the conventional

belief that forest loss causes floods. Instead, FAO and CIFOR say that deforestation does have a role in small floods andtopsoil erosion by eliminating the buffering and soil anchoring effects of forests. Further, the report accuses Asian governments of usingdeforestation as an excuse to deflect criticism over their poor handling of human settlement in areas unsuitable for habitation.






Deforestation does not cause flooding

CIFOR 5 (Center for International Forestry Research Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations “Forests and floods:

Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts?” RAP Publication 2005/03 Forest Perspectives,http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae929e/ae929e04.htm#bm04)

It is commonly believed that forests are necessary to regulate stream flow and reduce runoff, and to some extent this is true. But, inreality, forests tend to be rather extravagant users of water, which is contradictory to earlier thinking (FAO 2003). Considerablequantities of rainfall (up to 35 per cent) are commonly intercepted by the canopies of tropical forests and evaporated back into theatmosphere without contributing to soil water reserves. Much of the water that does soak into the soil is used by the trees themselves.This should put to rest the belief that extensive reforestation or afforestation will increase the low flows in the dry season (Hamilton andPearce 1987). Therefore, replacing forest cover with other land uses almost always results in increased runoff and stream flow. Runoff and stream-flow patterns will gradually return to original levels if an area is left to revert back to forest. Converting forest to grasslands,

however, will normally result in a permanent increase in total water runoff. Contrary to popular belief, forests have only a

limited influence on major downstream flooding, especially large-scale events. It is correct that on a local scaleforests and forest soils are capable of reducing runoff, generally as the result of enhanced infiltration and storage capacities. But this

holds true only for small-scale rainfall events, which are not responsible for severe flooding in downstream areas. During a major

rainfall event (like those that result in massive flooding), especially after prolonged periods of preceding rainfall, the forest soil

becomes saturated and water no longer filters into the soil but instead runs off along the soil surface.

Studies in America (Hewlett and Helvey 1970), and South Africa (Hewlett and Bosch 1984) were amongst some of the firstto question the importance of the link between forest conversion and flooding. Studies in the Himalayas

indicate that the increase in infiltration capacity of forested lands over non-forested lands is

insufficient to influence major downstream flooding events (Gilmour et al. 1987; Hamilton 1987). Instead, the mainfactors influencing major flooding given a large rainfall event, are: (i) the geomorphology of the area; and (ii) preceding rainfall(Bruijnzeel 1990, 2004; Calder 2000; Hamilton with King 1983; Kattelmann 1987).






No evidence for deforestation causing flooding

CIFOR 4 Center for International Forestry Research Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The great flood myth”

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Publications/Corporate/NewsOnline/NewsOnline36/flood.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished"Haiti's deforestation allows flood water to run unchecked," declared USA Today. Haiti's prime minister pointed the finger at poor farmers for cutting down trees for fuel and to make charcoal. The Associated Press ran touching interviews with the elders of the flood-ravaged Haitian town of Mapou about how they had been forced to fell trees to cook their food even though they knew it wouldeventually bring about their own destruction. France's foreign minister promised aid to reforest the denuded hillsides. It was a

predictable response. Just about every time there is a major flood anywhere in the world, small farmers and loggers are held to account.Floods in Bangladesh are blamed on forest clearing in the Himalayas. In the late 1990s, loggers took the rap for the thousands who died,and the billions of dollars of damage done, during Hurricane Mitch in Central America, and for the floods along China's Yangtze river.

Indeed, the idea that loggers and small farmers help cause devastating floods is so ingrained inmost

people's minds that few would think to question it. But the idea is deeply flawed. There is not a shred

of scientific evidence to suggest that logging or deforestation play significant roles in massive floods.

And the myth is doing great damage to farmers who need forests to survive.









AT – Deforestation - Exaggerated

There is little scientific information about the extent of deforestation

Rothbard and Rucker 97 (David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “The rainforest issue:Myths and facts” CFACT Briefing Paper #102. http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=5&idarticle=214)

Why these claims are wrong: While some advocates like to make grand, sweeping statements about rainforestloss and put in big numbers that make it sound catastrophic, Roger Sedjo and Marion Clawson, writing for

Resources for the Future, dug into the available evidence and said, "Information about the tropical moist forests is

relatively scant. What information we do have comes from anecdotal evidence -- provided by isolated

investigations at single times and places -- than from systematic studies conducted over large areas and

lengths of time... A hard look at the available data supports the view that some regions are

experiencing rapid deforestation. However, the view that this is a pervasive phenomenon on a global

level is questionable ." (Rational Readings, Julian Simon, p. 745) So what does available evidence show? And where doenvironmentalists begin to get their numbers? Well U.S. News and World Report (12/13/93) explains that while the figure of 40 millionacres per year "has taken on a life of its own," it is being "cited and recited without reference to its origins. Yet almost half the estimatedtotal comes from a very rough estimate made by a Brazilian scientist who used sensors on a U.S. weather satellite to count the number of fires burning in the Amazon at one time in 1988 [at the height of government-subsidized deforestation]. He estimated the size of each,[guessing at the number of acres being cleared by each fire then assumed that 40 percent would never return to their forested condition,and finally doubled this number to arrive at an estimated guess for global deforestation.] The resulting number was into the widely citedreport by the World Resources Institute...that helped fuel the alarm over vanishing tropical forests; [and] was cited by Gore and other

administration officials last spring in announcing support for the Biodiversity Treaty.





