Tradeoff DAs---BRAG Lab ---Wave 1

Notes- If reading Politics, be careful with the interaction between the tradeoff args about public popularity and the Politics link.

- A lot of the Space DA neg funding key evidence talks about all these proposed 2014 cuts to NASA’s budget – these didn’t actually end up happening so the DA still has UQ.

- Bolster the link about how the plan is expensive with lines from 1AC/2AC ev – they are probably much more specific to the plan.

- The NOAA DA tradeoff arg isn’t that strong – frame it as the government only funding the plan if they pull funding from Beaufort due to the current fiscal climate

Lali

Space Tradeoff DA

1NC Shell

1NC Space Tradeoff DA

Space spending high now but Obama is looking for excuses to cut itDreier 14 (Casey, The Planetary Society, 01.14.14, “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary Exploration…Again¶ “, http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDPasadena, CA (January 14, 2014) - The FY2014 Omnibus spending bill, now before the U.S. Congress, once again rejects cuts to NASA's Planetary Science Division that were sought by the White House. The Planetary Society commends Congress for this action, and strongly encourages the White House to prioritize Planetary Science in its future budget requests commensurate with its strong public and legislative support. The Society supports the passage of this bill for its additional Planetary Science funding as well as its overall funding levels allocated for NASA.¶ Congress plans to allocate $1.345 billion for NASA's Planetary Science Division, $127 million more than requested by the White House. We strongly support the increase, but note that the

number is well below the program's historical average of $1.5 billion per year.¶ The additional funding ensures the steady development of the next major mission to Mars in 2020, which will store samples of the red planet for eventual return to

Earth. It also provides $80 million for continued research into a flagship-class mission to explore Europa, the enigmatic moon of Jupiter that was recently revealed to be spouting its liquid-water ocean into space.¶ "Exploring Europa is no longer a 'should' but a 'must'," said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Societazy's Director of Advocacy, "Congress made a smart decision to continue studying the Europa Clipper mission concept. There is bipartisan support and strong public interest in exploring Europa, the mission is technically feasible, and it is high priority within the scientific community. The White House should embrace this bold search for life and request a new start for this mission in FY2015."¶ The Society also supports the congressional recommendation that NASA increase the pace of small planetary missions. We are particularly happy to see full congressional and White House support for restarting the nation's Plutonium-238 production capability, which provides electrical power for many planetary science missions that can't utilize solar panels.¶ The White House has requested cuts to planetary science for two years in a row, and for two years in a row Congress has rejected them. In light of this and the more than 50,000 messages sent to Congress and President Obama in support of NASA's planetary science program last year, we urge the Office of Management and Budget to recognize the unprecedented public and legislative support for solar system exploration, and propose $1.5 billion for this program in their FY2015 budget request.

<<LINK>>

The public won’t let the government spend any more money on exploration – investment in oceans has to come from the space budgetNnamani 11 (Sally, International Development grad student at The New School, 10.31.11, “Government Should Fund NOAA and Marine Research, Not NASA Space Research”, http://mic.com/articles/2218/government-should-fund-noaa-and-marine-research-not-nasa-space-research, Accessed 07.03.14)//LDIn the midst of the ongoing debt and budget crises, politicians and voters continue to engage in the contentious debate regarding the faulty prioritization of U.S. government spending. Most Americans

remain concerned with the recklessness of large government spending in what they consider lesser priority areas. Operating on a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, Congress awarded $18.7 billion to NASA, encouraging the administration to reinvigorate its traditional role of innovation, technological development, and scientific discovery. On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $4.5 billion,

$1 billion less than their requested amount.¶ ¶ This large discrepancy between the dollars allocated to these agencies is a clear-cut example of the growing concern among Americans regarding profuse government spending. Given that 95% of the underwater world remains unexplored and the space program has experienced little to no progress in recent years, should the space program remain a priority?¶ ¶ The last half of the 20th century was marked by the ideological and technological warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet bloc. The Cold War morphed itself in several arenas from proxy wars to political conflict to economic and technological competition such as the Space Race. The Space Race is synonymous with the arms race, where one of the main frontiers where the Cold War

was waged. As a result, accomplishments and developments made in these areas not only enhanced American power, but were also received with a strong sense of national pride. ¶ ¶ However, the backbone of the Information Age lies in developing innovative science and technology that will enable us to explore new worlds and increase our understanding of the earth. Space exploration has contributed largely to this effort as a result of relentless government support and a strong lobbyist backing. Lawmakers from Alabama, Maryland, and Utah, where NASA and the corporations typically awarded its contracts operate, invest heavily in lobbyists and PACs to push their agendas forward in Washington. ¶ ¶ On the contrary, although oceans are exploited for economic activities such as mineral extraction, dumping, commercial transportation, fisheries, and aquaculture, oceanic exploration has lagged behind due to insufficient support from the U.S. government. According to NOAA, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. GNP originates in coastal areas, the ocean is key to transportation, recreation, and its resources may hold the cures to many diseases." Since its potential contribution to human sustainability stands at equal footing with space research, government should apportion the necessary capital needed to explore the deep-sea frontier. ¶ ¶ Moreover, since its establishment in 1957, NASA has always faced attack from social activists accusing the agency of wasting resources that could be used here on earth. Given the daunting issues in the country today such as poverty, unemployment,

lack of access to health care, a broken education system, and many others, many believe that the large amount of money

poured into space research could be used to tackle these issues. Moreover, due to our limited understanding of oceanic

activities and processes, we continue to remain subject to the implications of natural disasters stemming from the ocean. Investing in

oceanic research may help discover preventive mechanisms against catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and oil spills.

Continuing NASA funding is key to new long-term projects like Mars colonization and finding habitable planetsSiegel 14 (Ethan, astrophysicist, science communicator & NASA columnist, 06.05.14, “NASA’s Budget ‘Victory’ is Anything But¶ “, https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/nasas-budget-victory-is-anything-but-2d6c4b28981, Accessed 07.05.14)//LDThere’s no doubt in terms of the technology developed, the education that’s arisen, the amount scientists have learned, or the public benefits in terms of return-on-investment (not to mention job creation) that

these investments have all been a wild success by all metrics. Every time you use a GPS, make a cellphone call or send a text, or even simply take the time to wonder about the Universe, you’re benefitting from the paltry investment we made in understanding and exploring the Universe.¶ So stop it already with the small dreams of hanging on to the table scraps; dream of the main course. Dream of the big missions and hopes that we can achieve right now, if we only invest the realistic and comparatively small amounts of capital necessary to make it happen.¶ Dream of humans living on and studying Mars, something we could achieve with an investment of about $50 billion over 10 years. Could we do it with today’s technology? We could have done it with “modern” technology for that amount 20 years ago. If we want it, we can do it; all we have to do is invest.¶ Are you excited about the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope? Yes, it’s expensive; it’s going to be an $8.7 billion project when all is said and done, but it’s poised to teach us about the Universe nearly twice as far back, distance-wise, as Hubble can reach.¶ Are you enthralled by the discoveries of planets around other stars, and what the Kepler mission has accomplished? Do you want to learn more about the potentially habitable ones? About Earth-like (or smaller) planets in the habitable zones of stars?¶ Of course you are; our dreams of what we can do on Earth are limited by the scope and scale of the planet, but the Universe? Now there’s something to dream about!¶ The thing is, for around $2-to-10 billion dollars apiece over the span of a few years, we could have any or all of the following projects:¶ SAFIR, a far-infrared space telescope that would teach us about the Universe in

wavelengths we’ve never looked — about gas, dust, star-formation and distant galaxies — to approximately 100-1,000 times greater precision than we’ve ever looked. This would be the next-generation successor to Spitzer.¶ IXO, or the international X-ray observatory, the next-generation successor to Chandra. We could measure and detect black holes to unprecedented accuracy, gain a better understanding of the supermassive ones at the centers of galaxies, learn about regions of hot, colliding gas in galaxy clusters, study more distant galaxies, AGNs, galactic outflows and more. This would be about 100 times more powerful than Chandra.¶ The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM PlanetQuest), both of which

would hunt for and take actual, direct images of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones around stars capable of supporting chemical-based life.¶ WFIRST, or the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, an infrared space observatory that is the best-designed piece of equipment ever for studying dark energy, hitting on the three-pronged approach of measuring baryon acoustic oscillations, measuring distant supernovae and weak gravitational lensing all to unprecedented accuracy. The plans for WFIRST have grown out of first SNAP (the SuperNova Acceleration Probe) and then JDEM (the Joint Dark Energy Mission), projects that could have flown every year for the past 13 years, if only the funding would materialize.¶ And LISA, or the Laser Interferometer Space

Antenna, which would have accurately measured and directly detected gravitational waves for the first time.

Space colonization is key to human survival, growth and wealth – we have to get off the rockKaroub 14 (Amabel, Michigan Daily Staff, 04.03.14, “NASA researcher explores idea of space colonization”, http://www.michigandaily.com/news/nasa-researcher-talks-space-colonization, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDSpace: the final frontier? Well, that’s what Al Globus, a NASA researcher, thinks, anyway.¶ Globus is a strong advocate of space colonization. At a lecture Thursday night hosted by Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, he told students why

living in space is the next step for humanity.¶ At the beginning of the lecture, Globus pulled up space residence designs from the 1970s. The plans looked like they were taken directly from the science-fiction film “Elysium” – fully equipped with mansions and a peaceful river. Globus said, technology wise, such proposals are not ridiculous, but a matter of cost.¶ “This is the place to

live,” Globus said, referring to the renderings. “There’s a baseball field and a golf course!”¶ Globus gave three main reasons why space settlement would be worth the high cost: survival, growth and wealth . In terms of survival, Globus said it is only a matter of time until an asteroid or some other fatal event wipes out humans on Earth.¶

“Someday, something really bad is going to happen to the Earth and we’re all going to die,” Globus said.

“Before then, we’d like to have space settlements so that not all of humanity is exterminated.”¶ Discussing the

possibility for growth, Globus referenced how the land on Earth is virtually all owned by someone, but the area available for orbital settlements is practically limitless.¶ “Somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times the surface area of the Earth — that’s how much living area you’d get,” Globus said. “The solar system could easily

support trillions of people this way.Ӧ As for power and wealth, Globus said there were great possibilities to generate energy and materials. In space, solar energy is equal to 625 million times the amount available on Earth.

Thousands of small asteroids in our solar system, contain materials worth tens of millions of dollars each,

Globus said.¶ Having articulated the reasons space colonization should be a priority, Globus proposed funding opportunities that

would also advance technology, tourism, solar power and planetary defense.

Uniqueness

2NC UQ Wall

Current NASA funding is high – Congress approved Orion and Europa missionsBaker 14 (David, PhD in Earth and Planetary Physics, 01.20.14, “NASA gets budget boost”, http://www.bis-space.com/2014/01/20/12315/nasa-gets-budget-boost, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDIn a suprise move, legislators have approved a budget for NASA higher than expected, approving a spending plan for fiscal 2014 of $17.6 billion. This is only $100 million lower than the White House requested but $700 million more than the 2013 budget. That budget was subject to the severe sequestration which hit all US government bodies last year.¶ Fiscal 2014 ends on 30 September but, since it began on 1 October 2013 NASA has been running on the ‘frozen’ 2013 budget of $16.9 billion. Operating under the assumption that this year would, at best, be no better than last year, the surprise agreement was reached in the House on 15 January and in the Senate on 16 January, being welcomed by President Obama.¶ The really good news for 2014 is that Congress has approved a record $696 million for commercial crew transportation services. This is less than the $821 million requested and $171 million of that is being held pending a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Until that is completed, NASA will have to work under a continuing spending limit of $525 million approved for fiscal 2013.¶ Congress has also given its support for a ring-fenced James Webb Space Telescope, projected to launch on an Ariane V in 2018, while endorsing the Space Launch System rocket and the Orion spacecraft with full funding. Orion is expected to make its first flight into space later this year on a Delta IV rocket, followed by the first SLS flight in 2017 and a projected manned flight four years after that.¶ There is some concern, however, over NASA’s future deep-space programme, with Congressional committees calling on the agency for clarity on specific missions being considered. The proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission in which Orion would visit a small asteroid manoeuvred into a near-lunar location, lacks definition, says Congress. NASA has been asked to conduct a mission concept analysis and not to go ahead until approved by appropriate Congressional committees.¶ Planetary science also fares well, getting over $1.3 billion for fiscal 2014, a 9% increase over the amount requested by the White House, which had slashed planetary funding in a shock move last year. There is specific Congressional approval for a

new Discovery-class mission to be announced in May this year for selection in September 2015.¶ Congress has added funds for the proposed Europa Clipper mission to the Jovian icy moon in 2021, increasing funds from $70 million in 2013 to $80 million this year.

NASA budget high now – recovered funding lost in the sequester Nelson Newsroom 14 (Bill Nelson, Senator for Florida, 01.14.14, “Congressional budget deal a “win” for NASA”,http://www.billnelson.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/congressional-budget-deal-a-win-for-nasa¶ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LDWASHINGTON, D.C. - Included in the massive budget bill unveiled last night by congressional leaders from both sides of the political aisle is enough money for NASA to continue its deep space exploration program and other priorities, according to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).¶ ¶ Nelson, who chairs the Senate subcommittee that oversees the nation’s space program, is one of the leading architects of a plan to build a new monster rocket and crew capsule for deep space exploration. The $1.1 trillion budget includes $4.1 billion for exploration, or, as Nelson said Tuesday, enough to keep the new space launch system on track. ¶ ¶ " This is a big win ," the lawmaker added. ¶ ¶ Overall, the space agency would get $17.65 billion, which is significantly higher than the roughly $16.2 billion NASA would have received had the so-called sequester or across-the-board budget cuts remained in effect.¶ ¶ In addition to funding the space launch system, there's also nearly $700 million for the continued development of commercial space ventures.

Funding is high now – any cuts would devastate NASA’s long-term missionsKing 14 (Ledyard, USA Today Staff, 01.14.14, “Budget deal would preserve NASA's big missions”, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/spending-bill-would-preserve-major-nasa-missions/4480537/, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD

WASHINGTON — The nation's space program would fare reasonably well under a fiscal 2014 spending bill expected to pass Congress later this week.¶ The $1.012 trillion package includes $17.65 billion for NASA, only slightly below what President Obama had requested. It includes funding for the agency's major space and science initiatives, including a crewed mission to Mars by the 2030s.¶ The fiscal year began Oct. 1 and runs through Sept. 30.¶ "This is a big win," said Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee that handles space policy.¶

NASA officials had worried about the effect that prolonged sequestration spending cuts would have on science and exploration. They warned lawmakers that another year of the automatic cuts would be bad news for an agency that budgets for the long term and needs consistent funding sources for its multi-year missions.¶ In fiscal 2013, NASA received nearly $16.9 billion. The House Appropriations Committee had approved a NASA budget of $16.6 billion for fiscal 2014 while the Senate Appropriations Committee called for $18 billion. Obama had asked for $17.7 billion.¶ STORY: Another year of sequestration would delay NASA missions¶ STORY: White House extends space station support for 4 years¶ The spending bill would give NASA:¶ — $3.1 billion for the Mars mission, including $1.2 billion for the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle that will carry astronauts to Mars and $1.9 billion for the Space Launch System that will build and guide the rocket that will propel them to the Red Planet.¶ — $696 million for commercial space activities, mainly to further development of private spacecraft to carry astronauts to the International Space Station. NASA has set 2017 as a target date for the first crewed mission. Until then, American taxpayers must pay more than $70 million each time Russia gives an astronaut a ride to the orbiting lab.¶ — $5.2 billion for science missions, including $80 million for a mission to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.¶ — $566 million for aeronautics, including "cutting-edge research into cleaner and quieter airplanes," according to NASA.¶ The bill also would cap money for the James Webb Space Telescope at $8 billion. The telescope, Hubbell's much-touted successor, has been beset by cost overruns and schedule delays.¶ The bill also would continue to bar NASA from sharing any sensitive information with China.¶ The bill keeps NASA's deep-space exploration program on track and will continue to spur American innovation and keep the U.S. the world leader in space exploration.

AT: Budget Cuts

House bill will restore money taken from NASA into the 2015 budget – Planetary Society campaign has raised awarenessPlait 14 (Phil, Slate astronomer, 06.05.14, “The House Passes FY 2015 NASA Budget¶ “, http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/05/nasa_budget_2015_house_bill_restores_cut_funding.html, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDWhat’s good about the House budget is that it puts back in a lot of money the White House took out, for reasons that are still somewhat mysterious, including devastating cuts to planetary exploration requested by

the president. This has been an ongoing battle, and I really wish the White House would stop screwing around trying to cut one of NASA’s most successful and highly visible programs! Happily, a campaign run by the Planetary Society has been very helpful in raising awareness in Congress over the need for planetary missions.¶ The bill specifically outlays $100 million for the development of a mission to the icy moon Europa, which is simply fantastic. It’ll cost

a lot more than that in total, but that’s a darn good first step. Europa is a very, very desirable target for an outer planets mission, since it has a vast ocean of liquid water under its icy surface. What treasures await beneath the

surface for us to discover?¶ Interestingly, the House budget restores funding for SOFIA, an infrared telescope flown on an airplane, money that had been inexplicably taken away by the White House budget. The report on the bill is pretty clear

about this:¶ The Committee does not accept NASA’s request to terminate support for the Stratospheric

Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a project that is currently producing good science and has not been proposed for termination by

NASA’s internal or external scientific review boards. Instead, the recommendation provides $70,000,000 for SOFIA, which should be sufficient to support the aircraft’s fixed costs (flight crews, required maintenance, etc.) as well as a base level of scientific observations.¶ That’s pretty cool. Nice timing, too, since NASA is testing a new instrument for SOFIA that will improve its ability to take spectra and investigate all manners of celestial objects.¶ Speaking of infrared telescopes, I didn't see anything specific about Spitzer, which is in danger of being canceled.

Hopefully I'll be hearing more about that soon.¶ I'm happy to see an additional $15 million toward education and public outreach in the budget, which also had been cut by the White House. That whole thing from the President was a total mess, bordering on lunacy; instead of doing education through the various missions, as had been done for years, the White House wanted to combine it all and outsource it to other groups. That would have been extremely harmful to NASA's E/PO effort, losing many years of wisdom and experience gathered by many dozens of people. I'm glad money has been restored to this.

Tradeoff

2NC Tradeoff Wall

Funding for ocean exploration would be taken from space programs – the current fiscal climate demands zero-sum budgetingEtzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶

Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 65-74, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)//LDEvery year, the federal budget process begins¶ with a White House-issued budget request,¶ which lays out spending priorities for federal¶ programs. From this moment forward,¶ President Obama and his successors should¶ use this

opportunity to correct a longstanding¶ misalignment of federal research priorities:¶ excessive spending on space exploration and neglect¶

of ocean studies. The nation should begin transforming the¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)¶ into a greatly

reconstructed, independent, and effective federal¶ agency. In the present fiscal climate of zero-sum budgeting ,¶ the

additional funding necessary for this agency should¶ be taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration¶

(NASA).

Economic difficulty empirically forces us to make either/or decisions – this card is specific to science investmentMcClain 12 (Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, 10.16.12, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt.2”, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-2/, Accessed 07.03.14)//LDWe faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or situations : do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose what appeared to be most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied science because it was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was easier to justify politically the expenditures involved.

No room for increasing science investment – bipartisan consensus has implodedBroad 14 (William J, New York Times, 03.15.14, “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDIn November 2012, the White House issued a thick and portentous update¶ on the health of the nation's research complex. Produced by Mr. Obama's¶ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it warned of American¶ declines, emphasized the rise of scientific rivals abroad and called for bold¶ policy interventions.¶ "Without adequate support for such research," the experts wrote in their¶ cover letter, "the United States risks losing its leadership in invention and¶ discovery."¶ The financial outlook had fallen far and fast. Congress had long reached¶ across party lines to support government research, for its economic and¶ military rewards and because the distribution of billions of dollars plays well¶ come election time. After rising steadily for decades, federal science financing¶ hit a high point in 2009, in the early days of the Obama administration, as¶ Congress, to stimulate the economy amid the global financial crisis, allocated¶ about S40 billion for basic science.¶ That bipartisan consensus eroded with the Republican takeover of the House¶ of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections and the budget battles¶ that followed. Spending on basic research has fallen by roughly a quarter, to¶ S30 billion last year, one of the sharpest declines ever .

The public supports ocean spending over space spendingLilley 10 (Jonathan Charles, Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Studies, dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware, "Navigating a Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources", Summer 2010, www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf, Accesed 07.07.14)//LDRegarding action that could be taken to protect the marine environment, 85% thought the government needs to do more, with 72% stating that funding for ocean exploration should take priority over space exploration (17%). In terms of individual action that a person can take, 49% said they would be almost certain to recycle used motor oil and 42% said they would be almost certain to pick up trash on the beach. Much smaller percentages said they would be pay higher water bills to fund better sewage treatment (20%); lobby their politicians to support positive ocean- related actions (18%); join an environmental group (12%); or attend legislative meetings on ocean issues (10%). Regarding the perceived effectiveness of such actions, 70% thought that recycling used motor oil would be very effective in protecting the marine environment and 63% thought that picking up trash on the bead would very effective.

AT: Private Investment Solves

Private investment can’t lead space exploration – too short-term and uncertainHa 14 (Anthony, Stanford, writer at TechCrunch, 03.08.14, “Neil deGrasse Tyson Says Private Companies Won’t Take The Lead In Space Exploration”,http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-sxsw/ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LDFamed scientist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the importance of space exploration

today during his keynote at South by Southwest Interactive. Despite advances by private companies, particularly SpaceX, he said they won’t be the ones making the biggest breakthroughs .¶ Tyson admitted that for him, the

appeal of space travel is the simple fact that it’s “a frontier.” However, there are more practical reasons to go into space. For

one thing, we need to be able to respond if we find out that an asteroid is headed for Earth.¶ “You know the dinosuars would have if they could have,” Tyson said. He joked that failing to pursue a space program when we have the scientific and technological capability would make us “the laughing stock” of other intelligent species: “They’d have human bones on display in their museum. ‘Here they are, not building a spaceship.’”¶ He also suggested that space travel is tied to other forms of

significant innovation like transportation, energy, and health — which he contrasted with people “who innovate

because you want to make a buck” and are trying to figure out “the next app.”¶ Tyson described space travel as “a long-term investment”: “It’s an investment that private enterprise cannot lead.” He recalled the excitement around SpaceX’s delivery of cargo the International Space Station, which sparked discussion about whether private companies would replace government as the main engine behind space travel. Tyson’s response? “They brought cargo to the space station! NASA’s been doing that for 30 years!”¶ The problem, he said, is that it’s hard to predict the risk and return on investment on “doing anything big and expensive first.” He noted that the first Europeans to come to America were not the Dutch

East India Company, but Christopher Columbus and his crew, whose expedition was paid for by Spain. After the

initial exploration , there will be opportunities for private companies .

Internal Link

2NC Funding Key

Losing funding would sabotage NASA missions to deep spaceGhose 13 (Tia, LiveScience Staff, 04.11.13, “NASA Budget Cutbacks Would Cripple Planetary Science, Critics Say“,http://www.space.com/20622-nasa-budget-planetary-science-2014.html, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDProposed cuts included in NASA's 2014 budget request would sabotage a mission to Europa, an icy moon of Jupiter that could support life, scientists say.¶ The Obama administration released its 2014 budget proposal Wednesday (April 10). While the budget would set aside $17.7 billion for NASA, it would cut the agency's previous $1.5 billion budget for the planetary science division by $200 million, scientists said in a live webcast sponsored by the Planetary Society, an organization founded by scientist Carl Sagan to promote solar-system exploration.¶ "We're a little disappointed that planetary science didn't get a little better shake," said Bill Nye, CEO of the society and popularly known as television’s "Bill Nye the Science Guy." [NASA's 2014 Space Goals Explained in Pictures]¶ The new budget does not follow the recommendations of the National Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey, a 410-page report that surveyed dozens of planetary scientists to identify the top priorities for the field over the next decade, Nye said.¶ "This very-well-thought-out, strongly supported list of suggestions has not really been embraced — or the better word would be 'ignored,'" Nye said.¶ Europa, a mysterious moon of Jupiter, has a churning ocean locked beneath its icy surface, making it one of the best potential sources of extraterrestrial life in the solar system.¶ But the new budget doesn't include any money to explore Europa's ice-covered ocean.¶ The budget does set aside funds to identify asteroids that could threaten Earth and to bring back samples from an asteroid, said Bill Adkins, a consultant for the society.¶ The administration's budget also includes funding to send a rover, much like the Curiosity rover, to Mars in 2020.¶ However, the budget does not set aside funds to take rocks back from the planet to study them on Earth, Adkins said.¶ "We want to bring back a piece of Mars," Adkins said. "Here on Earth, we have physically much larger instruments — much higher-power instruments than we're able to put on even our very best rovers."¶ The budgetary picture could get better, as Congress still has the option to amend the 2014 budget request to include funding for Europa and other planetary priorities, Adkins noted.¶ But it could also get worse. The proposed budget assumes that Congress and the president will end the sequester prior to the start of the 2014 budget cycle. If that doesn’t happen, more cuts could be triggered, Adkins said.

