Environmental Harms Toolbox

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1
Scholars Environmental Harms
Environmental Harms Toolbox

Environmental Harms Toolbox.......................................................................................................................................1
DA Turns Case – NW – General.....................................................................................................................................4
***Desertification***.....................................................................................................................................................4
Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Decreasing.................................................................................................5
Desertification: Impact – Large Scale.............................................................................................................................6
Desertification: Impact – War/Laundry List...................................................................................................................7
Desertification: Impact – Biodiversity (I/L)...................................................................................................................8
Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity (I/L)................................................................................................................9
Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity => Fire/Air Pollution...................................................................................10
Desertification: Impact – Refugees (I/L)......................................................................................................................11
Desertification: Impact – Refugees => Conflict...........................................................................................................12
Desertification: Impact – Global Warming (+) Feedback Cycle...................................................................................14
Desertification: AT Gender Equity Turn.......................................................................................................................15
***AT Desertification***.............................................................................................................................................16
AT Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Up.......................................................................................................17
AT Desertification: Turn – Prioritizing the Environment.............................................................................................18
AT Desertification: Turn – Gender Equity....................................................................................................................19
AT Desertification: Reversible......................................................................................................................................20
AT Desertification: Alt Cause.......................................................................................................................................21
AT Desertification: Alt Cause.......................................................................................................................................22
AT Desertification: GM Solves.....................................................................................................................................23
AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Now..............................................................................................................24
AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Solves...........................................................................................................25
AT Desertification: Pastoralism Solves.........................................................................................................................26
AT Desertification: Wind Breaks Solve........................................................................................................................27
AT Desertification: Cacti Solve....................................................................................................................................28
***Air Pollution Harms***..........................................................................................................................................29
Air Pollution – It’s Up...................................................................................................................................................30
Air Pollution=Species Extinction..................................................................................................................................32
***Air Pollution Answers***.......................................................................................................................................33
Air Pollution Answers – It’s Down...............................................................................................................................34
Air Pollution Answers – DA Turns Case – NW............................................................................................................35
***Water Pollution Answers***...................................................................................................................................36
Water Pollution Answers – It’s Down...........................................................................................................................37
***Dioxin***................................................................................................................................................................38
Dioxin Bad – Laundry List...........................................................................................................................................39
Dioxin Bad – Dioxin Impact.........................................................................................................................................40
Dioxin Bad – Dioxin = Destroy BioD..........................................................................................................................41
***Dioxin Answers***.................................................................................................................................................42
Dioxin Answers – Dioxin Levels Low..........................................................................................................................43
Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms............................................................................................................................44
Dioxin Answers – AT: Trout..........................................................................................................................................48
***Endocrine Disruption***........................................................................................................................................50
Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction................................................................................................................................51
Endocrine Disruptors Bad- Reproduction.....................................................................................................................52
***Endocrine Disruptors Answers***..........................................................................................................................54
A2: Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction ........................................................................................................................55
A2: Endocrine Disruptors – No Harms.........................................................................................................................56
***Ozone Hole***.......................................................................................................................................................57
Ozone Hole Up..............................................................................................................................................................58
Ozone Hole – Key To UV.............................................................................................................................................59
Ozone Hole – A2: Natural ............................................................................................................................................60
Ozone Hole – Antarctica ..............................................................................................................................................62
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Plankton ................................................................................................................................63
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation .............................................................................................................................64
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn Ev................................................................................................65
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn.....................................................................................................66
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn ....................................................................................................67
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Extinction .............................................................................................................................68
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Cataracts ...............................................................................................................................69
***Ozone Hole Answers ***........................................................................................................................................71
Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing...............................................................................................................................72
Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing...............................................................................................................................73
Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural .............................................................................................................74
Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural .............................................................................................................75
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Health...............................................................................................................................77
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Agriculture........................................................................................................................79
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton............................................................................................................................80
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton............................................................................................................................81
Ozone Hole Answers – Nuclear War Turns – Kills Ozone ..........................................................................................82
***Species Extinction***.............................................................................................................................................83
Species Impact – OW Other Enviro Harms..................................................................................................................84
Species Impact – Each Species Key.............................................................................................................................85
Species Impact – Each Species Key.............................................................................................................................86
Species Impact – A2: NUQ – Species Down................................................................................................................87
Species Impact – Hot spots ..........................................................................................................................................88
Species Impact – Invisible Threshold...........................................................................................................................89
Species Impact – Intrinsic value...................................................................................................................................90
Species Impact – A/T Speciation .................................................................................................................................91
***Species Extinction Answers***..............................................................................................................................92
A2: Species – NUQ.......................................................................................................................................................93
A2: Species – NUQ.......................................................................................................................................................94
A2: Species – Invisible Threshold Bad ........................................................................................................................96
A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species............................................................................................................................97
A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species............................................................................................................................98
A2: Species – No Impact: Geographic Diversity..........................................................................................................99
A2: Species – No Impact: Tech Solves.......................................................................................................................100
A2: Species – No Impact: Migration .........................................................................................................................101
A2: Species – No Impact: Resilience..........................................................................................................................102
A2: Species – No Impact: A/T biggest wave of extinctions ......................................................................................103
A2: Species – No Impact: A/T Intrinsic worth............................................................................................................104
A2: Species – Turn: Speciation...................................................................................................................................105
A2: Species – DA Turns Case – NW = Species Extinction........................................................................................106
***Water Scarcity***.................................................................................................................................................106
Water Scarcity Bad – Failed States.............................................................................................................................107
Water Scarcity Bad – Timeframe................................................................................................................................109
Water Scarcity Bad – Laundry List.............................................................................................................................110
Water Scarcity Bad – Agriculture................................................................................................................................111
Water Scarcity Bad – US Econ....................................................................................................................................112
Water Scarcity Bad – Climate Refugees.....................................................................................................................113
***Water Scarcity Answers***..................................................................................................................................117
AT Water Wars- Solved Now......................................................................................................................................118
AT Water Wars- People Migrate..................................................................................................................................119
AT Water Scarcity -- General......................................................................................................................................120
***Climate Refugees Answers***.............................................................................................................................121
AT Climate Refugees- No Data...................................................................................................................................122
AT Climate Refugees- Alt Cause................................................................................................................................123
***Warming Answers***...........................................................................................................................................124
A2: Warming = Fires – Turn: Decreases Fires............................................................................................................125
A2: Warming = Species Extinction.............................................................................................................................126
***Oil Spills***.........................................................................................................................................................127
Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [1/2].................................................................................................................................128
Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [2/2].................................................................................................................................129
Oil Spills Bad-Econ-Tourism......................................................................................................................................130
Oil Spills Bad-Sea Food Industry ..............................................................................................................................131
**Oil Spills Good**....................................................................................................................................................132
Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Detergent...................................................................................................................133
Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Coral..........................................................................................................................134
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Indict.................................................................................................................135
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Spills = Natural.................................................................................................136
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-No Long Term Effect........................................................................................137
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Large Fish...............................................................................138
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Shipping Lanes Solve.............................................................139
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Shipping lanes solve.........................................................................................140
Oil Spills Answers – DA Turns Case-War..................................................................................................................141
***Deforestation***...................................................................................................................................................142
Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss.............................................................................................................143
Impact Deforestation – Global Disease Spread/Extinction.........................................................................................144
Impact Deforestation – Extinction..............................................................................................................................145
Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss.............................................................................................................146
Impact Deforestation – Poverty..................................................................................................................................147
AT – Deforestation ...................................................................................................................................................148
***Deforestation Answers***....................................................................................................................................149
Turn – Deforestation Good – Economy/Food.............................................................................................................150
Turn – Deforestation Good – Economics....................................................................................................................151
Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling.............................................................................................................152
Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling.............................................................................................................153
AT – Deforestation Causes Flooding..........................................................................................................................154
AT – Deforestation - Exaggerated ..............................................................................................................................158
AT – Biodiversity Loss................................................................................................................................................159
AT – Biodiversity Loss................................................................................................................................................160
AT: Defo – DA Turns Case – NW...............................................................................................................................162
Deforestation ............................................................................................................................................................163
Deforestation ............................................................................................................................................................164
***Toxic Waste Answers***......................................................................................................................................165
Toxic Waste Answers- No Health Risk.......................................................................................................................166
Toxic Waste Answers - Exaggerated...........................................................................................................................167
Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Power Plant Emissions..................................................................................................168
Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Waste Water ..................................................................................................................169
Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Brownfield Waste..........................................................................................................170
***Econ Tools***.......................................................................................................................................................171
A2: Resilience 1/1.......................................................................................................................................................172
Econ Resilient 1/1.......................................................................................................................................................174
Growth = inflation 1/1.................................................................................................................................................175
Growth decreases inflation 1/1...................................................................................................................................176
US Key to World Econ 1/1..........................................................................................................................................177
US Not Key to World Econ 1/1...................................................................................................................................179
A2: Growth solves war 1/1.........................................................................................................................................180
DA Turns Case – NW – General

Nuke war kills the environment – Causes pollution, deforestation, crazy weather, species
extinction, and an ice age
Crutzen et al. 84 (Paul J. Crutzen, Ian E. Galbally and Christoph Brühl, Climatic Change, Volume 6, Number 4
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h8jq3735g0587602/)
During a large nuclear war, the atmosphere would be loaded with huge quantities of pollutants, which
are produced by fires in urban and industrial centers, cultivated lands, forests and grasslands. Especially
detrimental are the effects of light absorbing airborne particles. An analysis of the amounts of the various
types of fuels which could burn in a nuclear war indicates that more than 1014 g of black smoke could be
produced by fires started by the nuclear explosions. Due to this, the penetration of sunlight to the
earth's surface would be reduced greatly over extended areas of the northern hemisphere, maybe even
globally. This could temporarily cause extreme darkness in large areas in midlatitudes and reduce crop
growth and biospheric productivity. This situation would last for several weeks and cause very
anomalous meteorological conditions. Much solar radiation would be absorbed in the atmosphere instead of
at the earth's surface. The land areas and lower atmosphere would, therefore, cool and the overlying
atmosphere warm, creating strong vertical thermal stability in a highly polluted atmosphere. For
extended periods and in large parts of the world, weather conditions would be abnormal. The resulting
cold, probably freezing, temperatures at the ground would interfere severely with crop production
during the growing season and cause extreme conditions for large sections of the biosphere. The
combination of lack of sunlight, frost and other adverse meteorological conditions would add enormously to
the already huge problems of the survivors.
***Desertification***
Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Decreasing
Arable land is steadily decreasing.
Jiao 8 [Wu, China Daily, “Arable land reserves continue to decline,” April 17,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-04/17/content_6624879.htm]
The country's arable land bank fell by 40,700 hectares last year, to 121.73 million hectares, still above
the government's 120 million "critical" mark, the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR) said yesterday.
The figures were published in the 2007 National Land and Resources Communiqu. The total arable land
area at the end of 2006 was 122 million hectares, the MLR report said.
Desertification: Impact – Large Scale
Desertification could affect one third of all land and one billion people.
Munir 4 [Shafqat, September 1, “Desertification, Drought hit sustainable development, food security”
http://www.jdhr.org/publications/papers/Desertification%20Article%20for%20PE.pdf
Desertification has long been recognized as a major economic, social, and environmental problem of
concern to many countries in all regions of the world. Desertification is the degradation of land in arid, semi-
arid, and dry sub-humid areas. Primarily human activities and climatic variations cause desertification. It
does not refer to the expansion of existing deserts. It occurs because dry-land ecosystems, which cover
over one third of the world's land area, are extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation and
inappropriate land-use. Poverty, political instability, deforestation, overgrazing, and bad irrigation practices
could all undermine the land's productivity. Over 250 million people are directly affected by
desertification in the world. In addition, some one billion people in over 100 countries are at risk.
These people include many of the world's poorest, most marginalized, and politically weak citizens.
Desertification: Impact – War/Laundry List
Desertification results in food insecurity, droughts, and wars – hundreds of thousands die.
Koohafkan 96 [A.P., Senior Officer, Environment and Sustainable Development, “Desertification, drought and
their consequences,” http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/epan0005.htm]
By impoverishing the natural potential of the ecosystems, desertification also reduces agricultural yields,
making them more unpredictable. It therefore affects the food security of the people living in the
affected areas. The people develop a survival strategy in order to attend to their most urgent
requirements, and this in turn helps to aggravate desertification and hold up development. The most
immediate and frequent consequence of these survival attitudes is the increased over-exploitation of
accessible natural resources. This strategy is often accompanied by a breakdown in solidarity within the
community and within households, and encourages individualism and exclusion. It leads to conflict
between different ethnic groups, families and individuals. Lastly, desertification considerably heightens
the effects of climatic crises (droughts) and political crises (wars), generally leading to migration,
causing suffering and even death to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.
These consequences, in turn, weaken the economies of the developing countries affected by
desertification, particularly when they have no other resources than their agriculture. This is
particularly true in the African countries in the dry zones: their economy is unable to offset the increasingly
serious effects of desertification, and they have to deal with emergency situations created by drought and
desertification despite the increasing debt burden that is reducing their possibility of making productive
investment in order to break the spiral of underdevelopment.
Desertification: Impact – Biodiversity (I/L)
Desertification destroys biodiversity, which destroys food supplies and medical

opportunities.
Another consequence of desertification at the local and global level is the reduction in biodiversity, since
it contributes to the destruction of the habitats of animal and vegetable species and micro-organisms.
It encourages the genetic erosion of local livestock and plant varieties and species living in fragile
ecosystems. It is extremely difficult to put a figure on this loss because of our inadequate familiarity with the
features, the siting and the economic importance of the biodiversity of the dry zones. A substantial part of it is
still fairly unknown to scientists, even though the local people are very familiar with it. Reducing the
biodiversity directly affects the food and health of the local people who rely on a large number of
different animal and vegetable species. But it is also a loss to the whole of mankind. Many genetic
strains of cultivated plants which form the basis of the food and health of the world's population
originate from the dry zones: their disappearance can affect the possibility of producing plant-based
medicines to combat specific diseases or epidemics.
Desertification destroys biodiversity – specific scenario.
Safriel 97 [Uriel N., Professor, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, “Relations Between Biodiversity,
Desertification, and Climate Change,” Israel Environment Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1, http://www.israel-
mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Communiques/1997/RELATIONS%20BETWEEN%20BIODIVERSITY-
%20DESERTIFICATION%20AN]
When the transformation of rangeland to irrigated cropland results in desertification, the effect on
biodiversity is in the loss of natural ecosystems. When the overexploitation of rangeland results in
desertification, the effects on biodiversity are first expressed in the direct loss of plant species and the
animals associated with them, and later in the loss of topsoil and the potential for rehabilitating
biodiversity. These biodiversity losses, both in goods and services, further exacerbate desertification in
the affected areas. They also affect adjacent and other areas, that used to enjoy some of the services,
such as aquifer recharge for example.
Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity (I/L)
Desertification leads to drought.
Droughts occur frequently in the areas affected by desertification, and are generally a feature of their
natural climate. The relations between desertification and drought on the one hand, and human influence on
the other, are complex. Occasional droughts (due to seasonal or inter-year variations in rainfall) and
long-term droughts covering wide areas are both caused or aggravated by the influence of man on the
environment (the reduction in vegetation cover, the change in the Albedo effect, changes in the local
climate, the greenhouse effect, etc.). Human influence can also hasten desertification and aggravate the
negative consequences on man. But the degradation of land due to desertification has a serious
compounding effect on drought, and thereby reduces the chances of the local people to cope with
difficult periods.
Desertification depletes ground water reserves.
Lastly, desertification directly reduces the world's fresh water reserves. It has a direct impact on river
flow rates and the level of groundwater tables. The reduction of river flow rates and the lowering of
groundwater levels leads to the silting up of estuaries, the encroachment of salt water into water tables, the
pollution of water by suspended particles and salination, which in turn reduces the biodiversity of
fresh and brackish water and fishing catches, interfering with the operation of reservoirs and irrigation
channels, increasing coastal erosion and adversely affecting human and animal health. Lastly,
desertification leads to an accelerated and often unbridled exploitation of underground fossil water
reserves, and their gradual depletion.
Desertification destroys quality water sources.
Diallo 4 [Hama Arba, UNCCD Executive Secretary, “Joining Up to Stop Desertification,”