AT – Biodiversity Loss

Biodiversity claims are exaggerated, there is no risk of extinction from deforestation

Rothbard and Rucker 97 (David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “The rainforest issue:

Myths and facts” CFACT Briefing Paper #102. http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=5&idarticle=214)Another important fact, according to Sedjo and Clawson, relates to a study done by the Food and Agriculture Organization and U.N.Environmental Programme by J.P. Lanly. Lanly is Forest Coordinator for the UNEP/FAO Tropical Resources Assessment Project and his

study "indicates that [of the roughly 7 million acres worldwide per year] the undisturbed or "virgin"

broadleaved closed forests have a far lower rate of deforestation than the total, being only 0.27 percent

annually as compared with 2.06 percent annually for logged over secondary forest. This figure indicates that

deforestation pressure on the more pristine and generally more genetically diverse tropical forests is quite low."

Further, "these findings are in sharp contrast to the conventional view that the tropical forests are

`disappearing at an alarming rate' and suggest that concerns over the imminent loss of some of the

most important residences of the world's diverse genetic base, based on rates of tropical deforestation,

are probably grossly exaggerated." (Simon, Rational Readings, p.746) Sedjo and Clawson also said "While the local effectsof rapid deforestation may be severe, the evidence does not support the view that either the world or the tropics are experiencing rapid

aggregate deforestation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that current rates of deforestation are quite

modest in much of the world's virgin tropical forests, for example those of the Amazon; and therefore

they are probably in little danger of wholesale destruction in the foreseeable future." (Eco-Sanity, p.90)Sandra Brown, professor of forestry at U. of Illinois and Ariel Lugo, project leader at the U.S. Forest Service's Institute of TropicalForestry in Puerto Rico also studied available data and "concluded the `dangerous' misinterpretation and exaggeration of the rate of deforestation has become common." As for the amount of deforestation in relation to total forest area, Thomas Lovejoy, then of theWorld Wildlife Fund, offered a low projection of 50% deforestation between 1980 and 2000 in Latin America and a high of 67%. Thesource for this was a set of satellite photos taken in 1978 and reported in the Washington Post to show that "as much as one-tenth of the

Brazilian Amazon has been razed." But according to Fulbright scholar and ecologist Robert Buschbacher

working in Brazil, the Landsat photos "concluded that 1.55 percent of the Brazilian portion of the Amazon has

been deforested." "On the basis of this and other evidence, Buschbacher says, `Because of a relatively

low percentage of forest clearing and the remarkable capacity of the forest to recover its structure...the

threat of turning the Amazon into a wasteland is exaggerated.'





AT – Biodiversity Loss

Numbers about species loss are exaggerated, actual extinctions remain low and don’t

threaten human survival


Another real-world observation that casts doubt on the Wilson theory actually comes from an island, Puerto

Rico, where according to Lugo, human activity reduced the area of primary forest by 99%. "But because of extensive use of coffee shade trees in the coffee region and secondary forests, forest cover was never less than 10 to 15%...[and] in an

analysis of bird fauna, [it was] concluded that seven bird species (four of them endemic) became extinct after

500 years of human pressure...and that exotic species enlarged the species pool. In the 1980's, more birds were present on the island (97 species) than were present in pre-Columbian times (60 species)...Secondary forests in Puerto Rico have [also]served as refugia for primary forest tree species as well." (Lugo, "Biodiversity," p.66) So what do real-world observations say about theworldwide loss of species? Well in response to questions about species extinction, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) commissioned

a book in 1992 to look into the matter. According to Simon, all the authors are ecologists who express concern abut the

rate of extinction. Nevertheless, they all agree that the rate of known extinctions has been and continues to

be very low. They found, "60 birds and mammals are known to have become extinct between 1900 and

1950," "actual extinctions remain low...many species appear to have either an almost miraculous

capacity for survival, or a guardian angel watching over their destiny," and not "a single known animal

species...could be properly declared as extinct, in spite of the massive reduction in area and

fragmentation of their habitats in the past decades and centuries of intensive human activity." (Simon,Scarcity or Abundance, pp. 200-202) So given all of this, why do environmentalists persist in using grandiose numbers to express their

concerns about species loss? Dr. Julian Simon notes that "biologists with whom I have discussed this material agree that the

numbers in question are most uncertain. But they say the numbers do not matter scientifically. The conclusion would bethe same, they say, if the numbers were different even by several orders of magnitude. If that is so, why mention any numbers at all? Theanswer, quite clearly is that these numbers do matter in one important way; they have they power to frighten in a fashion that numbersmuch smaller would not. The [Congressional Office of Technology Assessment] OTA 1986 document says: `Conveying the importanceof biological diversity will require a formulation of the issue in terms that are easily understandable and convincing.' These frightening

numbers meet that test. I can find no scientific justification for such use of numbers." Thus, the lack of any

evidence for mass extinctions causes no hesitation on the part of those environmentalists calling for

quick and draconian action.