AT: UQ o/w

Even a short-term cut to space funding would kill missions and break international agreementsHarvey 12 (Ralph P, associate professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 04.14.12, “Space exploration budget cuts would doom future missions: Ralph P. Harvey,“ http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/space_exploration_budget_cuts.html, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDIn general, our government gets this. We all know space exploration can't be cheap, but steady, modest support --

in good economic times and bad -- has brought enormous positive returns. Continuing support for

planetary sciences has maintained our expertise and technological leadership. It has also allowed us to send rovers to Mars to discover incredible evidence of that planet's past habitability; to capture cometary dust and bring it back to Earth; to witness water geysers erupting on Saturn's moon Enceladus; and do dozens of other absolutely incredible things, all challenging and inspiring, that no other nation has done. Almost as amazing is that these incredible discoveries, so defining of our country's technological expertise, are supported by a tiny fraction of the federal budget -- about four hundredths of one percent.¶ Unfortunately, this may all change if we don't take action. The administration's proposed budget for the 2013 fiscal year -- now in front of Congress -- includes a devastating 20 percent cut to planetary funding. A cut of that scale will eliminate several Mars missions, break international agreements that jointly support other missions, eliminate any large-scale "flagship" missions for the foreseeable future and force us to abandon any plans to explore the potential habitability of the "water moons" Europa and Enceladus, circling Jupiter and Saturn.¶ Why is it so important to fix this? Can't planetary exploration handle a little of the economic hardship the rest of us are dealing with? Answering this requires appreciation of two facts.¶ First is that the proposed cut is hugely disproportionate. While other agencies are being asked to stay the course or slow their growth, planetary exploration is having its guts cut out, with seemingly little regard for its extraordinary long-term value.¶ Second, for planetary missions (like many things in life), timing is everything. Opportunities to economically launch spacecraft to Mars, a relatively close planet, come by every two years. Opportunities to launch toward outer planets, where spacecraft may need a little gravitational assist from other planets to get there, come along on decadal or even century time scales. Similarly, you can't switch a Mars rover back on once you've turned it off and allowed it to go cold.¶ In a nutshell, turning off funding now, even if you mean to replace it in the next budget, is likely to kill rather than delay any typical planetary project. It is the equivalent of axing a farmer's budget in planting season; even if you restore that funding mid-summer, the harvest just isn't going to be there.

Impact

2NC Ext. Space Col Impact

Space colonization key to prevent tech stagnation, tyranny, war, and genocide – need access to more resources to prevent conflictZubrin 11 (Robert, aerospace engineer, June 2011, “The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must”, Updated and Revised Edition, Accessed 07.07.14)//LDThe tendency toward cultural homogenization on Earth can only¶ accelerate in the twenty-first century. Furthermore,

because of rapid¶ communication and transportation technologies shorting out inter-¶ cultural barriers, it will become increasingly impossible to obtain the¶ degree of separation required to develop new and different cultures on¶ Earth. If the Martian frontier is opened, however, this same process of¶ technological advance will also enable us to establish a new, distinct,¶ and dynamic branch of human culture on Mars and eventually more¶ on

worlds beyond. The precious diversity of humanity can thus be pre-¶ served on a broader field, but only on a broader field. One world will¶ be just too small a domain to allow the preservation and continued generation of the diversity needed not just to keep life interesting,

but to¶ assure the survival of the human race.¶ Without the opening of a new frontier on Mars, continued Western civilization

also faces the risk of technological stagnation. To some¶ this may appear to be an odd statement, as the present age is frequently¶ cited as one of

technological wonders. In fact, however, the rate of¶ progress within our society has been decreasing and at an alarming rate.¶ To see this, it is only necessary to step back and compare the changes¶ that have occurred in the past thirty-five years with those that occurred¶ in the preceding thirty-five years and the thirty-five years before that.¶ Between 1905 and 1940 the world was revolutionized: Cities were¶ electrified; washing machines and refrigerators appeared; telephones¶ and broadcast radio became common; home stereos were born; talk-¶ ing motion pictures blossomed into a grand new art form; automobiles became practical; and aviation progressed from the Wright Flyer¶ to the DC-3 and Hawker Hurricane. Between 1940 and 1975 the world¶ changed again, with the introduction of computers, television, antibiotics, nuclear power, Boeing 727s,

SR-71s, Atlas, Titan, and Saturn rockets, communication satellites, interplanetary spacecraft, and piloted¶ voyages to the Moon. Compared to these changes, the technological¶ innovations from 1975 to the present seem insignificant. Immense¶ changes should have occurred during this period, but did not. Had¶ we been following the previous seventy years* technological trajectory,¶ we today would have flying cars, maglev (magnetic levitation) trains,¶ robots, fusion reactors, hypersonic intercontinental travel, reliable and¶ inexpensive transportation to Earth orbit, undersea cities, open-sea¶ mariculture, and

human settlements on the Moon and Mars. Instead,¶ today we see important technological developments, such as nuclear¶ power and biotechnology, being blocked or enmeshed in controversy—¶ we are slowing down.¶ Now,

consider a nascent Martian civilization: Its future will depend¶ critically upon the progress of science and technology. Just as the inventions produced by the necessities of frontier America were a powerful¶ driving force on worldwide human progress in the nineteenth century, so the

"Martian ingenuity" born in a culture that puts the utmost¶ premium on intelligence, practical education, and the determination¶ required to make real contributions will make much more than its fair¶ share of the scientific and technological breakthroughs, which will dramatically advance the human condition in the twenty-first

century.¶ A prime example of the Martian frontier driving new technology¶ will undoubtedly be found in the arena of energy production. As on¶

Earth, an ample supply of energy will be crucial to the success of Mars¶ settlements. The Red Planet does have one major energy resource that¶ we currently know about: deuterium,

which can be used as the fuel¶ in nearly waste-free thermonuclear fusion reactors. Earth has large¶ amounts of deuterium too, but with all of the existing investments in¶ other, more polluting forms of energy production, the research that¶ would make possible practical fusion power reactors has been allowed¶

to stagnate. The Martian colonists are certain to be much more determined to get fusion online , and in doing so will massively benefit the¶ mother planet as well.¶ The parallel between the Martian frontier and that of nineteenth-¶ century America as technology drivers is, if anything, vastly under-¶ stated. America drove technological progress in the last century because¶ are increasingly being made by a plethora of regulatory agencies whose¶ officials do not even pretend to have been elected by anyone.¶ Democracy in America and elsewhere in Western civilization needs¶ a shot in the arm. That boost can only come from the example of a¶ frontier people whose civilization incorporates the ethos that breathed¶ the spirit into democracy in America in the first place. As Americans¶ showed Europe in the last century, so in the next the Martians can show¶ us the

path away from oligarchy and stagnation.¶ There are greater threats that a humanist society faces in a closed¶ world than the return of

oligarchy, and if the frontier remains closed,¶ we are certain to face them in the twenty-first century. These threats are¶ the spread of various sorts of anti-human ideologies and the development of political institutions that incorporate the notions that spring¶ from them as a basis of operation. At the top of the list of such destructive ideas that tend to spread naturally in a closed

society is the Mallhus¶ theory, which holds that since the world's resources are more or less¶ fixed, population growth and living standards must be restricted or all¶ of us will descend into bottomless misery.¶ Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt—all predictions made¶ upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of¶ new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster¶ the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to .Vlalthus) as the worlds¶ population has increased, the

standard of living has increased, and at an¶ accelerating rate. Nevertheless, in a closed society Malthusianism has¶ the appearance of self-evident truth, and herein lies the danger. It is not¶ enough to argue against Malthusianism in the abstract—such debates¶ are not settled in

academic journals. Unless people can see broad vistas¶ of unused resources in front of them, the belief in

limited resources¶ tends to follow as a matter of course. And if the idea is accepted that¶ the worlds resources are fixed,

then each person is ultimately the¶ enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of¶ every other race or nation. The extreme result is tyranny war, and even¶ genocide . Only in a universe of

unlimited resources can all men be brothers.

2NC Laundry List Impact

Space research is key to life on Earth – better medicines, potable water, food securityGaran 14 (Ron, Astronaut, 03.05.14, “Why Spend Money on Space Exploration When We Have So Many Problems Here on Earth?¶ “, http://unreasonable.is/opinion/why-spend-money-on-space-exploration-when-we-have-so-many-problems-here-on-earth/, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDThe ISS provides a unique environment for scientific discovery that simply cannot be duplicated anywhere on Earth. Research on this orbiting laboratory is not only enabling humans to explore the solar system, it is leading to countless improvements for life on Earth. For example, space based science offers an environment to foster new materials, better medicines, improved methods to provide clean water, and better ways to grow enough food to feed our increasing global population. Studying astronauts living and working in space also enhances our understanding of the human body, resulting in innovative ways to protect all humans from many different ailments. The list of benefits is endless.

NASA missions have huge environmental and economic importance – climate change and asteroid mineralsWest 14 (Darrell, VP/Director of Governance Studies, Douglas Dillon Chair, Center for Technology Innovation ad Brookings, 05.13.14, “How Space Exploration Propels Scientific Discovery, Tourism, Mining, and the Economy”, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2014/05/13-space-exploration-west, Accessed 07.06.14)Questions about the space program take on special importance during a period of budget scarcity and uncertainty regarding future missions. For example, should exploration focus on Mars or asteroids that have the potential to devastate Earth? There are both economic and environmental benefits of exploration. Mars long has tantalized humans curious about its origins and wondering how a warm and wet planet turned into a cold and desolate place. The lessons for Earthlings about climate change and large-scale environmental catastrophe are quite clear. Paying attention to long-term climate trends is very much in our self-interest.¶ At the same time, scientists understand that asteroids represent a potential threat to life on Earth and that many of them are likely to contain valuable minerals. Several companies financed by billionaires are touting the economic benefits of future space mining. Recognizing both the opportunities and the risks, NASA has a mission planned that hopes to capture an asteroid and place it in orbit around the Moon for extended study and analysis. If that mission turns out well, it could represent a prototype for future economic enterprise. It may be that future generations reap considerable economic benefits of space exploration.

2NC Structural Impact

Space technology has huge implications for the developing world – for example the solar refrigerator can allow access to free cooling Garan 14 (Ron, Astronaut, 03.05.14, “Why Spend Money on Space Exploration When We Have So Many Problems Here on Earth?¶ “, http://unreasonable.is/opinion/why-spend-money-on-space-exploration-when-we-have-so-many-problems-here-on-earth/, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDI like to point out that the space program technology transfer is two-way. Many NASA engineers give their expertise and spare

time to apply space program technology to problems facing the developing world. In doing so, they learn

valuable lessons that will allow us to push space exploration beyond low-earth orbit. The highly efficient engineering approaches that are required in the developing world – robust solutions that do not require a lot of maintenance, resupply or training – are the same approaches we need to employ if we are going to break out of the bounds of low-earth orbit.2¶ Each year, NASA celebrates one invention out of many spinoff technologies as the NASA Commercial Invention of the Year. A solar powered refrigerator designed to support life on the Moon, but with huge application on Earth, earned the prestigious title for 2011. With approximately 2 billion of Earth’s inhabitants lacking access to electricity, this technology developed at NASA’s Johnson Space Center will help us explore space as well as

significantly improve the lives of so many on Earth.¶ Co-developers, Mike Ewert and David Bergeron, worked on NASA’s Advanced Thermal Team to develop solar refrigeration technology to cool habitats in space. They also realized the need for a comparable solar refrigerator that could operate in conjunction with the simple solar lighting systems already in place on Earth. A modified lunar “solar photovoltaic heat pump” was developed to produce a refrigerator with a vapor compression, battery-free cooling system that converts electricity from solar panels into thermal energy stored internally, using low-cost phase-change materials that control temperature swings. This system eliminates reliance on an electric grid, requires no batteries, stores thermal energy for efficient use when sunlight is absent, and works anywhere in the world.¶ Such a scalable, energy-efficient resource can be an incredible asset in places people don’t have refrigeration, including remote medical centers and underdeveloped areas. Electricity is

essential for storage of vaccines and medicine. This technology can greatly reduce the cost and increase the availability of vaccines delivered to the most impoverished regions of the world.

2NC Turns Heg

Continued investment in NASA’s deep space missions are key to maintain US leadershipWalker 14 (Charles, former engineer and astronaut, 04.27.14, “Congress must fund deep-space travel for U.S.'s sake¶ “, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-27/news/os-ed-deep-space-exploration-042714-20140425_1_deep-space-deep-space-missions-nasa-missions, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDWith our economy stuck in a slow recovery, voters want leaders in Washington to create high-tech jobs, support

new technologies for American industry and help inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers and innovators that will grow our economy for the future. It's a tall order, but I'm glad to see so many congressional representatives from Florida are meeting this challenge, in part by supporting NASA missions to explore deep space.¶ In a recent letter cosigned with 28 other members of the House, Reps. Frederica S. Wilson, Corrine Brown, Bill Posey and Alan Grayson urged the White House to put a greater emphasis on efforts to send American astronauts to explore space beyond earth's orbit.¶ Deep-space missions would restore America's forward-leaning space leadership in a way not seen since the Apollo

program that landed us on the moon and generated thousands of technology spinoffs — like the integrated circuit. This is a great challenge our country and our economy need. While developing countries like China are trying to catch

us in space with missions to earth orbit and the moon, we should continue our leadership by reaching past them to Mars and beyond.¶ NASA is already building the systems we need. Contractors have started construction of the most powerful rocket in history, the Space Launch System, which will be capable of sending nine school buses worth of cargo beyond Earth's orbit. Later this year, NASA will test a prototype of the manned Orion space capsule that would ride atop the SLS. And NASA scientists are working on the tough challenges posed by deep-space missions that could last years, like how to shield astronauts from deep-space radiation and maintain efficient life support.¶ NASA's deep-space efforts complement the flurry of activity by private companies to reach the International Space Station. As the first astronaut to fly with NASA on behalf of a commercial space company, I've seen how a smart division between NASA and the private sector can drive costs down for profitable missions, leaving NASA with more money to pursue greater space exploration.¶ As commercial space companies make it cheaper and more efficient to send astronauts to the ISS, NASA should be allocating more funding to new technologies that will send astronauts into deep space.

Space leadership key to preserve US hegemonyStone 11 (Christopher, space policy analyst, 03.14.11, “American leadership in space: leadership through capability¶ “,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1¶ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LDFirst, let me start by saying that I agree with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that “American leadership is a phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the United States, as well as in many space policy discussions.” I have been at many space forums in my career where I’ve heard the phrase used by speakers of various backgrounds, political ideologies, and nation. Like Mr. Friedman states, “it has many different meanings, most derived from cultural or political biases, some of them contradictory”. This is true: many nations, as well as organizations and individuals worldwide, have different preferences and views as to what American leadership

in space is, and/or what it should be. He also concludes that paragraph by stating that American leadership in space could also be viewed as “ synonymous with American… hegemony ”. I again will agree that some people within the United Stats and elsewhere

have this view toward American leadership. However, just because people believe certain viewpoints regarding American leadership does not mean that those views are accurate assessments or definitions of what actions demonstrate US leadership in the space medium.¶ When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that space is “often” overlooked in “foreign relations and geopolitical strategies”. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national grand geopolitical strategies by many in national

leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to “shape” the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as “The World We Seek”. Using space to shape the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of “shaping” is that we appear to have changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancing United States’ space power

capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States’ goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political example .¶

As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously , both from a

national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space.¶ The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our

deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no

firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion’s share of the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner rather than later.

Hegemony is good – solves great power war and multiple flashpoints of conflict – also ensures multilateral cooperation – retrenchment collapses it all Ikenberry et. al, 13 – John Ikenberry, Ph. D in Political Science from Chicago, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, Co-Director of Princeton’s Center for International Security Studies; William Wohlforth, Ph. D in Political Science from Yale, Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College; Stephen Brooks, Ph. D in Political Science from Yale, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University; “Don’t Come Home, America: The Case Against Retrenchment”, http://live.belfercenter.org/files/IS3703_Brooks%20Wohlforth%20Ikenberry.pdfAssessing the Security Benefits of Deep Engagement Even if deep engagement’s costs are far less than retrenchment advocates claim, they are not worth bearing unless they yield greater benefits. We focus here on the strategy’s major security benefits; in the next section, we take up the wider payoffs of the United States’ security role for its interests in other realms, notably

the global economy—an interaction relatively unexplored by international relations scholars. A core premise of deep engagement is that it

prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment . For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas .

The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with

influential variants of realist theory . Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and

associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and

full-scale great power war . 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture

most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to

Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high ex pected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—

such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet . First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing

military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently

backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia —might take actions upon U.S.

retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas . And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that

Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military

commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—

assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes .

Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland.

Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences,

however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of

territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77

In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge

have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security

environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.

Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation ,

and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers

to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including

regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and

security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security

ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces . 78 It is unlikely

that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more

proliferation . Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of

rationality and narrow security preferences . In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine

to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that

could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases . Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth

century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the

medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by them selves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to

move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83

In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difficult. Bringing

together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere

for growing new military capabilities . Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also

provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’

formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals . Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused en mity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather

than shrinking . 85 In the end, therefore, deep engagement reduces security competition and does so in a way

that slows the diffusion of power away from the United States . This in turn makes it easier to sustain the policy over the long term. THE

WIDER BENE FITS OF DEEP ENGAGEMENT The case against deep engagement overstates its costs and underestimates its security benefits. Perhaps its most important weakness, however, is that its preoccupation with security issues diverts attention from some of deep engagement’s most important benefits: sustaining the global economy and fostering institutionalized cooperation in ways advantageous to U.S. national interests. ECONOMIC BENE FITS Deep engagement is based on a premise central to realist scholarship from E.H. Carr to Robert Gilpin: economic orders do not just emerge spontaneously; they are created and sustained by and for powerful states. 86 To be sure, the sheer size of its economy would guarantee the United States

a significant role in the politics of the global economy whatever grand strategy it adopted. Yet the fact that it is the leading military power and security provider also enables economic leadership . The security role figures in the creation, maintenance, and expansion of the system. In part because other states—including all but one of the world’s largest economies—were heavily dependent on U.S. security protection during the Cold War, the United States was able not only to foster the economic order but also to prod other states to buy into it and to support plans for its progressive expansion. 87 Today, as the discussion in the previous section underscores, the security commitments of deep engagement support the global economic order by reducing the likelihood of security dilemmas, arms racing, instability, regional conflicts and, in extremis, major power war. In so doing,

the strategy helps to maintain a stable and comparatively open world economy —a long-standing U.S. national interest. In addition to ensuring the global economy against important sources of insecurity, the extensive set of U.S. military commitments and deployments helps to protect the “global

economic commons.” One key way is by helping to keep sea-lanes and other shipping corridors freely available for commerce. 88 A second key way is by helping to establish and protect property/sovereignty rights in the oceans. Although it is not the only global actor relevant to protecting the global economic commons, the United States has by far the most important role given its massive naval superiority and the

leadership role it plays in international economic institutions . If the United States were to pull back

from the world, protecting the global economic commons would likely be much harder to accomplish

for a number of reasons: cooperating with other nations on these matters would be less likely to occur; maintaining the relevant institutional foundations for promoting this goal would be harder ; and preserving access to bases throughout the world—which is needed to accomplish this mission—would likely be curtailed to some degree.

2NC Econ Impact

Deep space missions are key to economic recovery – investment generates huge returnsWalker 14 (Charles, former engineer and astronaut, 04.27.14, “Congress must fund deep-space travel for U.S.'s sake¶ “, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-27/news/os-ed-deep-space-exploration-042714-20140425_1_deep-space-deep-space-missions-nasa-missions, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDExploring deep space will unlock incredible rewards for science and our economy. Designing and building deep-space technologies will create thousands of jobs and generate lucrative commercial spinoffs that drive our economy — like GPS and cellphone cameras, and medical technologies like in-ear thermometers — just like every prior phase of our space program from Apollo to the shuttle. In 2011 alone, NASA invested roughly $900 million in Florida, driving critical economic growth.¶ These missions will also uncover new clues about the beginnings of the universe and how our solar system evolved. The discoveries we make will, in turn, inspire the next generation of American scientists and engineers so we continue to lead in space for decades to come.¶ Some argue that space exploration is a luxury we can't afford. But if we want to continue America's global economic leadership, I'd say it's a necessity, not a luxury. Investing in NASA generates enormous returns — upwards of $10 in lucrative spinoffs for each dollar spent in research and development — at very little cost. The entire NASA budget is less than half a penny out of each taxpayer dollar. And deep-space missions would not break our budget. To put them in perspective, we spend as much to maintain empty government buildings every two years as it would cost to build the SLS and Orion capsule needed to reach Mars.¶ Sending American astronauts into deep space could become the defining technology challenge of this generation. NASA is ready to meet that challenge — all it needs is unified support from Washington and clear direction on specific goals. I stand with the representatives from Florida in calling on President Obama and others in Congress to support NASA's human exploration into deep space by fully funding the SLS, Orion space capsule and other critical deep-space technologies.

US economy is key to the global economyIMF 13 (IMF, International Monetary Fund, September 19th 2013 “Strong U.S. Economy, Strong Global Economy—Two Sides of Same Coin,” http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/new091913a.htm)In a world of increasing economic interconnections, the United States’s stake in the global recovery is greater than ever, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a speech to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. “What happens elsewhere in the world—be it the success of recovery in Europe or the continued smooth functioning of

supply chains in Asia—matters increasingly for the United States,” Lagarde said. “The converse is also true. What happens here

matters increasingly for the global economy.” Her remarks, which focused on the interplay between the global economy and the U.S. economy, also highlighted the need to find joint solutions to secure a lasting, balanced and widely shared global recovery. “Job creation is a critical ingredient of any economic recovery, domestic or global,” she emphasized. Businesses have a key role to play, Lagarde said, but at the same time, policymakers have an important responsibility to help “shape the environment in which businesses and citizens can thrive—and jobs can be created.” Changing global picture Lagarde said that global growth remains subdued, while acknowledging that the global economic environment is changing. She emphasized that economies are moving at different speeds and that the fruits of growth are not evenly shared, both in the United States and other countries. The U.S. economy is growing and, after a long time, so is the Euro Area. In Japan, aggressive policy support and the ongoing reform process is helping to spur growth. The emerging market economies, on the other hand, are slowing. “For some, this may be a shift toward more balanced and sustainable growth,” Lagarde told the audience. “For others, it reflects the need to address imbalances that have made them more vulnerable to the recent market turbulence.” Reinforcing the point about global interconnections, Lagarde cited the IMF’s recent “spillover” analysis, which suggests that if the world’s five major economies were to work together to adopt a more rigorous, comprehensive, and compatible set of policies, it could boost global GDP by about 3 percent over the longer run. U.S. recovery gaining strength Lagarde noted that the U.S. economy is gaining strength, calling this good news for America—and good news for the world economy. Although growth is still modest—well under 2 percent—it should accelerate by a full percentage point next year, Lagarde said, adding that the private sector is playing

a key role as the engine of growth and job creation. Despite signs of strengthening, the latest jobs data present a mixed picture, with employment remaining well below pre-crisis levels. “The issue of jobs remains paramount,” said Lagarde, noting that jobs and growth is an increasingly important component of the IMF’s policy advice. Lagarde highlighted three key recommendations for U.S. policymakers, drawn from the IMF’s most recent assessment of the U.S. economy. • Fix public finances. Fiscal consolidation could be slower in the short run, but more action is needed to reduce long-run pressures on the budget. Lagarde also warned that political uncertainty over the budget and debt ceiling were not helpful to the recovery. “It is essential to resolve this, and the earlier the better,” she said, “for confidence, for markets, and for the real economy.” • Appropriately calibrate monetary policy. When the time comes, exit from unconventional monetary policy should be gradual, tied to progress in economic recovery and unemployment, and should be clearly communicated and in a dialogue. • Complete financial sector reform. While there has been progress on this front, attention needs to focus on the outstanding “danger zones,” such as derivatives and shadow banking. Global interconnections and role of IMF Lagarde underscored the unique role of the U.S. in the global economy, noting that the economy accounts for 11 percent of global trade and 20 percent of global manufacturing. The country’s global financial ties run deep too, she said. Foreign banks hold about $5.5 trillion of U.S. assets, and U.S. banks hold $3 trillion of foreign assets. While these interconnections have great benefits for the United States, they are not without risks, Lagarde cautioned, referring to the collapse of Lehman Brothers five years ago that ushered in “a harsh new reality” across sectors, countries, and the world. That is why an effective IMF is important for the global membership. “Our policy advice, for example—including in core areas like exchange rates or external imbalances—has helped to prevent or to ease the hardship of crises around the world,” said Lagarde. “That, in turn, has helped reduce the possible negative fallout for the U.S. and for all countries.” An effective IMF must also continue to evolve and anticipate what lies ahead. In this connection, the IMF has placed greater emphasis on global interconnections—the economic spillovers between countries and the financial sector. Lagarde also highlighted the set of governance reforms that the IMF is working toward that will help strengthen its capacity to prevent and resolve crises, and at the same time, help broaden its representation to better reflect the changing dynamics of the global economy. “These quota reforms need the support of all our member countries—including the United States,” she said. The IMF is grounded in the principle of good global citizenship. “If countries work together to serve the common interests, everybody wins,” she concluded. “We all have a large stake in these interconnections.”