http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/733/tfu.2004.02(17-18).e.pdf]
Desertification also has serious natural consequences. It can make land areas more flood-prone, cause soil
salinisation and lead to the deterioration of water quality. Unsustainable irrigation practices can dry the
rivers that feed large lakes; the Aral Sea and Lake Chad, for example, have both seen their shorelines
shrink dramatically in recent years. Land degradation is also a leading source of land-based pollution in
the oceans.
Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity => Fire/Air Pollution
Drought causes fires and air pollution.
UNCCD 8 [“Human Health Severely Affected by Desertification and Drought, says the World Health
Organization,” January 17, http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/pressrel/showpressrel.php?pr=press10_12_00]
Furthermore, drought increases the susceptibility of some forests and rangelands to fire, often resulting
in severe episodes of air pollution, which may also affect neighbouring countries. This biomass burning
can cause acute respiratory disease and exacerbate chronic respiratory disease in children and adults.
Desertification: Impact – Refugees (I/L)
Desertification risks displacing 50 million by 2017 – it’s the biggest threat to stability.
Reilly 7 [William M., UPI U.N. Correspondent, “The Challenge Of Desertification,” June 28,
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Challenge_Of_Desertification_999.html]
But, it's mass migration that raises the greatest fear of international instability.
One-third of all people -- about 2 billion -- are potential victims of desertification's creeping effect, UNU
said.
Left unchecked, the number of people at risk of displacement due to severe desertification is an
estimated 50 million over the next 10 years -- migrants worldwide equal in number to the entire population
of South Africa or South Korea.
Desertification results in mass refugee movements.
Diallo 4 [Hama Arba, UNCCD Executive Secretary, “Joining Up to Stop Desertification,”

http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/733/tfu.2004.02(17-18).e.pdf]
Desertification is at the root of many political and socioeconomic problems and poses a threat to the
ecosystem stability of affected regions. The land’s loss of productivity exacerbates poverty and can
stimulate the large-scale movement of peoples. In the next  years, for example, some  million people
are expected to move from the degraded areas of sub-Saharan Africa towards northern Africa and Europe. In
fact,  million people—equivalent to the population of Germany and France combined—are at risk of
being displaced as a consequence of desertification.
Desertification: Impact – Refugees => Conflict
Migration from desertification sparks multiple scenarios for conflict.
Scholz 7 [Dr Imme, Head of Department, Environmental Policy and Management of Natural Resources, German
Development Institute, “The Role of Governance in Combating Desertification,” Febraury,
http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/07-0302.pdf
Desertification can also be a dangerous mechanism for the transmission of conflict. Environmental
migration means hardship not only for the people who have to leave their homes to seek a new living,
but also for those already living in the regions into which they move.
Already adept at competing for fertile land, water, food and other resources in their homelands, the
migrants are a significant threat for the residents in destination areas. Add in ethnic tensions or border
conflicts, for example, and you set the scene for confrontation. Look no further than Rwanda and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia and neighbouring countries, and especially
Sudan, where you find all the ingredients for polarisation and violence: severe soil degradation, lack of
water, and animosity between settled and nomadic population, between Africans and Arabs.
Pressure put on governments by environmental refugees can result in ethic conflict.
Mouat1 8 [David, Desert Research Institute, “Desertification and Societal Uncertainties,” June, Air Lands
Newsletter, No. 60, http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln60/mouat.pdf]
Environmental refugees are typically poor and need shelter, food and medical care. Additionally, they
may bring different customs, religions, agricultural practices and diseases with them, and many
governments, at national or local scale, simply do not have the resources to deal with this situation
(Tickell 2003). An influx of refugees into an area already experiencing environmental stress (such as
desertification) and depletion of resources is, according to Liotta (2003), likely to result in ethnic clashes
and infrastructure collapse. Adaptation is an infinitely preferable option, but may not be viable if decisions
are put off until it is too late.
Drought causes fires and air pollution.
UNCCD 8 [“Human Health Severely Affected by Desertification and Drought, says the World Health
Organization,” January 17, http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/pressrel/showpressrel.php?pr=press10_12_00]
Furthermore, drought increases the susceptibility of some forests and rangelands to fire, often resulting
in severe episodes of air pollution, which may also affect neighbouring countries. This biomass burning
can cause acute respiratory disease and exacerbate chronic respiratory disease in children and adults.
Desertification: Impact – Global Warming (+) Feedback Cycle
Desertification and global warming contribute to each other – solving either problem will
solve the other.
Climate change, mainly global warming, results from non-sustainable development: emission of greenhouses
gases coupled with destruction of their natural sinks vegetation. Reduction of soil plant cover in drylands
due to the desertification process causes further reduction of sinks, i.e., global warming, which in turn
exacerbates desertification. Warming increases evapotranspiration hence aridity, thus bringing more
drylands under the risk of desertification. Loss of surface moisture due to desertification releases solar
energy, otherwise expended on evaporation, to warming of the lower atmosphere. This increases
warming and reduces rainfall. Thus, desertification and climate change are interlinked by positive
feedback relations. Desertification and climate change are therefore a manifestation of non-sustainable
development. Desertification can result from non- sustainable water resource development and use, and
climate change may further reduce water supplies.
Desertification: AT Gender Equity Turn
Desertification subjects women to violence and loss of educational opportunities.
Mwanundu and Lubbock 6 [Sheila, senior technical adviser for environment and natural resource
management, Annina, senior technical adviser for gender and poverty targeting, IFAD “Gender and Desertification:
Expanding Roles for Women to Restore Drylands,” May, http://www.ifad.org/pub/gender/desert/gender_desert.pdf]
Lack of access to water is also a serious constraint that has grown dramatically in recent years due to the privatization of water services,
poor service delivery and increasing population. It is dependent on land rights, control over resources, capacity, and social networks, all
of which are more severely restricted among women than among men. Land allocation policy is thus crucial to understanding water
rights and allocations. Local norms can curtail women’s ownership and rights of access to water resources (Gender and Water Alliance,
2003). Experience has shown that water rights are generally appropriated by the more powerful, and this does not lead to a proper
distribution and use of water resources. There is often fierce competition for irrigated land, and, because they have less social or political
power, women tend to be disadvantaged. The commonly held view that women cannot contribute fully to irrigation system maintenance
excludes them. However, in some countries, women are as active as men in digging irrigation canals and maintaining them (IFAD,
2001a). In areas of water scarcity, women lose out unless gender-sensitive policies have been adopted (Venkataswaran, 1995). In
addition, desertification forces poor women and children (most often girls) to travel ever greater distances
from home to fetch water for domestic use and livestock (as well as for fuelwood), sometimes exposing
them to violence and forcing girls to drop out of school to assist in these tasks. The alternative that
many overburdened women are forced to accept is a severe shortage of water for consumption, which
threatens the health of their families.
Increased responsibilities from desertification have not empowered women – all benefits
are illusory and confined to household decisions.
Women are significantly affected when erosion and diminished soil fertility result in decreased crop and livestock productivity, thereby
reducing the sources of income derived from these products. Beyond the deterioration in the physical environment, women claim
that desertification has changed the entire context of their lives (Leisinger and Schmitt, 1995).
Besides the resulting increase in workloads, women are particularly affected by the migration of growing numbers of men. As
environmental conditions worsen, more men migrate for longer periods, sometimes even permanently. Meanwhile, household and farm
chores are becoming not only more difficult but also more crucial to survival. The migrating men are contributing less and less to family
incomes. Women are therefore trying to expand their productive role to earn incomes and ensure living standards above mere survival
for their households.
As women increase their contributions of farmlabour and household maintenance, they are also becoming
responsible for more decision-making if long-term migration means that major decisions, such as the
purchase or sale of livestock or changes in cropping patterns, cannot wait for the men’s return. Women
are becoming de facto heads of households, and this is increasing the vulnerability of families to extreme
poverty as women assume traditionally male responsibilities without the same levels of access to financial,
technological and social resources. Women’s workloads and responsibilities have become greater, but
women have not enjoyed a corresponding rise in influence and opportunities.
Many alternative causes for local patriarchy.
Despite their multiple, major roles in agricultural, water and forestry management, women are not able to
access the full range of extension and advisory services, inputs and knowledge of new technologies that
are provided to men in the same communities. This is due to many factors, including: • high rates of
illiteracy • lack of land ownership • cultural restrictions on women’s mobility and participation in
public events • an extreme shortage of free time to attend training sessions and meetings • women’s own
lack of confidence • commonly held gender biases in institutions related to these sectors that view only
the men as the farmers and thus limit their outreach activities to men, wrongly assuming that somehow
knowledge will be conveyed to women.

***AT Desertification***
AT Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Up

No starvation – plenty of arable land and agricultural transitions solve.
Phair 8 [John Today’s Farmer, “Earth has enough resources for both food and fuel, U.S.-based researcher says,”
April 26, http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=98&x=story&xid=396234]
Nelson says there is enough arable land available to grow all the food and fuel the world needs, as well
as providing manufacturers with a source of affordable feedstocks and raw materials. “I want to make it
very clear that we can get all the material we need for all the products we need from the crops we grow.”
Nelson was a keynote speaker at the Growing the Margins conference in London. He said the it’s an amazing
time for farmers, but warned no one should underestimate the amount of transition and change that
agriculture must undergo in the near future. “There is a major re-alignment of agri-business, chemical,
bio-tech and petroleum companies already in progress and that will change the entire face of
agriculture. I can’t stress that too much.”
AT Desertification: Turn – Prioritizing the Environment
Desertification leads to adaptation which solves
While the survival attitudes caused by desertification have often led to a decline in agricultural know-how,
they have conversely encouraged the development of technical know-how, particularly relating to the
environment and conservation. The micro-undertakings that have been implemented in many places over
the past fifteen years have made it possible to build up a store of know-how to be able to implement new
approaches. In many regions, the perception by the rural people of the importance of their environment
and the priority given to a better relationship with the environment, have also changed. More
increasingly, rural people are realising that:
-a fragile environment on which they depend for their survival is being neglected or over-exploited,
and it is now necessary to rehabilitate it and manage it sustainably;
-the environment belongs primarily to them, and that they must take the responsibility for the land
and set up organisations (groups, cooperatives, village development associations and other local
associations). Greater awareness at the highest level of government has also made it possible to draft and
adopt the International Convention on Desertification, and the undertaking by the Heads of State of most of
the world's countries to enter a partnership contract to effectively combat desertification by taking a
participatory approach.
AT Desertification: Turn – Gender Equity
A. There are unequal gender relations now in regions at risk of desertification.
UNEP 3 [United Nations Environment Programme, Chapter 4: “Women and desertification:

a dynamic relationship,” http://www.unep.org/pdf/women/chapterfour.pdf]
Despite all those efforts, women living in drylands also tend to rank among the poorest of the poor, with
little power to bring about real 50 change. They are often excluded from participation in land
conservation and development projects, from agricultural extension work and from policies that directly
affect their livelihoods. Ownership and decision-making over livestock is normally in the male domain,
and even in female-headed households there is still an element of male decision-making in the form of
extended family members.
B. Desertification reverses unequal gender relations – women gain control of land.
But desertification also leads to a positive change in certain behaviour patterns. These include, in
particular, the attitude of the women who have to cope with the problems caused by the absence of the
men, who have to leave to seek work elsewhere. The extra burden of work and the responsibilities
which the women have to undertake are having two consequences:
-women are now demanding greater ease of access to the land, particularly the land they manage
themselves. Women are gradually acquiring the permission of their communities, and are causing land
title rules to develop. Combating desertification cannot ignore or under-estimate the new power
relationship that is thus being created;
-women are becoming increasingly aware of the need to space births. In many places in the world, however,
they frequently come up against cultural and religious taboos, the disapproval of the men, and reluctance of
their government to support them.
AT Desertification: Reversible
USGS 97 [Publications Service Center, “Desertification,” Oct 29, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/

While desertification has received tremendous publicity by the political and news media, there are still many things
that we don't know about the degradation of productive lands and the expansion of deserts. In 1988 Ridley Nelson
pointed out in an important scientific paper that the desertification problem and processes are not clearly defined.
There is no consensus among researchers as to the specific causes, extent, or degree of desertification. Contrary to
many popular reports, desertification is actually a subtle and complex process of deterioration that may often be
reversible.
AT Desertification: Alt Cause
They don’t solve the main causes for desertification.
IFOAM 6 [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, “Organic Agriculture’s Role in Combating
Desertification,” http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/pdfs/IFOAM_Role_of_OA_in_
combating_desertification.pdf]
Desertification refers to land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various
factors, including climatic variations and human activities like conventional agriculture. Desertification is
caused mainly by overcultivation, overgrazing, deforestation and poor irrigation practices, which
result in organic matter loss, soil contamination, erosion, soil compaction and sealing, salinization and
long-term loss of natural vegetation.
Various human activities cause desertification.
Even though the cycles of drought years and climatic changes can contribute to the advance of
desertification, it is mainly caused by changes in the ways man uses the natural resources, mainly by
over-grazing, land clearance, over-cropping cultivated land and wood formations and more generally
using land in a way that is inappropriate for the local conditions. Human activities connected with
agriculture, livestock and forestry production vary widely from one country and from one type of society to
another, as do the strategies for land-use and the technologies employed.
Unsustainable agriculture, in its myriad of forms, causes desertification.
UNCCD 8 [United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, “World Day to Combat Desertification 17 June
2008,” June 17, http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/june17/2008/menu.php?newch=l3]
Unsustainable agriculture has direct and strong impact on the soil to the point that it cannot regenerate
naturally. Soil nutrients and organic matter begin to diminish as intensive agriculture removes
quantities of nutrients greater than the soil’s natural regeneration capacities. As a consequence, the soil
is unable to recover, as it does during fallow periods, resulting an ever-increasing spiral of land
degradation and desertification.
The principal causes exacerbating land degradation derives from the farmers’ determination to maximize soil
productivity, which include: crops cultivated in areas at high risk from drought; shortening of crop
cycles and the reduction of fallow periods; insufficient use of fertilizer after harvesting; inadequate crop
rotation or worse, monoculture; intensive labour; intense breeding and overgrazing with pressure on
vegetation and soil trampling by livestock; separation of cattle rearing and agriculture, eliminating a
source of natural fertilizer or organic matter used to regenerate the soil; deforestation; bush and forest
fires; in mountainous regions, crops are cultivated along the downward sloping face rather than following the
natural contour lines of the mountain; deterioration of terraces and other soil and water conservation
techniques.
AT Desertification: Alt Cause
High population and government policy are amongst the causes of desertification.
Desertification refers to the process of land degradation that results from various factors in arid, semi-arid
and dry sub-humid areas. It is a process by which drylands lose their productive capacity, leading to food
insecurity and poverty, in a cause-effect relationship. Characterized by climate variability, these lands sustain
pastoralists and small-scale farmers, but are susceptible to desertification as a result of increasing human
population, inappropriate government land-use policies, settlement, climate change, deforestation,
expropriation of rangelands, land clearance, overgrazing, inappropriate irrigation practices, political
instability and poverty. The livelihoods of over 1.2 billion people inhabiting dryland areas in 110 countries
are currently threatened by drought and desertification.
Salinization is the main cause of desertification.
Nasr 99 [Mamdouh, Center for Development Research, Bonn, “Assessing Desertification and Water Harvesting in
the Middle East and North Africa: Policy Implications,” Discussion Papers on Development Policy, No. 10,
http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/zef_dp/zef_dp10-99.pdf]
Salinization is the main desertification problem in irrigated agriculture. Salinization involves a number
of interrelated processes occuring in the soil, for example waterlogging, increasing salt content, and
alkalinization, in which some nutrients can no longer be absorbed due to the increasing pH-value of
the soil. This problem is caused by the overuse of water through unsuitable irrigation techniques,
accompanied by inefficient drainage systems. This type of desertification is to be seen in some of the
irrigated agriculture in Iraq and Egypt.
AT Desertification: GM Solves
Genetically modified food could be grown in desertified regions – prevents starvation.
Rocky Mountain News 4 [“Issues of Dignity Focus of U.S.-Vatican Ties,” September 2,