Nuclear war produces firestorms that destroy forests

Jays Net News 6 (NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON" Nuclear & Biological Weapons. http://www.jaysnet.com/666nuke.html)In a thermonuclear bomb, the explosive process begins with the detonation of what is called the primary stage. This consists of a relatively small quantity of conventional explosives, the detonation of which brings together enough fissionable uranium to create a

fission chain reaction, which in turn produces another explosion and a temperature of several million degrees. The forceand heat of this explosion are reflected back by a surrounding container of uranium and are channeled toward the secondary stage, madeup of tritium or other fusion fuel. The tremendous heat initiates fusion, and the resulting explosion of the secondary stage blows theuranium container apart and causes it too to fission, thus contributing to the explosion and producing fallout (the deposition of radioactive materials from the atmosphere) in the process. (A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear device in which the uranium container is

absent, thus producing much less blast but a lethal "enhanced radiation" of neutrons.) The entire series of explosions in a

thermonuclear bomb takes a fraction of a second to occur.A thermonuclear explosion produces blast,

light, heat, and varying amounts of fallout. The concussive force of the blast itself takes the form of a shock wave thatradiates from the point of the explosion at supersonic speeds and that can completely destroy any building within a radius of several

miles. The intense white light of the explosion can cause permanent blindness to people gazing at it from a distance of dozens of miles.The explosion's intense light and heat set wood and other combustible materials afire at a range of

many miles, creating huge fires that may coalesce into a firestorm. The radioactive fallout contaminates air, water,and soil and may continue years after the explosion; its distribution is virtually worldwide.Thermonuclear bombs can be hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than atomic bombs. The explosive yield of atomic bombs is measured in kilotons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. The explosive power of hydrogen bombs, by contrast, is frequently expressed inmegatons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000,000 tons of TNT. Hydrogen bombs of more than 50 megatons have

been detonated, but the explosive power of the weapons mounted on strategic missiles usually ranges from 100 kilotons to 1.5 megatons.Thermonuclear bombs can be made small enough (a few feet long) to fit in the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles; thesemissiles can travel almost halfway across the globe in 20 or 25 minutes and have computerized guidance systems so accurate that theycan land within a few hundred yards of a designated target.Edward Teller and other American scientists developed the first hydrogen

bomb, which was tested at Enewetak atoll on Nov. 1, 1952. The U.S.S.R. first tested a hydrogen bomb on Aug. 12, 1953, followed by theUnited Kingdom in May 1957, China (1967), and France (1968). During the late 1980s there were some 40,000 thermonuclear devices





stored in the arsenals of the world's nuclear-armed nations. This number declined during the 1990s. The massive destructive threat of these weapons has been a principal concern of the world's populace and of its statesmen since the 1950s.





AT: Defo – DA Turns Case – NW

Bombs cause firestorms which cause deforestation

Armageddon Online 6 (“Firestorm” http://www.armageddononline.org/firestorm.php)

A firestorm is a conflagration which attains such intensity that it creates and sustains its own wind

system. It is most commonly a natural phenomenon, created during some of the largest bushfires, forest fires, and wildfires. The Great

Peshtigo Fire is one example of a firestorm. Firestorms can also be deliberate effects of targeted explosives such as

occurred as a result of the aerial bombings of Dresden and Tokyo during World War II. Mechanism of firestorms: A firestorm is

created as a result of the "chimney effect" as the heat of the original fire draws in more and more of

the surrounding air. This draft can be quickly increased if a low level jet stream exists over or near the fire, or when anatmospheric temperature inversion cap is pierced by it. As the updraft mushrooms, strong gusty winds develop around the fire, directedinward. This would seem to prevent the firestorm from spreading on the wind, but for the fact that tremendous turbulence is also created

by the strong updraft which causes the strong surface inflow winds to change direction erratically. This wind shear is capable of

producing small tornadoes or dust devils which can also dart around erratically, damage or destroy houses

and buildings, and quickly spread the fire to areas outside the central area of the fire. The greater draft of afirestorm draws in greater quantities of oxygen which significantly increases combustion, thereby also substantially increasing the

production of heat. The intense heat of a firestorm manifests largely as radiated heat (infrared radiation) which

ignites flammable material at a distance ahead of the fire itself . Besides the enormous ash cloud produced by afirestorm, under the right conditions, it can also induce condensation, forming a cloud called a pyrocumulus or "fire cloud". A large

pyrocumulus can produce lightning, which can set off further fires. Apart from forest fires, pyrocumuluses can also be produced byvolcanic eruptions. In Australia, the prevalence of eucalyptus trees that have oil in their leaves results in forest fires that are noted for their extremely tall and intense flame front. Hence the bush fires appear more as a fire-storm than a simple forest fire. The trees are fullof oil to survive dry conditions. The oil evaporates during the day too, leaving a layer of flammable gas above the treeline. The oil fuelsthe fire and the fires are very difficult to bring under control, with firefighters resorting to saving buildings and lives when the hot drydays during summer encourage the occurrence of enormous fires.