Statistics show rapid economic recovery key to prevent warRoyal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances

Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver,

1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000)

theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states . He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from

trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline , particularly for

difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations

either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict , particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to

spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self -reinforce each other . (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic

decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.

" Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline , sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of

force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally

more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an

increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic , dyadic and national levels .5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

2NC Asia War Impact – Econ i/L

Economic collapse causes Asian war, escalatesAuslin 9 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2/6/09, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp?pg=2)AS THEY DEAL WITH a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow . Nowhere is this truer than in Asia , the most heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade flows can lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately, military

miscalculation . The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also

important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in

Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward , to

development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to

established states like Japan and South Korea. How will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What

happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing vessel? Quite simply, Asia's political infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict. This would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly

drag America in at some point , as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should

any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing

approaching a systemic conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it is unclear if the American military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands across the ocean.

Econ collapse also draws Russia and China into Asian flashpoints, great power war outweighsSouth China Morning Post 9 (March 27, “Failure of G20 could raise the threat of war”, lexis)

The relationship between economic troubles and war is always close, if sometimes indefinable. Storm clouds loom over northeast Asia as North Korea prepares to launch a Taepodong-2 missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as the

west coast of the US. North Korea already has an array of short- and mid-range missiles that can inundate all of South Korea and most of Japan. The tensions may very well worsen, and the threats of war become harshly real , if the global leaders are unable to deal effectively with economic crisis, or near-crisis. Just think of the desperation that might drive leaders in such disparate, large powers as China, Russia and Japan, all of which have enormous stakes and long, sinister histories on the Korean peninsula, to compete again militarily in the region.

2NC Russia Impact – Econ i/L

Economic decline causes US-Russian warOckham Research 8 (“Economic Distress and Geopolitical Risks”, November, http://seekingalpha.com/article/106562-economic-distress-and-geopolitical-risks) Russia, whose economy, stock markets and financial system have literally imploded over the past few

months, could become increasingly problematic if faced with a protracted economic downturn. The

increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already showing signs of anger projection. Its invasion of Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West reflect a desire to stoke the pride and anger of its people against foreign powers—particularly the United States. It is no accident that the Russians announced a willingness to deploy tactical missile systems to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama’s election in the U.S. This was a clear “shot across the bow” of the new administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational foreign policy going forward. Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia’s economy. The Russian budget reputedly needs oil at $70 per barrel or higher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over the past few months by ham-fisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system. Bristling with nuclear weapons and nursing an ego still badly bruised by the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of superpower status, an impoverished and unstable Russia would be a dangerous thing to behold.

Outweighs everything, extinctionWickersham 11 (Bill, University of Missouri adjunct professor of Peace Studies and a member of The Missouri University Nuclear Disarmament Education Team, citing: Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Nuclear weapons still a threat”, http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/sep/27/nuclear-weapons-still-a-threat/, 9/27/11)

Nearly 20 years after the Cold War ended, humankind still faces the distinct possibility of instant extinction without

representation. If nuclear war occurs between Russia and the United States, there will be no parliamentary or

Congressional debates nor declarations of war. ¶ In a time of crisis or perceived attack, the Russian and U.S. presidents each

have only a few minutes to make a decision to order an attack against each other. The time frame for those decisions could be as short as seven minutes , depending on the nature of the perceived attack and the efficiency of communications within the respective early-warning chains of command. Launch-to-landing time for submarine-launched nuclear missiles can occur in as few as four

minutes. Launch-to-landing time for hundreds of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles is about 25 minutes. An attack with just

two 1-megaton nuclear warheads would unleash explosive power equivalent to that caused by all the bombs used during World War II.¶ For the duration of the Cold War, leaders of the United States and USSR were concerned about the devastation both countries would experience if a nuclear war were triggered by a false alarm attributable to human or technological error. The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York killed nearly 3,000 people, causing massive destruction, chaos and grief. In comparison, a

purposeful or accidental nuclear strike between the United States and Russia would kill hundreds of millions in the short

term and many more over time caused by worldwide, wind-driven nuclear fallout. Thus, the threat of nuclear war is the most serious

potential health, environmental, agricultural, educational and moral problem facing humanity .¶ Steven

Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, said research makes clear the environmental consequences of a U.S.-Russian nuclear war: “If these weapons are detonated in the large cities of either of their nations, they will cause such catastrophic damage to the global environment that the Earth will become virtually uninhabitable for most humans and many other complex forms of life.” (See www.nucleardarkness.org.)¶ It is important for Missourians to be aware that a Russian nuclear attack on the United States would probably incinerate the Honeywell nuclear bomb parts factory in Kansas City, the Boeing Defense, Space and Security plant near St. Louis, and Whiteman Air Force Base, home of U.S. B-2 bombers deployed at Knob Noster.

2NC Terror Impact – Econ i/L

Econ decline makes a major terrorist attack likelyWashington Post 8 (“Experts See Security Risks in Downturn”, November, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403864.html)Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats. U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said. The crisis could also accelerate the shift to a more Asia-centric globe, as rising powers such as China gain more leverage over international financial institutions and greater influence in world capitals. Some of the more troubling and immediate scenarios analysts are weighing involve nuclear-armed Pakistan, which already was being battered by inflation and unemployment before the global financial tsunami hit. Since September, Pakistan has seen its national currency devalued and its hard-currency reserves nearly

wiped out. Analysts also worry about the impact of plummeting crude prices on oil-dependent nations such as Yemen, which has a large population of unemployed youths and a history of support for militant Islamic groups. The underlying problems and trends -- especially regional instability and the waning influence of the West -- were already well established, but they are now "being accelerated by the current global financial crisis," the nation's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said in a recent speech. McConnell is among several top U.S. intelligence officials warning that deep cuts in military and intelligence budgets could undermine the country's ability to anticipate and defend against new threats. Annual spending for U.S. intelligence operations currently totals $47.5 billion, a figure that does not include expensive satellites that fall under the Pentagon's budget. At a recent gathering of geospatial intelligence officials and contractors in Nashville, the outlook for the coming fiscal cycles was uniformly grim: fewer dollars for buying and maintaining sophisticated spy systems. "I worry where we'll be five or 10 years from now," Charles Allen, intelligence director for the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview. "I am deeply worried that we will not have the funding necessary to operate and build the systems already approved." Intelligence officials say they have no hard evidence of a pending terrorist attack, and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in a news conference Thursday that his agency has not detected increased al-Qaeda communications or other signs of an imminent strike. But many government and private terrorism experts say the financial crisis has given al-Qaeda an opening, and judging from public statements and intercepted communications, senior al-Qaeda leaders are elated by the West's economic troubles, which they regard as a vindication of their efforts and a sign of the superpower's weakness. "Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm is constantly banging the drum saying that the U.S. economy is on the precipice -- and it's the force of the jihadists that's going to push us over the edge," said Bruce Hoffman, a former scholar-in-residence at the CIA and now a professor at Georgetown University. Whether terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is technically capable of another Sept. 11-style attack is unclear, but U.S. officials say he has traditionally picked times of transition to launch major strikes. The two major al-Qaeda-linked attacks on U.S. soil -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the 2001 hijackings -- occurred in the early months of new administrations.

Global nuclear warAyson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear

exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate

a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved

in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct

attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or

responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at

what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when

threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or

China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its

nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and

seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare

they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

NOAA Tradeoff DA

1NC Shells

1NC NOAA Tradeoff

NOAA’s Beaufort lab is on the chopping block but will survive -- lobbyistsMartinez 14 (Rebecca, WUNC, James Madison University, 04.01.14, “Federal Cuts Could Close 115 Year Old Beaufort Marine Lab”, http://wunc.org/post/federal-cuts-could-close-115-year-old-beaufort-marine-lab, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDIf Congress passes the president's proposed 2015 budget, North Carolina's coast could lose a century-old marine lab.¶ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's lab in Beaufort is on the chopping block . ¶ Ciaran Clayton is a spokeswoman for NOAA.¶ “The current cost per year to operate and maintain the facility (is) about $1.6 million per year,” Clayton said. “It's an aging facility and would require additional funding to make those improvements, something that is just not currently in our current budget or in our future budgets.”¶ Clayton said the research and federal employees there would be relocated to other lab sites.¶ Myles Stempin directs the Carteret County Economic Development Council.¶ “As a whole, it would be the loss of over 108 jobs and some additional related employment positions that have been created to support NOAA's operations here, so we'd be losing that,” Stempin said.¶ “That all comes to a county that ranks 17th from the bottom in average annual wages. So these federal high-paying, wage-producing jobs would be a real loss to this community.”¶ The Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina says Beaufort is an ideal location for this research lab, which provides valuable data for the non-profit. State Chairman Greg Hurt wrote this in an e-mail:¶

“Scientists at the lab have built strong partnerships with recreational and commercial fishermen, businesses, and communities along the southeast coast. It is imperative that the lab remains in Beaufort, because this location provides direct access to study the marine environment and conduct ecosystem-based research that cannot be duplicated anywhere else.”¶ Marine researchers from different organizations have voiced their support for the lab and asked the House Appropriations Committee to spare it.

NOAA funding is zero-sum – total funding doesn’t change – increases funding for one program decreases for anotherSmith 13 (Marcia S, President of Space and Technology Policy Group, 03.04.13, “New House CR Adds Money for NASA Exploration, NOAA GOES-R, But It's a Zero Sum Game”, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/new-house-cr-adds-money-for-nasa-exploration-noaa-goes-r-but-its-a-zero-sum-game, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDRep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) introduced the House version of a "full year" Continuing Resolution (CR) today that would fund the government for the rest of FY2013. The bulk of the bill is about the Department of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs, but it covers all government agencies. It gives special attention to NASA's exploration program and NOAA's geostationary weather satellite program, but in the end the totals for those agencies do not change .¶ Under a CR, agencies are generally held to their prior year funding levels not only at the account level, but for particular projects. In this case, that would be the funding provided in the FY2012 appropriations bill (P.L. 112-55). Exceptions can always be made, however, and a number of them are in the Rogers bill, H.R. 933. For NASA and NOAA, though, it still is zero sum game where the total appropriation is the same, but certain programs get more than others.

Beaufort lab key to marine research including studying invasive lionfishSchoof and Price 14 (Renee and Jay, McClatchy Washington Bureau, 03.28.14, “After more than a century, a jewel of ocean research targeted for closure”, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/28/222770/after-more-than-a-century-a-jewel.html#storylink=cpy, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDWASHINGTON — For more than a century, federal scientists have worked on Pivers Island near the historic town of

Beaufort, N.C., and the beaches of Emerald Isle studying the ocean, and the fish, turtles and dolphins of its sea grass estuaries and rocky reefs.¶ Surrounded by three university labs, it’s one of a handful of oceanography hubs in the nation and the only government research center between New Jersey and Miami studying Atlantic fish populations.¶ So it came as a surprise recently that the federal government has proposed doing away with the ocean science laboratory, which opened in 1899.¶ Tucked in President Barack Obama’s 218-page proposed budget for 2015 was a one-sentence mention of a plan to close one lab to save money. The National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration subsequently identified it as North Carolina’s historic research station.¶ “NOAA’s Beaufort lab has conducted valuable fisheries and coastal science for more than 100 years,” said NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton. “However, this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future.”¶ The coastal and ocean agency plans to shift instead to grants to non-agency scientists. Closing the lab would mean the loss of 108 jobs locally. NOAA intends to relocate the federal scientists. What will happen to the lab’s 31 government contractors is less clear.¶ Members of the North Carolina congressional delegation say they’ll fight to keep the lab open, but its prospects are unclear. It’s one of few cuts proposed in the Commerce Department’s $8.8 billion budget.¶ Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican who represents the coastal district that includes Beaufort, was building a coalition to oppose the closure, said his spokeswoman, Sarah Howard.¶ “I am seriously troubled by the fact . . . President Barack Obama has proposed closing a research lab in eastern North Carolina while continuing to spend hundreds of

millions of dollars on infrastructure projects in Afghanistan,” Jones said in a statement.¶ Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said she’d fight the closure to protect jobs and research that helps preserve coastal marine life. Rep. David Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill and a

member of the House Appropriations Committee, said he’d be “sharply questioning” the decision when the committee reviews the budget on Monday.¶ “The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is a prime location and provides the only federal access to the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United States,” David B. Eggleston, a professor at North Carolina State University and director of its

Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, wrote the committee.¶ Eggleston’s letter cited examples of the lab’s contributions, including pioneering work on harmful algal blooms that made forecasting them possible and the first

study of invasive lionfish in the U.S. South Atlantic .¶ The lab sits just inside Beaufort Inlet, one of a handful of safe deepwater

passages through the state’s barrier islands to the open sea. Duke University has a research station next door. North Carolina State and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill labs are a short drive away.¶ Most people in the state think of coastal Carteret County, with its beaches, rental cottages and Beaufort’s

historic district, as being all about tourism. But marine science has grown into a major local employer. Between them, NOAA and the three universities have 163,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 labs. All told, marine science directly employs more than 500 people locally and injects $58 million into the economy, according to the county economic

development council.¶ NOAA has said that the lab needed $55 million in work, though the lab’s supporters contend that the costs are overstated.¶ An engineering report showed the facility is structurally sound, they said. NOAA has invested some $14 million in upgrades in recent years, including a new administrative building in 2006 and a new bridge to the island, a cost shared with Duke.¶ The Beaufort lab over the decades has been known for work on Atlantic menhaden _ a silvery herring _ and sea grass, said Charles H. “Pete” Peterson, a professor at the University of North Carolina’s Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City.¶ “It’s more costly and less in your mind if you’re separated from the problems or assets you’re charged with to protect or research,” he

said.¶ In addition, the lab should remain at Beaufort because the North Carolina coast is one of the three places _ along with south Florida

and the Mississippi Delta in Louisiana_ where global climate change has the potential to cause radical changes from storms and sea level rise, Peterson said.¶ Mike Schoenfeld, Duke’s vice president for public affairs and governmental relations, said that the university’s scientists were working with NOAA scientists on several important projects, including one

involving salt marshes and another on how to analyze data to make better environmental decisions, a project that also includes

the U.S. Marine Corps’ Camp Lejeune.¶ “We hope that the federal government carefully considers all the impacts before it makes its decision,” Schoenfeld said.¶ The lab also is headquarters for staff of the North Carolina Coastal Reserve and Natural Estuarine Research Reserve.

Teacher training workshops take place here. So do school field trips. Five minutes away by boat is the Rachel Carson Reserve, named for the author of “Silent Spring,” who worked in the lab.¶ Patricia Tester, who came to Beaufort as an Oregon State University graduate student in 1976, married a local man and ended up working for NOAA as a scientist for 33 years, said the lab has done practical work solving fisheries problems in North Carolina and beyond.¶

Tester said that after the lab studied harmful algal blooms that caused the “red tide” of 1987, the Quinault Indians of La Push, Wash., asked for help to develop a new type of test they needed for their shellfish harvests.¶ “The problems were intractable with the skill sets we had at the time, but we incorporated molecular work and were able to help the Quinaults,” she said.¶ Tester retired but has returned to the lab as a contractor and continues her research. She said she’d never move, because she and her husband have made their lives in Beaufort.¶ Conservation and fishing groups also want Congress to keep the lab open and are calling lawmakers.¶ The North Carolina chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, a group devoted to protecting the coast for the general public, was calling on Congress to keep it running,

said the chapter’s chairman, Greg Hurt.¶ “Our organization and its members firmly believe that the future of fishing and the health of our states’ marine resources depend upon access to the best scientific data available,” he said.¶ Closing the lab would

worsen the problem of getting timely assessments of the health of fish stocks, he said, adding that the NOAA Beaufort lab “has an excellent reputation for providing high quality data for management.”¶ Jerry Schill, interim executive director of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, a commercial fishing trade group, agreed.¶ “All we expect from these people is objectivity,” he said. “With the National Marine Fisheries Service Beaufort lab, we got it.”¶ Jackie Savitz, acting vice president for U.S. oceans at the conservation group Oceana, said NOAA “is the braintrust in helping us

understand the impacts of what we do in our oceans.”¶ “We need more Beaufort labs, not fewer,” she said.

Research and action key to prevent lionfish from decimating ocean biodiversityGreen et al 12 (Stephanie J + Aleksandra Maljković + Isabelle M. Côté, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, John L Akins, Reef Environmental Education Foundation, Key Largo, Florida, 03.07.12, “Invasive Lionfish Drive Atlantic Coral Reef Fish Declines”, PLoS One, Vol. 7, Issue 3)//LDIntroduction¶ The successful invasion of a marine ecosystem by vertebrate predators is exceedingly rare

[1]. Nevertheless, one such invasion is currently unfolding. Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) have spread rapidly across the Western Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, producing a marine predator invasion of unparalleled speed and magnitude. Lionfish were first reported off the southeast coast of Florida in the 1980s and have since become established to varying extents across the entire Caribbean region via larval dispersal in ocean currents [2]. These ambush predators consume a wide variety of native fish and invertebrate species at high rates, and are well defended from predation by venomous fin spines [3], [4].¶ There is growing concern, largely based on the

results of small-scale experiments [5], that lionfish will affect the structure and function of invaded marine ecosystems (e.g. [6], [7]) but detrimental impacts on natural communities have yet to be measured. To determine whether predation by lionfish is having negative effects on native reef fish communities, we studied nine sites along a 15 km stretch of continuous reef off the southwest coast of New Providence Island, Bahamas (24°59.072 N, 77°32.207 W), where lionfish were first sighted in 2004. We conducted visual transect surveys of both native fish and lionfish, and identified lionfish prey through stomach contents analysis of 567 lionfish collected from the study reefs in 2008 and 2010. Standardized roving diver surveys conducted at the sites each year since 2004 were used to assess changes in lionfish abundance over time within the study area.¶ Results and Discussion¶ Lionfish abundance increased swiftly between 2004 and 2010 off southwest New Providence, Bahamas (Figure 1). Between 2008 and 2010, abundant lionfish populations coincided with rapid declines in native fishes.

During this period lionfish increased from 23% to nearly 40% of the total biomass of predators residing in the study area, which included 16 ecologically-similar native fishes, in terms of body size and diet [8],

[9]. Ninety percent of the prey consumed by lionfish were small-bodied reef fishes from 42 species (Table S1). Between 2008 and 2010, the combined biomass of these 42 species declined by 65%, on average, across the study reefs (Figure 2; linear mixed-effects model (LMM); P<0.001, t = 4.5, df = 105). Since lionfish were already abundant within the study area in the year prior to our observations (Figure 1), the cumulative decline in prey fish biomass since lionfish first colonized the area undoubtedly exceeds what we observed between 2008 and 2010.¶ Aside from predation by lionfish, at least three alternative factors could cause such a rapid decline in the abundance of so many species: recruitment failure, increased predation by native species, or disease. Wholesale recruitment failure, owing to unfavourable oceanographic conditions for the pelagic larvae of reef

fish, is unlikely to be a factor in the decline of lionfish prey, since the biomass of several species of small-bodied gobies (Elacatinus spp.; Table S1), which also have pelagic larvae but have never been recorded in diet of lionfish [3]–[5], [10] and may contain a chemical defense against predation [11], remained stable over the two-year period (Figure 2; LMM; P = 0.45, t = 0.78, df = 105). The decline in prey species was also not caused by an increase in native predators, as the biomass of the 16 ‘lionfish-analogous’ species also declined by 44% (Figure 2; LMM; P = 0.02, t = 2.1, df = 55), a change likely attributable to fishing pressure and/or competition with lionfish. By contrast, the biomass of non-predatory but large-bodied fishes, which were not vulnerable to lionfish predation (because they were already too large to be lionfish prey in 2008) or competition over this period but many of which are exploited to some degree, remained unchanged (Table S1; Figure 2; LMM; P = 0.13, t = 1.54, df = 55). Finally, no fish disease epidemic was reported during the study period, leaving lionfish predation as the most likely cause of the changes in prey fish abundance documented here.¶ Without prompt action , increasing lionfish populations are likely to have similar impacts on prey fish biomass across the region. The impacts of lionfish may not be limited to small-

bodied prey species. In time, the abundance of large-bodied fishes which are consumed as juveniles by lionfish may be also be affected; these prey species fulfill important functional roles on coral reefs (Table S1). Given the broad geographic extent of the invasion, complete eradication of lionfish from the Atlantic appears unlikely [12]. However, lionfish control programs, which are being initiated across the Caribbean, may successfully mitigate the effects of lionfish at local scales within high-priority areas, such as Marine Protected Areas and fish nursery habitats [13]. In the absence of effective local action, the effects of the

lionfish invasion may have long-term implications for the structure of Atlantic marine communities, as well as the societies and economies that depend on them.

Loss of marine biodiversity dooms all terrestrial lifeDavidson 3 (Founder – Turtle House Foundation and Award-Winning Journalist, Fire in the Turtle House, p. 47-51)But surely the Athenians had it backward; it’s the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian of life on the blue planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Thalassa’s power. Destroy all life on land; the ocean creatures will survive just fine. Given time, they’ll even repopulate the land. But wipe out the organisms that inhabit the oceans and all life on land is doomed. “Dust to dust,” says the Bible, but “water to water” is more like it, for all life comes from and

returns to the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marine history. The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to seawater. Every carbon atom in our body has cycled through the ocean many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill slits form and then fade during our development in the womb. The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral reefs, often called the “rain forests of the sea.” Occupying less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the global ocean, coral reefs are home to nearly a third of all marine fish species and to as many as nine million species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down to the hydrothermal vents on the seafloor (discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around superheated plumes of sulfurous gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isn’t surprising given that the sea was, as already mentioned, the crucible of life on Earth. It is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the “primordial soup” of nucleic acids (which can self-replicate, but are not alive) and other molecules made the inexplicable and miraculous leap into life, probably as simple bacteria, close to 3.9 billion years ago. A spectacular burst of new life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago, an evolutionary experiment that produced countless body forms, the prototypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasn’t until 100 million years later that the first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed out of the ocean. After this head start, it’s not surprising that evolution on that newcomer-dry land-has never caught up with the diversity of the sea. Of the thirty-three higher-level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty-two are found in the oceans and just twelve on land.

UQ

2NC UQ Wall

Beaufort will be saved from the chopping block but NOAA is looking for a funding excuse to cut itQueram 14 (Kate Elizabeth, University of Michigan, University of Maryland, Star News, 04.13.14, “Congressmen scramble to try to save NOAA research lab”, http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20140413/ARTICLES/140419888?Title=Congressmen-scramble-to-try-to-save-NOAA-research-lab, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDA century-old research lab near Beaufort may be saved from the chopping block , depending on the success of legislative wrangling by two North Carolina congressmen.¶ ¶ The facility, owned and operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Service, sits on Pivers Island, just across the bridge from Beaufort. The lab opened in 1902 and employs more than 100 workers, including seven staff members from the state Division of Coastal Management. Research conducted there encompasses almost every aspect of marine and coastal science, including algal blooms, estuary habitats and endangered sea turtles, among many others. The majority of those issues have direct ties to Southeastern North Carolina.¶ "You name the coastal issue, they've got their neck in it," said Josh Bowlen, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Republican who represents the 3rd Congressional District. "Whether it be turtles, marine mammals, dolphins and whales or any of the fish populations that are present off North Carolina - they are working on or have worked on all of those."¶ The lab is in danger of shutting down because a line item in President Barack Obama's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year recommends its closure for financial reasons . According to NOAA, the lab "requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future." But Jones and 7th District U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre have protested that logic, noting that the agency invested roughly $14 million to upgrade the research facility in the past few years.

Obama is trying to cut the Beaufort lab but scientists and Congress people are pushing backKollipara 14 (Puneet, Science AAAS, 04.07.14, “Opponents Assail White House Plan to Close NOAA Lab in North Carolina”, http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/04/opponents-assail-white-house-plan-close-noaa-lab-north-carolina, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDA proposal by the Obama administration to close a historic marine research laboratory near Beaufort, North Carolina, is drawing pushback from the scientific community and local members of Congress. Although the administration

frames it as a tough choice in a time of fiscal restraint, critics argue that the proposed closure of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lab would endanger crucial marine research.¶ Founded more than 100 years ago, the NOAA laboratory on Pivers Island near Beaufort conducts research into a variety of marine science subjects, including fish stocks, ecosystem function, and the health of aquatic creatures. Its work has helped scientists improve how they forecast harmful algal blooms, and it set in place the first study of invasive lionfish in the South Atlantic, those familiar with the lab say. And it is the only NOAA lab between Miami, Florida, and Sandy Hook, New Jersey.¶ The Obama administration quietly proposed closing the lab in the president’s fiscal year 2015 budget request released last month, citing the tough fiscal environment. The lab, which employs 108 workers and

contractors, has a roughly $1.6 million operating and maintenance budget (which does not include salaries).¶ The closure is far from set in stone. Congress would have to approve the request as part of the spending plan for the 2015 fiscal year, which begins 1 October. But that work isn’t expected to be finished until late this year, after the November elections.¶ In the meantime, some scientists and lawmakers are baffled by the proposal, which they say doesn’t have a clear rationale.