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3155316,00.html]
Nicholson: We don't have convergence of this issue, though I'm working to try to persuade them otherwise.
About 80 percent of our corn and soybeans are the product of genetically modified seed, which is
tremendous because yields are heavier, it's better for the environment, uses less water, herbicides and
pesticides, and it's easier to cultivate in harsher climates. There's no science that supports any claim of
deleterious health effects. But the Vatican has basically sat idly by while the European community protects
its growers from foreign competition and makes what are largely bogus claims about food security. The big
problem is the effect on Africa, where millions are starving. The odd thing is the argument the Europeans
have been able to sell to the African nations, which is that if you ever allow genetically modified food into
your countries some people are going to grow it but you'll never be able to export it to Europe. And this is
said to countries with whole populations under duress.
AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Now
The UNCCD has a framework set up that uses a diverse set of techniques to bring organic
agriculture anywhere.
The UNCCD is providing a universal legal policy and advocacy framework for its 193 Parties to
combat desertification and land degradation. In implementing the Convention, the great leverage has been
made through the unique participatory process of local stakeholders, including farmers and rural
populations that offer a number of possibilities to illustrate. In addition, capacity building, sharing of best
practices and case studies, partnership development and awareness raising are some of the areas to be
refocused under the newly adopted Ten-year strategic plan and framework to enhance the
implementation of the Convention (2008-2018). The UNCCD supports member Parties to combat land
degradation for sustainable agriculture as the way for future.
The UNCCD has a program to preserve valuable traditional knowledge that promotes
sustainable agriculture.
There are many local initiatives and traditional knowledge that comes from indigenous people and small
communities that can play an important role in promoting sustainable agriculture and protect soils and
water resources. Traditional knowledge and technology can actually be a key tool for the generation of
better livelihoods, incomes and sustainable land management trough sustainable agricultural activities.
The three Rio conventions (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCCD and United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change) are promoting initiatives to rescue and compile knowledge
produced by local and indigenous populations as well as to assess possibilities of adapting them to
modern production conditions. One example is the case of the “bio-mass increase” technology, known
in Honduras by the indigenous people as “Quezungual.” The technology involves the development of
agricultural activities and the protection of existing vegetation and biodiversity. The effectiveness of
Quezungal has been recognized by the World Bank and can be verified through the weaker damages
caused by the Mitch hurricane in regions where this technology was used relative to other regions.
AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Solves
Organic agriculture solves all the root causes of desertification.
IFOAM 6 [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, EU, “Organic Agriculture’s Role in
Combating Desertification,” http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/pdfs/IFOAM_Role_of_OA_in_
combating_desertification.pdf]
Organic Agriculture increases the resilience of soils to both water stress and nutrient loss. It
contributes to combating desertification by preventing soil erosion and land degradation as well as by
helping rehabilitate degraded land.
Organic Agriculture helps: Improve soil fertility by maintaining and building a fertile living soil
through frequent organic matter inputs, sustained soil cover, crop rotations and intercropping. Organic
Agriculture farming systems integrate crops and animals and can therefore reduce overgrazing and
facilitate nutrient recycling on the farm. Prevent wind and water erosion of the soils through a better,
more stable soil structure and texture and through persistent and diversified soil cover and agro-
forestry. Improve water infiltration and retention capacity through high levels of organic matter and
permanent soil cover, such as cover crops or mulch, which substantially reduce the amount of water
needed for irrigation. Reduce surface and ground water consumption and subsequent soil salinization
through increased water retention capacity, reduction of water evaporation, and the creation of suitable
micro-climates in dry areas through diversified organic agro-forestry systems that can attract and
retain atmospheric humidity. Reduce ground and surface water contamination by refraining from the
use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, thereby protecting the little water available in dry areas from
pesticide contamination and nitrate and phosphate leaching.
Organic agriculture promotes a wide range of techniques to solve desertification.
IFOAM 8 [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement, EU, “How Organic Agriculture
contributes to combat Desertification,” June 16, http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=23735]
Combating desertification requires an integrated approach. Organic Agriculture [1], including
techniques such as windbreaks, shelterbelts and reforestation, should be promoted and strengthened with
socio-economic measures that address insecure land tenure systems and promote sustainable human
settlements.
Organic Agriculture helps to improve soil fertility, prevent wind and water erosion, improve water
infiltration and retention capacity and reduce surface and ground water consumption and
contamination – all measures contributing to bringing land back to life.
Gerald A. Hermann, IFOAM’s President, emphasizes that “Farm practices that do not take care of the soil
and its organic and living content undermine the very resource agriculture depends on – the land.”
AT Desertification: Pastoralism Solves
WISP is promoting pastoralism – the most economically effective way to counteract

desertification.
Davies 5+ [Jonathan, World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, “Global Changes in Pastoral Policy,” most
recent reference, http://www.inweh.unu.edu/inweh/drylands/IYDD_Conference_2006-Abstracts.pdf]
The future of the drylands lies in the hands of mobile pastoralists. In direct contrast to popular opinion,
pastoralism is essential to dryland ecosystem health and it is one of the few production systems that are
genuinely environmentally friendly to the drylands. Furthermore, and also in contrast to popular opinion,
pastoralism is the most economically viable means of managing the drylands. Nevertheless, many
governments, particularly in the developing world, still consider pastoralism to be the scourge of both
development and the environment and they create policies that deliberately undermine it. Yet some
governments around the world are slowly recognising the value of pastoralism and are beginning to
accommodate mobility within policy.
The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) is a global network for knowledge
management on pastoralism and sustainable land management. This paper from WISP will present
findings of a global review on the economics of pastoralism that illustrate the importance of pastoralism to
developing country economies, the policy failures that undermine pastoralism, and policy trends from around
the world. The paper will stress the importance of pastoralism in protecting drylands ecosystems and
will illustrate how this attribute is consistently under-valued, and thus is being lost.
AT Desertification: Wind Breaks Solve
Windbreaks can prevent desertification.
USGS 97 [Publications Service Center, “Desertification,” Oct 29, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/

At the local level, individuals and governments can help to reclaim and protect their lands. In areas of
sand dunes, covering the dunes with large boulders or petroleum will interrupt the wind regime near
the face of the dunes and prevent the sand from moving. Sand fences are used throughout the Middle
East and the United States, in the same way snow fences are used in the north. Placement of straw grids,
each up to a square meter in area, will also decrease the surface wind velocity. Shrubs and trees planted
within the grids are protected by the straw until they take root. In areas where some water is available
for irrigation, shrubs planted on the lower one-third of a dune's windward side will stabilize the dune.
This vegetation decreases the wind velocity near the base of the dune and prevents much of the sand from
moving. Higher velocity winds at the top of the dune level it off and trees can be planted atop these flattened
surfaces.
AT Desertification: Cacti Solve
Cacti can reverse the effects of desertification.
IFAD 7 [August 20, “Opuntia spp: an efficient tool to combat desertification,” http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/tans/7.htm]
Marginal lands are fragile ecosystems, and when subjected to ploughing and indiscriminate vegetation
removal the result has been large-scale degradation and destruction of vegetative cover. The increasing
scarcity, if not disappearance, of several plant species indicates the magnitude of genetic and edaphic losses.
Significant achievements in desertification control using cactus to reverse the desertification trend and
restore the vegetative cover in marginal arid and semi-arid areas, appropriate integrated packages can
be applied for rangeland monitoring, livestock husbandry, and natural resources conservation.
Spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica), a drought- and erosion-tolerant plant, is being used advantageously
in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco to slow and direct sand movement, enhance the restoration of
vegetative cover, and avoid the destruction by water of the land terraces built to reduce runoff.
Cacti can adapt to desertified regions.
The increased importance of cacti, such as Opuntia species, in arid zones is because of their ability to (i)
grow in “deserts” and their drought tolerance; (ii) produce forage, fruit, and other useful products;
and (iii) mitigate long-term degradation of ecologically fragile environments.The various Opuntia
species have developed phenological, physiological and structural adaptations favouring survival in arid
environments, in which water is the main factor limiting the development of most plant species. Pre-eminent
among these adaptations are asynchronous reproduction and its crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM),
which combine with structural adaptations, such as succulence, to allow this plant to continue the
assimilation of carbon dioxide during long periods of drought. In this way, acceptable productivity levels
are attained even in years of severe drought.
They can develop in severely degraded soils, which are inadequate for other crops. Opuntia spp. have a great
capacity for adaptation and are ideal for responding to global environmental changes. Their root
characteristics avoid wind and rain erosion, encouraging their growth in degraded areas.
Empirically cacti have been used successfully to counteract desertification.
In central and south Tunisia, cactus plantations provide a large amount of fodder for livestock and play a
key role in natural resources conservation. Land terraces are easily damaged by water runoff, but use
of cactus helps to stabilize them, with its deep and strong rooting system. Two rows of cactus pads are
planted on the inner side of the terraces (Figure 1). The rooting system is enhanced by the availability of the
water collected at the base of the terrace. Roots are widely spread on the elevated land part and penetrate
deeply in the soil to ensure stability of the terraces. In addition, cut-and-carried pads provide feed
resources during drought spells.
Cactus can be used in combination with cement barriers or cut palm leaves to stop wind erosion and sand
movement. It will fix the soil and enhance the restoration of the vegetative plant cover (Figure 2).
CommonAl planting techniquesSpineless cactus has been used for several years on a very large scale in arid
and semi-arid areas of North Africa. About 500000 ha have been planted in Tunisia for rangeland
improvement and erosion control in areas where rainfall ranges from 150 to 400 mm/year.
***Air Pollution Harms***

Air Pollution – It’s Up

Decreases are uneven – Concentrations harm millions
EPA 8 (7-18, http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ozone/ozonetech/airtrends/intro.html)

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

The VOC and NOx emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone have decreased 54% and
25%, respectively, since 1970 despite significant increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (155%),
population (39%), energy consumption (45%), and the economy (176%). These emissions declined during
the 1980s and 1990s and showed continued reductions in 2003.
Looking at 2003 alone, more than 100 million people lived in the 209 counties with poor ozone air quality
based on the nation’s 8-hour ozone standard. Most of these counties are located in the Northeast, Mid-
Atlantic, Midwest, and California, with smaller numbers of areas in the South and south-central United
States.
The most consistent and substantial improvements in 8-hour ozone levels occurred in the Northeast and
southern West Coast. In other areas, where regional transport of emissions is significant, ozone trends appear
flatter, indicating the need for greater attention to sources of long-range transported pollutants.
Meteorologically adjusted trends in many eastern U.S. cities reveal interesting patterns in similar ozone
behavior. Many eastern cities exhibited increases in ozone levels during the mid-1990s followed by
improvements since the late 1990s.
Improvements in eastern ozone air quality since the mid-1990s coincide with continued decreases in VOCs
together with NOx emission reductions from the Acid Rain Program and vehicle emission reduction
programs. EPA recently proposed rules to reduce transported precursors of ozone and particulate pollution
from stationary sources. These rules, along with rules on vehicles and off-road engines, will provide
additional NOx emission reductions.
Since 1990, most eastern national parks and other federal lands experienced generally improving ozone air
quality. However, air quality in western parks appeared to degrade. Ozone trends in eastern national
parks/federal lands appear to closely track air quality changes in nearby urban areas.
Over the next 10 to 15 years, scheduled regional emission reductions are expected to result in significantly
fewer areas with unhealthy ozone. However, in several highly populated sections of the country,
supplemental local emission control measures will be needed to attain the national air quality standards for
ozone. Existing emission control measures are not expected to achieve attainment in those areas even as late
as 2015.
Air Pollution=Extinction
Air pollution will cause extinction
Salvador 7 (Lourdes, The American Chronicle [http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/24238] Human
Extinction/ April 14, 2007)
The most common pattern of macroevolutionary trends is extinction. In short “when a species is no
longer adapted to a changed environment, it may die. Extinction seems, in fact, to be the ultimate fate of
all species” (Relethford, 2005). One has to wonder the fate of the human race as the world becomes
more and more toxic and people become more ill. Are 60% (Ray & Oakley, 2003) of Americans taking
psychiatric medications because they are really mentally ill or is it our society that is sick and we the victims
of trying to adapt to a bad environment? How can we justify that 60% is a MAJORITY of the population that
is labeled as mentally ill? How long can we deny the damage of modern pollution to the human body
before we take action? How long can we sustain reproductive damage before we can no longer
reproduce and have children to share our tales of an earlier generation with? Occasionally I have heard
statements such as “we will evolve to tolerate air pollution.” Such statements are absurdities. Natural
selection only operates on variations that are present. If no genetic variation occurs to aid in breathing
polluted air, natural selection will not help us. Even in cases where genetic variation is present, the
environment may change too quickly for us to respond to natural selection. All we have to do is examine
the fossil record to see how inaccurate this misconception is—that 99% of all past species are extinct
shows us that natural selection obviously doesn't always work” (Relethford, 2005). If natural selection
does not work and we will not evolve to handle the ever increasing toxic burden then what hope is there for
us as the world becomes more and more toxic? How can we ensure our future survival as our bodies
become laden with mercury, lead, fire retardants, PCB’s, PBDE’s, Pesticides, Dioxins, pFA’s Phthalates,
Bisphenols, and other chemicals of modern day living while the powers that be deny any connection in the
name of profits?
Air Pollution=Species Extinction

Air pollution causes species extinction
Foreman 4 (Dave [http://www.rewilding.org/thesixthgreatextinction.htm] Rewilding North America/ 2004)
Pollution, whether localized or global (acid rain, greenhouse gases), can poison the waters and soils that
are habitat for sensitive species, or leach away needed nutrients. Global warming and atmospheric ozone
depletion—major threats to life forms worldwide—are caused largely by air pollution.
Air pollution causes biodiversity loss

Swedish NGO Secretariat 97 ([http://www.acidrain.org/pages/publications/factsheet/biodiv.htm] Air
pollution and biodiversity/ October 1997)
Air pollution is a serious threat to the diversity of life. This factsheet deals primarily with the effects of
acidification, nitrogen fallout, and ground-level ozone – where the specific pollutants are sulphur dioxide,
compounds of nitrogen and volatile organic substances. Another potentially serious threat is climate change,
only touched upon here, resulting from anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere of greenhouse gases. In
general it can be said of the effects of air pollutants on biological diversity that: Lower life forms are
usually more affected than higher forms Whereas the effects on larger organisms may be more noticeable,
those that can be seen on lower forms of life are far more extensive, as regards both the number of
species that are affected and sensitivity of individual species. Especially hard hit are lichens, bryophytes,
fungi, and soft bodied aquatic invertebrates. On land, plants are more affected than animals, but not in
freshwater By nature plants are less able to adapt to sudden changes in pollution levels and climate than
animals, which can often migrate or change their source of food. A wide survey of the literature (Tickle et al.
1995) gave evidence of more than three times as many terrestrial plants being affected by pollution as
animals. In freshwater ecosystems on the other hand the decline is greater among animal species than among
plants. It has been found in studies of benthic fauna in Sweden that the diversity of animal species declined
by 40 per cent with a reduction of the water's pH value by one unit, as against a decline of only 25 per cent
for plant species.
Air pollutions causes biodiversity loss and species extinction