Deforestation

The deforestation rate has been cut in half, represents a downward trend

Environmental News Service 5 (“Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon Cut by Half” http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-29-03.asp)

Over the last 11 months there has been a 50 percent drop in deforestation in the Amazon region,

according to satellite data released Friday by the Brazilian Environment Ministry. From August 2003 to July 2004, a total

of 18,724 square kilometers were logged in the region. From August 2004 to June 2005, the area

destroyed was 9,106 square kilometers, explained Environment Minister Marina Silva at a news conference in the capital.The new figures are based on images from the Brazilian space agency INPE, the first results of an observation

project called STOP (Detection of Deforestation in Real Time), conducted with the support of the Institute for the Environment andRenewable Natural Resources (Ibama) and the Environment Ministry. The purpose of STOP is to supply to the government and the

public with information about new areas of deforestation in Amazonia. "STOP underestimates the areas cleared, utilizing sensors of smaller spatial resolution with high frequency of observation to reduce the limitations of cloud cover," explains Gilberto Câmara,

general coordinator of INPE's Land Observation division. Silva told reporters that two sensors aboard different satellites,

each monitoring deforestation, both show a downward deforestation trend. The MODIS, aboard Landsat, hasspatial resolution of 250 meters and covers Brazil every three to five days. The WFI, carried on the CBERS-2 satellite, presents a spatialresolution of 260 meters and covers Brazil every five days.





Deforestation

Deforestation is decreasing, companies replant the trees they cut down

Carnacchio 97 (C. J. Carnacchio is a staff writer for the Michigan Review. “The Sky Falls on Environmental Myths”http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1997/10-8-97/environment.htm)

Myth #3: Deforestation and Clear-cutting: America's forests are not vanishing. There are 730 million acres of

forest land in the United States today. The growth on those acres is extremely dense, with a total of 230

billion trees (that's 900 trees for each American). When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, 45 percent of

what is now the 48 contiguous United States was covered by mature forest land. Today, 32 percent is

still covered by forest, two thirds of the total before the pilgrims arrived. Contrary to environmentalist propaganda,

clear cutting does not leave behind a scarred and barren wasteland. It is usually done in a

checkerboard manner leaving behind large areas of forest. The areas where cutting occurs are then

replanted. Trees are a valuable commodity, and companies have an incentive not to overcut them. Today,many companies are planting millions of trees on their own land and carefully harvesting them. Even the U.S. Forest Service admitsthat, "Drastic as it may seem, clear cutting plays a legitimate and prominent role in scientific forestry. Properly done, it paves the way for a new, unencumbered and hence vigorously growing forest." Clear cutting was even practiced by the Indians, who burned areas to

provide a cleared space for new growth, which was favored by animals they hunted such as elk and deer .

There is little scientific information about the extent of deforestation


Why these claims are wrong: While some advocates like to make grand, sweeping statements about rainforest

loss and put in big numbers that make it sound catastrophic, Roger Sedjo and Marion Clawson, writing for

Resources for the Future, dug into the available evidence and said, "Information about the tropical moist forests is

relatively scant. What information we do have comes from anecdotal evidence -- provided by isolated

investigations at single times and places -- than from systematic studies conducted over large areas and

lengths of time... A hard look at the available data supports the view that some regions are

experiencing rapid deforestation. However, the view that this is a pervasive phenomenon on a global

level is questionable ." (Rational Readings, Julian Simon, p. 745) So what does available evidence show? And where doenvironmentalists begin to get their numbers? Well U.S. News and World Report (12/13/93) explains that while the figure of 40 millionacres per year "has taken on a life of its own," it is being "cited and recited without reference to its origins. Yet almost half the estimatedtotal comes from a very rough estimate made by a Brazilian scientist who used sensors on a U.S. weather satellite to count the number of fires burning in the Amazon at one time in 1988 [at the height of government-subsidized deforestation]. He estimated the size of each,[guessing at the number of acres being cleared by each fire then assumed that 40 percent would never return to their forested condition,and finally doubled this number to arrive at an estimated guess for global deforestation.] The resulting number was into the widely citedreport by the World Resources Institute...that helped fuel the alarm over vanishing tropical forests; [and] was cited by Gore and other

administration officials last spring in announcing support for the Biodiversity Treaty.





***Toxic Waste Answers***





Toxic Waste Answers- No Health Risk

Love canal proves there is no health risk form toxic waste

Whelan 99 (Dr. Elizabeth M. President of the American Council on Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.408/healthissue_detail.asp)

Was there ever any real health problem at Love Canal? Yes, there was, in the sense that there was anenormous amount of media-induced stress placed on residents who were terrified that they and their childrenwould become ill. But no there was never any documented evidence that exposure to chemicals at the

site caused death or disease. Indeed, in 1980, a panel of scientists appointed by Governor Hugh Careyconcluded that "inadequate" scientific studies might have exaggerated the seriousness of the health

problems caused by toxic waste. Dr. Lewis Thomas of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, chairmanof the panel, declared "as a result of this review, the panel has concluded that there has been no

demonstration of acute health effects linked to exposure to hazardous wastes at the Love Canal site.The panel also concluded that the chronic effects of hazardous wastes exposure at Love Canal have neither

been established or ruled out yet." Nearly 20 years have passed since those blue-ribbon panel findings andthere is still no evidence of an increased incidence of disease or birth defects associated with exposure

to the Love Canal chemicals. Clearly, we must strive to manage the benefits of technology safely andappropriately. We must also acknowledge that heavily industrialized areas of this country are no longer

pristine. But such acknowledgements do not justify exaggeration or sheer fabrication of health risksthat were never documented.