And they are making the case for why the lab deserves to stay open.¶ “This lab is a vital part of the local, national, and international marine science community and provides important research and information for sustaining fisheries and coastal ecosystems of

the Mid- and South-Atlantic, and to U.S territories in the Caribbean Sea to the people of this nation,” said David Eggleston, a professor and the director of North Carolina State University’s Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, in a 28 March letter to lawmakers.¶ Even if the lab is closed, NOAA won’t be letting go of the lab’s 62 permanent staff members, according to a presentation on the proposed budget. “Fisheries employees will continue the research they are currently undertaking at a different location,” the presentation says. It’s uncertain what will happen to the others. But proponents of keeping the lab open say they’re skeptical that the relocated NOAA researchers would be able to continue doing the same work they have long been doing at the Beaufort lab.

AT: Too Expensive

Problem isn’t funding – NOAA is lying about the costJones 14 (Walter B, Congressman, 04.01.14, “Jones to lead effort to oppose NOAA Beaufort lab closure”, http://www.jdnews.com/jdnewstream/jones-to-lead-effort-to-oppose-noaa-beaufort-lab-closure-1.298695, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDCongressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) is leading the effort to oppose the Department of Commerce’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) marine lab in Beaufort, North

Carolina. The lab is the sole government research center between New Jersey and Miami studying Atlantic fish populations and is uniquely situated at the intersection of the ranges of northern and southern fish species. This location

has allowed the lab to contribute valuable research on an abundance of issues, including sustainable fisheries;

conservation of sea turtles, dolphins, seagrass estuaries, and offshore reefs; algal blooms; invasive species; and changes in climate and sea levels. Furthermore, marine science provides a $58 million boost to the local economy, with the Beaufort lab specifically employing over 100 people. ¶ NOAA has indicated that the closure was proposed because the lab “requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future.” However, the agency has not provided any evidence to support this claim and has in fact acted to the contrary by investing $14 million in facilities upgrades in recent years. ¶ Congressman Jones was joined by Congressman Mike McIntyre (NC-7) in penning a letter detailing each of these facts to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Chaka Fattah, requesting that language forbidding the closure of the lab be included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. ¶ “The Beaufort lab is an important provider of scientific research affecting not just the state of

North Carolina but the entire East Coast,” said Congressman Jones. “I will continue to strongly oppose the closure of this invaluable resource – especially at a time when NOAA has provided no evidence in support of their claim that they lack the funding to maintain the lab and the United States continues to spend billions of dollars to improve the infrastructure of nations overseas while neglecting projects here at home.”

Link

AT: Plan isn’t NOAA

<<Informing policy, Integration, Baseline exploration, Improving technical capability, Educating the public>> would be done by the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and ResearchNOAA 13 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 09.21.13, “OER Mission and Vision”, http://explore.noaa.gov/, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDVision Statement: The Office of Ocean Exploration and Research catalyzes discovery to transform understanding of the global ocean.¶ Mission Statement: OER explores the ocean to enhance research, policy and management decisions, to develop new lines of scientific inquiry, and to advise NOAA and the Nation on critical issues by:¶ Leading partnerships to accomplish national ocean exploration goals;¶ Conducting interdisciplinary baseline characterizations of unknown or poorly-known ocean areas, processes, and resources;¶ Increasing the pace, scope, and efficiency of exploration and research to improve the technical capability of the United States marine science community; and¶ Engaging and educating audiences in ocean exploration through innovative means.

New ocean exploration programs are sponsored and hosted by the NOAAAquarium of the Pacific 13 (Non-Profit, 07.18.13, “Ocean Explorers to Join NOAA and Aquarium of the Pacific at First Forum to Develop a U.S. National Ocean Exploration Program”, http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/downloads/pr_OceanExplorationForumEventFactSheet.pdf, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDWhile the health and our understanding of the ocean are intricately connected to the health of our ¶

nation’s economy, 95 percent of our ocean remains unexplored. However, experts hope that will ¶

change. More than 100 ocean explorers and representatives from federal agencies, state ¶ governments, non-governmental organizations, universities, ocean institutes and industry will gather ¶

to develop a National Ocean Exploration Program for the United States. The National Oceanic and ¶

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Aquarium of the Pacific are the hosting the invitation-only ¶

forum, on July 19-20 at the Southern California aquarium. The public can view live streaming video ¶

from the forum and share their comments with the explorers on ¶

oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020. The forum culminates on July 21 with Explorers Day, ¶

an event where the public can meet ocean explorers at the Aquarium, see remotely operated ¶ vehicles, interact with explorers at sea, see live video of the deep ocean and meet the lead character ¶

and creators of the children’s television program Octonauts. Explorers Day was made possible by ¶

support from Felix Williams and Susan Slavik Williams. The event is part of the Aquarium’s Ocean ¶ Exploration program, which includes the new Wonders of the Deep gallery featuring exhibits funded ¶

by the Richard Lounsbery Foundation. More people have walked on the moon, more than 240,000 ¶

miles away, than have gone to the deepest part of the ocean, less than seven miles deep. Humans ¶ rely on the ocean for oxygen, food, recreation, medicines, commerce and other resources.

Tradeoff

2NC Tradeoff Wall

Plan is an excuse to cut Beaufort -- NOAA funding empirically trades off at the expense of researchMcClain 12 (Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, 10.16.12, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt.2”, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-2/, Accessed 07.03.14)//LDIn addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we lacked an understanding of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science, society, and often to applied research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and exploration but greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate change research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment and economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our country’s capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change work relies upon?

NOAA relies on the priorities of the administration and removes funding from elsewhere to meet requestsCommittee on Science, Space, and Technology 12 (Press Release, Congress, 03.28.12, “To Observe and Protect: Members Criticize NOAA’s Weather Observing System Prioritization, Decision-Making Process”, http://science.house.gov/press-release/observe-and-protect-members-criticize-noaa%E2%80%99s-weather-observing-system-prioritization, Accessed 07.09.14)//LDUp from 27 percent in 2009, the 2013 budget request for NOAA’s satellite office now comprises over 40 percent of the total request. Most of this funding would go toward two satellite programs: the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R-Series (GOES-R). Witnesses today questioned the growing percentage of NOAA’s budget dedicated to satellites that come at the expense of other less expensive, yet important, monitoring systems.¶ “NOAA’s ‘tough choices’ have resulted in placing nearly all of its weather-forecasting eggs in a single basket: satellite systems fraught with a long history of major problems,” noted Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD). “These decisions are causing trade-offs with other valuable weather measurement systems.”¶

Harris said, “Rather than relying on the whims of an individual Administration or the opinions of subject matter experts divorced from fiscal realities or program managers wedded to certain systems, NOAA needs to undertake comprehensive, objective, and quantitative evaluations of observing systems that incorporate cost.”

AT: No Internal Tradeoff

NOAA isn’t the one redirecting funds – fiscal climate means that government only funds programs by taking from another Plait 13 (Phil, Slate astronomer, 07.29.13, “Another Congressional Attack on Climate Science?”, http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/29/climate_change_new_bill_in_congress_would_de_emphasize_noaa_climate_funding.html, Accessed 07.09.14)//LDIt turns out I may have good reason to be concerned. Freshman congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) has sponsored a bill (H. R. 2413) that would likely defund at least some of the climate research done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in favor of weather prediction. The bill actually doesn’t say this out loud, of course—it doesn’t even have the word climate in it, bizarrely enough—but it specifically uses the phrase “ redirect NOAA resources ,” which is clear enough . By

making weather forecasting a priority, coupled with the limited budget for NOAA i n the House funding, the bill (currently in committee) will certainly de-emphasize and deprioritize other work done by NOAA. That includes, of course, climate research.

Impact

2NC Ext. Biodiversity Impact

Preservation of ocean biod is key to all life on earth – maintains geochemical cyclingCraig 3, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana U School Law, McGeorge Law Review, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155 LexisBiodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and

about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The U nited S tates has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that

such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the

NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do

not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.

2NC HABs Impact

Beaufort lab research is key to monitoring and mitigating harmful algal bloomsNCCOS 14 (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, research office of NOAA, 06.03.14, “Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research”, http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/about/centers/ccfhr, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDWe conduct research on the effects of coastal habitat change and restoration on living marine resources such as seagrasses,

marshes, reefs, and fish. Major programs include:¶ Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms¶ Marine Restoration and Spatial Planning¶

Ecological Responses to Climate Change¶ Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms¶ We develop tools for detecting and mitigating

the risks of harmful algal to human health and coastal economies and ecosystems. Our algal toxin test kits and other molecular-based tools enhance the HAB monitoring capabilities of public health officials, tribal and state marine resource managers, commercial and subsistence fishermen, aquaculture facilities, and academic research programs. We are improving seafood safety and food security within the US and

internationally.¶ Key Actions and Accomplishments¶ Developed and commercialized an algal toxin test kit for domoic acid

in razor clams at the request of the northwest Pacific tribes.¶ Developed new approaches for rapidly identifying the toxic algae that cause ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP). Trained 30 Asian scientists in sampling and detection of CFP causing species.¶ Developed assays for the toxic algae causing paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in Alaska and trained Alaskan public health officials,

shellfish growers, state and federal resources managers and academic scientists.¶ Characterized environmental and physiological tolerances of toxic species to predict HAB range extensions and toxicity changes as a result of climate

change.¶ Determined the sensitivity of toxic species to changes in nutrient availability. This information is used by water district and resource managers to decide on timing and volume of freshwater releases into coastal ecosystems.¶ Marine Restoration and Spatial Planning¶ We provide research and management guidance to improve marine spatial planning, specializing in evaluating effectiveness of protected areas and in siting aquaculture and restoration projects. Our capabilities include scientific and deep-technical diving and ROV and underwater acoustics. We also have expertise in the delineation, recovery and restoration of injured habitats and support federal, state and local habitat protection and restoration, including Department of Justice litigation of habitat injuries in public trust waters.¶ Key Actions and Accomplishments¶ Modeled wave energy and its impact on marine habitat and shoreline erosion. The models are used to site ferry terminals, marinas, and restoration projects.¶ Created a program to track, predict impacts, and slow the spread of the invasive species in Atlantic waters, including lionfish, Asian tiger shrimp, and tunicates.¶ Identified high productivity areas in Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary to inform design of research-only area to reduce fishing impacts on coral reef ecosystems.¶ Developed seagrass and coral injury recovery models for damage assessment and restoration that have been used to negotiate over $1 million in compensatory claims.¶ Provided a geospatial framework for coastal resource management, spill response, tidal energy and spill response in Kachemak Bay Alaska.¶ Developed best management practices (BMPs) and use of models to reduce impacts of aquaculture activities in the coastal ocean.¶ Ecological Responses to Climate Change¶ We develop information and tools to help communities understand how sea level rise and weather extremes will impact their shorelines and waterfront properties. We also offer guidance for effective shoreline management based on enhancing the stabilization capabilities of natural shorelines, and we assist coastal communities in adapting to changing shorelines. Our Alaska team works with coastal managers and Alaska communities to anticipate and adapt to a changing environment, balance multiple coastal uses, and sustainably manage coastal resources.¶ Key Actions and Accomplishments¶ Developed the salt marsh monitoring protocol for the National Estuarine Research Reserve’s biological monitoring program¶ Mapped shorelines and assessed their vulnerability to erosion from sea level rise and boat wakes for the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.¶ Evaluated effectiveness of living vs. engineered shorelines for stabilization.¶ Identified factors affecting rates of carbon sequestration in marsh habitats.¶ Quantified ecosystem changes and assessed variability in ocean acidification in nearshore subarctic Alaska habitats.¶ Facility and Personnel¶ Leadership: B. William Gottholm, Director, 252-728-8746¶ Jim Guyton Research Coordination & Admin Services, 252-728-8773¶ Over 100 NOAA employees are housed in our Beaufort, North Carolina and Kasitsna Bay, Alaska campuses. NCCOS owns and maintains the campuses. We share space with NOAA Fisheries and the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve staff in Beaufort, and offer field-housing to visiting researchers and students in Kasitsna Bay.

HABs are increasing in frequency and magnitude – if we don’t act they will devastate fish stocksGlibert et al 14 (Patricia M, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, J. Icarus Allen + Robert Holmes + Yuri Artioli, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, The Hoe, Plymouth, Arthur Beusen + Lex Bouwman, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, James

Harle + Jason Holt, Natural Environmental Research Council, National Oceanography Centre, 07.09.14, “Vulnerability of coastal ecosystems to changes in harmful algal bloom distribution in response to climate change: projections based on model analysis”, Global Change Biology)//LDHarmful algal blooms (HABs), those proliferations of algae that can cause fish kills, contaminate seafood with toxins, form unsightly scums, or detrimentally alter ecosystem function have been increasing in frequency, magnitude, and duration worldwide. Here, using a global modeling approach, we show, for three regions of the globe, the potential effects of nutrient loading and climate change for two HAB genera, pelagic Prorocentrum and Karenia, each with differing physiological characteristics for growth. The projections (end of century, 2090–2100) are based on climate change resulting from the A1B scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Model (IPCC, IPSL-CM4), applied in a coupled oceanographic-biogeochemical model, combined with a suite of assumed physiological ‘rules’ for genera-specific bloom development. Based on these models, an expansion in area and/or number of months annually conducive to development of these HABs along the NW European Shelf-Baltic Sea system and NE Asia was projected for both HAB genera, but no expansion

(Prorocentrum spp.), or actual contraction in area and months conducive for blooms (Karenia spp.), was projected in the SE Asian domain. The implications of these projections, especially for Northern Europe, are shifts in vulnerability of coastal systems to HAB events, increased regional HAB impacts to aquaculture, increased risks to human health and ecosystems, and economic consequences of these events due to losses to fisheries and ecosystem services.

Fishery management prevents extinctionVOA 10 (Voice of America News, “Bluefin Tuna Endangered by Overfishing,” 12/1, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Bluefin-Tuna-Endangered-by-Overfishing--111159869.html)Predatory fish are at the top of the ocean food chain. They help keep the balance of marine life in check. Without their eating habits, an overabundance of smaller organisms might affect the entire underwater ecosystem . Some scientists say such a shift could lead to a total collapse of the oceans. Yet so far, those in charge of regulating international fisheries have done little to protect at least one endangered species. Scientists say this species is on the brink of extinction… and it is all our fault. "Nobody's free of blame in this game," said Kate Wilson. Kate Willson is an investigative journalist who recently exposed what she says is a $4-billion, black market trade in the sale of bluefin tuna.

"Scientists tell us that when a top predator like bluefin or another big fish is depleted, that will affect the entire ecosystem," she said. "Scientists say you better get used to eating jellyfish sashimi and algae burgers if you let these large fish become depleted because they anchor the ecosystem." Ecosystems are how living things interact with their environments and each other. Scientists agree they can change dramatically if a link disappears

from the food chain. Government officials and members of environmental groups met in Paris in mid-November to discuss fishing regulations that may affect all life on Earth. Sue Lieberman is Director of International Policy with the Pew Environment Group: a Washington-based, non-profit agency. She says the bluefin is in jeopardy. "The fish is in worse shape than we thought, and that's why we're calling for the meeting of this commission to suspend this fishery ... to put on the brakes and say, 'let's

stop," said Sue Lieberman. "Let's stop mismanaging and start managing the right way to ensure a future for this species.'" Both Lieberman and Willson say that greed, corruption and poor

management of fishing quotas brought us to this point. "The quotas are designed to let fish recover, bu t quotas are more than scientists recommend,

but even within quotas, there's consistent lack of enforcement, fraud, fish being traded without documents to the point where it's a multibillion dollar business that will cause the depletion of an incredible species," said Lieberman. Willson says that fishing the bluefin to near-extinction followed increased Japanese demand for fresh sushi starting in the 1970s and 80s. And fishing practices that target the two primary regions in which blue fin spawn: the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea. "You don't need a PhD in fisheries to know that's really not very smart," said Sue Lieberman. "If you want the species to continue into the future, you don't take them when they come to breed." And that practice shines light on a bigger problem. "Ninety per cent of all large fish it's estimated have been depleted," said Kate Wilson. "Bluefin is just a bellwether for what's happening to what's left of the world's large fish." "We're not saying there should be no fishing, but we are saying there should be no fishing like that," said Lieberman. "This isn't single individuals with a pole and a line; this isn't recreational fishermen; this is massive, industrial scale fishing. Governments can change this; this isn't an environmental threat that we throw up our hands and there's nothing to do

about it." " If countries really want to protect the remaining stocks of bluefin, they have to get serious about enforcing the rules and listening to their scientists when they set catch limits," said Wilson. "Management of fish species on the high

seas is n't just about making sure people have nice seafood when they go to a restaurant; it's about the very future of our planet," continued Lieberman. "And we have to get management of the oceans correct and we can't keep … and governments can't keep acting like we'll take care of that next year. We'll worry about making money in the short term, we'll listen to the fishing industry; we'll worry about the ocean & the environment later. We don't have that luxury."

Case Specific Links

Top Shelf

Generic Link

Ocean activity is extremely expensiveCarlyle 13 (Ryan, BSChE, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 1/31/2013 @ 12:11PM , Forbes, “Why Don't We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space Exploration?”,http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/)So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I

can tell you that the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot: Despite the difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a pretty good public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’OCes a blog entry from that team where they talk about how boring the sea floor is: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life. You see some crazy animals that are often not well-known to science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what the hell was that?” and no one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but occasionally we find giant* isopods: Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface. Their bodies are acclimated to the high pressures (hundreds of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals is very limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is through a few food chain connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths.

We’re fundamentally quite disconnected from deep ocean life. Also, there is no hope of ever establishing human habitation more than about 1000 ft deep. The pressures are too great, and no engineering or materials conceivable today would allow us to build livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor. The two

times humans have reached the deepest part of the ocean, it required a foot-thick flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a habitable moon base would be vastly easier to engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space Station: Given the actual space station ISS, would it be cheaper to build

the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why? To recap: we don’t spend more time/money exploring the ocean because it’s expensive , difficult, and uninspiring. We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go down there.

Ocean exploration costs unpredictable – can cost up to three times original budget Broad 8 (Wiliam, a science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times. He shared two Pulitzer Prizes, “New Sphere in Exploring the Abyss”, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26alvi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) The United States used to have several submersibles — tiny submarines that dive extraordinarily deep.

Alvin is the only one left, and after more than four decades of probing the sea’s depths it is to be retired. Its replacement, costing some $50 million, is to go deeper, move faster, stay down longer, cut the dark better, carry more scientific gear and maybe — just maybe — open a new era of exploration. Its architects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod describe it as “the most capable deep-sea research vehicle in the world.” Alvin can transport a pilot and

two scientists down 2.8 miles, providing access to 62 percent of the dark seabed. The new vehicle is expected to descend more than four miles, opening 99 percent of the ocean floor to inquiry. But the greater depth means that the vehicle’s personnel sphere and its many other systems will face added tons of crushing pressure. “Technologically, it’s quite challenging,” Robert S. Detrick Jr., a senior scientist and vice president for marine facilities and operations at Woods Hole, said of forging the new personnel sphere. “It’s also something that hasn’t been done for a long time in

the United States.” To better resist the sea’s pressure, the wall of the new personnel sphere is to be nearly three inches thick, up from Alvin’s two inches. Deep explorers always use spheres to make crew compartments because that geometry best resists the crushing force. “We have confidence it can be done,” Dr. Detrick said in January of the sphere’s forging. “But we don’t have a lot of

margin for error. If the first forging is bad, it would be quite expensive to redo it.” Just when the replacement Alvin

will join the world’s small fleet of submersibles has become uncertain. Like many federal projects, it faces cost overruns and financing troubles. When first proposed in 2004, the anticipated bill ran to $21.6 million. But delays set in and the price of materials, planning and contracting ran higher than expected. Officials say titanium alone has seen a fivefold price increase. The National Science Foundation, the federal agency that sponsors the project, has too many competing needs to meet the new estimated cost of about $50 million . So officials at Woods Hole came up with a phased approach that promises to lower the immediate expense. In an Aug. 8 letter, Susan K. Avery, the president of Woods Hole, outlined the plan to Deborah Kelley, a University of Washington oceanographer and chairwoman of the Deep Submergence Science Committee, a team of researchers that advises the government on abyssal exploration. The new personnel sphere, she said, might first be fitted onto Alvin’s body, giving the old submersible a life extension and a capability boost. Alvin would also get new batteries, new electronics, better lights, cameras and video systems. But the hybrid would be limited to Alvin’s depth of 2.8 miles. The second phase, Dr. Avery said, would build a new submersible body that would let the replacement vehicle dive to

the full intended depth of four miles. How soon? The original schedule of 2004 foresaw the replacement vehicle as ready in 2008. Early this year, amid growing uncertainty, the keepers of the schedule put the date at 2010. Now, the soonest the upgraded Alvin might hit the water is estimated to be 2011. And the full replacement, according to Woods Hole officials, might not materialize until 2015. “Phase 2 is about finding

additional resources,” Dr. Detrick said. “It’s a matter of money.” Officials talk about a $25 million shortfall and hopes that a private donor might materialize who could close the gap and ensure the speedy debut of the new submersible and its program of deep inquiry.

Energy

OTEC Link

OTEC is super expensive – initial construction for just one plant is 100 million and requires constant maintenance Friedman 14 (Becca, Ocean Energy Council, 03.14, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDDespite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual

components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research

estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five year s. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that

could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.¶ Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating.

In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.¶ Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution.

OTEC plants cost tons to build and maintainMario 1 (Rupeni, Team Leader at Secretariat of the Pacific Community Adviser at SOPAC Project Officer at SOPAC, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION AND ¶ THE PACIFIC ISLANDS”. March 2001, SOPAC)

One of the disadvantages of land-based OTEC plants is the need for a 3 km long cold water pipe to transport the large volumes of deep seawater required from a depth of about 1000 m. The cost associated with the cold water pipe represents 75% of the costs of current plant designs. Studies show that OTEC plants smaller than 50 MW cannot compete economically with other present energy alternatives. A 50 MW plant will require 150 m3 /s of cold water thus, the 3 km long cold water pipeline has to be at least 8 m in diameter. Another disadvantage of a land-based plant

would be the discharging of the cold and warm seawater. This may need to be carried out several hundred metres offshore so as to reach an appropriate depth before discharging the water to avoid any up dwelling impact on coastal fringes (i.e., fish, reef, etc). The arrangement also requires additional expense in the

construction and maintenance. To minimise construction costs of the cold water and discharge pipes, a floating OTEC plant could be an option. However, the costs associated with the maintenance and mooring facility of such a structure is of significance. Further to the structural needs of the OTEC plant there is also energy required for pumping the sea water from depths of about 1000 m. Meeting the energy requirements for the OTEC plant’s operation is a factor to be noted as the need to install diesel generators may arise. The economics

of energy production have delayed the financing of permanent OTEC plants. At present, the cost per kWh from OTEC is more than that of the electricity generated from fossil fuels and decreases with increasing capacity of the power plant.

Tidal Link

Tidal is expensive – each MW is at least 12 million dollarsGiles 13 (George, Siemens Institute, 08.21.13, “Time for tidal power?”, http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/34087/time-for-tidal-power/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDWhile it is believed that tidal development trails wind by some 15-20 years, that gap can be cut to 5-10 years with proper

investment, quicker technology development and Government support. Turning tidal potential into an energy source is expensive to do and the Government recognises this fact.¶ Incentives are helping. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) have been

increased for tidal energy with five available for every MW installed. This outstrips wind generation considerably. However, this incentive only lasts until 2017 when a longer timeframe is needed, and is capped at 30 MW schemes. But nonetheless it does provide cause for optimism for the establishment of a viable and commercially attractive solution for tidal energy generation. The current cost of generation of each MW remains very high at approximately £7 million per MW . This needs to be cut by at least 50% to prove financially successful and attractive.¶ A large number of companies, including Siemens, are now heavily involved with tackling the technology challenges tidal energy presents. As mentioned, many potential technologies are under development in the absence of a single preferred solution as seen in the case of wind.¶ The majority of current schemes are small-scale – up to 2MW – and they need to prove their viability, while at the same time research and development continues apace. However a lack of investment support continues to hamper the progress of many, with institutions somewhat reluctant to provide the necessary funding for next stage development. Overlap that could see the deployment of existing oil and gas sector technologies are currently deemed to be too expensive.