Swedish NGO Secretariat 97 ([http://www.acidrain.org/pages/publications/factsheet/biodiv.htm] Air
pollution and biodiversity/ October 1997)
Air pollution is a significant contributory factor to the global decline in biodiversity To date, research
suggests that air pollution has been involved in the decline and attenuation of species, rather than their
extinction. It is likely, however, that if the trend continues, particularly sensitive groups in temperate
regions will continue to decline until they have become extinct. This is, for example, a real possibility for
some lichens. Pollution effects in some areas of the tropics, which are now becoming ever more
widespread, can also lead to extinction of species, since both biodiversity and ecosystems are more
fragile there than in temperate regions.
***Air Pollution Answers***

Air Pollution Answers – It’s Down

Air pollution decreasing
The Economist 8 ([http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751367] Five-ring

circus/ July 17, 2008)
Officials say that, notwithstanding Beijing’s semi-permanent shroud of haze, air quality is improving and
should get even better. For two months, beginning on July 20th, drivers will only be able to use their
vehicles on alternate days depending on their licence-plate numbers. The city plans this month to open
two new underground-railway lines and a rail link to the airport, which could help reduce car traffic
further. The worst-polluting factories in Beijing and its environs are being ordered to cut production or
stop work altogether.
Air pollution is down and trend is up

Ozone levels have decreased over the past 10 to 25 years, and these reductions resulted from emission
control programs. In 2003, the improved air quality resulted mainly from favorable weather conditions and
continuing reductions in emissions.
Ozone is at its lowest level nationally since 1980, but the downward trend is slowing. One-hour levels have
been reduced by 29% and 8-hour levels by 21%. Ozone levels are still decreasing nationwide, but the rate of
decrease for 8-hour levels has slowed since 1990.
The VOC and NOx emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone have decreased 54% and
25%, respectively, since 1970 despite significant increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (155%),
population (39%), energy consumption (45%), and the economy (176%). These emissions declined during
the 1980s and 1990s and showed continued reductions in 2003.
More ev…
Bailey 5 (Ronald, science correspondent – Reason Mag, http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html)

Just in time for Earth Day, the American Enterprise Institute and the Pacific Research Institute released their
annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2005. The 2005 Index looks at trends in air and water
quality, the amount of toxic materials being released into the environment, and forest growth in the United
States. Some the best news is on air quality trends. The Index finds that "air pollution fell again in the United
States to its lowest level ever recorded." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that since
1976, when national measuring began, levels of ozone in the air have dropped 31 percent, sulfur dioxides are
down 72 percent, nitrogen dioxide was cut by 42 percent, carbon dioxide plunged 76 percent, and particulates
(smoke and dust) fell by 31 percent. Air quality in the 10 largest metropolitan areas (four of the five most
improved are in California) has improved an average of 53 percent since 1980.
Status quo will solve for long term air pollution
Schwartz 3 (Joel, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

[http://www.aei.org/books/filter.,bookID.428/book_detail.asp] Why Air Pollution Will Continue to Decline/ June 11,
2003)
Claims that air pollution will increase are not only false, but the exact opposite what will actually
happen. As a result of fleet turnover, and already-adopted regulations, most remaining air pollution
will be eliminated during the next 20 years or so--even without adoption of any new regulations. The
long-term problem of air pollution has thus already been solved. Remaining air pollution concerns are
now a near-term problem. Yet air pollution policy is being driven by the false premise that air pollution will
rise unless we redouble our efforts to reduce it. For example, regulators continue to focus on expensive
policies to reduce long-term emissions, such as electric vehicles, transit, and restrictions on
suburbanization. In reality, no one can stop continued and substantial improvements in air quality.
Policymakers should therefore focus on flexible, least-cost measures to more quickly mitigate remaining
near-term pollution, rather than imposing costly and restrictive ongoing new requirements on the public.
Air Pollution Answers – DA Turns Case – NW
Even a limited nuclear war would release massive amounts of soot in the air
AP 8 (CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/08/tech/main4001130.shtml] Study: Small Nuclear

War Would Shred Ozone/ April 8, 2008)
American scientists have determined that a regional nuclear war would put the world in havoc for at least
a decade by shredding large areas of Earth's protective ozone layer. The countries involved would be
devastated as well as fall victim to the ozone disaster, the scientists' analysis says. Massive fires resulting
from even a limited conflict would blast enough soot into the atmosphere to create an ozone hole over
heavily populated areas, the researchers warned in a paper published Monday in the online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
***Water Pollution Answers***

Water Pollution Answers – It’s Down

Water pollution is down
Bailey 5 (Ronald, science correspondent – Reason Mag, http://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html)
More problematic are water quality trends. Not because they are getting worse, but because
scientists have never devised a good system for tracking water quality trends in rivers and lakes.
The problem is that droughts, floods, seasonality and many other variables affect water quality in
any given body of water at any given point. The EPA, trying to remedy this data insufficiency, has
launched the Wadeable Streams Assessment program which will monitor streams at 500 randomly
selected locations.
Nevertheless, Lake Erie is no longer "dead;" the Potomac, which in the 1960s was lined with signs
warning against coming into contact with the water, now has beavers swimming under the Key
Bridge connecting Roslyn and Georgetown; and the Cuyahoga River, which infamously caught
fire, is now an upscale riverfront dining and entertainment district. The Index points out that the
United States has spent nearly a $1 trillion on water quality since 1970. As a result, the wastes from
165 million Americans are today treated at modern sewage plants, up from 86 million in 1968.
***Dioxin***
Dioxin Bad – Laundry List

Dioxin causes a wide range of health problems from cancer to autism
Campell 8(Jonathan, Health consultant, Natural Therapies for Chronic Illness & Health Maintenance, July 1,
http://www.cqs.com/edioxin.htm)
We now know that dioxin exhibits serious health effects when it reaches as little as a few parts per
trillion in your body fat. Dioxin is a powerful hormone disrupting chemical. By binding to a cell's
hormone receptor, it literally modifies the functioning and genetic mechanism of the cell, causing a wide
range of effects, from cancer to reduced immunity to nervous system disorders to miscarriages and
birth deformity. Because it literally changes the functioning of your cells, the effects can be very obvious
or very subtle. Because it changes gene functions, it can cause so-called genetic diseases to appear, and
can interfere with child development. There is no "threshold" dose - the tiniest amount can cause damage,
and our bodies have no defense against it.
Unfortunately, according to the EPA, much of the population of the U.S. is at the dose at which there can
be serious health effects. How did this happen? For about 40 years we have seen a dramatic increase in the
manufacture and use of chlorinated organic chemicals and plastics. For chemicals, it was insecticides and
herbicides (weed killers). For plastics, it was primarily polyvinyl chloride (PVC). From phonograph records
to automobile seat covers to wire insulation to shampoo bottles to handbags to house siding to plumbing
pipes to wallpaper, we are literally surrounded by PVC. When these chemicals and plastics are manufactured
or burned, dioxin is produced as an unwanted (but inevitable) by-product. Dioxin is also formed in paper
bleaching, so that most paper products are contaminated. This exposes people who use chlorine-bleached
coffee filters (most of the products available), as well as compounding the risks of cancer of those who
smoke cigarettes.
Dioxin had been a little-known threat for many years near factories that produce PVC plastic or chlorinated
pesticides and herbicides, and where those pesticides and herbicides have been heavily used, such as on
farms, near electric and railway lines, apple orchards, paper company forests. It became better known when
Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese civilians, exposed to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange,
became ill. It has been a hazard downstream of paper mills (where chlorine bleach combines with natural
organics in wood pulp and produces dioxin).
Several towns and cities have become contaminated as a result of chemical spills or manufacturing
emissions, some that needed to be evacuated. Love Canal (Niagara Falls, N.Y), Seveso (Italy), Times
Beach (Missouri), Pensacola (Florida), and the entire city of Midland, Michigan have high concentrations of
dioxin.Bizarre health effects, such as cancer, spina bifida (split spine) and other birth defects, autism,
liver disease, endometriosis, reduced immunity, chronic fatigue syndrome, psychological disorders, and
other nerve and blood disorders have been reported.
Dioxin Bad – Dioxin Impact

Dioxin kills tens of thousands every year
Hesse 00 (Stephen, Japan Times, Professor of Law Chu University, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-

bin/fe20000717sh.html)
The U.S. is not the first to admit the dangers of dioxins. In 1998, the World Health Organization dramatically
cut their standard for a tolerable daily intake of dioxin, from 10 picograms per day to between 1 and 4
picograms per kilogram of body weight per day (a picogram is a trillionth of a gram). WHO experts warn
that "subtle effects occur in the general population in developed countries at background levels of 2 to
6 picograms per kg body weight and day."
The EPA report notes that about 7 percent of daily cancer deaths in the U.S., or 100 out of 1,400, could be
due to dioxin. According to the London-based Guardian newspaper, the EPA report concurs with a report
released last year by a group of German scientists who concluded that dioxins could be responsible for 12
percent of human cancers in industrialized countries.
Dioxins are not produced deliberately, but rather are "unwanted byproducts of many chemical industrial
processes and of all combustion processes," according to a 1999 UNEP Chemicals report. UNEP
Chemicals is a division of the United Nations Environment Program. The report, released last May, is titled
"Dioxin and Furan Inventories, National and Regional Emissions of PCDD/PCDF."
Using 1995 as a reference year, UNEP determined that total dioxin emissions from 15 of the most
developed nations were between 8,300 grams and 36,000 grams annually, with a central estimate of
10,300 grams.
Dioxin Bad – Dioxin = Destroy BioD
Dioxin pollution kills freshwater trout
Steiner 3 (Christopher, Nov. 11, Reporter, Knight Ridder Newspaper, http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/il/111103_great_lakes.htm)

American Indians knew them as the namaycush, or "tyrant of the lakes," and before their mystifying
disappearance in the middle of the last century, lake trout sat atop the Great Lakes food chain as a
prodigious predator. When the fish disappeared, it devastated the Great Lakes commercial fishing
industry, opened the door for invasive species to run wild and left scientists with a riddle: What killed off
the lake trout? A new federal study strongly suggests that there was an invisible perpetrator that eradicated
the lake trout, one that finally explains how the king of the largest freshwater system in the world vanished in
a few decades. The results of the 15-year study suggest that minute traces of a type of industrial pollution -
dioxins - likely played a large role in killing off the fish. "This is as close to a smoking gun as we've
found," said Stephen Wittman, spokesman for the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute in Madison.
The findings challenge old theories that overfishing and the invasion of sea lampreys drove down the
numbers of the fish. Lake trout need clean, deep, cold water to survive. This makes their populations one of
the most fragile in the freshwater world. The fish's deep-orange meat resembles a fresh salmon filet minus
the shiny silver skin. The fish mature slowly and have long life spans, sometimes more than 20 years.
Trout are a keystone species
CalTrout 8 (Trout Warriors, July 15, http://www.caltrout.org/pages/conservation/Trout_Conservation_101.asp)

Trout are important for a number of reasons but perhaps their primary importance is as an "indicator
species". When trout disappear from a lake or river, that watershed is in trouble. Trout are referred to as
"cold water fish" because, unlike a number of other species, they prefer cold, clean and often free-flowing
water. When our streams and rivers, slow down, dry out or heat up, it's the trout that are the first to feel it.
Trout are also considered by ecologists to be a 'keystone' species for watersheds. Keystone species are
those that, if they die off, leave critical gaps in the ecosystem that cannot be filled by other species. If trout
are removed from a river system, for instance, the many aquatic insects that they feed on overpopulate,
resulting in destruction of aquatic vegetation. Meanwhile, bears and birds and other land vertebrates
that feed on trout are left without an important food source.
***Dioxin Answers***
Dioxin Answers – Dioxin Levels Low

Dioxin levels are already low due new technology and dioxin has not been proven to cause
health problems
Fleming 94 (Bruce, Feb. 1994, Pulp and Paper, English Professor at the U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolishttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3636/is_199402/ai_n8732335/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)
According to EPA, bleach plant changes will prevent between 2 and 30 cancer cases/year by eliminating
dioxins and furans that accumulate in fish. The changes would also permit lifting 20 to 28 dioxin-related
fishing advisories.
The benefit of reduced cancer cases may not exist. The predicted 2 to 30 cancer cases results from
lengthy extrapolation and is a theoretical calculation based on unverified assumptions. It is
controversial whether any cancer can result from low-level dioxin exposures. (1) (2) Even at extremely
high doses (as in Seveso, Italy) evidence indicates dioxin is, at worst, a weak carcinogen for humans. (3)
Dioxin elimination is being achieved without taking drastic measures that will force mill closures. According
to the Vancouver Sun, dioxin levels in aquatic animals have dropped so fast that officials are considering
lifting the fisheries bans imposed in British Columbia during 1988. (4) British Columbia mills were not
required to eliminate chlorine and install oxygen bleaching to eliminate dioxin. They achieved it primarily by
high CIO sub 2 substitution--exactly what has been done in the U.S.
An AFPA/NCASI report shows the U.S. pulp industry has eliminated 90% of dioxin discharges
compared with 1988. In 1992, the entire U.S. industry released only 4 oz--a minute amount headed for
zero as more mills reach "nondetectable" status.
Dioxin Answers – AT: Health Harms

There is no risk of cancer from Dioxin – Studies prove
Stettler 4 (Jeremiah, reporter, the Saginaw News, April 4, http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/the_saginaw_news2.html)

"Flying an airplane is more of a risk than developing some life-threatening health problem because of
dioxin," he said. What Dow says Dow maintains that residents along the Tittabawassee are not exposed to an undue health risk. Though some soil
samples have revealed dioxin levels that exceed the state safety standard of 90 parts per trillion, Dow officials believe exposure to the
pollutant is limited. "With regard to dioxin and health, there's a great deal of conflicting information, and we understand that people are
concerned," said Susan Carrington, vice president and director of Dow's Michigan Dioxin Initiative. "Please remember, however, that the dioxins and (a
related compound called) furans have to come off the dirt and get into your body - actually into your bloodstream - before there is any potential for a health
risk.
"Based on everything we know, it's unlikely that anyone in this community has absorbed enough dioxin from soils to have any health effects." Company
officials noted that some of the highest samples were unearthed more than a foot beneath the soil - depths that leave little opportunity for exposure.
proof of dioxin-related health effects remains elusive to the science community. Officials cited 17
Dow said
studies of company employees who were exposed to the contaminant but have exhibited cancer rates
no higher than the general population.
The studies track nearly 2,200 employees of Dow's herbicide production facility, dating to 1940, that were exposed to high levels of dioxin. Though the
company has not sampled employees' blood, it found a severe acne-like condition in 11 percent of the workers, which typically denotes high exposure.
Carson said the studies have revealed no increase in cancer rates, diabetes or other major health problems
There are no risks of cancer because of Dioxin, even with direct contact
OneNews.com 5 (“Study finds no cancer dioxin link”, Dec. 12, http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425826/638754)

The Ministry of Health says a new study shows residents of Paritutu in New Plymouth do not have an
increased risk of cancer despite being exposed to dioxin from an agrichemical plant.
The study looked at the incidence and death from cancers in New Plymouth compared to the rest of New Zealand from 1970 to 2001, which includes the
period that 245T was manufactured at the Ivon Watkins Dow plant.
The ministry's director of public health Dr Mark Jacobs says the study found no evidence of an increased cancer risk related to the period of 245T
manufacture.The ministry's director of public health Dr Mark Jacobs says the study found no evidence of an increased cancer
risk related to the period of 245T manufacture.
He says there were higher cancer rates during 1970 to 1974. But says because cancer takes more than 20 years to develop after exposure, it is not possible to
make a link between the figures and dioxin exposure
unknown exposures or higher levels of fugitive emissions in the early
The authors of the study suggest that chance,
manufacturing period are possible explanations for the higher cancer rates.
Studies about Dioxin are flawed and there is no conclusion on its effects
Fumento 4 (Michael, Environmental lawyer, Feb 26, http://www.fumento.com/military/agent.html)

Both findings were statistically significant, meaning there was only a 5 percent probability they occurred just
by chance. That sounds pretty convincing, unless you bothered to actually read the study.
You'd first notice that a control group of vets in the evaluation that never sprayed herbicides in Vietnam had
similarly high prostate-cancer levels. That leaves only the high melanoma rate as unique to the Ranch
Handers. Further, for all cancers combined there was no significant excesses of disease or death for
Ranch Handers compared either to the general population or the control vets. Indeed, they had only
about half the stomach-cancer rate compared to both groups. If you believe Agent Orange or dioxin
caused the excess prostate and skin cancers, you must also accept that it prevented stomach tumors. But
nobody will say that; certainly nobody in the media mentioned the stomach cancers. The case further
crumbles if you consider studies of occupational and accidental mass exposures to dioxin that date back half
a century. These include an accidental release in a Bremerhaven, Germany, chemical plant in 1953 and
another in Seveso, Italy, in 1976 when a plant exploded. There are four major groups of these exposed
persons, along with many smaller ones. In all of them, dioxin exposures dwarf that of the Ranch
Handers. Yet all their findings have in common is a lack of commonality.