Hazardous waste does not increase health problems

Milloy 1 (Steven J. Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com; a portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for FoxNews.com http://books.google.com/books?id=q78ACwC9xYwC&pg=PA144&vq=hazardous+waste&dq=%22hazardous+waste%22,+junk+science%22&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1TCYz4OwbrZereNX6IIex-UckZgw)

Hazardous waste studies have not linked childhood cancer with hazardous waste sites. A recent study of

hazardous waste sites in North Carolina reported “No significantly elevated cancer incidences were

found at the county level . Two Zip Code areas had statistically significant elevations in cancer incidence (p< .05) Only three of the cancer cases we mapped resided within a 1.6-km (1 mile) buffer zone of a National

Priorities list hazardous waste site. These three cases were not in the zip code areas that had increasedincidence rates.” Another recent study found no association between childhood cancer and 460

hazardous waste sites in the United Kingdom.

http://www.junkscience.com/index.html


http://www.demanddebate.com/



http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/








Toxic Waste Answers - Exaggerated

Claims that toxic waste damages health are alarmist and exaggerated


To scare Americans into supporting a political agenda, former EPA administrator Carol Browner

utters alarmist half-truths such as “Half a million children live within a mile of a toxic waste site in theUnited States”, and “Were very concerned about the one-quarter of Americans who live within four

miles of a superfund site.” But there is no evidence- none- that just living near a toxic waste site has

harmed any childs health.

Past examples prove that the EPA is alarmist about chemicals


By early 1983, though, the EPA changed its tune. The agency was reeling from a major scandal involving

its toxic waste cleanup program. Looking to restore the agencies reputation, EPA staff recommended

the very public banning of a chemical. Alar was targeted. But the available data wouldn’t allow the

chemical to go quietly. Some EPA staff determined the alleged health effects from Alar were well within

the range of safety. A panel of outside scientific advisors agreed with those EPA staff. They rejected the proposed ban. The agency repealed the proposed ban in January 1986, only to have activists pick up the ball.























Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Power Plant Emissions

Power plan emissions are not that bad

Morrone and Lohner 2 ( pg. 83 Michele Ph.D., R.S. Director, Environmental Studies. College of Arts and Sciences · Voinovich School of Leadership and Public

Affairs, Timothy W. senior environmental specialist with American Electric Power http://books.google.com/books?id=JjgbVjyzsfAC&dq=%22hazardous +waste%22,+junk+ science%22&pg=PP1&ots=NRcljDuINn&source=citation&sig=0ENHBGXVV_PVdRsvbAHYGavPXSo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result#PPA72,M1)

Similar studies have been done by independent organizations fro individual power plants. In an analysis of

the emissions of an eastern utility company power plant that burns almost 7 million tons of eastern coal

per year. Dr. Gray found very low levels of risk associated with the emissions, non-cancer risks were below the acceptable RFC, and the cancer risks were below the 1 in a million level. In a similar analysis

of ten Midwestern power plants, it was found that the cancer risk ranged between 0.06 and 0.5 in 1

million, well below the level the EPA considers negligible. All ten plants release chemicals that have the potential to cause noncancer health effects if exposure is high enough. However, the analysis found that thehazard index was much less than one, indicating that exposure was much lower than the air concentrationconsidered “safe”.





Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Waste Water

Waste water being solved now

Science Daily 7 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071108080114.htm) Now, Duygu Özsoy and colleagues in the Department of Environmental Engineering, at Mersin University,Turkey, have begun investigating the potential of several materials to absorb the dissolved form of

copper from waste water. They have looked at how well untreated peanut husks and another potential

cleanup material, pine sawdust, compare in absorbing copper ions from waste water. The team measured thelevels of copper ions that could be extracted from waste water at different temperatures, acidity, flow rate,and initial concentration of dissolved copper. They found that, as expected the longer the waste water isexposed to the materials the more efficient the process. However, there is a stark difference between peanuthusk extraction and pine sawdust. The peanut husks could remove 95% of the copper ions whereas the

pine sawdust only achieved 44% extraction. Efficiency works best if the water is slightly acidic buttemperature had little effect on efficiency. The researchers conclude that both untreated peanut husks, a

cheap waste product of the food industry and pine sawdust from the timber industry could be used in

waste water cleanup to reduce significantly levels of toxic copper levels.





Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Brownfield Waste

Brownfield toxic contamination being solved now

Science Daily 7 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029132654.htm)Common contaminants of industrial sites include copper, chromium, and arsenic. A pilot-scale experimentcompared the industrial-scale, long-term effects of treating these areas with iron-containing blaster sand (BS)or oxygen-scarfing granulate (OSG). The study showed that treatment with BS appeared to produce

better long-term effects than treatment with OSG. A common practice to remediate brownfield sites at

this time is landfilling, which involves the excavation and burial of the contaminated soil to restrict the pollutants to a controlled area. The problem with landfilling is that it can be problematic when large

numbers of sites need remediation, and the pollutants are still retained in the soil mix, which can result

in a future risk of contaminant mobilization, perhaps unpredictably. Treatments done in the laboratory

and as field experiments for this study were successful with high additions of ameliorant, a substance

that improves the physical condition of soil and aids in plant growth.





***Econ Tools***





A2: Resilience 1/1

Recession leads to Depression.

Palley 6 (Thomas Paley Economics Professor at the New School of Social Research, July 1996 The AtlanticMonthly pg 50)

These problems would be bad enough in a economy with strong labor unions and low unemployment,

but they are likely to be worsened in an economy in which labor is wake and companies not only lay off

workers but also force wage concessions from those not laid off. Widespread wage concession could

weaken demand to the point where mass layoffs occur. Such a possibility now haunts the US economy,

and that is why the next recession may turn into a depression.

Recession leads to Depression.

Palley 6 (Thomas Paley Economics Professor at the New School of Social Research, July 1996 The AtlanticMonthly pg 50)

The past twenty-five years have witnessed a persistent weakening of structural conditions within the

US economy. This weakening has been predicated on changes in labor markets which have undermined

the position of American workers polarizing income distribution and increasing job insecurity. The

effects of these changes have been obscured by a debt binge by households and government and by

favorable demographic factors. However, households now face increasing financial constraints and the

demographic situation is changing rapidly. At the same time in the face of increased capital mobility,wages continue to decline and job insecurity widens, these are grounds for believing that the next

recession could spiral into a depression.









Econ Resilient 1/1

Global economy is resilient—inflation is contained and economic growth is high

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary Treasury of the United States, April 14, 2007 (“International Monetary and

Financial Committee Fifteenth Meeting”, http://www.imf.org/External/spring/2007/imfc/statement/eng/usa.pdf)WASHINGTON, DC—Today’s meeting is taking place against the backdrop of a continued strong and

resilient global economy, which provides a favorable setting for overcoming the challenges we face.Both advanced and emerging economies have put in place improved policy frameworks that are

underpinning sustained growth. With global growth expected to be near 5% this year, the past five yearsmark the strongest period of world growth since the early 1970s. Recent bouts of moderate financialturbulence, in mid-2006 and again in early 2007, have tested the system, but it has performed well. Whileongoing vigilance is required, inflation risks appear contained and international trade continues to

expand.

US economy resilient

Kevin L. Kliesen, Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, January 2006 (“Despite Setbacks, the U.S.Economy Steams Forward”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3678/is_200601/ai_n17170028)

Through it all, the economy has exhibited extraordinary resilience, experiencing only a relatively minor recession in 2001 and only a moderate recovery over the next year or so. But since mid-2003, real GDP hasincreased at a little more than a 4 percent annual rate. This rate is about one percentage point higher than theCongressional Budget Office's estimate of potential real GDP growth but a bit lower than other estimates.With actual growth exceeding potential growth, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5 percent (as of

November 2005) and the manufacturing capacity utilization rate in October rose to its highest level in fiveyears. The U.S. economy's resilience reflects two key developments. First, growth of labor productivity

(output per hour in the nonfarm business sector) remains historically elevated. Over the past five years, labor productivity has increased at a brisk 3.4 percent annual rate, far above the 50-year average growth of 2.2 percent. second, financial markets and the business community are confident that the Federal Reserve

will keep inflation low and stable. This credibility not only reduces risk premiums that are embedded ininterest rates, but it enables the Fed to offset potentially damaging economic disturbances without the

markets calling into question its inflation-fighting bona fides. As long as long-term inflation expectationsremain low and stable and labor productivity growth stays strong, the economy should continue to grow at

or slightly above its estimated potential rate of growth in 2006. Economic activity in 2006 should alsoreceive a boost from the rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast and, hopefully, from the absence of further largeincreases in crude oil and natural gas prices. The rebuilding and relative stability in energy prices would help

boost business investment and help produce a more moderate headline inflation rate in 2006. The end resultwould be an improvement in household purchasing power. With this outcome, the economy in 2006 shouldadd jobs at a rate of about 150,00 to 175,000 per month.