Tidal energy is super expensive -- the costs are 3 times that of coal energy Kishore et. al 13 (Shalinee, is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. She obtained doctoral and master's degrees in electrical engineering from Princeton University in 2003 and 2001, and an M.S. and B.S. in electrical engineering from Rutgers University in 1999 and 1996, “Electricity from Ocean Wave Energy: Technologies, Opportunities and Challenges”, IEE SMART GRID, http://smartgrid.ieee.org/february-2013/794-electricity-from-ocean-wave-energy-technologies-opportunities-and-challenges) The energy from ocean waves is a largely untapped resource that could play an important role in our electricity future. It is more consistent and predictable than that of other renewable resources such as wind and solar. Although several pilot projects have been successfully deployed worldwide, and some of them are grid-connected, the economic production of electric power from wave energy remains to be demonstrated. A key path forward will be the integration of smart technologies that harness vast amounts of sensor and meteorological data to support wave farm operations. With estimates of economically recoverable wave energy resources ranging from 140 to 750 TWh/year worldwide with existing technology, energy from ocean waves is a largely untapped resource that could play an important role in our electricity future. It is more consistent and predictable than other renewable resources like wind and solar. What is more, the maximum energy density of waves (between 40 and 60 degrees latitude) is found in both hemispheres—where the advanced industrial economies of Europe, the United States and Japan reside. A key barrier to making wave energy a reality, however, is cost . According to current estimates, the levelized cost per MWh of wave energy production is

more than 1.5 times that of wind and nearly three times that of coal -based power . Wave energy is more expensive than wind energy in part because wave energy conversion is in a much earlier development phase. Looking forward, this barrier will have to be overcome for wave energy production to reach its full potential. A key to reducing costs will be predicting the characteristics of waves, which can be reliably determined days in advance. This predictability will give wave energy producers—with low operational costs and a non-polluting technology—attractive market opportunities in the near future. Many different techniques have already been proposed and tested for both on-shore, near-shore and off-shore wave energy extraction. The process of energy generation at a wave energy converter (WEC) consists of a number of steps, which include energy absorption from ocean waves by a type of energy capture mechanism, transmission of mechanical power to the generator by a power take-off mechanism and controlling power output by means of suitable power electronics or arrays of similar WECs, or both.

OSW Link

Offshore wind is expensive and doesn’t return on investment – can’t compete with natural gas and terrestrial windSilverstein 14 (Ken, Forbes, 07.08.14, “Offshore Wind Energy Traversing Regulatory And Financial Currents”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/07/08/offshore-wind-energy-traversing-regulatory-and-financial-currents/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDWhile such electricity generation has lots of potential, the reality is that it is expensive to build compared to other types of energy production. But offshore wind deals have generally succeeded in Europe, which has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gases and which has set a price on carbon. Meantime, the landmass there is built out, making it more feasible to go offshore.¶ The United States, by contrast, has long-considered offshore wind generation but it has yet to start building any such facilities, although that could change this year with the potential construction of Cape Wind off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Here in this country, there has not only been a regulatory quagmire that developers must traverse but there is also a host of competing fuels that are more economical, including land-based wind deals that are half the cost.¶ “It’s more challenging in the United States because natural gas prices are lower and because terrestrial wind energy prices are also declining, making it hard for offshore wind to compete ,” says Peter Asmus, principal with Navigant Consulting NCI -1.07% in San Francisco, in an interview. “The Obama administration’s recent executive order to cut carbon emissions helps but it is not enough to push it over the hump.”

Offshore wind is overly expensive -- resource limitations increase costs of structures Ocean Energy Council 14(“Offshore Wind Energy”, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/offshore-wind-energy/)

Although it would be technically feasible to mount wind turbines on floating structures, studies have shown that

it would be very expensive to do this . However, technical developments may make floating offshore wind farms economically

feasible in the future. WHY OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY? There are several factors which suggest the development of an offshore wind energy industry. The resource is extremely large, the energy costs, although initially higher than for onshore, are cheaper than other renewable technologies and the risks are low, as several demonstration projects elsewhere have shown. Many people, while agreeing that wind turbines are a useful strategy, are not happy to see them in their area. This is the NIMBY principle – not in my back yard. Siting wind turbines at sea will reduce the constraints that can be found on land, such as the visual impact and planning challenges. Greater distance will reduce visual impact from land Opportunity to apply new technologies Similar issues on the potential impact on fish and mollusc stocks, bird life and seabed sediment, Navigation and fishing issues may be greater Water may be deeper Weather and the sea state may be rougher Economics may dictate larger turbines with limited proven performance Installation will be more difficult and costly Connection costs will be greater Maintenance will be more difficult and costly Wind farms will have to be larger to provide economies of scale to cover these costs Investment and risk will be greater America currently uses some 95 Quad – - one quad is equivalent to 1 quadrillion BTU or a one followed by 15 zeros. Some estimate that we could generate 100 Quad if we deployed anywhere from 3-10 million wind machines, (on Alaskan coastal plain?) depending on the size of the machines used. The electricity produced by these machines would be converted to hydrogen, which in turn can be stored and shipped via pipeline, tanker or cryogenic bulk carrier. The technology is well developed but off-shore wind is expensive because of construction costs and bringing the power to grid. Disadvantages: Wind is not predictable so other forms of power must be available to make up any shortfall. Harry Braun, Hydrogen News, proposes: The cost of electricity is a major factor in hydrogen production costs. Although any solar energy option can generate the electricity needed for hydrogen production, the cost of electricity generated from photovoltaic solar cells is approximately 10-times more expensive than the electricity generated from megawatt-scale wind machines. State-of-the-art wind systems, which have an installed capital cost of approximately $1,000 per kW and a 35% capacity factor, are able to generate electricity for approximately 4-cents per kWh. If the wind systems are mass-produced like automobiles for large-scale hydrogen production, their capital costs will be expected to drop to well below $300/kW, which will reduce the cost of electricity to 1 or 2-cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). There is some scope for reversing the whole way we look at power supply, in its 24-hour, 7-day cycle, using peak load equipment simply to meet the daily peaks. Today’s peak-load equipment could be used to some extent to provide infill capacity in a system relying heavily on renewables. The peak capacity would complement large-scale solar thermal and wind generation, providing power when they

were unable to. Improved ability to predict the intermittent availability of wind enables better use of this resource. In Germany it is now possible to predict wind generation output with 90% certainty 24 hours ahead. This means that it is possible to deploy other plant more effectively so that the economic value of that wind contribution is greatly increased.

SMRs Link

SMRs would need tons of government money to get off the groundUnion of Concerned Scientists 13 (09.10.13, “Small Modular Reactors: Safety, Security and Cost Concerns”, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/small-modular-reactors.html, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDSMR-based power plants can be built with a smaller capital investment than plants based on larger reactors. Proponents suggest that this will remove financial barriers that have slowed the growth of nuclear power in recent years.¶ However, there's a catch : “affordable” doesn’t necessarily mean “cost-effective.” Economies of scale dictate that, all other things being equal, larger reactors will generate cheaper power. SMR proponents suggest that mass production of modular reactors could offset economies of scale, but a 2011 study concluded that SMRs would still be more expensive than current reactors.¶ Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger reactors due to mass production, this advantage will only come into play when many SMRs are in operation. But utilities are unlikely to invest in SMRs until they can produce competitively priced electric power. This Catch-22 has led some observers to conclude that the technology will require significant government financial

help to get off the ground.

SMR’s extremely expensive -- development and productions cost billions Bullis 13 (Kevin, reporting as MIT Technology Review’s senior editor for energy has taken me, among other places, to the oil-rich deserts of the Middle East and to China, where mountains are being carved away to build the looming cities., “Can Small Reactors Ignite a Nuclear Renaissance?”, March 28, 2013, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512896/can-small-reactors-ignite-a-nuclear-renaissance/) Small, modular nuclear reactor designs could be relatively cheap to build and safe to operate, and there’s plenty of corporate and government momentum behind a push to develop and license them. But will they be able to offer power cheap

enough to compete with natural gas? And will they really help revive the moribund nuclear industry in the United States? Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it would provide $452 million in grants to companies developing small modular reactors, provided the companies matched the funds (bringing the total to $900 million). In November it announced the first grant winner—Babcock & Wilcox, a maker of reactors for nuclear ships and submarines—

and this month it requested applications for a second round of funding. The program funding is expected to be

enough to certify two or three designs. The new funding is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars Babcock & Wilcox has already spent on developing its 180-megawatt reactor design, along with a test facility to confirm its

computer models of the reactor. Several other companies have also invested in small modular reactors, including Holtec,

Westinghouse Electric, and the startup NuScale, which is supported by the engineering firm Fluor (see “Small Nukes Get a Boost,” “Small Nuclear Reactors Get a Customer,” and “Giant Holes in the Ground”). The companies are investing in the technology partly in response to requests from power providers. One utility, Ameren Missouri, the biggest electricity supplier in that state, is working with Westinghouse to help in the certification process for that company’s small reactor design. Ameren is particularly worried about potential emissions regulations, because it relies on carbon-intensive coal plants for about 80 percent of its electricity production. As Ameren anticipates shutting down coal plants, it needs reliable power to replace the baseload electricity they produce. Solar and wind power are intermittent, requiring fossil-fuel backup, notes Pat Cryderman, the manager for nuclear generation development at Ameren. “You’re really building out twice,” he says. That adds to the costs. And burning the backup fuel, natural gas, emits carbon dioxide. Nuclear reactors that generate over 1,000 megawatts each can cost more than $10 billion to build, an investment that’s extremely risky for a company whose total assets are only $23 billion. Power plants based on small modular reactors, which produce roughly 200 to 300 megawatts, are expected to cost only a few billion dollars, a more manageable investment. “They’re simply more affordable,” says Robert Rosner, coauthor of a University of Chicago study of potential costs that the DOE has drawn on in evaluating the potential of small reactors.

Resource Extraction

Oil Drilling Link

Oil drilling costs tons – easy-to-reach deposits are empty and new reserves are expensive to accessHeinrich 13 (Holly, StateImpact Texas, 08.02.13, “During Domestic Drilling Boom, Why Are Gas Prices Still High?”, https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/08/01/during-domestic-drilling-boom-why-are-gas-prices-still-high/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDThe crude oil reserves that are currently being produced by hydraulic fracturing are fairly expensive to access. Today, American oil reserves tend to lie in shale formations or in deposits under the ocean floor. The higher production costs become part of higher gasoline prices.¶ Crude oil, not natural gas, is the main substance in gasoline, which powers our cars, airplanes, and many other forms of transportation—so increased natural gas production does not drive gasoline prices down.¶ Financial institutions, such as major banks, speculate on raw materials like oil and natural gas. Companies such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs provide financing for the development of oil and natural gas projects—but they also exert influence over the prices of these resources, and thus

can keep them relatively high.¶ Since many easy-to-access oil reserves have already been tapped, more

expensive technology is required to reach new reserves .¶ “In the good olden days, it was enough for the Saudis to drill a

well, and that well would produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day,” Patzek said, adding that this would be the output of a good well, not every well drilled. “All you needed to do was sit by the well and sip Coke or whatever they sip… To recover it was either cents or single dollars per barrel. The rest of it was profit. Today, it’s no longer true. It’s not true for Saudi Arabia. But it’s definitely not true in the Bakken, in the Eagle

Ford, or in the deep Gulf of Mexico. This is expensive oil.”¶ According to Patzek, wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico can produce a significant supply of oil, but drilling in the ocean is risky, and requires expensive platforms , pipelines, and separation facilities. On land, shale formations such as Montana and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale may contain

major oil deposits, but individual wells tend to produce little oil, so drilling there can require high

investments (and many wells).

Offshore drilling is ridiculously expensive and an unnecessary risk -- oil wells are drying up now and it’s expensive to find new wells PetroChase 12 (Independent oil and gas investments firm specializing in the acquisition and development of drilling sites, PetroChase, “OIL DRILLING INVESTMENTS- AN EXPENSIVE AND RISKY VENTURE”, http://petrochase.com/blog/2012/04/oil-drilling-investments-an-expensive-and-risky-venture/)

One of the most expensive and risky ventures in terms of investment is oil drilling. We can take an example to understand it.

Mukluk Island is a place where drilling process was carried out in 1983. In this project, about 12 oil companies spent practically $2 billion for oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea, North of Alaska. This oil exploration

investment was based on oil stains discovered by the experts. However, the well was only a dry hole where oil did not exist at all. Thus, oil drilling is not only expensive but risky as well. According to the Arizona Geological Survey, in Arizona, an oil drilling companies project costs around $1,000,000 depending upon the location and depth of hole. A rig which can drill the

most exploratory holes can cost from $8,000 to $15,000 per day. This might not be an expensive deal for big companies. However,

below mentioned an oil drilling companies project costs around $1,000,000 depending upon the location and depth of hole, making it expensive: Costs associated with hiring welders, contractors, engineers, mud loggers, scientists, geologists, and supervisors Personnel for logging, drilling, casing, cementing and other logistics Settlements with landowner such as for offshore locations, territorial payments, attorney fees, permission to perform well drilling and various other

tax payments Maintenance costs including staffing. Specialized personnel would work in three shifts to supervise the location 24 hours a day. Amenities for personnel such as restaurants, motels, transport, food & water. Not only is the drilling process expensive for oil exploration companies, but the contractors are also costly to hire and

the major reasons are mentioned as follows: It is very difficult and rare to find new oil wells Very low yields from the aged and mature wells Risks associated in the process of exploration The price of oil & gas is very fluctuating Elevated demand for drilling contractors and oil Drilling tasks are performed by specialized oil drilling companies such as Diamond offshore drilling Inc., Transocean, and Noble. Generally, these companies lease or rent their drilling rigs to oil & gas companies such as BP, Royal Dutch, ExxonMobil and Shell. This way, they can earn

revenue based on day rates. Due to the high costs and complicated drilling processes, oil companies always look for alternative and better techniques so that costs can be reduced and drilling process can be increased. New technologies and innovations are taking place on a regular basis. However, it might take a few more years to experience real changes for enhancement in the oil & gas investing industry.

Natural Gas Link

Gas drilling costs tons – easy-to-reach deposits are empty and new reserves are expensive to accessHeinrich 13 (Holly, StateImpact Texas, 08.02.13, “During Domestic Drilling Boom, Why Are Gas Prices Still High?”, https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/08/01/during-domestic-drilling-boom-why-are-gas-prices-still-high/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDThe crude oil reserves that are currently being produced by hydraulic fracturing are fairly expensive to access. Today, American oil reserves tend to lie in shale formations or in deposits under the ocean floor. The higher production costs become part of higher gasoline prices.¶ Crude oil, not natural gas, is the main substance in gasoline, which powers our cars, airplanes, and many other forms of transportation—so increased natural gas production does not drive gasoline prices down.¶ Financial institutions, such as major banks, speculate on raw materials like oil and natural gas. Companies such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs provide financing for the development of oil and natural gas projects—but they also exert influence over the prices of these resources, and thus

can keep them relatively high.¶ Since many easy-to-access oil reserves have already been tapped, more

expensive technology is required to reach new reserves .¶ “In the good olden days, it was enough for the Saudis to drill a

well, and that well would produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day,” Patzek said, adding that this would be the output of a good well, not every well drilled. “All you needed to do was sit by the well and sip Coke or whatever they sip… To recover it was either cents or single dollars per barrel. The rest of it was profit. Today, it’s no longer true. It’s not true for Saudi Arabia. But it’s definitely not true in the Bakken, in the Eagle

Ford, or in the deep Gulf of Mexico. This is expensive oil.”¶ According to Patzek, wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico can produce a significant supply of oil, but drilling in the ocean is risky, and requires expensive platforms , pipelines, and separation facilities. On land, shale formations such as Montana and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale may contain

major oil deposits, but individual wells tend to produce little oil, so drilling there can require high

investments (and many wells).

Extracting Natural Gas is too expensive and unprofitable-companies switching to oil drilling to recover profits Rynn 11 (John, author of the book Manufacturing Green Prosperity: The power to rebuild the American middle class, Roosevelt Institute, http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/fracking-mess-natural-gas-not-fuel-future)

Natural gas is being touted as a fuel of the future, a way to bridge the gap between a dirty energy and clean energy economy. But according to numerous articles and a report from David Hughes at the Post-Carbon Institute, what we may have is another bridge to nowhere (page numbers in this post refer to Hughes’ study). Fracking, the rapidly expanding

technique for pulling natural gas out of the ground, may be worse for global warming than coal, ultimately very

expensive , and not productive enough to make much of a difference in natural gas supply anyway.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a 60-year old technique that has recently been applied to the huge deposits of what is called shale, a form of rock that can contain large amounts of natural gas or oil. Now natural gas companies are drilling thousands of these wells, fracturing the shale, and pumping millions of gallons of water laced with hundreds of chemicals to release the natural gas (pages 22-24). While burning natural gas emits about half the greenhouse gases of coal, transporting, processing, and delivering that gas significantly reduces its advantages. And methane — natural gas — is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide for about 20 years. According to a recent study and other research, shale gas actually leads to more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional drilling. The main problem seems to be that the drilling companies and trucking companies do a sloppy job and let gas escape into the atmosphere – and into drinking water. This was best exemplified in the movie GasLand, which showed that people near drilling sites could light their tap water on fire. An enormous controversy has erupted around this technique, with some making accusations of potentially catastrophic environmental impacts, while others call fracking a ”game changer.” A new study shows that drinking water near fracking sites contains large amounts of natural gas, while proponents claim that none of the toxic

chemicals that make up the fracking mixture have contaminated water supplies. New York State has temporarily banned the procedure, although Governor Cuomo has indicated he will lift the ban for most of the state. New Jersey (and France) will probably ban it. The EPA is still studying the issue, but Dick Cheney and company made sure that fracking is not covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and states have less expertise, money and motivation to monitor the situation. The Federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) gets more and more bullish about the prospects for shale gas, recently claiming that 45% of natural gas in this country will come from shale gas by 2034. Currently, the number is only 25% (pages 28-30). But according to the New York Times, this opinion is contested from within the agency itself. There are signs that the EIA is following the lead of the natural gas industry, not doing independent research. Meanwhile, the current price for natural gas, about 4 dollars per thousand cubic feet (mcf), is below the level needed to make shale gas profitable for most drilling – costs estimates range from a bit over 4 dollars to an average of 7 dollars and even 11 dollars per mcf (page 31). And many fracking firms are now moving to drill for oil, not gas, because the price for gas is too low to justify the added expense

Methane Hydrates Link

Methane hydrate extraction too expensive and not viable yet – Japan provesNelder 13 (Chris Nedler, Energy analyst for The Atlantic, May 2nd 2013 “Are Methane Hydrates Really Going to Change Geopolitics?” http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/are-methane-hydrates-really-going-to-change-geopolitics/275275/)If Mann's data on methane hydrates is correct, then Japan's experiment so far has taken 10 years and $700 million to produce four million cubic feet of gas, which is worth about $16,000 at today's U.S. gas prices,

or about $50,000 at today's prices for imported LNG in Japan. At this point, it is an enormously expensive experimental

pilot project , and nothing more. We do not yet know when it might be able to recover commercial volumes of gas, or at what rate, or at

what price. We have no reason to believe that if commercial quantities are recoverable by 2018 as Japan hopes--

which seems incredibly optimistic--that the price of that gas will be competitive with imported LNG.

Methane hydrate extraction is super expensiveMead 13 (Derek Mead, Editor-in-Chief at Motherboard.com, July 30th 2013, Oil Companies Are Preparing to Tackle Methane Hydrate, Assuming It Doesn't Melt First)Japan is currently leading the charge, which comes as no surprise, as the country has at least 10 years' worth of proven reserves off its coasts

and natural gas prices that are four times higher than in the US. As of right now, methane hydrate extraction remains

incredibly costly and fairly theoretical, but a successful Japanese extraction test in March led the country to state it would try to have viable extraction operations by 2023. That decade timetable is tight, but Japan's not alone. According to a big report in the Wall Street Journal, India and China are also heavily interested in exploiting methane hydrates to help feed their huge energy demands. (Those energy needs have also fueled Chinese and Indian interest in alternative energy sources like thorium.) Currently, costs remain high—the Journal pegs methane hydrate extraction at somewhere between $30 and $60 per million BTUs, while in the US natural gas is $4 per million BTUs—but experiments are ongoing in Asia and North America.

Desalination Link

Desalination plants are super expensive -- cost upwards of a billion dollars Fagan 14 (Kevin, Reporter at San Francisco Chronicle Reporter at San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, “Desalination plants a pricey option if drought persists”, February 15, 2014, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pricey-option-if-drought-5239096.php#page-2)

Machines that filter salt out of water still face the same opposition they have for generations from critics who say they are too expensive to run, kill fish as they suck in briny water, and spew greenhouse gases into the air from the energy they require to run. But in recent years, as technology and techniques for desalination have improved, such plants have gained momentum - enough so that in Carlsbad near San Diego, the biggest desalination facility in the Western Hemisphere is under construction and set to begin operation in two years. The $ 1 billion plant will tap the biggest water tank around, the

Pacific Ocean. It will produce 50 million gallons of potable water daily, supplying more than 110,000 customers throughout San Diego

County. Another large plant, with a potential price tag of $400 million, could begin construction in Monterey County by 2018. It would be near the only desalination plant in California that fills the needs of an entire municipality - the one that has been supplying water to Sand City, population 334, since 2010. "It's a miracle how we managed to get this plant," said Sand City Mayor David Pendergrass. "If we didn't have it, the whole area would be in trouble. We're not under any rationing here, but then we've been practicing conservation for years already, so we are responsible about our water use. "I would absolutely recommend desalination for other areas." Bay Area project Two hours north of Sand City, there is cautious enthusiasm for the $150 million Bay Area Regional Desalination Plant - as well as serious reservations. The biggest water agencies in the area, including San Francisco's, have been developing the plant since 2003 and ran a successful small pilot version of it three years ago to make sure the location would work. The plant would sit in windswept Mallard Slough outside Bay Point and draw from delta waters flowing into Suisun Bay. "Certainly, the project is years out from being done, but it could be in the back of people's minds as a 'what if' - and if we got into dire straits, money could be mobilized fast to finish it," said Steve Ritchie, assistant general manager for water for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. San Francisco has been developing the plant with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Contra Costa Water District and the Zone 7 Water Agency, which serves the Livermore region. So far the consortium has spent $2.5 million in mostly state grant money on the plan.

Structural cost of desalination makes the process too expensive White Paper 11 (Committee for sustainable solutions for a thirsty planet, “Water Reuse Association”, https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u8/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_White_Paper.pdf) Feed water intake configuration directly affects capital and operational costs of the treatment process. For

example, open intake costs will represent approximately US$ 0.5 – 1.5MM per MGD and up to US$ 3.0MM per MGD for complex tunnel and offshore intake systems. Without consideration for the cost of land associated with each

option, beach well intakes are usually less costly on an equipment basis. However, once land acquisition and easements are factored into the process, this intake type is typically 40 to 50% more costly than an open intake of similar capacity. Horizontal and slant wells are comparable to open intake (yet more costly than co-located open intakes using existing infrastructure), and infiltration galleries typically cost more than open intakes. Of all the intake options, only open intakes have the longest-running 8 Dietrich Consulting Group, LLC. 9 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97. Cost estimate classification system-as applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industries. Seawater Desalination Costs Page 7 installation history and reliability necessary to support the full-scale development of a large desalination facility at a new site. As a result, there is a significant depth of understanding related to the costs associated with constructing open intakes as well as the associated discharge pipeline. The intake and feed water source selection cost impact is demonstrated in Figure 3. In Australia, for example, costs for newly constructed intake/outfall structures can approach a third of the total project cost (based on distance to the facility and related infrastructure costs) and are much more expensive than the proposed 50 MGD Carlsbad, California seawater desalination project, largely due to this project’s access to the adjacent power plant intake and discharge infrastructure. Alternatively, for the proposed 50 – 150 MGD Camp Pendleton project, which is currently in the development phase with the San Diego

County Water Authority (SDCWA), cost estimates approach US$ 1.3B to US$ 1.9B (2009 constant dollars) for Phase 1 that

incorporates dedicated intake and outfall structures approximately 2-miles offshore, and 13 miles of conveyance pipeline. This is more

than two times the construction cost of the Carlsbad facility10. Few SWRO facilities exist employing an intake type differing from the conventional open-intake. This lack of available installations for use as a qualitative benchmark for costing same-site alternatives is important for planners and engineers focused on process considerations and/or cost comparisons. However, published information is limited and can be site-specific. Generalized guidance is contained in Table 1. Source types range from beach wells to open-ocean intakes.