There is no consensus on the effects of Dioxin
Milloy 0 (Steven, reporter, Fox News, July 8, http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn081800.htm)

Scary stuff, certainly. And what’s a consumer to do? The only health effect that scientists agree dioxin
may cause is severe but temporary acne from very high exposures — as occurred in some of the
population surrounding a chemical facility in Seveso, Italy that exploded in 1976. Still, the EPA and the
environmentalists press their case that dioxin is far more dangerous.
That’s where Ben & Jerry’s ice cream comes to the rescue.
As I was enjoying some Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at one of their “scoop shops” last summer, I noticed a Ben
& Jerry’s marketing brochure titled “Our Thoughts on Dioxin.” The brochure stated, “Dioxin is known to
cause cancer, genetic and reproductive defects and learning disabilities... The only safe level of dioxin
exposure is no exposure at all.” Knowing that dioxin is in virtually all food, Dr. Michael Gough and I put
Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to the test. Gough is a former government scientist who chaired the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services advisory panel on the effects of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange on U.S.
Air Force personnel in Vietnam and served as one of EPA’s science advisers in the 1994 review of dioxin.
We measured the level of dioxin in a sample of Ben & Jerry’s “World’s Best Vanilla” ice cream. We
presented the results at the Dioxin 2000 scientific conference held this week in Monterrey, California.
Two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of the ice cream
contained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA
standard. Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a
whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound
child.
Dioxin is harmless – their claims of the impacts are bogus

But since Ben & Jerry’s intends to continue selling its “dioxin-laden” ice cream, that can only mean that
dioxin is not dangerous — in which case an appropriate new flavor might be “World’s Best Hypocrisy.”
Despite our tests, the Greens and others will likely persist in fearmongering about dioxin. Why? The answer
is simple — politics and money.
Promoting the dioxin scare is an effective fund-raising strategy for environmental activists. Forcing
lower emissions of dioxin on industry provides the EPA with greater regulatory power. Vietnam veterans
have already bullied the federal government into compensating them for a variety of illnesses allegedly due
to Agent Orange. Now they want a monument to supposed “casualties” of Agent Orange.
Researchers have enjoyed over $1 billion in federal funds over the last 20 years. University of Texas
researcher Arnold Schecter, who also has worked with the activists at the Environmental Defense Fund,
wants money to investigate alleged Agent Orange-associated health effects among the Vietnamese
population. Conceivably, Vietnam may be working through U.S. environmental activists to extort
“compensation” from the U.S.
Ben & Jerry’s isn’t the only business trying to exploit the dioxin scare for profit. Two firms, Toronto-based
Bio Business International and a Denver-based Natracare LLC, are marketing dioxin-free tampons in the
midst of an “anonymously” started e-mail scare campaign that even the Food and Drug
Administration has decried as a hoax.

Dioxin is not a dangerous chemical

contained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA standard.
Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a
whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.
If dioxin is so dangerous — as Ben & Jerry’s and Greenpeace, the ice cream-maker’s science adviser, seem
to think it is — then how can Ben & Jerry’s sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the company care about “the
children?” — a segment of the population continually exploited to promote the political and social agendas
of the EPA and environmental activists. The answer, of course, is that the low-levels of dioxin in our food
and the environment are not dangerous. The story gets better. The EPA and a California-based activist
group, Communities for a Better Environment, are attacking a San Francisco-area gasoline refinery operated
by the Tosco Corp for its discharges of dioxin into San Francisco Bay. Tosco’s wastewater is permitted by the
EPA to contain 0.14 trillionths of a gram of dioxin per liter. Last November, the EPA moved to reduce this
level to zero. But based on our testing, a single serving of Ben & Jerry’s contains about 2,285 times more
dioxin than an 8-ounce “serving” of gasoline refinery wastewater at the permitted level.
None of this is to say that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is dangerous. But here’s the conundrum for the pushers of
dioxin hysteria, including their ally and financial backer Ben & Jerry’s.
If dioxin was so dangerous, it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry’s would be selling ice cream. Certainly, an
appropriate new flavor would be “Tasty Toxics.”
There is no scientific conclusion on the effects of Dioxin

Further, for all cancers combined there was no significant excesses of disease or death for Ranch
Handers compared either to the general population or the control vets. Indeed, they had only about
half the stomach-cancer rate compared to both groups. If you believe Agent Orange or dioxin caused the
excess prostate and skin cancers, you must also accept that it prevented stomach tumors. But nobody will say
that; certainly nobody in the media mentioned the stomach cancers. The case further crumbles if you consider
studies of occupational and accidental mass exposures to dioxin that date back half a century. These include
an accidental release in a Bremerhaven, Germany, chemical plant in 1953 and another in Seveso, Italy, in
1976 when a plant exploded. There are four major groups of these exposed persons, along with many
smaller ones. In all of them, dioxin exposures dwarf that of the Ranch Handers. Yet all their findings
have in common is a lack of commonality.
Some indicate significantly higher levels of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but of no other cancers. Some
find only higher levels of soft-tissue sarcoma, while others find only higher levels of lung cancer. Some
have found higher rates of stomach cancer. Meanwhile, some studies show no excesses of individual
cancers during one evaluation but significant excesses a few years earlier or later.
What does it tell us about the harmfulness of dioxin or the findings of this latest Ranch Hand evaluation
when alleged effects appear and disappear like the smile of the Cheshire Cat? "If you're dealing with a real
human carcinogen," says Robert Golden, president of the Maryland-based consulting firm ToxLogic,
"one would expect some consistency from country to country, study to study, and from plant to plant."

Studies on the effects of Dioxin are completely flawed

Agent Orange is every bit as bad as environmentalists, anti-war activists and veterans victim groups have
always claimed. Or so sayeth the media, with headlines like "Study Finds Sharply Increased Risk of Cancer
among Dioxin-Exposed Vietnam Veterans" (Agence-Presse France) and "Study: Agent Orange Linked to
Cancer Risk" (Associated Press Online). These and myriad similar stories are based on a study of veterans of
Operation Ranch Hand published in the February Journal of Occupational Medicine. Ranch Handers were
the ones who sprayed the Agent Orange herbicide and thus are the only group of vets known to have
exposure to it and its infamous trace ingredient, dioxin. They've been tracked for 22 years and an
evaluation is published every three. This time researchers found over twice as many cases of malignant
melanoma (an often-fatal skin cancer) as among the national population, with about 50 percent more prostate
cancers.
Both findings were statistically significant, meaning there was only a 5 percent probability they occurred
just by chance. That sounds pretty convincing, unless you bothered to actually read the study.
You'd first notice that a control group of vets in the evaluation that never sprayed herbicides in
Vietnam had similarly high prostate-cancer levels. That leaves only the high melanoma rate as unique to
the Ranch Handers
Dioxin Answers – AT: Trout

Dioxin levels in trout are harmless
Tresague 8 (Matthew, Reporter, Houston Chronicle, July 13, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5886473.html)

Flounder, red drum and black drum were found to be safe. It remains unclear why the speckled trout and
catfish had higher concentrations of the chemicals, but experts point to the diet and physiology of the fish as
possible explanations. Lester described the warning as conservative, saying there would be less risk in
eating speckled trout than an equivalent amount of canned tuna and other fish with high concentrations
of mercury. Although PCBs are five times more toxic, the measured amount in the trout is 10 times less
concentrated, he said. Hanadi Rifai, an environmental engineering professor at the University of Houston
who has studied pollution in the Ship Channel for the state, said she is taking sediment and water samples
from the bay to determine whether the problem is getting worse. Although dioxin and PCBs are no longer
in production, both contaminants degrade slowly in the environment.
There are multiple causes for trout decline
Rasmussen 2 (Ray, Conservationist, June 7, http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/trout.html)

During the last 25 years there has been a significant reduction in both the number and distribution of Bull
Trout, primarily as a result of over fishing, changes in habitat attributable to poor forestry and oil &
gas exploration practices, and deliberate depletion of Bull Trout stocks due to incorrect knowledge of the
role of the Bull Trout in the fishery ecosystems.
In the early 1900s, fish-stocking programs brought new species to many streams. Some anglers saw Bull
Trout as unwanted predators that fed on the more savoured trout species introduced by Man. From the 1930s
to the 1950s, the removal of large Bull Trout from some streams was an accepted practice, because it
was believed this removal would improve the survival of the other fish. Although the stocking of trout in
these waters provided anglers with a greater variety of fishing opportunities, it also greatly increased the
fishing pressure on the Bull Trout to the extent that its numbers began to decline steadily. At present, most
anglers are not aware of the vulnerable state of Bull Trout populations and they have difficulty distinguishing
this species from other trout and char.
In additon, poor land management practices has contributed to the dramatic decline of this species.
Alberta has limited numbers of the clean, sediment-free, groundwater-fed streams that bull trout need for
spawning. Any alteration that causes erosion, increased silt, or changes in flow or temperature affects the
number of trout that hatch and their ability to survive to maturity.
Dioxin is not a dangerous chemical

contained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA standard.
Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a
whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.
If dioxin is so dangerous — as Ben & Jerry’s and Greenpeace, the ice cream-maker’s science adviser, seem
to think it is — then how can Ben & Jerry’s sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the company care about “the
children?” — a segment of the population continually exploited to promote the political and social agendas
of the EPA and environmental activists. The answer, of course, is that the low-levels of dioxin in our food
and the environment are not dangerous. The story gets better. The EPA and a California-based activist
group, Communities for a Better Environment, are attacking a San Francisco-area gasoline refinery operated
by the Tosco Corp for its discharges of dioxin into San Francisco Bay. Tosco’s wastewater is permitted by the
EPA to contain 0.14 trillionths of a gram of dioxin per liter. Last November, the EPA moved to reduce this
level to zero. But based on our testing, a single serving of Ben & Jerry’s contains about 2,285 times more
dioxin than an 8-ounce “serving” of gasoline refinery wastewater at the permitted level.
None of this is to say that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is dangerous. But here’s the conundrum for the pushers of
dioxin hysteria, including their ally and financial backer Ben & Jerry’s.
If dioxin was so dangerous, it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry’s would be selling ice cream. Certainly, an
appropriate new flavor would be “Tasty Toxics.”
***Endocrine Disruption***
Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction
Endocrine Disruptors Risk Human Extinction
Illinois Pesticide Review 6 (“Endocrine Disruptors, Pesticides”, November 2, 2006,

http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/newsletter/ipr8-96/endocrine.html)
Research has suggested that the average male sperm count has plunged by almost a half in the past 50
years. Synthetic chemicals such as pesticides, plastics, detergents, and toiletries are suspected as
interferring with the human hormone system. Skeptics question, however, why (if sperm counts are
dropping) infertility rates have stayed fairly constant. John Peterson Myers states that "it's possible we're not
only eroding our humanity but putting our species at risk of extinction," while Elizabeth M. Whelan,
president of the American Council on Science and Health, says that "it's innuendo on top of hypothesis on top
of theory." The debate will no doubt rage on well into the future.
Endocrine Disruptors Bad- Reproduction

Endocrine Disruptors Impact Female Fertility And Menstrual Cycles
Stamati and Pitsos 1 (Nicolopoulou and M.A, Professors of Pathology At the University of Athens, Oxford
Journals, 2001, http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/323)
Over the last decades, many tons of man-made chemicals have been produced and released into the
environment. Many of these chemical substances have the ability to modulate the action of hormones
and are called endocrine disrupters. Cell receptors that have been pure receptors for thousands of years
have (due to industrialization), become susceptible to the action of exogenous chemicals. The balance of the
endocrine system is very important in the human body especially in females because the menstrual
cycle and fertility are very sensitive to hormone imbalances. This review considers the mode of exposure
and action of endocrine disrupters and focuses on their impact on the female reproductive system,
including female hormone concentrations, menstrual cycle, fertility, spontaneous abortion and the
development of endometriosis. An attempt is made to elucidate the impact of endocrine disrupters on the
female reproductive system, while admitting that most scientific data come from experimental animals and
the conclusions cannot be applied to humans easily. The aim is to present available information, highlighting
the impact of endocrine disrupters on the female reproductive system, in order to stimulate re-evaluation in
identifying hormone disorders.
Endocrine Disruptors Cause Male Reproductive Health Problems
Skakkebaek 1 (Niels E., Professor of Growth and Reproduction at the University of Copenhagen,
September 3, 2001, http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=58100)
Over the last couple of generations, we have been exposed to an increasing number of endocrine disrupters
in our environment, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), PCB, certain pesticides, the phthalate
DBP, synthetic steroids in meat and many other agents (table 1), which act as agonists or antagonists of sex
steroids. Although biologists working with wildlife have been concerned about the possible effects of these
chemical agents on animal reproduction, it appears that clinicians have been less concerned about possible
health effects in humans. However, the increasing incidence of hormone-dependent cancers, including
cancer of the breast, prostate and testis, and signs of an increasing incidence of male reproductive
health problems should alert us to the possible association between exposure to endocrine disrupters
and the current high frequency of reproductive problems. In Denmark, for example, 5% of all children
are now born after assisted reproduction (intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization, donor
insemination and intrauterine insemination) and 1% of all (mostly young) men develop testicular cancer.
Evidence exists to support the concept that hypospadias, undescended testis, poor semen quality and
testicular cancer are symptoms of an underlying testicular dysgenesis syndrome, which may be becoming
increasingly common due to adverse environmental effects. Experimental and epidemiological evidence
suggests that testicular dysgenesis syndrome is a result of disruption of fetal programming and gonadal
development during fetal life.
Endocrine Disruptors Bad- Reproduction
Roeleveld 8 (Dr. N., “Project: Effects of Environmental Disruptors on Male and Female Reproduction”,
Narcis Research, September 2008,
http://www.narcis.info/research/RecordID/OND1298981/Language/en/;jsessionid=14b3znbglr7gv)
Environmental endocrine disruptors, e.g. PCBs, dioxins, organic solvents and pesticides, are hypothesized to
cause male reproductive disorders, such as reduced sperm quality, testicular cancer, hypospadias, and
cryptorchidism (Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome), and other congenital defects due to intra-uterine exposure.
Direct exposure at reproductive age may cause male and/or female infertility, prolonged time-to-pregnancy,
spontaneous abortion and premature birth. In a comprehensive approach, this entire range of effects is studied
in all relevant time-windows. The innovative Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome hypothesis will be explored in
4 case-referent studies with similar design. For parents of boys with and without cryptorchidism or
hypospadias the exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors will be assessed by postal questionnaires, a
recently developed instrument for exposure assessment, and estrogen activity in blood. For mothers of
patients with reduced sperm quality or testicular cancer, exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors
during pregnancy will be estimated using modified questionnaires and exposure assessment models. Other
adverse reproductive effects are evaluated in several case-cohort studies attached to current studies on
organic solvents and pesticides. One study pertains to occupational exposure to organic solvents among
construction painters compared to carpenters. Postal questionnaires are followed up by detailed studies on
prolonged time-to-pregnancy, preterm birth, and congenital malformations. In the pesticides study, male and
female workers in flower greenhouses are compared to cleaners and retail workers, using reproductive
questionnaires, sperm quality parameters, ovarian function, and biological monitoring of pesticides. In
addition, 3-4 case-cohort studies on other reproductive outcomes will be performed, including detailed
exposure assessment. According to the same model, a study will be developed among female workers on
vineyards and apple farms in South Africa with high-level exposure to pesticides. The combined results of
these studies will elucidate the role of environmental endocrine disruptors in the etiology of male and female
reproductive disorders and will provide leads for prevention.
***Endocrine Disruptors Answers***