Growth = inflation 1/1

Growth causes inflation – Fed reactions

People’s Daily Online, 7-3-07 [“Rebound in U.S. economic growth could fuel inflation: report”http://english.people.com.cn/200707/03/eng20070703_389713.html, accessed 7-6-07]

Economic growth in the United States is likely to recover as the year progresses, but that could fuel

inflation, according to the latest Wall Street Journal survey of forecasters.Having run a veritable gantlet of threats to its health, the nation's economy is in a better place than it was justa few months ago.Forecasters, however, also see a mounting risk: Thanks to longer-term shifts in the U.S. and global economiclandscapes, even a little growth could lead to a resurgence of inflation, the Wall Street Journal reportedMonday.A resurgence of inflation would be painful for U.S. consumers and could cause the Federal Reserve(Fed) to ride the brakes by raising short-term interest.With consumer spending holding up, a weaker dollar propelling U.S. exports and a pickup in production andinvestment, the 60 economists who took part in the survey expect the economy to grow at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the second half of this year and 2.9 percent in 2008.That is down from 3.3 percent in 2006, but much better than the 0.7 percent pace of the first quarter of 2007.In the survey, conducted in mid-June, one in five forecasters saw a resurgence of inflation as the greatest

risk facing the economy. That is more than twice the proportion who saw it as the No. 1 risk six monthsago.

As a result, they now see little chance that the Fed will lower its target for short-term interest rates from thecurrent 5.25 percent by December.

Inflation low, but growth would increase inflation, crushing global economic growth

Daily Times 6-27-07 [“World growth stronger, inflation poses risk,”http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C06%5C27%5Cstory_27-6-2007_pg5_29]

FRANKFURT: The world economy is powering ahead at a faster pace than expected two months ago,building up global inflationary pressures, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund said

on Tuesday. Inflationary dangers pose the greatest risk to the rosy world outlook . But so far rapid gains

in commodity prices, now spreading from metals and energy to food and agricultural products, have not

pushed up consumer prices broadly, Simon Johnson said at a news briefing. “There are real inflationary pressures when you run a world economy this fast,” Johnson said at a briefing where he forecast globalgrowth of around 5 percent this year. The United States, Japan and Europe are no longer benefiting from

falling prices for imported goods, which adds to inflationary dangers associated with fast growth, hesaid. Despite these pressures, Johnson said: “We see very little inflation feeding through.”

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/usa.html









Growth decreases inflation 1/1

Economic growth REDUCES inflation

Bob Murphy, Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College, visiting scholar at the Ludwig von

Mises Institute, May 15, 2007, online: http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy113.html, accessed July 6,

2007As with most faulty economic doctrines, the claim that economic growth causes price inflation isn’t

just wrong, it’s exactly backwards. Let’s go back to basics. The price of something (quoted in dollars) is just the exchange ratio between dollar bills and the good in question. Now what happens when the quantity for sale of a particular good or service increases? For example, why areAmerican laborers worried about Mexican immigrants coming into the country? Why, they’re worried thatwith a larger supply of labor, the wage rate (measured in dollars) will go down. Nobody in his right mind

would say, "Because of huge increases in the pool of laborers, economists are worried that wages might

spike out of control, making it difficult for employers to maintain their profit margins."It’s the same thing when it comes to other goods and services. If the economy cranks out five percent

more stuff this year than last year, those items will be more affordable to consumers, not less! If you’rehaggling with a merchant at a fruit stand over some bananas, and then another merchant pulls his banana cartup next to the first guy, is that going to help you or hurt you in your negotiations?

Now granted, there are all sorts of caveats. The dollar price of a good isn’t due to a simple mechanicalformula, whereby one divides the "total amount of output" (whatever the heck that phrase even means) by thetotal quantity of money to come up with the "price level" (again, whatever the heck that phrase even means).Even if the amount of money and amount of production remain constant, if all of a sudden people decide theydetest holding pictures of U.S. presidents, then dollar prices will rise as people try to unload their dollars inexchange for other goods. So I don’t want my above musings to detract from the subtleties of the analysis;supply and demand matter, even when it comes to the "price" of money.Even so, the point remains: Other things equal, the larger the growth in real output, the lower dollar

prices will be. Economic growth reduces inflation. The financial press has it exactly backwards.





US Key to World Econ 1/1

US Econ Key to Global Econ

Freedomyou 07 (“USA's Future Economic Collapse” Freedomyou February 19, 2007 acessed 07/03/07http://www.freedomyou.com/prophecy/USA_economic_colapse.htm)

America's unquenchable materialistic appetite is the machine that fuels a global economy. Japan's

economy would collapse if it were not for the billions of dollars per year gained in trading with

America. When America goes into a recession, the world follows. When America's economy is

booming, the world's economy strengthens. America devours, yet, is never satisfied. Running out of money, she tells the waiter to put it on her tab. He gladly complies making a tidy profit from the interest. Hecannot serve her quick enough. The more she eats, the hungrier she becomes. As time passes, less goes to

paying for food and more is needed to pay for the huge debt she is accumulating. Finally, all of her resourcesare used up in paying for the interest she owes. America falls crashing to the ground in economic ruin, sosuddenly, it sends shock waves throughout the world. She is incapable of paying for her massive

imports. Merchant ships sit offshore, heavy laden with cargo, weeping and wailing in horror for

Babylon has fallen.