Environment

Aquaculture/Fisheries Link

Aquaculture is expensive – feed, brood stock, operations costsFuture of Fish 14 (We accelerate the widespread adoption of business solutions that end overfishing by supporting collective impact of entrepreneurs and strategic partners, 01.14.14, “Breakthrough Aquaculture”, http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.pdf, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDAquaculture¶ From an economic perspective, commercial-scale¶ aquaculture is expensive. Start-up

costs are high due¶ to the need for land, physical infrastructure, and¶ sophisticated technology. Inputs such as water, feed,¶ and brood stock are pricey, and operations costs—¶ including skilled labor, energy, and insurance—can¶ inhibit profitability. Add to that the fact that raising¶ fish, especially on land, is hard work. Fish farming¶ requires both scientific and operational expertise,¶ constant

maintenance and monitoring, and above all,¶ precision. Fish lack the resilience of crops or other¶ livestock and are vulnerable to changes in ambient¶ conditions. For that reason, fish farmers must be sharp¶ troubleshooters to react quickly when something goes¶ wrong, or risk losing an entire cohort of fish.

Raising fish stocks is expensive – feed, infrastructure, insurance, maintenance, labor, energyFuture of Fish 14 (We accelerate the widespread adoption of business solutions that end overfishing by supporting collective impact of entrepreneurs and strategic partners, 01.14.14, “Breakthrough Aquaculture”, http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.pdf, Accessed 07.08.14)//LDFish farming is an expensive venture , both in the¶ sea and on land. Feed, infrastructure, insurance,¶ maintenance, labor, and energy costs are all high. To¶ make the model work, farmers need to grow high-¶ value fish, maximizing the return per unit effort.¶ Consumer demand is greatest for fish high on the¶ food chain: tuna, snapper, salmon, and sea bass.¶ However, growing these species requires lots of wild-¶ caught forage fish such as anchovies, menhaden, and¶ herring to make feed. That demand contributes to¶ overfishing and depleted stocks of these smaller fish.¶ Raising vegetarian fish, such as tilapia, is far more¶ environmentally friendly and cost effective, but not¶ nearly as lucrative.

Exploration

Ocean Mapping Link

Mapping is too expensive -- roughly 56 million per 1000 square miles of the ocean Escritt 14 (Thomas, Reuters Correspondent, “Dutch survey vessel begins mapping ocean floor to aid hunt for MH370”, Jun, 19, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/malaysia-airlines-mapping-netherlands-idUSL6N0P03OM20140619)

A survey ship from Dutch engineering company Fugro , carrying 40 crew and technicians, began mapping out an area larger than the Netherlands, some 1000 miles (1,600 km) east of the northwest coast of Australia. The

search for the lost plane is being coordinated by the Australian Transportation Safety Board and is expected to cost 60 million Australian dollars ($ 56 million ) over the first year . "It's a rough area," Rob Luijnenburg, strategy

director at Fugro, which usually conducts surveys for oil and telecommunications companies, said in an interview on Thursday. "The area has mountains, ridges, valleys, and you can't see a lot down there unless you make it visible with technology," he said. "For the first phase you need a good map. Once you have that you can plan the next phase." It will take roughly three months for the Fugro Equator survey ship, which is being assisted by a Chinese naval vessel, to map out the typography of the ocean floor. Once an accurate map has been constructed with the aid of computers on board the ship, searchers can begin more detailed, slower surveys in a bid to find the wreck itself, using unmanned robots and submarines to search the ocean floor.

Find the Plane Link

Search for MH370 will cost a quarter of a billion dollars -- costs could increase from unforeseen circumstances Molko 14 ( David, CNN International correspondent has followed MH 370 events since their inception, “MH370: Undersea Search Could Cost a Quarter Billion Dollars, Official Says,” 4/17, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane)

A prolonged undersea search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could cost nearly a quarter of a billion U.S. dollars if private companies are used, Australia's top transport official said Thursday. Martin Dolan emphasized

that the $234 million price tag is a "ballpark rough estimate" of an extended search and salvage mission that includes an underwater vehicle. The Bluefin-21 is back at work Friday morning on a fifth trip into the southern Indian Ocean. Authorities said the vessel has scanned a total of 110 square kilometers (42.5 square miles) without making any "contacts of interest." Searchers seem to be preparing for the possibility that an underwater drone scan of the ocean may not yield debris from the plane immediately. Lack of progress angers Chinese families Underwater drone aborts first mission How hard is it to find a black box? The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Malaysia's acting transport minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, said that authorities are looking at deploying more unmanned underwater probes. Officials might consider searching along a large portion of sea highlighted by a partial digital "handshake" between the jetliner and an Inmarsat PLC satellite, Dolan said. That arc of sea is over 370 miles long and 30 miles wide.

Search will cost hundreds of millions – US entrance will result in them paying the bill Gollom 14 (Mark, syndicated foreign affairs columnist, “Malaysia Airlines MH370: Search Enters New Phase with New Hope,” 5/8, CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh370-search-enters-new-phase-with-new-hope-1.263472)Who will foot the bill? “If you knew the initial region you could easily program your vehicle and your survey,

because you know what you’re going to find, more or less. And then you're just looking for an airplane," deYoung said. "Right now they’re probably doing the first really detailed sea bed maps that have ever been done there." But all

this is costly and has raised questions as to who will foot the bill . "What I’m worried about is the

[Malaysian] government not going to pour any more money to Malaysia Airlines," Schiavo said. "So if they stop funding the airlines, how committed are they going to be financially to this investigation?" Cost estimates for the first phase of the search have hovered around $ 50 million , with the second phase pinned at

another $ 60 million . But most experts predict the costs could end up being in the hundreds of millions of

dollars “I think they’re at a crossroads in terms of where to get equipment to do it and where to get money," Schiavo said. Truss suggested there will be future discussions about cost sharing with Malaysia, China

and other parties, including companies like Boeing and Rolls Royce, who may have vested interests in what happened. He said they will also seek out international partners to acquire more equipment, and that the majority will

have to be provided by the private sector. "Clearly they now realize that this is going to be an 'in for the long haul' kind of

a search ," deYoung said . "If they open up their search radius significantly in the next phase then that might be a

sign that they're not completely confident the pings were from the plane. And if that’s true, now the time scale for the searching goes up from a few years to many years and many ships."

Aff Answers – Space Tradeoff DA

Uniqueness

2AC Non-UQ

NASA’s budget has been declining for decades – tons of missions will be cancelledFoust 14 (Jeff, National Geographic, 05.30.14, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDFunding for NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003 and still producing good science, may be cut.¶ Alien worlds and the search for extraterrestrial life recently took center stage on Capitol Hill, a break from standard political fare in Washington D.C. (Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ "Finding other sentient life in the universe would be the most significant discovery in human history," began Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who's chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, at the May 21 astrobiology hearing.¶ "The unknown and unexplored areas of space spark human curiosity," he went on, applauding recent discoveries such as the most Earth-like world orbiting a nearby star discovered so far by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope.¶ But the reality is that while the stars and planets beckon, a budget battle is brewing over NASA, the $17.6-billion civilian space agency. Cuts threaten spacecraft and telescopes, even as NASA struggles to clarify its mission in the post-space shuttle era.

(Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ Since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, the space agency's budget has steadily declined from 1.35 percent of federal spending to less than 0.6 percent . A long-running annual drop in inflation-adjusted funds took a sharp downward turn in the past two years, as budget cuts, including mandatory ones ordered by Congress, trimmed almost a billion dollars from 2012 to 2013. The 2014 budget recovered some, but not all, of that cut.¶ In addition, a fundamental debate is under way over the future exploration aims of NASA. The Obama Administration favors "stepping stone" plans leading to an asteroid visit in the next decade; congressional representatives call for a return to the moon.¶ A National Research Council report released in late 2012 called NASA's strategic plan to explore asteroids "vague," adding that the agency's explanations did not explain "why it is worthy of taxpayer investment."¶ The debate over funding the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)—which was barred from receiving federal dollars in a 1993 congressional vote that scrubbed its ten-million-dollar yearly operating cost—mirrors, in microcosm, the larger debate about paying for space science. Already squeezed by decades of straitened funding, a variety of NASA missions, ranging from an infrared space telescope to a 747-mounted observatory, now face cancellation .

1AR Non-UQ

NASA’s thin budget is forcing it to shut down programs producing good scienceFoust 14 (Jeff, National Geographic, 05.30.14, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/, Accessed 07.06.14)//LDUnless NASA finds a new partner to take over its share of SOFIA's operating costs, about $85 million a year, the proposed budget would force the agency to mothball the observatory—even though it began routine operations earlier this year.¶ NASA administrator Charles Bolden said SOFIA was a victim of limited budgets that had led the agency to

prioritize other programs, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and a 2020 Mars rover mission.¶ "It turned out that we had to make very difficult choices about where we go with astrophysics and planetary science and Earth science, and SOFIA happened to be what fell off the plate this time," he said shortly after the budget proposal came out.¶ The space agency is also facing some difficult choices about what ongoing space missions it can afford to keep running . Every two years NASA convenes panels, known as senior reviews, to examine the performance of missions that have exceeded their original lifetimes. The reviews are designed to ensure that the science these missions produce is worth the continuing expense, but it's rare for such reviews to recommend ending a mission before the spacecraft can simply no longer operate.¶

This year, though, is different.¶ Robbing Peter¶ This month the senior review panel charged with reviewing NASA's

astrophysics programs recommended that, in the absence of additional funding, the Spitzer Space Telescope be shut down. This infrared telescope, launched in 2003, costs NASA about $15 million a year to operate. Although the spacecraft is in good

health and producing good science , the panel concluded that there wasn't enough funding to keep it running

without jeopardizing other astronomy missions.¶ The senior review panel (SRP) also included a warning in its report. "The operation of the nation's space-borne observatories is so severely impacted by the current funding climate in Washington that the SRP feels that American preeminence in the study of the universe from space is threatened to the point of irreparable damage if additional funds cannot be found to fill the projected funding gaps," it stated, a comment printed in bold in the report.¶ NASA's planetary science missions are undergoing their own senior review, to be completed by summer. Some scientists fear current budgets could force NASA to decide which of two large missions, the Curiosity Mars rover and Cassini Saturn orbiter, it can afford to keep operating. Plans are already under way to end the Cassini spacecraft's mission in 2017, by sending it plummeting into Saturn's atmosphere.¶ Jim Green, head of NASA's planetary science division, said at a recent science meeting that NASA can afford to keep operating all its existing planetary missions, provided it receives an additional $35 million contained in a supplemental budget request.¶ The space agency lost a lot of goodwill in 2011 with news that the budget of the Hubble Space Telescope's successor, the JWST, had ballooned to more than eight billion dollars,

up from the previous estimate of five billion. Paying for the cost overruns of the telescope, scheduled for launch in 2018, has eaten into the agency's already thin funds .

Mars mission would never happen with current budget – unreasonable and uncertainKramer 14 (Miriam, Space Staff, 01.14.14, “Manned Mission to Mars By 2030s Is Really Possible, Experts Say¶ “,¶ http://www.space.com/24268-manned-mars-mission-nasa-feasibility.html¶ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LDWhile Carberry said that it is possible to launch a manned mission to Mars by the 2030s under pre-sequestration budget levels, a NASA-led human mission to Mars will probably never launch under current budgetary constraints, Carberry said.¶ "We're not far off from what we need," Carberry said. "We just need to get back into a reasonable budget, which we're not in right now."¶ President Barack Obama requested about $17.7 billion for NASA during his 2013 budget proposal, $59 million less than what the space agency received in 2012.¶ "[NASA] funds are divided between various missions, directorates and centers," Carberry said via email. "Unless there was a MAJOR restructuring, it would be hard to accomplish a NASA-led Mars mission [under the current budget]. That said, major disruptive technology gains could always occur that could make it viable — we just can't count on that happening."

Link

2AC Link Non-UQ

Link is non-unique – plan is a drop in the bucket compared to proposed increases – and tradeoff happens internally not with spaceCarr and Gropp 14 (Julia Palakovich, Public Policy Manager, Robert, PhD, Director, 03.12.14, “Analysis of the President’s FY 2015 Budget Request for Biological Sciences Research and Education”, http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/resources/AIBS_Budget_Report_FY2015.pdf, Accessed 07.07.14)//LDUnder the President’s budget, funding for NOAA would increase 3.2 percent. Although ¶ the trend of escalating procurement costs for weather and climate satellites continues, ¶ funding would also rise for many research and natural resource management activities. ¶ ¶ The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would see a sizeable increase next ¶ year. At $ 462.2 million , the budget request represents a 7.4 percent increase. The ¶ largest increase would be directed to climate research. Research on ocean acidification ¶ would jump 148 percent. Proposed cuts include 7.6 percent from ocean, coastal, and ¶ Great Lakes research and a 6.7 percent cut from the National Sea Grant College ¶ Program, funds that previously supported competitively awarded research. ¶ ¶ The FY 2015 budget proposes increased funding for the National Ocean Service (+2.9 ¶ percent). In addition to supporting new investments in coastal management, a large ¶ increase is proposed for competitively awarded research to address coastal ocean ¶ issues including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and coastal ecosystem management ¶ (+$6.0 million). ¶ ¶ Funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service would decline by $79.5 million (-8.0 ¶ percent). Protected species and fisheries research and management would benefit ¶ from small increases in funding. ¶ ¶ NOAA proposes to make a smaller contribution to education programs. Competitive ¶ education grants would be terminated (-$3.6 million), as would regional watershed ¶

education programs (-$7.2 million). NOAA would contribute $2 million in new funding to help NSF and the Department of Education to translate NOAA science into educational ¶ materials and strategies.

Tradeoff

2AC No Tradeoff

Funding’s not an issue – no tradeoff between ocean and spaceShiro 13 (Brian, MS in Space Studies from University of North Dakota, 4 years of employment at NOAA, 09.28.13, “splashdown 2013: space vs. ocean”, http://www.astronautforhire.com/2013/09/splashdown-2013-space-vs-ocean.html, Accessed 07.03.14)//LDAs someone who works for NOAA and collaborates routinely with NASA, I have a foot in both worlds. My perspective is that they are synergistic. There is more than enough exploration capital to spread

around, so choosing between the two is a false dichotomy . Plus, the technologies and strategies developed in one setting often translate well to the other. We can learn to live in space by tackling the challenge of living underwater, for example. Of course, this presumes that manned undersea exploration isn't dead, as evidenced by the recent re-opening of the re-opening of the Aquarius Reef Base. I think the potential benefits of exploring the ocean are great enough that there will always be a driver to do so, no matter how far we push the frontier beyond Earth.

1AR No Tradeoff

No tradeoff – zero-sum mindset is just a historical quirk, not realityMangu-Ward 13 (Katherine, Reason magazine, New America Foundation, 09.04.13, “Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier?”, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html, Accessed 07.07.14)//LDIs Hawkes right? Should we all be crawling back into the seas from which we came? Ocean exploration is certainly the underdog, so to speak, in the sea vs. space face-off. There’s no doubt that the general public considers space the sexier realm. The occasional James Cameron joint aside, there’s much more cultural celebration of space travel, exploration, and colonization than there is of equivalent underwater adventures. In a celebrity

death match between Captain Kirk and Jacques Cousteau, Kirk is going to kick butt every time.¶ In fact, the rivalry can feel a bit lopsided—the

chess club may consider the football program a competitor for funds and attention, but the jocks aren’t losing much sleep over the price of pawns and cheerleaders rarely turn out for chess tournaments. But somehow the debate rages on in dorm

rooms, congressional committee rooms, and Internet chat rooms.¶ Damp ocean boosters often aim to borrow from the rocket-fueled glamour of space. Submersible entrepreneur Marin Beck talks a big game when he says, “We can go to Mars, but the deep ocean really is our final frontier,” but he giggles when a reporter calls him the “Elon Musk of the deep sea,” an allusion to the founder of the for-profit company Space X who is rumored to be the real-life model for Iron Man’s Tony Stark.¶ Even Hawkes admits that he “grew up dreaming of aircraft”—though he means planes, not spaceships—but “then I got to look at this subsea stuff and I saw this is where aviation was all those years ago. The whole field was completely backwards, and that’s why I

jumped in.”¶ While many of the technologies for space and sky are the similar, right down to the goofy suits with bubble heads—the main difference is that in space, you’re looking to keep pressure inside your vehicle and underwater you’re looking to keep

pressure out—there’s often a sense that that sea and space are competitors rather than compadres.¶ They needn’t be, says Guillermo Söhnlein, a man who straddles both realms. Söhnlein is a serial space entrepreneur and the founder of the Space Angels Network. (Disclosure: My husband’s a member.) The network funds startups aimed for the stars, but his most recent venture is Blue Marble Exploration, which organizes expeditions in manned submersibles to exotic underwater locales. (Further disclosure: I have made a very small investment in Blue

Marble, but am fiscally neutral in the sea vs. space fight, since I have a similar amount riding on a space company, Planetary Resources.)¶ As usual, the fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the pie. At about $17 billion, government-funded space exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration—NASA’s soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse.¶ But the way Söhnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous

examples of state-backed exploration—Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s

quest to climb to the top of Everest—were actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits.

2AC Tradeoff Good

Ocean exploration is more important that NASA missionsEtzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶

Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 65-74, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)//LDSetting priorities for research and exploration is always¶ needed, but this is especially true in the present age of tight¶ budgets. It is clear that oceans are a little-studied but very¶ promising area for much enhanced exploration. By contrast,¶ NASA's projects, especially those dedicated to further exploring deep space and to manned missions and stellar¶ colonies, can readily be cut. More than moving a few billion¶ dollars from the faraway planets to the nearby oceans is called¶ for, however. The United States needs an agency that can¶ spearhead a major drive to explore the oceans—an agency¶ that has yet to be envisioned and created.

Internal Link

2AC Funding Not Key

NASA can survive cuts – innovation solves for cutting costsHsu 12 (Jeremy, Innovation News Daily, 09.12.12, “Can US Spaceflight Innovation Survive Deep Budget Cuts?”, http://www.space.com/17560-spaceflight-innovation-budget-cuts.html, Accessed 07.07.14)//LDPASADENA, Calif. — A U.S. space industry stuck with the "tyranny of the rocket equation" faces tighter budgets and possibly several decades without a major revolution in spaceflight technologies.¶ Those sobering conclusions came from spaceflight industry experts in the opening talk here at the Space 2012 conference by the American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics on Tuesday (Sept. 11). Space systems such as weather satellites, GPS satellites, and communications networks have become necessary to sustaining the lifestyle millions of Americans take for granted — but

the U.S. faces the challenge of maintaining such capabilities while investing in new innovations aimed at cutting costs rather than necessarily boosting space technologies.¶ "I predict that the next 30 or 40 years for the sustainability of space is about driving more efficiency and economics into the technology we have today," said Roger Krone, president of network and space systems at Boeing.¶ The conference began with the arrival of a U.S. Air Force honor guard and the playing of the U.S. national anthem to commemorate the anniversary of the September 11 attacks of 2001, followed by a moment of silence for Neil Armstrong, first person to walk on the moon. The somber opening seemed to carry over into the panel discussion of how to innovate in a cost-cutting era.¶ Krone referred to the "tyranny of the rocket equation," a quote by NASA

astronaut and flight engineer Don Pettit, that describes the laws of physics that still rules over spaceflight and keeps launch costs high. A true revolution in spaceflight might find a way to break that "tyranny," but until then Krone said that innovation would have to focus on making existing technology better and cheaper.¶ The U.S. military faces the problem of increasing reliance upon GPS navigation and communications satellites for guiding its missiles, aircraft, drones and soldiers on the battlefield, even as its space budget shrinks. Such military systems must survive a space environment that has become crowded with more than 1,000 satellites and growing numbers of both government and commercial missions.¶ "We can't live without it," said Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center in the Air Force Space Command at the

Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif. "It's a congested and contested environment, and we have to do it in an affordable way."¶ The U.S. military has already begun looking toward smaller, cheaper satellites that can launch in shorter timeframes than the seven to 10 years required for major commercial satellites ,

Pawlikowski said. She expressed a wish for innovation that could drive down costs for existing technologies rather than push the technological envelope. [Military Seeks Cheap Satellites to Aid Soldiers]¶ Aerospace giants such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin face an added dilemma because many of their programs have shifted from a design to production mode — a time when many aerospace engineers face job cuts or simply

lose interest. The U.S. companies want to figure out how to keep those skilled engineers employed and productive.¶ "We need a good balance of production and a good set of folks still working in design," said Mark Valerio vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin.¶ Charles Elachi, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, pointed as encouragement to NASA's successes in the past decade despite generally tight budgets. He described the innovations that went into launching and landing NASA's Curiosity Mars rover a "series of steps" by both NASA and dozens of

contractor or sub-contractor companies.¶ "Innovation doesn't have to be expensive," Elachi said.

2AC Private Funding Solves

Federal funding tradeoff doesn’t matter – private funding for space solvesBroad 14 (William J, New York Times, 03.15.14, “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDAmerican science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly¶ becoming a private enterprise.¶ In Washington, budget cuts have left the nation's research complex reeling.¶ Labs are closing. Scientists are being laid off. Projects are being put on the¶ shelf, especially in the risky, freewheeling realm of basic research. Yet from¶ Silicon Valley to Wall Street, science philanthropy is hot, as many of the¶ richest Americans seek to reinvent themselves as patrons of social

progress¶ through science research.¶ The result is a new calculus of influence and priorities that the scientific¶ community views with a mix of gratitude and trepidation.¶ "For better or worse," said Steven A- Edwards, a policy analyst at the¶ American Association for the Advancement of Science, "the practice of¶ science in the 21st century is becoming shaped less by national priorities or¶ by peer-

review groups and more by the particular preferences of individuals¶ with huge amounts of money."¶ They have mounted a private war on disease, with new protocols that break¶ down walls between academia and industry to turn basic discoveries into¶ effective treatments. They have rekindled traditions of scientific exploration¶ by financing hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures. They are

even¶ beginning to challenge Washington in the costly game of big science, with¶ innovative ships, undersea craft

and giant telescopes — as well as the first¶ private mission to deep space .¶ The new philanthropists represent the breadth of American business, people¶ like Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor (and founder of the¶ media company that bears his name), James Simons (hedge funds) and¶ David H. Koch (oil and chemicals), among hundreds of wealthy donors.¶ Especially prominent, though, are some of the boldest-face names of the tech¶ world, among them Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric E. Schmidt (Google) and¶ Lawrence J. Ellison (Oracle).¶ This is philanthropy in the age of the new economy — financed with its¶ outsize riches, practiced according to its individualistic, entrepreneurial¶ creed. The donors are impatient with the deliberate, and often politicized,¶ pace of public science, they say, and willing to take risks that government¶ cannot or simply will not consider.¶ Yet that personal setting of priorities is precisely what troubles some in the¶ science establishment. Many of the patrons, they say, are ignoring basic¶ research — the kind

that investigates the riddles of nature and has produced¶ centuries of breakthroughs, even whole industries — for a jumble of popular,¶ feel-good fields like environmental studies and space exploration.

With a steady decline in federal funding for NASA programs, commercial companies are looking to fill a void through privately funded space exploration. Whether it's sending humans to Mars or using technologies to mine extraterrestrial minerals for medicinal purposes, the US space program is going through a major transformation.

1AR Private Funding Solves

“New space” is funded by the private sector – exploration doesn’t rely on the governmentMalykhina 14 (Elena, WSJ, 05.19.14, “Private Firms Flock To Space Exploration”, http://www.informationweek.com/government/leadership/private-firms-flock-to-space-exploration/d/d-id/1252897, Accessed 07.07.14)//LDOn May 14, a panel of experts from the private sector convened at the Brookings Institution in Washington to discuss how the economy is moving toward commercial companies getting involved in space. "This is no longer your grandfather's space program," Darrell West, Brookings Institution's VP and director of governance studies, said at the start of the panel discussion.¶ Commercial firms are increasingly launching satellites, supplying the International Space Station (ISS) with cargo, and even developing options for space tourism in the near future. While in the past most US manned

and unmanned missions were funded by the federal government, space economy is moving toward entrepreneurs and commercial companies getting involved . John Roth, VP of business development for Sierra Nevada Corporation's space

systems, called this shift "old space versus new space."¶ [NASA reveals its latest prototype of the "Z" series spacesuit, designed for humans to walk on Mars by the 2030s. See NASA's Next Spacesuit: Mars Fashion.]¶ "There's a proliferation of companies doing what NASA and the [Defense Department] have no interest in doing, such as taking tourists up to space. There's a huge thrust of economic activity going on in space," said Roth.¶ Sierra Nevada has a partnership with NASA to fly its Dream Chaser spacecraft into orbit from Florida's Space Coast in November 2016. Dream Chaser is capable of carrying crew and cargo, as well as performing service and science in low-Earth orbit. Earlier this year, the company announced additional plans to include the purchase of an Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance for the launch, sharing the Operations and Checkout development and testing facility with Lockheed Martin Space Systems, and establishing an operation center at the Kennedy Space Center.¶ SpaceX Dragon C2. (Image: Wikimedia Commons)¶ SpaceX Dragon C2. (Image: Wikimedia Commons)¶ SpaceX is another private firm that holds a $1.6 billion contract with NASA. SpaceX developed a rocket and capsule to deliver supplies to the ISS, as part of NASA's

Commercial Resupply Services program. Adam Harris, VP of government sales at SpaceX, said NASA sets an example for other

government agencies with its fixed price contract model. "Companies sign up for a price they won't go over and they get the job done," Harris said.¶ NASA's vision going forward is to send astronauts to space from US soil through its Commercial Crew Program. "We pay the Russians quite a bit of money to do that right now -- over $70 million per seat. We think there's an American way to take astronauts up to space," said Harris. Under a $440 million agreement with NASA, SpaceX is modifying its Dragon spacecraft to make it crew-ready. SpaceX is also interested in providing space tourism in the near future -- along with companies like Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures, Boeing, Bigelow Aerospace, and Blue Origins.