A2: Endocrine Disruptors= Extinction
Scientific Studies On Endocrine Disruptors Are Mere Speculation- They Can’t Be Certain
About Effects On Humanity
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online 7 (“Are Your Products Safe? You Can’t Tell”, JS
Online, November 24, 2007, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=689731)
Because the effects of endocrine disruptors may take years to reveal themselves, it is almost impossible
to say that a particular chemical caused a certain disease. There also is a lot of uncertainty about how
these chemicals work inside your body. So, scientists extrapolate. They can't test their theories on
humans. Instead, they have to rely on animal studies and try to figure out the implications for people.
Studies Prove Endocrine Disruptors Aren’t Harmful To Humans
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online 7 (“Are Your Products Safe? You Can’t Tell”, JS
Online, November 24, 2007, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=689731)
"Science supports our side," said Marty Durbin, federal affairs managing director for the American
chemistry Council, the trade group representing the plastics industry. They say there is no reason to fear the
toys, baby bottles and other products containing the chemicals because none of their studies has
proved that the chemicals cause harm to people. Chemists for the industry say you would have to
consume 1,300 pounds of canned and bottled foods each day to notice any effects from the chemicals
those products contain. "I'm very comfortable with my kids and grandkids using these products, and that's
really my bottom line," said James Lamb, an industry consultant and former EPA regulator. "And it is
because I believe the industry has done the studies that need to be done and that they're interpreting
them properly.
A2: Endocrine Disruptors – No Harms

Studies are not replicable
Milloy 1 (Steven, Fox News [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25065,00.html] Coming Soon: More

Chemical Scares Than Anyone Dreamed Possible/ May 20, 2001)
The endocrine-disruptor scare flared up about five years ago with the publication of the book Our
Stolen Future, an alarmist compendium of anecdotal tales of chemicals allegedly wreaking havoc on the hormonal processes of humans and wildlife.
The twist with the endocrine disruptor scare was the novel but unsubstantiated notion that even very
low exposures to certain chemicals, below what were previously viewed as safe levels, could be harmful.
After five years and $5 million of taxpayer-funded research, the case for the Our Stolen Future theory has only weakened. Though the Our Stolen
Future activists have little more than assertions, they advance their cause with financial support from left-wing foundations and
their political connections. Their claims are based in the work of Our Stolen Future cult leader and University of
Missouri researcher Frederick vom Saal. His experiments on laboratory mice supposedly show that very
low doses of some chemicals — thousands of times lower than current safe standards — increased
prostate weight in male mice and advanced puberty in female mice. No other laboratory has been able
to reproduce vom Saal's work. Traditionally, reproducibility of experiments is necessary before results
may be considered "scientific." But vom Saal all but guaranteed that his work will never be reproduced. His experiments
involved a unique strain of mice that he inbred in his laboratory for about 20 years. When the mice
stopped producing the results he wanted, he killed them. Without the same strain of mouse, vom Saal's
experiments can't be reproduced by others and his work can't be thoroughly evaluated.
Fruits and veggies confound studies
Avery 99 (Dennis, Journal of Commerce [http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/oct99/consumer_ave0317.html]

Scare tactics on pesticide/ March 17, 1999)
One of their biggest multipliers was for "endocrine disruption." But why? No one has ever demonstrated
any health risk from endocrine disruption - from pesticides or anything else. Some activists claim
pesticides disrupt the functioning of the body's endocrine system, which controls hormone secretion.
However, there are vastly more "endocrine disrupters" in fruits and vegetables themselves - and even
Consumer Reports agrees those are mostly good for you.
Geographical disparities in studies prove that the effects of endocrine disruption aren’t bad
Gough 97 (Michael, Cato Institute [http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-mg121597.html] Endocrine Disrupters,

Politics, Pesticides, the Cost of Food and Health/ December 1997)
The chemicals that have those activities were called "environmental estrogens" or "endocrine disrupters."
There was no more evidence to link them to every abnormality in wildlife than there had been in the
1960s to link every human cancer to chemicals. The absence of evidence wasn't much of a problem. Colborn and her colleagues
believed that chemicals were the culprit, and the press and much of the public, nutured on the idea that chemicals were bad, didn't require evidence. Even so,
Colborn had a problem that EPA faced in its early days. Soon after EPA was established, the agency leaders realized that protecting wildlife and the
environment might be a good thing, but that Congress might not decide to lavish funds on such activities. They were sure, however, that Congress would
throw money at programs that were going to protect human health from environmental risks.(3) Whether Colborn knew that history or not, she apparently
realized that any real splash for endocrine disrupters depended on tying them to human health effects. Using
the same techniques she'd
used to catalogue the adverse effects of endocrine disrupters on wildlife, she reviewed the literature
about human health effects that someway or another might be related to disruption of hormone
activity. The list was long, including cancers, birth defects, and learning disabilities, but the big hitter on the
list was decreased sperm counts. According to Colborn and other's analyses of sperm counts made in
different parts of the world under different conditions of nutrition and stress and at different time
periods, sperm counts had decreased by 50 percent in the post-World War II period. If there's anything that
catches the attention of Congress, it's risks to males. Congress banned leaded gasoline after EPA released a report that said atmospheric lead was a cause of
heart attacks in middle-aged men. The reported decrease in sperm counts leaped up for attention, and attention it got. Congressional hearings were held,
magazine articles were written, experts opined about endocrine disrupters and sexual dysfunctions. And then it
fell apart. Scientists found
large geographical variations in sperm counts that have not changed over time. Those geographical
variations and poor study designs accounted for the reported decrease. That scare went away, but
endocrine disrupters were here to stay.
***Ozone Hole***
Ozone Hole Up
Ozone hole is getting bigger.
National Academy of Sciences 3 (THE OZONE DEPLETION PHENOMENON,

http://www.earthplatform.com/getting/bigger)
Like an infection that grows more and more virulent, the continent-size hole in Earth's ozone layer keeps
getting bigger and bigger. Each year since the late 1970s, much of the protective layer of stratospheric
ozoneabove Antarctica has disappeared during September, creating what is popularly known as the
ozone hole. The Antarctic hole now measures about 9 million square miles, nearly the size of North
America. Less dramatic, still significant, depletion of ozone levels has been recorded around the globe.
With less ozone in the atmosphere, more ultraviolet radiation strikes Earth, causing more skin cancer, eye
damage, and possible harm to crops.
Ozone Hole – Key To UV

Ozone depletion is key to reducing UV radiation.
WHO 8 (World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/globalchange/ozone_uv/en/)

Depletion of the ozone layer is likely to aggravate existing health effects caused by exposure to UV
radiation, as stratospheric ozone is a particularly effective UV radiation absorber. As the ozone layer
becomes thinner, the protective filter provided by the atmosphere is progressively reduced.
Consequently, human beings and the environment are exposed to higher UV radiation levels, and
especially higher UVB levels that have the greatest impact on human health, animals, marine
organisms and plant life. Computational models predict that a 10% decrease in stratospheric ozone could
cause an additional 300,000 non-melanoma and 4500 melanoma skin cancers and between 1.6 and 1.75
million more cases of cataracts worldwide every year.
Ozone hole controls UV levels.
Heidorn 93+ (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-

qPwJ:victoria.tc.ca/environment/atmosphere/ozone.paper.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22UV%22+science+crops,+
agriculture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us)
With the loss of stratospheric ozone, the atmosphere becomes more transparent to solar ultraviolet
radiation. Only a certain type of UV is affected however, that UV radiation band known as UV-B
(wavelengths from 280 to 315 nm). As ozone declines, the intensity of UV-B increases and the spectral
composition of solar radiation shifts toward more radiation in the shorter wavelengths. The current
estimated increase in biologically active UV radiation in the Northern Hemisphere is 5% per decade at 30oN
and about 10% per decade in the polar regions. In the southern hemisphere, the decrease at 30oS is also 5%
per decade while in the polar regions (85oS) the increase has been 40% per decade. In contrast, little change
has been found in the equatorial regions (Mandronich et al, 1991).
Ozone Hole – A2: Natural

Ozone depletion is anthropogenic. And increasing in size.
GeoConnexion 7 (Oct. 5, http://www.geoconnexion.com/geouk_news_article/Metop-A-satellite-measures-

ozone-hole/2301)
The main cause of the depletion of the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer is the release of chlorinated
fluorocarbons. This depletion, which is most noticeable over the Arctic and Antarctic regions, is of
particular environmental concern as the resulting increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause serious
damage to human health, agriculture, forests and water ecosystems. The DLR noted a strong reversal in
the spreading of the ozone hole in mid-September because of an unusual meteorological constellation
in the south polar stratosphere. An unusually high intensity of planetary waves – which cause air
circulation around the world – resulted in the thinning of the ozone layer, especially over the south Atlantic
and South America. At the same time, the ozone level rose over Australia and the ozone hole was at its
minimum size on 20 September.
Ozone – Origin – Anthropogenic and Natural
Holes in the ozone layer are both anthropogenic and natural.
ESA 2 (European Space Agency, Feb. 26, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mVY9PKMuSGYJ:www.space

ref.com/news/viewpr.html%3Fpid%3D7542+%22ozone+hole%22+%22anthropogenic%22+%22caused+by+human
%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us)
The Earth atmosphere resembles a Swiss cheese. There many ozone holes in the stratosphere as well as
in the troposphere. In the stratosphere chlorine acts as the aggressive catalytic. The ozone holes over the
Antarctic, the arctic as well as the middle latitudes are clearly man-made. They are a consequence of
the anthropogenic introduction of CFC's. In contrast in the troposphere bromine is acting as the catalytic.
So far two ozone holes over the arctic (January until March) and one over the Antarctic (autumn) have
been identified. In these cases it is a natural phenomenon caused by the destructive effect of bromine
which originates in seawater. There are still many unsolved matters in the climate who-dunnit. For Sherlock
Holmes and Dr. Watson the detail work comes first. "We are currently investigating with the computer ", says
Paul Crutzen, "Whether reactive halogens - chlorine, bromine und iodine - can also play a role in ozone
chemistry in other regions and seasons."
Ozone Hole – Antarctica

Ozone depletion is Antarctica’s biggest threat.
World Ecological Problems 5 (“Antarctica - Effects of global warming”

http://ecologicalproblems.blogspot.com/2007/12/antarctica-effects-of-global-warming.html)
Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and fifth largest continent with area of 14.4 million square kilometers (5.4 million
square miles), overlying the South Pole. About 98 % of Antarctica is covered with ice and this ice is thick in average
about 1,6 kilometers (1 mile), but will it stay this thick in future? Very unlikely with the current global warming
situation which affects Antarctica much more than other continents because of the continent's icy mass. This
particularly applies to Antarctic Peninsula that is warming five times more than average. Melting of the ice causes
sea level increase and the biggest ice melting so far (according to NASA) happened in 2005 when a mass of ice
about the size of California briefly melted and refrozed as the result of high temperatures. The area of
Antarctic Peninsula had significant increase in annual average temperature at about 2,5 °C in the past 50
years which is almost three times faster than in the rest of the world. Global warming especially affects the area
of Antarctic Peninsula. But ice melting isn't the only problem in Antarctica, there is a giant ozone hole over
Antarctica that continues to grow as we speak and was caused with the emission of chlorofluorocarbons into the
atmosphere. Ozone layer protects Earth from dangerous UVB ultraviolet light from the Sun by absorbing it.
Very high UVB levels have some very damaging effects on human health, particularly in form of skin cancer.
Collapsing of ice shelves is really a trend in Antarctic Peninsula and this negative trend will continue in future
too as scientists agree that temperature of Antarctica will rise over the next 50 years causing even more collapsing
and sea level increase. Life on Antarctica is also affected since for instance in last 30 years Adelie Penguin
populations shrunk by more than 30 % because of Antarctica's changed weather conditions. As said before
Antarctic area is extremely sensitive to global warming because of its icy mass and therefore deserves special
attention when talking about current ecological problems. Many agree that global warming is currently
ecological problem No.1, and if we accept this fact than we really have to do something with areas like Antarctica
and its opposite Africa that are least to blame for global warming, but ironically mostly exposed to global warming
effect.
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Plankton

Increased UV radiation kills plankton.
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, 08 (May 22, http://www.environment.no/T

ema/Klima/Ozonlaget/)
Increasing amounts of UV radiation may have a negative impact on the production of plankton and
other tiny organisms at the base of the marine food web. These organisms are the ultimate source of
food for all other living organisms in the oceans. A large increase in UV radiation may also disrupt many
ecosystems on land, significantly reducing yields and causing food shortages.
UV radiation stops plankton from photosynthesis.
Sparling 1 (Brien, May 30, NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division,

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/radiation.html
The penetration of increased amounts of UV-B light has caused great concern over the health of
marine plankton that densly populate the top 2 meters of ocean water. The natural protective-res)ponce
of most chlorophyll containing cells to increased light-radiation is to produce more light-absorbing pigments
but this protective responce is not triggered by UV-B light. Another possible responce of plankton is to sink
deeper into the water but this reduces the amount of visible light they need for photosynthesis, and
thereby reduces their growth and reproduction rate. In other words, the amount of food and oxygen
produced by plankton could be reduced by UV exposure without killing individual organisms. There
are several other considerations: Ultraviolet levels are over 1,000 times higher at the equator than at the
polar regions so it is presumed that marine life at the equator is much better adapted to the higher
enviromental UV light than organisms in the polar regions. The current concern of marine biologists is
mostly over the more sensitive antarctic phytoplankton which normally would recieve very low doses
of UV. Only one large-scale field survey of Anarctic phytoplankton has been carried out so far [Smith et.al
_Science_1992] ; they found a 6-12% drop in phytoplankton productivity once their ship entered the area of
the spring-time ozone hole. Since the hole only lasts from 10-12weeks this translates into a 2-4%loss overall,
a measurable but not yet catastrophic loss.
UV radiation devastates plankton.
Heidorn 93 + (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-

Over the millennia, the ocean ecosystem has developed an equilibrium with incident solar radiation. The
thinning of the ozone layer disrupts this delicate balance with serious consequences for aquatic
productivity and ecosystem function. UV-B radiation 1) affects adaptive strategies, 2) impairs
important physiological functions, and 3) threatens many marine organisms during their development
stages (Hader, Worrest and Kumar, 1991). Phytoplankton at the bottom of the food chain are at
particular risk (SCOPE, 1992). Phytoplankton presently convert 104 billion tons of atmospheric carbon
annually into organic material (Houghton and Woodwell, 1989). Therefore, scientists have also
expressed concern the ozone-induced loss of phytoplankton may trigger a positive feedback in the
global carbon cycle which would further exacerbate the greenhouse effect (Hader, Worrest and Kumar,
1991; SCOPE, 1992). A number of short-term studies have shown that phytoplankton production is reduced
by increasing levels of UV-B. Eggs and larvae of many marine organisms are also sensitive to UV radiation.
Marine organisms have a number of mechanisms which increase their tolerance to ambient UV radiation, but
little is currently known about the impact of sustained increases in UV-B (SCOPE, 1992). Plankton orient
themselves within the water column using external factors; most, however, do not possess UV-B
photoreceptors and thus cannot avoid high levels of UV-B radiation (Hader, Worrest and Kumar, 1991).
Work by Hader and Worrest (1991) indicates that mobility/orientation mechanisms in phytoplankton are
impaired by solar UV radiation. This inability to adjust to increased UV-B radiation may result in
massive inhibition of photosynthesis.
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation

The impact of UV radiation on vegetation has been extensively studied through growth chamber studies,
greenhouse studies and field studies. Impacts on chloroplasts have been determined using in vitro techniques.
These studies conclude that UV-B radiation may affect terrestrial plants through changes in: 1)
Photosynthesis and transpiration, 2) plant growth, 3) competitive balance in a community, 4)
pollination and flowering, 5) yield, 6) DNA and cellular damage, and 7) susceptibility to disease,
environmental stress and pollution (Tevini and Teramura, 1989; Teramura et al., 1991; Stapleton, A.E.,
1992; SCOPE, 1992). Approximately two thirds of 300 plant species and cultivars studied appear to be
susceptible to damage from increased UV-B radiation (Sullivan and Teramura, 1989). The effect of, and
sensitivity to, UV-B varies widely among species as well as among genotypes of a species (Tevini and
Teramura, 1989). Some of the specific impacts are summarized below.
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn Ev.