US still key to Global Econ

Diana 07(“Global economy to slow in 2007: Asia emerges as driving force.” Tom Diana Monday, January 1 2007http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/credit-intermediation-related-activities/3961416-1.html)

In summary, the consensus among economists is for slower global economic growth in 2007, with moredriving force coming particularly from China and other countries such as India and from Latin America.While the huge account deficit of the U.S. continues to finance a good portion of world trade, morefinancial activity is being generated by the economic juggernaut of China. Speaking of the growing globaleconomic influence of China, Leach joked, "If you don't know the answer to a question, the answer isChina." However, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy and has a profound impact on the global

economy. North added, "The American economy is very resilient and adaptable to change." Exporting

the products demanded by the growing economies overseas might be a winning strategy for those U.S.

companies in 2007 that haven't yet taken the plunge into exporting. Nonetheless, 2007, barring acalamitous event, promises to be a year of modest growth for the global economy.

http://www.freedomyou.com/prophecy/USA_economic_colapse.htm

http://www.freedomyou.com/prophecy/USA_economic_colapse.htm









US Not Key to World Econ 1/1

World economy resilient to US growth slump

Tim Colebatch, economics editor at The Age, April 13, 2007 (“World Economy Resilient to US Growth Slump:IMF”, http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/imf-tips-output-growth-dip/2007/04/12/1175971264415.html)

World Economy Resilient to US Growth Slump: IMF The IMF's half-yearly Outlook, released inWashington, reiterates its bullish forecast that the world economy will grow by 4.9 per cent this year, andpredicts the same for next year. In recent years, IMF estimates have been consistently too conservative. Itnow tells us that the global economy last year grew by 5.4 per cent, its best for decades. And its forecastimplies that from 2002 to 2008, the world's output will have grown by 33 per cent, the strongest run of growth since the long post-war boom. The IMF also predicts that the risks to the world economy have

decreased with the decline in oil prices, although it warns that current account imbalances still pose a risk of "a possible disorderly unwinding" — its polite term for a global recession.

Europe is sustaining global economy despite US slowdown.

The Wall Street Journal, December 2006 (“Europe is Giving Economy a Surprise Boost Amid US Lull”,http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8580)

BERLIN – Europe's economy is firing on all cylinders after years of feeble growth, helping to sustain

global expansion as the U.S. economy slows and surprising many economists who doubted the Continentcould muster enough demand to break its reliance on exports. Europe's economic recovery was ignited byrising exports, but it is now spreading to investment, job creation and consumer spending. While somecountries around Europe's edges have performed well for years, including the United Kingdom and the

Nordic countries, prolonged stagnation in its heartland – the 12-nation euro currency area dominated byGermany, France and Italy – earned Europe a reputation rivaling Japan's as the world's economic laggard.Euro-zone gross domestic product is on course to grow by 2.7% this year, unspectacular by recent U.S.standards but a big improvement on the 1.4% growth the euro zone averaged the previous five years. Even

though a U.S. slowdown, a strengthening euro and looming tax increases in Germany could brake

euro-zone growth next year, most forecasters still expect an expansion of around 2%. By Europe'slackluster standards, that's nothing short of a comeback – and is good news for exporters and investors

from the U.S. and Asia.

US not key—Asia is outgrowing US economy.

YaleGlobal, 6/12/07 (“$12 Trillion Monster Threatens Globalization”,http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9286)

Some countries control great pools of wealth, building funds from oil or other natural-resource revenue,according to William Pesek, Bloomberg news columnist. But with funds growing by leaps and bounds,their owners look to make good use of these savings – and in the process could transform global financial

markets. The funds together, many based in Asia, could outgrow the entire US economy by 2015. Manycountries turn to investments abroad, offering potential for solid financial returns, but such investments canraise protectionist concerns. The US, for example, might balk at China or Russia investing in Silicon

Valley firms. Many governments are taking efforts to understand the implications of these large stockpiles.Governments cannot dump reserves for fear the market will drop nor can they keep accumulating reserves

because their currencies would surge. Pesek advises wise and careful study into the best use for such funds. –





A2: Growth solves war 1/1

Newest evidence confirms growth doesn’t stop war

Ferguson Oct 6, 6 (Foreign Affairs, Niall, Harvard, EBSCO)It might have been expected that such prosperity would eliminate the causes of war. But much of the worstviolence of the twentieth century involved the relatively wealthy countries at the opposite ends of Eurasia.The chief lesson of the twentieth century is that countries can provide their citizens with wealth, longevity,literacy, and even democracy but still descend into lethal conflict. Leon Trotsky nicely summed up the

paradox when reflecting on the First Balkan War of 1912-13, which he covered as a reporter. The conflict,Trotsky wrote, "shows that we still haven't crawled out on all fours from the barbaric stage of our history. Wehave learned to wear suspenders, to write clever editorials, and to make chocolate milk, but when we have todecide seriously a question of the coexistence of a few tribes on a rich peninsula of Europe, we are helplessto find a way other than mutual mass slaughter." Trotsky later made his own contribution to the history of mass slaughter as the people's commissar for war and as the commander of the Red Army during the RussianCivil War.

And economic decline doesn’t cause war

Ferguson Oct 6, 6 (Foreign Affairs, Niall, Harvard, EBSCO) Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modernhistoriography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that

Documents

Environmental Harms Toolbox - Scholars