Impact

AT: Space Col Impact – Not Feasible

Mars colonization isn’t feasible – radiation, space sickness, sustainabilityLemind 14 (Anna, University of Piraeus, 02.20.14, “The Other Side of Mars Colonization: Potential Dangers of the Red Planet”, http://www.learning-mind.com/the-other-side-of-mars-colonization-potential-dangers-of-the-red-planet/#Ay8spY2O4ifCbzcy.99, Accessed 07.04.14)//LDAs the prospect of a permanent colony on Mars is getting closer with every new press release from the Mars One project, it probably makes sense to remember that any person who will move permanently to Mars will most likely die untimely and painful death.¶ Here are some things that are most likely to cause it (all kinds of technical problems are excluded from consideration):¶ First of all, the Mars colonists will be subjected to radiation before having set foot on the threshold of their new home. Technically, the radiation level during the trip from Earth to Mars does not exceed the capacity of the human body, but one should remember that the Sun is a huge unpredictable radioactive destructive mass.¶ Just one solar flare during the trip to Mars will send a stream of high-energy particles that will damage any shielding that can be created today. In fact, it will ‘roast’ any creature that is not protected by the planetary magnetic fields. In 2022, just a couple of years before the planned start of the expedition, the Sun will be at the peak of its 11-year cycle.¶ Then, on the surface of Mars, the colonists would have to find a way to deal with a reduced gravitational field of the planet. Since Mars has only a third of the earth’s gravity, this factor can be fatal in the long term perspective. All aspects of our biological structure – from heart rate to the strength of our bones – are related to gravity.¶ As soon as this force is removed, we begin to lose bone marrow and our heart and vestibular system start to malfunction. It is the reason why the astronauts do not stay on the ISS for longer than necessary. The effects of the so-called “space sickness” on Mars will be reduced compared to the microgravity of outer space, but in the long run they will likely lead to the terminal health problems.¶ And finally, there is a problem of self-sustaining life on the Red Planet. Since the supply missions to Mars will cost billions of dollars, they will be probably delayed if the colonists suddenly run out of something important, like the air, water or food.¶ Of course, each colony on Mars is planned as a self-sustaining system. However, just one serious crop failure will lead to the lack of oxygen, which will be produced by plants, and will raise the question of survival of the colonists.

AT: Space Col Impact – No Asteroids

No risk of extinction level asteroid Schweickart and Graham 08 (Thomas and Russell, Scientific American, 02.04.08, NASA's Flimsy Argument for Nuclear Weapons, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-flimsy-argument-for-nuclear-weapons, Accessed 07.07.14)//LDNuclear explosives would be needed only for deflecting the largest NEOs, which are the least common and most easily detectable objects . Scientists are not concerned about a collision with an extremely large NEO—say, 10 kilometers in diameter—because all these objects have been discovered and none currently threatens Earth. Big things are easy for astronomers to find; the smaller objects are what we have to worry about./Of the estimated 4,000 NEOs with diameters of 400 meters or more—which includes all objects that might conceivably require nuclear explosives to divert them—researchers have so far identified about 1,500. And if NASA meets the search goals mandated by Congress, it will locate 98 percent of these objects and calculate 100-year projections of their orbits by 2020. As NASA continues to find big NEOs, the calculations of risk change accordingly. A decade ago, before astronomers began to systematically locate NEOs larger than 400 meters in diameter, they estimated that we faced a statistical risk of being struck by such an object once every 100,000 years. But now that researchers have identified and are tracking about 37 percent of these NEOs, the frequency of being hit by one of the remaining large objects has dropped to once in 160,000 years. Unless NASA finds a large NEO on an immediate collision course by 2020 (a very unlikely event), the frequency of a collision with one of the 80 still undiscovered objects (2 percent of 4,000) will drop to once every five million years. Thus, the probability that nuclear explosives might be needed to deflect an NEO is extremely small. And even this minuscule probability will diminish to the vanishing point as researchers improve nonnuclear interception technologies. After 2020 the need to keep nuclear devices on standby to defend against an NEO virtually disappears. As a result, the decision to move toward the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons can be made strictly on the basis of human threats to global security. Extraterrestrial dangers need not be considered.

AT: Space Col Impact – No Resource Wars

No resource wars – unlikely and no motivationTetrais 12 (Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratgique (FRS). Past positions include: Director, Civilian Affairs Committee, NATO Assembly (1990-1993); European affairs desk officer, Ministry of Defense (1993-1995); Visiting Fellow, the Rand Corporation (1995-1996); Special Assistant to the Director of Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Defense (1996-2001).(Bruno, The Demise of Ares, csis.org/files/publication/twq12SummerTertrais.pdf)The Unconvincing Case for ‘‘New Wars’’ ¶ Is the demise of war reversible? In recent years, the metaphor of a new ‘‘Dark Age’’ or ‘‘Middle Ages’’ has flourished. 57 The rise of political Islam, Western policies in the Middle East, the fast dev elopment of emerging countries, population growth, and climate change have led to fears of ‘‘civilization,’’ ‘‘resource,’’ and ‘‘environmental’’

wars. We have heard the New Middle Age theme before. In 1973, Italian writer Roberto Vacca famously suggested that mankind was about to enter an era of famine, nuclear war, and civilizational collapse. U.S. economist Robert Heilbroner made the same suggestion one year later. And in 1977, the great Australian political scientist Hedley Bull also heralded such an age.

58 But the case for ‘‘new wars’’ remains as flimsy as it was in the 1970s .¶ Admittedly, there is a stronger role of

religion in civil conflicts. The proportion of internal wars with a religious dimension was about 25 percent between 1940 and 1960, but 43 percent in the first years of the 21st century. 59 This may be an effect of the demise of traditional territorial conflict, but as seen above, this has not increased the number or frequency of wars at the global level. Over the past decade, neither Western governments nor Arab/Muslim countries have fallen into the trap of the clash of civilizations into which Osama bin Laden wanted to plunge them. And ‘‘ancestral hatreds’’ are a reductionist and unsatisfactory approach to explaining collective violence. Professor Yahya Sadowski concluded his analysis of post-Cold War crises and wars, The Myth of Global Chaos, by stating, ‘‘most of the conflicts around the world are not rooted in thousands of years

of history they are new and can be concluded as quickly as they started .’’ 60¶ Future resource wars are

unlikely. There are fewer and fewer conquest wars. Between the Westphalia peace and the end of World War II, nearly

half of conflicts were fought over territory. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been less than 30 percent. 61 The invasion of Kuwait a nationwide bank robbery may go down in history as being the last great resource war. The U.S.-led intervention of 1991 was partly driven by the need to maintain the free flow of oil, but not by the temptation to capture it. (Nor was the 2003 war against Iraq motivated by oil.) As for the current tensions between the two Sudans over oil, they are the remnants of a civil war and an offshoot of a botched secession process, not a desire to control new resources.¶ China’s and India’s energy needs are sometimes seen with apprehension: in light of growing oil and gas scarcity, is there not a risk of military clashes over the control of such resources? This seemingly consensual idea rests on two fallacies. One is that there is such a thing as oil and gas scarcity, a notion challenged by many energy experts. 62 As prices rise, previously untapped reserves and non-conventional hydrocarbons become economically attractive. The other is that spilling blood is a rational way to access resources. As shown by the work of historians and political

scientists such as Quincy Wright, the economic rationale for war has always been overstated . And be cause of globalization, it has become cheaper to buy than to steal. We no longer live in the world of 1941, when fear of lacking oil

and raw materials was a key motivation for Japan’s decision to go to war. In an era of liberalizing trade, many natural resources are fungible goods . (Here, Beijing behaves as any other actor: 90 percent of the oil its companies produce outside of China goes to the global market, not to the domestic one.) 63 There may be clashes or conflicts in regions in maritime resource-rich areas such as the South China and East China seas or the Mediterranean, but they will be driven by nationalist passions, not the desperate hunger for hydrocarbons.

AT: Structural Impact

The status quo is structurally improvingGoklany 9 (Indur, Assistant Director for Science and Technology Policy, PhD electrical engineering from MSU, “Have Increases In Population, Affluence And Technology Worsened Human And Environmental Well-Being?”, http://173-45-244-96.slicehost.net/public/journal_article/11)Although global population is no longer growing exponentially, it has quadrupled since 1900. Concurrently, affluence (or GDP per capita) has sextupled, global economic product (a measure of aggregate consumption) has increased 23-fold and carbon dioxide has increased

over 15-fold (Maddison 2003; GGDC 2008; World Bank 2008a; Marland et al. 2007).4 But contrary to Neo-Malthusian fears, average human well-being, measured by any objective indicator, has never been higher. Food supplies, Malthus’ original

concern, are up worldwide. Global food supplies per capita increased from 2,254 Cals/day in 1961 to 2,810 in 2003 (FAOSTAT 2008). This helped reduce hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The proportion of the population in the developing world, suffering from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1969-71 and 2001-2003 despite an 87 percent population increase (Goklany 2007a; FAO 2006). The reduction in hunger and malnutrition, along with improvements in basic hygiene, improved access to safer water and sanitation, broad adoption of vaccinations, antibiotics, pasteurization and other public health measures, helped reduce mortality and increase life expectancies. These improvements first became evident in today’s developed countries in the mid- to late-1800s and started to spread in earnest to developing countries from the 1950s. The infant mortality rate in developing countries was 180 per 1,000 live births in the early 1950s; today it is 57. Consequently, global life expectancy, perhaps the single most important measure of human

well-being, increased from 31 years in 1900 to 47 years in the early 1950s to 67 years today (Goklany 2007a). Globally, average annual per capita incomes tripled since 1950. The proportion of the world’s population outside of high-income OECD countries living in absolute poverty (average consumption of less than $1 per day in 1985 International dollars adjusted for

purchasing power parity), fell from 84 percent in 1820 to 40 percent in 1981 to 20 percent in 2007 (Goklany 2007a; WRI 2008;

World Bank 2007). Equally important, the world is more literate and better educated. Child labor in low income countries

declined from 30 to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. In most countries, people are freer politically, economically and socially to pursue their goals as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to

live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb and property. Social and professional mobility has never been greater. It is easier to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth in the lottery of life. People work fewer hours, and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time (Goklany 2007a). Figure 3 summarizes the U.S. experience over the 20th century with respect to growth of population, affluence, material, fossil fuel energy and chemical consumption, and life expectancy. It indicates that population has multiplied 3.7-fold; income, 6.9-fold; carbon dioxide emissions, 8.5-fold; material use, 26.5-fold; and organic chemical use, 101-fold. Yet its life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years and infant mortality (not shown) declined from over 100 per 1,000 live births to 7 per 1,000. It is also important to note that not only are people living longer, they are healthier. The disability rate for seniors declined 28 percent between 1982 and 2004/2005 and, despite better diagnostic tools, major diseases (e.g., cancer, and heart and respiratory diseases) occur 8–11 years later now than a century ago (Fogel 2003; Manton et al. 2006). If similar figures could be constructed for other countries, most would indicate qualitatively similar trends, especially after 1950, except Sub-Saharan Africa and the erstwhile members of the Soviet Union. In the latter two cases, life expectancy, which had increased following World War II, declined after the late 1980s to the early 2000s, possibly due poor economic performance compounded, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, by AIDS, resurgence of malaria, and tuberculosis due mainly to poor governance (breakdown of public health services) and other manmade causes (Goklany 2007a, pp.66-69, pp.178-181, and references therein). However, there are signs of a turnaround, perhaps

related to increased economic growth since the early 2000s, although this could, of course, be a temporary blip (Goklany 2007a; World Bank 2008a). Notably, in most areas of the world, the health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE), that is, life expectancy adjusted downward for the severity and length of time spent by the average individual in a less-than-healthy condition, is greater now than the unadjusted life expectancy was 30 years ago. HALE for the China and

India in 2002, for instance, were 64.1 and 53.5 years, which exceeded their unadjusted life expectancy of 63.2 and 50.7 years in 1970-1975 (WRI 2008). Figure 4, based on cross country data, indicates that contrary to Neo-Malthusian fears, both life expectancy and infant mortality improve with the level of affluence (economic development) and time, a surrogate for technological change (Goklany 2007a). Other indicators of human well-being that improve over time and as affluence rises are: access to safe water and sanitation (see below), literacy, level of education, food supplies per capita, and the prevalence of malnutrition (Goklany 2007a, 2007b).

AT: Heg Impact

Heg solves nothingKagan, 2012 [Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, 1/5/12, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0105_international_relations_kagan.aspx]If the United States is not suffering decline in these basic measures of power, isn’t it true that its influence has diminished, that it is having a harder time getting its way in the world? The almost universal assumption is that the United States has indeed lost influence . Whatever the explanation may be—American decline, the “rise of the rest,” the apparent failure of the American capitalist model, the dysfunctional nature of American politics, the increasing complexity of the international system—it is broadly accepted that the United States can no longer shape the world to suit its interests and ideals as it

once did . Every day seems to bring more proof, as things happen in the world that seem both contrary

to American interests and beyond American control. And of course it is true that the United States is not able to get

what it wants much of the time . But then it never could. Much of today’s impressions about declining American influence are based on a nostalgic fallacy: that there was once a time when the United States could shape the whole

world to suit its desires, and could get other nations to do what it wanted them to do, and, as the political scientist Stephen M. Walt put it, “manage the politics, economics and security arrangements for nearly the entire globe.” If we are to gauge America’s relative position today, it is important to recognize that this image of the past is an illusion .

There never was such a time. We tend to think back on the early years of the Cold War as a moment of complete American global dominance. They were nothing of the sort . The United States did accomplish extraordinary things in that era: the Marshall Plan, the NATO alliance, the United

Nations, and the Bretton Woods economic system all shaped the world we know today. Yet for every great achievement in the early Cold War, there was at least one equally monumental setback. During the Truman years, there was the triumph of the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, which American officials regarded as a disaster for American interests in the

region and which did indeed prove costly; if nothing else, it was a major factor in spurring North Korea to attack the South in 1950. But as Dean Acheson concluded, “the ominous result of the civil war in China” had proved “beyond the control of the ... United States,” the product of “forces which this country tried to influence but could not.” A year later came the unanticipated and unprepared-for North Korean attack on South Korea, and America’s intervention, which, after more than 35,000 American dead and almost 100,000 wounded, left the situation almost exactly as it had been before the war. In 1949, there came perhaps the worst news of all: the Soviet acquisition of the atomic bomb and the end of the nuclear monopoly on which American military strategy and defense budgeting had been predicated. A year later, NSC-68, the famous strategy document, warned of the growing gap between America’s military strength and its global strategic commitments. If current trends continued, it declared, the result would be “a serious decline in the strength of the free world relative to the Soviet Union and its satellites.” The “integrity and vitality of our system,” the document stated, was “in greater jeopardy than ever before in our history.” Douglas MacArthur, giving the keynote address at the Republican National Convention in 1952, lamented the “alarming change in the balance of world power,” “the rising burden of our fiscal commitments,” the ascendant power of the Soviet Union, “and our own relative decline.” In 1957, the Gaither Commission reported that the Russian economy was growing at a much faster pace than that of the United States and that by 1959 Russia would be

able to hit American soil with one hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles, prompting Sam Rayburn, the speaker of the House, to ask, “What good are a sound economy and a balanced budget if we lose our national lives and Russian rubles become the coin of the land?” Nor was the United States always able to persuade others, even its closest allies, to do what it wanted, or to refrain from doing what it did not want. In 1949, Acheson tried and failed to prevent European allies, including the British, from recognizing Communist China. In 1954, the Eisenhower administration failed to

get its way at the Geneva Conference on Vietnam and refused to sign the final accords. Two years later it tried to prevent the British, the French, and the Israelis from invading Egypt over the closure of the Suez Canal, only to see them launch an invasion without so much as a heads-up to Washington. When the United States confronted China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the Eisenhower administration tried and failed to get a show of support from European allies, prompting John Foster Dulles to fear that NATO was “beginning to fall apart.” By the late 1950s, Mao believed the United States was a superpower in decline, “afraid of taking on new involvements in the Third World and increasingly incapable of maintaining its hegemony over the capitalist countries.” But what about “soft power”? Wasn’t it true, as the political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr. has argued, that the United States used to be able to “get what it wanted in the world” because of the “values expressed” by American culture as reflected through television, movies, and music, and because of the attractiveness of America’s domestic and foreign policies? These

elements of soft power made other peoples around the world want to follow the United States, “admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness.” Again, the historical truth is more complicated. During the first three decades after World War II, great portions of the world neither admired the United States nor sought to emulate it, and were not especially pleased at the way it conducted itself in international affairs. Yes, American media were spreading American culture, but they were spreading images that were not always flattering. In the

1950s the world could watch televised images of Joseph McCarthy and the hunt for Communists in the State Department and Hollywood. American movies depicted the suffocating capitalist conformism of the new American corporate culture. Best-selling novels such as The Ugly American painted a picture of American bullying and boorishness . There were the battles over segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, the globally transmitted

images of whites spitting at black schoolchildren and police setting their dogs on black demonstrators. (That “used to be us,” too.) The racism of America was practically “ruining” the American global image, Dulles feared, especially in the so-called Third World. In the late 1960s and early 1970s came the Watts riots, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert

Kennedy, the shootings at Kent State, and then the government-shaking scandal of Watergate. These were not the kinds of images likely to endear the United States to the world, no matter how many Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen movies were playing in Parisian cinemas. Nor did much of the world find American foreign policy especially attractive during these years. Eisenhower yearned “to get some of the people in these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us,” but the CIA-orchestrated overthrows of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala did not help. In 1957, demonstrators attacked the vice president’s motorcade in Venezuela, shouting, “Go away, Nixon!” “Out, dog!” “We won’t forget Guatemala!” In 1960, Khrushchev humiliated Eisenhower by canceling a summit when an American spy plane was shot down over Russia. Later that year, on his way to a “goodwill” visit in Tokyo, Eisenhower had to turn back in mid-flight when the Japanese government warned it could not guarantee his security against students protesting American “imperialism.” Eisenhower’s Democratic successors fared little better. John F. Kennedy and his wife were beloved for a time, but America’s glow faded after his assassination. Lyndon Johnson’s invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 was widely condemned not only in Latin America but also by European allies. De Gaulle warned American officials that the United States, like “all countries that had overwhelming power,” had come “to believe that force would solve everything” and would soon learn this was “not the case.” And then, of course, came Vietnam—the destruction, the scenes of napalm, the My Lai massacre, the secret incursion into Cambodia, the bombing of Hanoi, and the general perception of a Western colonialist superpower pounding a small but defiant Third World country into submission. When Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, visited West Berlin in 1967, the American cultural center was attacked, thousands of students protested American policies, and rumors swirled of assassination attempts. In 1968, when millions of Europe’s youth took to the streets, they were not expressing their admiration for American culture. Nor were the great majority of nations around the world trying to emulate the American system. In the first decades of the Cold War, many were attracted to the state-controlled economies of the Soviet Union and China, which seemed to promise growth without the messy problems of democracy. The economies of the Soviet bloc had growth rates as high as those in the West throughout much of this period, largely due to a state-directed surge in heavy industry. According to Allen Dulles, the CIA director, many leaders in the Third World believed that the Soviet system “might have more to offer in the way of quick results than the U.S. system.” Dictators such as Egypt’s Nasser and Indonesia’s Sukarno found the state-dominated model especially attractive, but so did India’s Nehru. Leaders of the emerging Non-Aligned Movement—Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Sukarno, Nkrumah—expressed little admiration for American ways. After the death of Stalin, moreover, both the Soviet Union and China engaged in hot competition to win over the Third World, taking “goodwill tours” and providing aid programs of their own. Eisenhower reflected that “the new Communist line of sweetness and light was perhaps more dangerous than their propaganda in Stalin’s time.” The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations worried constantly about the leftward tilt of all these nations, and lavished development aid on them in the hope of winning hearts and minds. They found that

the aid, while eagerly accepted, guaranteed neither allegiance nor appreciation. One result of Third World animosity was that the United States steadily lost influence at the United Nations after 1960. Once the place where the American war in Korea was legitimized, from the 1960s until the end of the Cold War the U.N. General

Assembly became a forum for constant expressions of anti-Americanism. In the late 1960s, Henry Kissinger despaired of the future. The “increased fragmentation of power, the greater diffusion of political activity, and the more complicated patterns of international conflict and alignment,” he wrote to Nixon, had sharply reduced the capacity of both superpowers to influence “the actions of other governments.” And things only seemed to get more difficult as the 1970s unfolded. The United States withdrew from Vietnam in defeat, and the world watched the

first-ever resignation of an American president mired in scandal. And then, perhaps as significant as all the rest, world oil prices went through the roof. The last problem pointed to a significant new difficulty: the inability of the United States to wield influence effectively in the Middle East . Today people point to America’s failure to bring Israelis and Palestinians to a negotiated settlement, or to manage the tumultuous Arab Awakening, as a sign of weakness and decline. But in 1973 the United States could not even prevent the

major powers in the Middle East from engaging in all-out war. When Egypt and Syria launched their surprise attack on Israel, it was a surprise to Washington as well. The United States eventually had to go on nuclear alert to deter Soviet intervention in the conflict. The war led to the oil embargo, the establishment of OPEC as a major force in world affairs, and the sudden revelation that, as historian Daniel Yergin put it, “the United States itself was now, finally, vulnerable.” The “world’s foremost superpower” had been “thrown on the defensive, humiliated, by a handful of small nations.” Many Americans “feared that the end of an era was at hand.”

AT: Econ Impact

No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdfThe final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the

disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.”38

Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers

Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

AT: Econ i/L

Global economic governance institutions guarantee resiliency Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdfPrior to 2008, numerous foreign policy analysts had predicted a looming crisis in global economic governance. Analysts only reinforced this perception since the financial crisis, declaring that we live in a “G-Zero” world. This paper takes a closer look at

the global response to the financial crisis. It reveals a more optimistic picture . Despite initial shocks that

were actually more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, global economic governance structures responded quickly and robustly. Whether one measures results by economic outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional flexibility, g lobal e conomic g overnance has displayed surprising resiliency since 2008. Multilateral economic institutions performed well in crisis situations to reinforce open economic policies, especially in contrast to the 1930s. While there are areas

where governance has either faltered or failed, on the whole, the system has worked. Misperceptions about global economic governance persist because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies – and because the efficiency of past periods of global economic governance has been badly overestimated. Why the system has worked better than expected remains an open question. The rest of this paper explores the possible role that the distribution of power, the robustness of international regimes, and the resilience of economic ideas might have played.

AT: Asia War Impact

No Asian war – interstate coalition promote peaceBitzinger and Desker 9 (Richard A. Bitzinger, Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Barry Desker, Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Director of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2009. Survival vol. 50 no. 6, “Why East Asian War is Unlikely,” p. Proquest)

Yet despite all these potential crucibles of conflict, the Asia-Pacific, if not an area of serenity and calm, is certainly more stable than one might expect. To be sure, there are separatist movements and internal struggles, particularly with insurgencies, as in Thailand, the Philippines and Tibet. Since the resolution of the East Timor crisis, however, the region has been relatively free of open armed warfare. Separatism remains a challenge, but the break-up of states is unlikely. Terrorism is a

nuisance, but its impact is contained. The North Korean nuclear issue, while not fully resolved, is at least moving toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearisation of the peninsula. Tensions between China and Taiwan,

while always just beneath the surface, seem unlikely to erupt in open conflict any time soon, especially given recent Kuomintang Party victories in Taiwan and efforts by Taiwan and China to re-open informal channels of

consultation as well as institutional relationships between organisations responsible for cross-strait relations. And while in Asia there is no strong supranational political entity like the European Union, there are many multilateral organisations and international initiatives dedicated to enhancing peace and stability, including the Asia-

Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. In Southeast

Asia, countries are united in a common geopolitical and economic organisation – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – which is dedicated to peaceful economic, social and cultural development, and to the promotion of regional peace and stability. ASEAN has played a key role in conceiving and establishing broader regional institutions such as the East

Asian Summit, ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea) and the ASEAN Regional Forum. All this suggests that war in Asia – while not inconceivable – is unlikely.