UV hurts photosynthesis and transpiration.

Photosynthesis and transpiration - When plants in a growth chamber are exposed to high UV-B levels, the
effects on photosynthesis as measured by CO2- assimilation were generally negative (Tevini and
Teramura, 1989). One possible explanation for the decrease in some species may be linked to stomatal
closure by enhanced UV-B, thereby reducing the uptake of CO2. Reductions in transpiration in UV-B
sensitive seedlings such as cucumber and sunflower also suggest UV-B induced stomatal closure (Tevini
and Teramura, 1989).
UV hurts plant growth

UV-B radiation reduces growth characteristics such as plant height and leaf area in sensitive species
and cultivars (Tevini and Teramura, 1989). Reduced growth rates in cucumbers continued throughout
the development of the plant whereas with soybeans, the effects varied with plant growth stage. Three
out of ten conifer species showed reduced seedling growth under enhanced UV-B radiation (Sullivan
and Teramura, 1988). After three years of irradiation, Sullivan and Teramura (1991) found tree biomass
was significantly reduced by as much as 20%. They suggest that the effects may accumulate and that
increased UV-B radiation could significantly reduce the growth of loblolly pine over its lifetime. Six of
sixteen rice cultivars showed a statistically significant decrease in total biomass with increased UV-B
radiation under a 20% ozone reduction scenario over the Equator (Teramura et al., 1991). In the
sensitive cultivars, photosynthetic capacity, leaf area and tiller numbers were also reduced.
UV hurts competitive balance in community.

Enhanced UV-B radiation can cause changes in the growth form of plants without necessarily directly
decreasing plant photosynthetic production (Teramura et al., 1991). Reduction in leaf length, increased
branching and increased leaf numbers seem to be rather general impacts among different crop and
weed species. Such changes, while not important in a single species stand, may have major
consequences in a mixed community as species compete for available light and nutrients. For example,
in a mixed wheat and wild oat field, the wheat was favoured under enhanced UV-B radiation because
wild oat showed greater reductions in stem elongation and leaf blade lengths than the wheat. This
differential response allowed the wheat to dominate the field. In this study, neither species showed
reduced photosynthetic capacity as a result of the increased radiation (Tevini and Teramura, 1989; Teramura
et al., 1991).
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn

UV hurts pollination and flowering.

Pollen is well protected from UV-B radiation. Several in vitro studies support the possibility of UV-B impacts
on pollen germination; however, no in vivo conformation of these results has been reported (Tevini and
Teramura, 1989). UV-B radiation may indirectly influence pollination in some species by detrimental
effects on the pollinators and flowering. Flowering was shown to be inhibited in some species by
increased UV-B radiation (Tevini and Teramura, 1989). In addition to reducing flower numbers, it is
suggested that the timing of floral presentation may be altered by changes in the UV radiation flux.
Advancing or delaying flower emergence may disrupt the timing of the pollination cycle (Hale, 1993).
UV causes DNA and cellular damage.
Heidorn (Keith C., PhD., AMC, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2usxWdo-

Ultraviolet radiation, especially at the shorter wavelengths, is known to damage DNA as well as
physiological processes (Stapleton, 1992). UV damage to DNA could be the cause of many of the other
observed effects. In addition, UV damage to cell membranes, chloroplasts and its functions, protein
destruction, and hormone inactivation may also alter a plant's biological functions. The impact of UV
radiation may result from an increase in energy across the spectrum or, an increase in energy within a
specific waveband, or both (Stapleton, 1992). Plants have several mechanisms by which to response to
damage by normal UV radiation levels, but little is yet know concerning their ability to respond to higher,
sustained levels of UV-B.
UV makes plants Susceptible to disease, environmental stress and pollution

Preliminary research indicates that exposure to a UV-B dose prior to inoculation with disease led to
greater disease development in cucumber cultivars including a disease-resistant variety (Teramura at al.,
1991). The study found that the effects of the irradiation varied according to the timing of the exposure and
the tissue age. Younger tissue seems most affected. Carrying this finding further suggests that the most
critical stage for negative impact may be in the spring when young tissue is most prevalent. This is also
the time of peak ozone depletion in the higher latitudes. Exposure to enhanced UV-B radiation has
also been shown to cause increased impacts of air and soil pollutants and stresses induced by soil water
and mineral deficiencies (Tevini and Teramura, 1989, Teramura et al., 1991). For example,most water-
stressed plants irradiated with enhanced levels of UV-B lost their ability to close stomata (thus reducing
water loss) while those under normal light conditions displayed expected stomatal behaviour (Tevini and
Teramura, 1989). Plants exposed to additional UV-B radiation have shown enhanced adverse effects
when toxic pollutants such as heavy metals are present (Teramura et al., 1991).
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Vegetation – Ext. Heidorn

UV hurts agriculture and crops.

Much of the research concerning the impacts of UV radiation on terrestrial vegetation has come as a result of
studies on agricultural crop species. However, because of the importance of agriculture to the human
condition, a few specific comments are presented. Dr. Malcom Whitecross of the Australian State University
has reported that a 10% increase in UV-B radiation early in the growing season (the prime time for
high-latitude ozone depletion) can cause stunting of growth in wheat, rice, corn, soybeans and other
crops, a set-back from which the crop will not likely recover (CBC, 1992). Dr. Beverly Hale of the
University of Guelph in Ontario feels many food crops are at risk (Hale, 1993). Her preliminary research
indicates that elevated UV-B can initiate far-reaching changes in plants including size, height, shape,
rate of growth and productivity. Internal chemical changes in the composition of proteins,
carbohydrates and amino acids may have a substantial impact on their nutritional content. She feels
that research must focus on the identification and development of UV-B tolerable varieties (Personal
communication, 1993).
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Extinction

Ozone depletion can culminate into extinction.
Beijing 2008, 06 (Sept. 15, http://en.beijing2008.cn/01/36/article212043601.shtml)

Ozone depletion results in greater amounts of UV-B radiation that will have an impact on terrestrial
and aquatic biogeochemical systems. Biogeochemical cycles are the complex interactions of physical,
chemical, geological and biological processes that control the transport and transformation of
substances in the natural environment and therefore the conditions that humans experience in the
Earth's system. The increased UV-B radiation impinging on terrestrial and aquatic systems, due to ozone
depletion, results in changes in the trace gas exchange between the continents, oceans and the
atmosphere. This results in complex alterations to atmospheric chemistry, the global elemental cycles,
such as the carbon cycle, and may have an impact on the survival and health of all organisms on Earth,
including humans.
Ozone Hole – Impacts – Cataracts

Ozone depletion results in 830,000 cases of cataracts.
BMJ 5 (British Medical Journals, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7528/1292-d?ck=nck)

Ozone depletion may result in up to 830 000 additional cases of cataract by 2050 in the United States,
new research shows. The excess cost of such a rise in the number of cases would be $2.8bn (£1.6bn;
€2.4bn), say the authors of the report in the American Journal of Epidemiology (2005;162:1080-8). "We
believe that our estimates represent the most reasonable model to date of an ocular health effect and
the consequences of ozone depletion. This model demonstrates the magnitude of the increase in cortical
opacity that might result and the importance of vigilance in adopting sun avoidance behaviours," wrote
the authors, who are from the Wilmer Eye Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, the
Institute for Global Risk Research, Fairfax, Virginia, and the Joint Global Change Research Institute, College
Park, Maryland.
***Ozone Hole Answers ***

Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing

Ozone hole has peaked and will decline.
AGBM 7 (Sept. 26, Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements

/media_releases/ho/20070926.shtml)
The Antarctic ozone hole is back and although it’s almost as big as previous years, the long term
outlook for a return to better ozone levels remains good. Over the past ten years the destruction of
ozone has resulted in large ozone holes appearing over the Antarctic each spring with almost all
growing to an area of more than 25 million square kilometres (about three times the size of Australia).
This year, the Bureau of Meteorology reports that the hole has already reached that size but has not grown as
large as the record 28 million square kilometre holes that developed during 2000, 2003 and 2006. Ozone
holes develop during spring because sunlight returning to the polar regions trigger chemical reactions that
have remained dormant during the darkness of winter. The size and depth of the hole is determined by factors
including the concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals such as Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), as well as
the temperature of the lower stratosphere. It is also influenced by broad scale atmospheric circulation patterns
which vary significantly from year to year. Though recent Antarctic ozone holes have been very large,
measurements show that the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances in the lower atmosphere,
such as CFCs, have peaked and are now slowly declining. In its most recent assessment of ozone
depletion, compiled last year, the World Meteorological Organization stated that ozone levels are
expected to return to pre-ozone-hole conditions between 2060 and 2075.
Ozone hole is going to recover.
ABC News 5 (Nov. 10, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/11/10/1502996.htm, CSIRO=Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation )
This year, the hole is about three-and-a-half times the size of Australia. The CSIRO's Paul Fraser says the
amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere has dropped. He says this means it is unlikely
the hole will ever get bigger than it was in 2003 - the worst year on record. "We hope within the next
five years to start to see a slow recovery," he said. "I think we're in that period between when it's getting
worse and when it should start to improve." He says clear signs of a recovery are expected in the next
five to 10 years, with a complete recovery not expected for another 50. "Ozone loss over Antarctica is still
at a maximum and we haven't yet seen signs of ozone recovery," he said. "I suppose the good bit of news is
that the ozone depletion isn't getting worse."
Ozone hole is on it’s way to recovery- 50 years.
BBC News 00 (December 3, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm)

An international group of scientists is predicting that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica will
shrink and close within 50 years. It says a ban on the chemicals that thin the Earth's protective film of
gas is showing signs of success and the ozone layer should soon start to repair itself - as long as
countries stick to the ban. The forecast was made following a conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where
300 climate scientists scrutinised new data. But the experts warn that governments must tackle the wider
issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, if any real progress on ozone is to be achieved. The prediction
is based on evidence that levels of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the lower atmosphere are falling.
CFCs break down ozone, the three-atomed oxygen molecule, which shields the surface of the planet from
harmful rays. An international ban on CFCs, once widely used in aerosols, has been in place since 1987,
when the Montreal Protocol was introduced. Scientists studied fresh data at the Stratospheric Processes and
their Role in Climate (SPARC) Second General Assembly in Buenos Aires.
Ozone Hole Answers – Decreasing

Ozone hole on its way to recovery- 50 years.
BBC News 00 (December 3, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm)

Alan O'Neill, chair of the SPARC 2000 Scientific Committee, told BBC News Online: "Scientists have
gained a detailed understanding of how man-made substances (containing chlorine and bromine)
destroy ozone. "We can explain why much more ozone is destroyed over the Antarctic than over the
Arctic, and why the ozone hole is bigger during some years than during others. "The biggest ever
ozone hole was witnessed over Antarctica in early October 2000. "But we are now seeing evidence that
the international bans or controls on ozone destroying substances are now taking effect: amounts of
these substances are, overall, falling in the lower atmosphere and our prediction is that ozone amounts
will recover over the next 50 years or so." The recovery was not likely to start for a few years yet,
Professor O'Neill said, and it would not happen steadily because of natural fluctuations in weather
patterns from one year to the next. And a cooling of the lower atmosphere due to greenhouse gas emissions
could delay the closing of the ozone hole, perhaps by a decade or so. Commenting on the report, Brian
Gardiner, one of the British Antarctic Survey scientists who discovered the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985, said
political will was needed to tackle the other huge environmental issues facing the planet. "The Montreal
Protocol is the first international treaty that holds out the promise of solving a global environmental problem
before it becomes a disaster," he told BBC News Online. "We should learn from that and attack the bigger
problem of climate change by achieving intergovernmental agreement to limit the burning of fossil fuels
before the consequences of that become a disaster."
Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural

Ozone hole is natural. It was just a political scheme.
Thursby 3 (Rowena, August 8, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:jJVFWP6joNgJ:www.indymedia.ie/artic

le/60766+%22ozone+hole%22+scam&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us)
The hole in the ozone layer has more to do with politics than deodorants, a respected French scientist told
reporters recently. Outspoken Haroun Tazieff claims that the disintegration of the ozone layer by the infamous
CFC gases "Is a complete lie," he told me vehemently, when we met in Paris recently. "The ozone hole is a
natural hole which appears above the Antarctic at the beginning of October and has disappeared by the end
of December. In Europe, I think I'm the only person to refute it, and I have never been officially contradicted,
neither by ecologists nor by scientists." Yves Cochet, spokesman for the French ecology party, Les Verts, admits:
"Although the majority of scientists say that DFC gases probably have a lethal effect on the ozone layer, nothing
has been proved." He adds: "We are obliged to talk of an ozone hole in the media, because then people get a
very visual impression, but of course, it is much more diffuse than that." At 80, Tazieff remains as clear-thinking
as ever. He argues that many of France's leading ecologists have no scientific background. A former boxer, he
trained first as an agronomist and then as a geologist, which led to a lifetime study of volcanoes. One of the
founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and
technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of
France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a
"campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to
millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It
seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when
most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere.
Ozone thinning is only seasonal and natural
Tech-archive.net 5 (Feb. 6, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:7nRTqyyPeREJ:sci.tech-

archive.net/Archive/sci.energy/2005-02/0239.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22agriculture%22&hl
=en&ct=clnk&cd=57&gl=us)
The so-called theory on which the "ozone hole/depletion" scare is based maintains that chlorine and
other halogen atoms in the stratosphere, resulting from a breaking up of CFCs etc which have reached
such heights, "are destroying ozone" there. The scare propaganda increased enormously in volume after
an "ozone hole" over the Antarctic purportedly was "discovered" in 1985. This was "proof" that a depletion
of the global ozone layer was actually taking place, the propaganda said. But this "ozone hole" over the
Antarctic had existed long before CFCs came into common use, earlier research in fact had shown. It's
not really a "hole" but only a rather large seasonal thinning-out, due to the particularly low
temperatures and some other factors typical precisely for the Antarctic continent - and not present in
the Arctic regions either. In September-October each year, the ozone layer over the Ant- arctic is thinned
out to some 100 DU - which poses no danger to life there or anywhere else - because a meteorological
vortex temporarily stops those winds from the tropics which otherwise are brining replenishment of
the continent's ozone. Around March each year, this "hole" has disappeared completely; the ozone layer
over the Antarctic then has thickened again to its normal maximum of 450-500 DU.
Ozone Hole Answers – No Solvency: Natural