AT: Russia War Impact

No US-Russia war – domestic problemsLieber 8 (Robert, professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown World Affairs, “Falling Upwards”, Summer 2008)Farther East, and despite its economic recovery and the restoration of central power under Putin, Russia remains overwhelmingly dependent on the current boom in energy and commodity prices—and correspondingly vulnerable in the event of their decline. The country suffers from pervasive corruption, with a ranking from Transparency

International that puts it at 121 among 163 countries in this category. Its population, already less than half that of the U.S. and plagued with alcoholism, chronic violence, a decrepit health-care system, and a male life expectancy of fewer than 60 years of age (lower than that of Bangladesh), shrinks by some half a million people per year. And its army, while bidding for attention and resources, remains weak and in disarray. As The Economist recently summarized Putin’s Russia, it has become one of the most “criminalized, corrupt and bureaucratized

countries in the world.” True, the Putin regime plays to its domestic base with strident nationalism and xenophobia. In doing so, it has actively opposed and occasionally subverted American policies on some issues while providing a degree of cooperation on others. Instances of the former include opposition to NATO enlargement and to the stationing of anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, the use of oil and gas resources as leverage against neighboring countries, overt and covert pressure against former Soviet Republics, and arms sales to Syria and Iran. Yet Moscow grudgingly collaborates where it has shared concerns, as with North Korea and combating terrorism. Russia presents a problem for the United States, but its erratic behavior, its priorities at home, and its own internal decline put it well short of being a major power challenger.

AT: Terror Impact

No terror impact---super unlikelySchneidmiller 9 (Chris, Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism, 13 January 2009, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090113_7105.php)

There is an "almost vanishingly small" likelihood that terrorists would ever be able to acquire and detonate a

nuclear weapon, one expert said here yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 2, 2008). In even the most likely scenario of nuclear terrorism, there are 20 barriers between extremists and a successful nuclear strike on a major city, said John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University. The process itself is seemingly straightforward but exceedingly difficult -- buy or steal highly enriched

uranium, manufacture a weapon, take the bomb to the target site and blow it up. Meanwhile, variables strewn across the path to

an attack would increase the complexity of the effort, Mueller argued. Terrorists would have to bribe officials in a state nuclear program to acquire the

material, while avoiding a sting by authorities or a scam by the sellers. The material itself could also turn out to be bad. "Once the purloined material is purloined, [police are] going to be chasing after you. They are also going to put on a high reward, extremely high reward, on getting the weapon back or getting the fissile material back," Mueller said during a panel discussion at a two-day Cato Institute conference on counterterrorism issues facing the incoming Obama administration. Smuggling the material out of a country

would mean relying on criminals who "are very good at extortion" and might have to be killed to avoid a double-cross, Mueller said. The terrorists would then have to find scientists and engineers willing to give up their normal lives to manufacture a bomb, which would require an expensive and sophisticated machine shop. Finally, further technological expertise would be needed to sneak the weapon across national borders to its destination point and conduct a successful detonation, Mueller said. Every obstacle is "difficult but not impossible" to overcome, Mueller said, putting the chance of success at no less than one in three for each. The

likelihood of successfully passing through each obstacle, in sequence, would be roughly one in 3 1/2 billion , he said, but for argument's sake dropped it to 3 1/2 million. "It's a total gamble. This is a very expensive and difficult thing to do," said Mueller, who addresses the issue at greater length in an upcoming book, Atomic Obsession. "So unlike buying a ticket to the lottery ... you're basically putting everything, including your life, at stake for a gamble

that's maybe one in 3 1/2 million or 3 1/2 billion." Other scenarios are even less probable, Mueller said. A nuclear-armed state is "exceedingly unlikely" to hand a weapon to a terrorist group, he argued: "States just simply won't give it to somebody they can't control." Terrorists are also not likely to be able to steal a whole weapon,

Mueller asserted, dismissing the idea of "loose nukes." Even Pakistan, which today is perhaps the nation of greatest concern regarding nuclear security, keeps its bombs in two segments that are stored at different locations, he said (see GSN, Jan. 12). Fear of an "extremely improbable event" such as nuclear terrorism produces support for a wide range of homeland security activities, Mueller said. He argued that there has been a major and costly overreaction to the terrorism threat -- noting that the Sept. 11 attacks helped to precipitate the invasion of Iraq, which has led to far more deaths than the original event. Panel moderator Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, said

academic and governmental discussions of acts of nuclear or biological te rrorism have tended to focus on "worst-case assumptions about terrorists' ability to use these weapons to kill us." There is need for consideration for what is probable rather than simply what is

possible, he said. Friedman took issue with the finding late last year of an experts' report that an act of WMD terrorism would "more

likely than not" occur in the next half decade unless the international community takes greater action. "I would say that the report, if you read it,

actually offers no analysis to justify that claim, which seems to have been made to change policy by generating alarm in headlines ." One panel speaker offered a partial rebuttal to Mueller's presentation. Jim Walsh, principal research scientist for the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he agreed that nations would almost certainly

not give a nuclear weapon to a nonstate group, that most terrorist organizations have no interest in seeking out the bomb, and that it would be difficult to build a weapon or use one that has been stolen.

Aff Answers – NOAA Tradeoff DA

UQ

2AC Non-UQ

Beaufort guaranteed to close – maintenance is too expensiveKornegay and Cooney 14 (Ben and Patrick, The Fisheries, 03.24.14, “Are NOAA Administrators and President Obama Giving Up on a Century of Research?”, http://thefisheriesblog.com/2014/03/24/are-noaa-administrators-and-president-obama-giving-up-on-a-century-of-research/, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDOn Wednesday, March 5, the President’s proposed budget states very vaguely: “The overall budget would finance the National Weather Service while closing an ocean science laboratory and consolidating another.” This was surprising considering an announcement of a 6% increase in the total Department of Commerce budget, under which the funding for this lab resides.¶ Shortly following, Dr. Holly Bamford, the Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (the agency that owns the laboratory facility in Beaufort), visited Beaufort and identified the Beaufort laboratory as the “ocean science laboratory” that will be closed if the proposed budget passes.¶ On Tuesday, March 11, Beaufort NOAA employees received an email from Southeast Fisheries Science Center Director, Dr. Bonnie Ponwith, stating that:¶ “The decision to close the Beaufort lab was driven by the fiscal realities of operating and maintaining the aging facility and the significant long-term costs needed to repair and improve the laboratory. The facility requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding current and future resources. In 2012, the estimated cost to repair the facility was approximately $55 million and is likely higher now. An investment of this magnitude is not realistic for NOAA in the current budget environment.”¶ An article in the Carteret County News-Times similarly quotes Ciaran Clayton, director of NOAA’s Communications and External Affairs: “This aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future,” she said. “The president’s FY2015 budget request addresses this challenge by proposing closure of the lab. The proposal requires Congressional approval.”

Link

2AC No Link

Aff doesn’t have to use the NOAA – other federal agencies including NASA have ocean programsEtzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶

Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 65-74, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)//LDMoreover, NOAA is not the only federal agency that deals¶ with the oceans. There are presently ocean-relevant programs in more than 20 federal agencies —including NASA .¶ For instance, the ocean exploration program that investigates deep ocean currents by using satellite technology to¶ measure minute differences in elevation on the surface of¶ the ocean is currently controlled by NASA, and much basic¶ ocean science research has historically been supported by¶ the Navy, which lost much of its interest in the subject since¶ the end of the Cold War. (The Navy does continue to fund¶ some ocean research, but at levels much lower than earlier.)¶ Many of these programs should be consolidated into a Department of Ocean Research and Exploration that would¶ have the authority to do what NOAA has been prevented¶ from doing: namely, direct a well-planned and coordinated¶ ocean research program. Although the National Ocean¶ Council's interagency coordinating structure is a step in the¶ right direction, it would be much more effective to consolidate authority for managing ocean science research under¶ a new independent agency or a reimagined and strengthened NOAA.

Tradeoff

2AC No Tradeoff

No internal NOAA tradeoff – doesn’t have the ability to redirect fundingR&D Portfolio Review 13 (Task Force, 02.19.13, “In the Nation’s Best Interest: Making ¶ the Most of NOAA’s Science Enterprise ¶ ¶ Final Report to the NOAA Science ¶ Advisory Board”, http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/2013/february/PRTF%20Report_02_14_13%20FINAL.pdf, Accessed 07.03.14)//LDThe difficulties in managing NOAA’s R&D funds are compounded by continuing earmarks and ¶

reprogramming restrictions. One of the factors that limit NOAA's R&D flexibility is its inability to ¶ redirect internal funding to adjust its R&D portfolio to respond to changing needs and shifting ¶ scientific priorities. NOAA's appropriation currently limits any changes to $500,000 or 10% of the ¶

budget (whichever is less) of a Congressionally-recognized program, project, or activity before ¶ approval of Congress must be sought. However, when research funding is divided into multiple ¶ small programs, projects, or activities, NOAA has very limited flexibility to redirect funding to ¶ higher priority activities. Again, if NOAA undertakes to reduce its internal R&D staff in order to ¶ change the distribution between intramural and extramural research and to diversify the ¶ disciplinary distribution of its R&D, it must be able to protect the funds it saves in order to use them ¶ for their intended purposes.

2AC UQ o/w

House bill saves Beaufort and prevent NOAA from lying about maintenance costs againJones 14 (Walter B, Congressman, 05.05.14, “Jones, Price Announce Beaufort NOAA Lab Protected in House Funding Bill”, https://jones.house.gov/press-release/jones-price-announce-beaufort-noaa-lab-protected-house-funding-bill, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDWASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives Walter B. Jones (NC-03) and David Price (NC-04) announced today that the Fiscal Year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes full funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ocean science labs, including the facility located in Beaufort, N.C. The text of the bill was released by the House Appropriations Committee today and will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee Thursday morning. The president’s FY2015 budget had proposed shuttering the lab.¶ “The Beaufort lab is both an integral part of the local economy and an important provider of scientific research affecting the entire East Coast,” said Congressman Jones. “I am grateful to Chairman Frank Wolf (VA-10) for working with me and my North Carolina congressional colleagues to prevent the closure of this valuable facility.” ¶

“The Beaufort NOAA Lab is the focal point for federal, state and university-based marine and fisheries research in North Carolina,” Rep. Price said. “I’m very pleased we were able to work together to secure this funding because the lab has a significant economic impact, and it is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of our state’s research enterprise.”¶ Earlier this year, Reps. Jones and Price asked the CJS subcommittee to include report language in its bill continuing funding for all existing labs in FY2015. The language also requires that “NOAA shall submit a comprehensive analysis no later than one year after enactment of this Act on all National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) facilities and labs, to include current maintenance costs as well as a detailed analysis of how the research conducted by NCCOS laboratories would be affected by any proposed NCCOS lab consolidation.”

1AR UQ o/w

Beaufort isn’t in danger – new bill will save it from being cutNews Observer 14 (05.05.14, “US House bill would maintain funding for Beaufort marine lab”, http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/05/3837809/us-house-bill-would-maintain-funding.html#storylink=cpy, Accessed 07.09.14)//LDBEAUFORT — A bipartisan effort has put funding in a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations bill to save a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Beaufort that the scientific agency had proposed to close.¶ The lab, which opened in 1899, employs 108 people and is the only government facility between New Jersey and Miami, Fla., studying Atlantic fish populations.¶ It also is a hub for several research operations in Carteret County, including labs run by three universities. Together, NOAA and the universities have 163,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 labs. Marine science directly employs more than 500 people locally and injects $58 million into the local economy, according to the county economic development council.¶ The President’s budget for fiscal year 2015 had proposed shuttering the lab, but Democrat David Price of Chapel Hill, who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Republican Walter Jones, who represents the coastal district that includes Beaufort, announced Monday that the Fiscal Year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes full funding for NOAA’s ocean science labs, including the one in Beaufort.¶ The bill will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

Impact

AT: Lionfish i/L

Status quo solves lionfish control – volunteer divers remove from the ocean and provide specimens for researchAli et al 13 (Fadilah + Ken Collins, Ocean and Earth Science ¶ University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre, Rita Peachey, CIEE Research Station Bonaire, 2013, http://dspace.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/10403/AAUS_2013_2.pdf?sequence=1, Accessed 07.10.14)//LDThe Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans) is a venomous, voracious predator that is ¶ currently causing ecological and economical harm throughout the Caribbean. Their ¶ generalist diet and habitat preference coupled with their rapid growth rate and lack of ¶ natural predators has allowed their population to explode throughout the Caribbean. As ¶ a means to control lionfish populations, countries have designed lionfish removal ¶ programs which, in some instances, depend primarily on volunteer divers . Activities such ¶ as lionfish tournaments or specified lionfish removal trips and events are another ¶ platform whereby volunteer divers help to remove substantial quantities of lionfish. These ¶ removal events are important for lionfish control, and they contribute greatly to research. ¶ In Bonaire, since October 2009, almost 5,000 lionfish have been submitted to CIEE ¶ Research Station Bonaire by volunteer divers for research on lionfish morphometrics, ¶ sexual maturity and feeding ecology. This submission of specimens has contributed to ¶ one of the most in-depth and long-term studies of lionfish feeding ecology in the ¶ Caribbean. Staff from CIEE have also attended lionfish hunting tournaments in Curaçao ¶ to collect data on lionfish ecology and make comparisons. During the first tournament in ¶ 2012, 317 fish of the 1,069 caught were analysed, whereas in 2013, 1,500 fish out of ¶ 2,403 caught were dissected. Thus, within two days an extensive sample size was attained ¶ from various depths throughout various locations in Curaçao, an achievement that would ¶ have taken a small group of researchers many weeks or even months. Thus, volunteer ¶ divers have the ability to play an instrumental role in lionfish research and control and ¶ should be implemented into further lionfish management strategies throughout the ¶ Caribbean.

Invasive species won’t cause extinction—long term effects are increases in biodiversityCraig 10 (Matthew T, Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, “Patter Versus Process: Broadening the View of Marine Invasive Species,” Web, 10/10, Marine Biology, Proquest)The patterns observed as results of invasive species often evoke strong emotional responses as in the short term seemingly catastrophic changes occur. However, in taking a broader look at the processes underlying species invasions and their long-term ecological interactions, we see that they may be a fundamental contributor to the generation of new diversity through Briggs' IAS mechanism. Take for example, the Great Trans Arctic Biotic Interchange (Briggs 1995). The opening of the Berring Straight during the Cenozoic allowed for the exchange of hundreds of species between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific Oceans. Among the Atlantic species of molluscs with Pacific ancestors, nearly 47% evolved into distinct species (Vermeij 2005).

AT: Biodiversity Impact

No species snowball – loss of biodiversity in a region doesn’t impact global biodSedjo 2k (Roger A Sedjo 2k, Sr. Fellow, Resources for the Future, Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity: insights from biology, ethics & economics, eds. Van Kooten, Bulte and Sinclair, p 114)As a critical input into the existence of humans and of life on earth, biodiversity obviously has a very high value (at least to humans). But, as with other resource questions, including public goods, biodiversity is not an either/or question, but rather a question of “how much.” Thus, we may argue as to how much biodiversity is desirable or is required for human life (threshold) and how much is desirable (insurance) and at what price, just as societies 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. The reason 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 only limited value, since the global system will continue to function without that species. Similarly, the value of a piece of biodiversity (e.g., 10 ha of tropical forest) is small to negligible since its contribution to the functioning of the global 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 the absence 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 support function are species at the margin. While this, in principle, is an empirical question, in practice it is probably unknowable. However, thus far, biodiversity losses appear to have had little or no effect on the functioning of the earth’s life support system, presumably due to the resiliency of the system, which perhaps is due to the redundancy found 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.

Fragility theories are wrong – the loss of single species won’t cascade and nature won’t implodeKareiva et al 12 (Peter, Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature Conservancy, Michelle Marvier, professor and department chair of Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University, Robert Lalasz, director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy, Winter, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/) As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement's justification for saving nature shifted from spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity. Nature was described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse. And indeed, there are consequences when humans convert landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and urban development and

when key species or ecosystems are lost. But ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility

of nature , frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever. Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the expansion of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate inner-workings of our planetary ecosystem. The fragility trope dates back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and warned that perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous consequences.22 Al Gore made a similar argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting systems in jeopardy of collapse.24 The trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know that the disappearance of one species does not

necessarily lead to the extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem . In many

circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller's sea cow to the dodo, with no catastrophic or even measurable effects. These stories of resilience are not isolated

examples -- a thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of ecosystems following major disturbances such as deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance of plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72 percent)

of these studies.25 While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning to former agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve a similar level of economic development. A 2010 report concluded that rainforests that have grown back over abandoned agricultural land had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28 Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.

Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility, which melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation.29 In the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests, including the 1954 hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area,

the number of coral species has actually increased relative to before the explosions.30 More recently, the massive 2010 oil spill in

the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a remarkably fast rate. 31 Today, coyotes roam downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons astonish San Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their next meal. As we destroy habitats, we create new ones: in the southwestern United States a rare and federally listed salamander species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in no other habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data show the biomass of cod has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be written about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse and environmental apocalypse. Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear, seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good chance of surviving global warming if the changing environment continues to increase the populations and northern ranges of

harbor seals and harp seals. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a cooling period in Earth's

history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase of energy-rich prey. The history of life on Earth is of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment changes again. The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been impacting their natural environment for centuries. The wilderness so beloved by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the

last thousand years, and arguably even longer. The effects of human activity are found in every corner of the Earth. Fish and whales in remote Arctic oceans are contaminated with chemical pesticides. The nitrogen cycle and hydrological cycle

are now dominated by people -- human activities produce 60 percent of all the fixed nitrogen deposited on land each year, and people appropriate more than half of the annual accessible freshwater runoff.35 There are now more tigers in captivity than in their native habitats. Instead of sourcing wood from natural forests, by 2050 we are expected to get over three-quarters of our wood from intensively managed tree farms. Erosion, weathering, and landslides used to be the prime movers of rock and soil; today humans rival these geological processes with road building and massive construction projects.36 All around the world, a mix of climate change and nonnative species has created a wealth of novel ecosystems catalyzed by human activities.

AT: HABs i/L

Status quo physical controls solve HABs – flocculation, resuspension, burial, and removalKidwell 14 (David M, Research Oceanographer, May 2014, “DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms Program”, http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/about/docs/Draft_PCM_HAB_PEA.pdf, Accessed 07.10.14)//LD2.1.1 Physical Control Methods¶ Physical controls are those methods that physically remove algal cells from the water column,¶ limit the spatial extent of a bloom by physical barrier or manipulation of abiotic factors, or kill algal¶ cells through physical means. The methods included herein are those that have proven most¶ promising in the

laboratory or on the mesocosm scale. These methods are also likely to be more¶ easily constrained in a variable, open

aquatic system than are chemical or biological controls.¶ Therefore, these methods are generally the closest to being field-ready for in situ demonstration¶ projects. The physical control methods that are likely to be field demonstration ready by FY2018 and¶ therefore included in the Proposed Action are flocculation; sediment resuspension, burial, and¶ removal; cell harvesting and removal; and water column mixing.¶ Flocculation¶ Flocculation is the process of removing microscopic algae through the use of clay and¶ sedimentation . Through repeated collisions and adhesion, large, rapidly sinking aggregates (or flocs)¶ of algae and clay are

formed and settle to the ocean floor. The specific type of clay that is used is¶ dependent upon the type of bloom. Researchers are currently developing modified clays to improve¶ algal removal efficiency . Removal efficiency depends upon many factors, including both flocculant¶ and algal type, concentration and size, flocculant dispersal method, water flow, and salinity. If the¶ floes remain out of the photic zone, the zone in the water column in which light penetrates, the algae¶ would not have an opportunity for photosynthesis, resulting in cell mortality. In some instances,¶ physiochemical interactions occur between the algae and the flocculant, directly resulting in mortality¶ (Beaulieu et al., 2003). Flocculants have also been shown to

adsorb, or adhere, to the surface of some¶ types of HAB toxin, removing both intracellular and extracellular toxins (Pierce et

al., 2004).¶ Sediment Resuspension, Burial, and Removal¶ Sediment resuspension, burial, and removal activities achieve HAB control through different¶ mechanisms . Resuspension of bottom sediments affects HABs in two ways: one, to resuspend¶ sediments in an area thought to be a seedbed for algal cysts (thick walled dormant cells of algae) with¶

the objective of burying cysts in deeper oxygen-depleted sediments where they are unable to¶ germinate; and two, to resuspend sediments which would act as a natural flocculant to remove algal¶ cells from the water column .¶

Burial can be achieved by the placement of offsite material over the treatment area. All¶ offsite material

would be clean and free of toxins and of similar grain size and composition to¶ sediments of the treatment area. Burial is also achievable through hydraulic suction dredging, where¶ dredged material is removed from one area and discharged over the treatment area. It is also possible¶ to remove the sediment and cysts through dredging and retain the sediments for treatment and¶ disposal instead of discharging the sediments back to the treatment area. Burial and removal¶ activities can also remove algal cysts so they cannot initiate new blooms.¶ Cell Harvesting and Removal¶ Hydrodynamic separation, centritugation, pump filtration, and plankton net trawling are all¶ examples of harvesting technologies with the ability to separate algae from water. Hydrodynamic¶ separation and centrifugation are active methods that involve the withdrawal and processing of¶ affected water through either centritugation or vortex to create concentrated algal cells and water¶ discharge. Pump filtration is also an active removal method involving the withdrawal of affected¶ water in which a screen or filter is used to separate the algae from the water. All active cell-¶ harvesting methods would have screening over the water intake and an appropriate flow rate to¶ prevent impacts to non-target organisms.

AT: Fishery Impact

Status quo solves fishery management – more regulations to protect ecosystemsReef Resilience 13 (The Nature Conservancy, 08.16.13, “Fisheries Management”, http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/management-strategies/fisheries-management/, Accessed 07.09.14)//LDFishery regulations — Most countries have regulations and laws to control fishing activity. Often, these have been

developed with the primary goal of protecting sovereign fishing rights, partitioning resources among fishing sectors or optimizing fishing yields. Increasingly,

however, fisheries authorities are implementing regulations aimed at improving the economic and ecological sustainability of fisheries. These provide the legal context for fishery regulations that support coral reef management goals such as

catch quotas, species bans, size restrictions, gear restrictions and area closures.¶ Protecting functional groups — In recent years, there have been

important developments in fisheries management that have focused on protecting key functional groups, such as sharks and herbivores. Whether motivated by economic considerations (such as protecting sharks to support dive tourism) or ecological concerns (bans on

catching herbivorous fishes to minimize risk of algae taking over reefs), these strategies can make valuable contributions to reef resilience and are an important area of collaboration between coral reef managers and fisheries managers.¶ Compliance and enforcement — In many

instances, coral reef managers may find that unsustainability of fishing activities is due less to lack of regulation and more to poor compliance. This is best addressed through a multi-faceted and collaborative approach that includes strengthened enforcement capacity, education of fishers and managers, and programs to reduce dependency on fishery resources (alternative livelihoods, supplemental incomes, alternative fishing resources, etc.).¶ Reducing bycatch — The incidental catch of non-target species or undersized animals during fishing operations can have significant impacts on coral reef biodiversity. Sea turtles,

sharks, seabirds, juvenile fishes and even species such as sponges and sea fans can be significant bycatch in some fisheries. Coral reef managers can

work with fishery managers to promote adoption of measures including bycatch reduction devices (such as turtle exclusion devices), use of selective fishing gear (larger hook size, or hook and line rather than nets), by-catch reporting and fishery observer programs.¶ Promoting best practices and market-based incentives — An increasing number of fishing sectors are demonstrating social and environmental responsibility through adopting codes of conduct, fishery standards or stewardship

programs. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries that includes a set of management practices to support sustainable fisheries. The aquarium collecting sector, through the Marine Aquarium Council, has developed its own standards for best practices, including a certification program. The Marine Stewardship Council’s fishery certification program and seafood ecolabel aim to

recognize and award sustainable fishing. A key ingredient for effective uptake of best practice is market demand, and these programs also aim to create a market for sustainable marine resources through informing consumer choice.¶ Protecting spawning aggregations — Protection of spawning aggregations is important for both fisheries management and biodiversity conservation. Spatial or temporal closures can be used to prevent fishing of aggregations or to protect fish using migration corridors. Effective protection of fish spawning aggregations can be a major contributor to resilience of targeted fish migrations if done in combination with other fishery management measures, such as size restrictions or permitting. Science and Conservation of Fish Aggregations has resources to support efforts to protect fish aggregations.¶ Marine protected areas (MPAs) — MPAs can take many forms, but

no-take areas are especially important for sustaining populations of targeted fish species. No-take MPAs can be established as tools for fishery

management or for biodiversity protection, and often both objectives can be achieved simultaneously. The following strategies have proven to be

successful models to achieve MPA designation and buy-in from stakeholders:¶ ‘Locally managed marine areas’ (LMMAs) recognize the contribution of customary or community based management. They are based on the long history of informal, local-scale marine management in many tropical cultures.¶ Herbivore protection involves regulating herbivore removal in MPAs,

and working with fishers and fishery managers to protect the viability of herbivore populations in the wider reef ecosystem.¶ Diversifying livelihoods — Strong economic dependency on coral reef resources can be one of the most important causes of over-exploitation. As a

result, coral reef managers and non-government organizations are increasingly working with local communities to identify and develop sources of income that help fishers to become less dependent on species that are under pressure of overexploitation, or that play important roles in ecosystem resilience.