Insufficient data for anthropogenic ozone depletion.
Singer 97 (S. Fred, Ph.D., president science and environment policy project, December,
http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/ozon-agu.html)
The evidence from ground stations and satellites is not yet compelling to identify a long-term trend of
anthropogenic ozone depletion. UN reports [1] do not squarely address problems of data
contamination and instrument calibration [2]. A separate issue, inadequately discussed, is the
shortness of the global record, making the removal of the natural variations a daunting task [2].
Another fact is the absence of any credible evidence for a corresponding long-term upward trend of solar UV
radiation at the earth's surface. The widely publicized claim for such a trend [3] is acknowledged to be
spurious and based on a faulty statistical analysis [4]. Yet, ozone depletion is entirely plausible and to be
expected. But chlorine (from CFCs) may not be a major destroyer of ozone molecules in the lower
stratosphere where most of the ozone resides. Important clues are provided by the existence of the
Antarctic ozone hole and the pronounced ozone depletion caused by the Pinatubo eruption; they
indicate that the presence of particles is essential [5]--something not anticipated nor predicted by the
CFC-ozone theory of Rowland-Molina, which applies more appropriately to the upper stratosphere.
Another clue comes from the absence of ozone destruction in the middle stratosphere [6]; it suggests
that global depletion of ozone is related to the increasing levels of lower-stratospheric sulfate aerosols [7]. In
addition, there is evidence, both from theory [8] and from observations [9], that radicals derived from water
vapor are the most effective ozone destroyers in the lower stratosphere; their concentration may be rate-
limiting. But stratospheric WV is known to be rising [10], likely because of the increasing production of
methane by human activities [11].
Ozone – Solvency Turn – Increases Warming
A recovery of the ozone layer could cause severe warming effects over Antarctica.
Perkins, 2008 (Sid, June 12th, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/g

eneric/id/33200/title/Unintended_consequences)
Via a complicated cascade of effects, a full recovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the coming
years could significantly boost warming of the atmosphere over and around the icy continent. After
years of decline, the springtime concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere high over Antarctica have begun
to increase — a sign that the ozone hole is recovering (SN: 12/24&31/05, p. 418). Stratospheric ozone blocks
much of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation that would otherwise reach Earth’s surface and boost rates of skin
cancer. In one sense, however, the ozone hole is somewhat beneficial: It has kept Antarctica cooler than
it otherwise would have been, says Seok-Woo Son, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University.
Because the lower stratosphere over Antarctica lacks ozone in the springtime, it doesn’t absorb much
ultraviolet radiation and therefore is much cooler than normal. This, in turn, increases the
temperature difference between air over the mid-latitude regions of the Southern Hemisphere and the
air over Antarctica, Son notes. That temperature gradient is the driving force for strong, steady winds
that blow from the west over the seas off Antarctica’s coast at latitudes of about 50°S — the
circumpolar westerlies. The ozone hole has strengthened this wall of winds in recent decades,
preventing many storm systems that head south from temperate latitudes — as well as the large
quantities of warm air they contain — from reaching central Antarctica. Now, Son and his colleagues
have investigated how ozone recovery might affect Antarctic climate. Seven of the simulations they used
account for changes in atmospheric chemistry, and five of those suggest that the increases in ozone
concentrations would cause significant warming in the lower stratosphere. The climate changes resulting
from full ozone recovery, expected sometime later this century, could be substantial, the researchers
speculate in the June 13 Science. Warming of the lower stratosphere would tend to slow the circumpolar
westerlies but strengthen winds at lower latitudes, a combination that would significantly shift weather
patterns. Much of Australia would become drier, and portions of South America would, on average, receive
more precipitation, the models suggest.
More ev…
ERL 8 (Evironmental Research Web, A Community website from IOP Publishing, Institute of Physics,
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/34812)
A new "coupled chemistry" climate model suggests that increasing stratospheric ozone levels in the
southern hemisphere could cause this region to warm by several degrees centigrade. The model also
shows that these changes in ozone might weaken westerly winds here and near the surface. These winds
currently protect Antarctica from warmer air masses circulating nearby. The results suggest that a full
recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole could significantly change the climate in the southern
hemisphere, and, surprisingly, even intensify warming in the Antarctic. While Earth's average surface
temperatures have been increasing, the interior of Antarctica has been showing a unique cooling trend
during the austral summer and autumn caused by ozone depletion, according to Judith Perlwitz of the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a joint institute of CU-Boulder and NOAA.
"If the successful control of ozone-depleting substances allows for a full recovery of the ozone hole over
Antarctica, we may finally see the interior of Antarctica begin to warm with the rest of the world," she
added.
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Health

Effects of ozone hole are exaggerated.
Lieberman 2 (senior policy analyst for CEI. 10/16 “Avoid environmental sensationalism” www.heartland.org
<http://www.heartland.org> )
One important lesson is to avoid environmental sensationalism. The Antarctic ozone hole, though real, has
proven to be an exaggerated phenomenon. The frequently-repeated speculation about ozone depletion-
induced increases in skin cancers, cataracts, and environmental damage has yet to be confirmed, even
after decades of research. Little wonder, since the feared increase in ultraviolet radiation turned out to
be considerably smaller than originally predicted. The ozone hole “crisis” is not being solved so much
as it is proving to have been less of a crisis in the first place.
Science is exaggerated – radiation increase is trivial.
Singer 95 (S. Fred, November 1, Washington Times,

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:YItL5uwXgYQJ:www.sepp.org/key%2520issues/ozone/oznobel.html+Time+
and+again,+journalists+have+run+with+a+story+that+amounts+to+little+more+than+%22science+by+press+releas
e.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Time and again, journalists have run with a story that amounts to little more than "science by press
release." They have succumbed to tales of blind sheep and rabbits, plankton death, and the
disappearance of frogs--all blamed on ozone depletion. Yet a little common sense could help to stem the
tide of scare stories, punitive regulations, and politically motivated Nobel prizes. From the very outset it
has been clear that the feared global ozone depletion would lead to a trivial increase of ultraviolet
radiation at the Earth's surface, equivalent to moving just 60 miles closer to the equator, the distance
from Washington to Richmond. This equivalence has been openly acknowledged by ozone scientists in
press conferences and Congressional hearings. It puts the lie to fears of cataract epidemics, immune
system failures, and various ecological disasters. The problem now is that the action of the Swedish
Academy is being viewed as a scientific endorsement, not only of ozone depletion but of all of the horror
stories put out by activist groups. Awarding the Nobel prize with the science still unsettled only says that
facts are irrelevant, that data don't matter. What does seem to matter, at least to the Academy, is "salvation."
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Agriculture

UV radiation good for agriculture
Tech-archive.net 5 (Feb. 6, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:7nRTqyyPeREJ:sci.tech-

archive.net/Archive/sci.energy/2005-02/0239.html+%22ozone+hole%22+%22agriculture%22&hl
=en&ct=clnk&cd=57&gl=us)
To that ultraviolet radiation which reaches the earth's surface, all human, animal and plant life of
course has adopted itself. This goes both for those higher intensities of it which are normal in some
regions and for the lower ones in other regions. For most of those plants used in agriculture, tropical
UV levels are best. Concerning human adaption, it may be of interest in this connection to mention some
results of research on the origins and the various evolutions of mankind which apparently have been widely
accepted as correct.
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton

UV radiation doesn’t affect plankton.
Bio- Medicine.Org 3 (“Plankton are not affected by ozone depletion”, http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-

news-2/Plankton-are-not-affected-by-ozone-depletion-11907-1/)
The ozone hole above Antarctica may not be damaging life in the ocean below after all. If Californian
researchers are right, then increased ultraviolet radiation is having scarcely any effect on the growth of
marine plankton, the base of the ocean's food chain. The team, led by Kevin Arrigo of Stanford
University in Palo Alto, has created computer models of phytoplankton growth over a year in the
southern hemisphere before and after the ozone hole appeared in the 1980s. They included such factors
as the position of the ozone hole, cloud cover, and UV-B strength, the type of ultraviolet radiation that
increases as atmospheric ozone declines. To find out what increased UV-B did to phytoplankton, the
researchers compared two models: one based on data from 1992, a year with a yawning ozone hole and the
other with the same parameters except for the ozone levels, which were taken from 1978, a year of "normal"
conditions before the hole appeared. Over the southern hemisphere ecosystem as a whole, they found that
primary phytoplankton production decreased by only about 1 per cent in 1992, which is significantly lower
than other estimates. Arrigo's work does not discount the results of a number of studies showing that
increased UV-B can stunt phytoplankton growth by 10 per cent or more in localised areas or in the
laboratory (New Scientist, 8 August 1998, p 24). The difference is that his study looked at the big picture
of UV-B for the whole ocean. In previous studies, researchers scaled up measurements of plankton growth
beneath the hole and elsewhere to calculate an overall effect for the whole Southern Ocean. But although
they knew that factors such as cloud cover were important, they are difficult to include in such
calculations.
The affect of UV radiation on plankton is very small.
Parson 8 (Robert, 8/22, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, http://stason.org/TULARC/science-

engineering/ozone-depletion-uv/13-What-effects-does-increased-UV-have-on-marine-life.html)
In one field study, [Smith et al.]. measured the photosynthetic productivity of the phytoplankton in the
"marginal ice zone" (MIZ), the layer of relatively fresh meltwater that lies over saltier deep water. Since the
outer boundary of the ozone hole is relatively sharp and fluctuates from day to day, they were able to
compare photosynthesis inside and outside the hole, and to correlate photosynthetic yield with
shipboard UV measurements. They concluded that the UV-B increase brought about an overall
decrease of 6-12% in phytoplankton productivity. Since the "hole" lasts for about 10-12 weeks, this
corresponds to an overall decrease of 2-4% for the year. The natural variability in phytoplankton productivity
from year to year is estimated to be about + or - 25%, so the _immediate_ effects of the ozone hole, while
real, are far from catastrophic. To quote from [Smith et al.]: "Our estimated loss of 7 x 10^12 g of carbon per
year is about three orders of magnitude smaller than estimates of _global_ phytoplankton production and thus
is not likely to be significant in this context. On the other hand, we find that the O3-induced loss to a natural
community of phytoplankton in the MIZ is measurable and the subsequent ecological consequences of the
magnitude and timing of this early spring loss remain to be determined." It appears, then, that overall
loss in productivity is not large.
Ozone Hole Answers – A2: Plankton

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

The food basket of the Southern Oceans - its plankton population - may not have been dealt such a
severe blow by soaring ultraviolet (UV-B) light levels as previously thought. In recent years the ocean
has been bombarded with high levels of UV light getting in through the hole in the ozone layer, which
normally shields our planet from damaging UV rays. Now Californian researchers reporting in New
Scientist magazine have modelled what would have happened to phytoplankton levels before and after the
hole appeared. The "before" picture was based on data from 1978, when there was no hole to speak of, and
"after" taken from 1992 when the ozone hole was near as large as it has been. Phytoplankton is crucial to
sustaining all ocean life. It is the first link in the food chain, turning energy from the sun into a primary food
source through photosynthesis. The Californian team, led by Kevin Arrigo of Stanford University, modeled
phytoplankton growth using a computer. He took into account the position of the ozone hole, cloud cover,
and UV-B strength. When phytoplankton growth was compared between 1978 and 1992, the researchers
found that over the southern hemisphere ecosystem as a whole, primary phytoplankton production
decreased by only about one per cent, which is significantly lower than other estimates. Previous
studies had shown that higher UV-B levels can stunt phytoplankton growth by 10 per cent or more in
localised areas or in the laboratory (New Scientist, 8 August 1998). The difference is that his study looked
at the big picture of UV-B for the whole ocean. Arrigo suggests that cloud cover may be an important
factor. "On a cloudy day under a deep hole, there's still not nearly as much UV flux as on a clear day with no
hole." It may also be that around 80 per cent of the southern hemisphere's ozone hole is over ice most of the
time, so only a small part of the ocean is exposed to the impact of ozone depletion. Dr Harvey Marchant who
heads Australia's Antarctic Biology Program said that no change in plankton biomass or photosynthetic effort
didn't necessarily mean there was no change in the ecosystem. He said the southern ocean contains more than
500 different species of plankton, and they all do slightly different things and have different UV sensitivity.
Diatoms, for example, play an important role in the ocean carbon sink process, because they assimilate
carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) at the ocean surface and relocate it down to the depths, where the carbon
may remain for thousands of years. Yet diatoms are very UV-sensitive, and a change in their population may
in the longer term change carbon assimilation in the oceans. Raymond Smith from the University of
California has done landmark research on the effect of increased UV-B on phytoplankton. He said that
marine plankton have adapted to cope with the hole. "It's obvious that (the impact) isn't going to be
catastrophic," he told New Scientist. "We've had the ozone hole for a decade and a half and the system
is still there."
Ozone Hole Answers – Nuclear War Turns – Kills Ozone

Even a small-scale nuclear conflict completely turns case.
Science Daily, 08 (Apr. 8, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407172710.htm)

According to the computer simulations, fires ignited in large cities by nuclear explosions would send
several million metric tons of soot into the upper stratosphere, which would be heated by massive
smoke injections. Higher temperatures would accelerate catalytic reaction cycles in the stratosphere,
particularly reactions of nitrogen oxide gases known collectively as NOx that destroy ozone, Mills said.
In addition to ozone losses of 25 percent to 40 percent at mid-latitudes, the models show a 50 percent to 70
percent ozone loss at northern high latitudes, said Mills. "The models show this magnitude of ozone loss
would persist for five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years,"
he said. The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous
"nuclear winter" and "ultraviolet spring" scenario calculations following nuclear conflicts, said Toon,
chair of CU-Boulder's oceanic and atmospheric sciences department. A 1985 National Research Council
Report predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the
1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere's
stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years. "The missing piece back then was that the
models at the time could not account for the rise of the smoke plume and consequent heating of the
stratosphere," said Toon. "The big surprise is that this study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional
nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted
following a full-scale nuclear war."
***Species Extinction***
Species Impact – OW Other Enviro Harms

Species extinction represents a greater threat to human survival than pollution, warming,
and thinning of the o-zone layer.
Washington Post 8 (Joby, Warwick, staff writer 7/1/08)

Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct
in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. (For
details see links below.) A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants
and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only
dimly aware of the problem, a poll says. The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's
gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer,
according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History.
The poll's release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded
than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over
the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history.
"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those
[extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and
prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum's survey. [Note: the last mass extinction
caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.]
Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass
extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could
disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and
animal habitats. Among the dissenters, some argue that there is not yet enough data to support the view that a mass
extinction is occurring. Many of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the global destruction of
rain forests and other rich habitats. Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears to have made relatively
little impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biological
diversity, and barely half ranked species loss as a "major threat." The scientists interviewed in the Louis Harris poll
were members of the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, a professional society of more
than 5,000 scientists.
Species Impact – Each Species Key

The natural balance of the earth is upset by human activity. Artificial destruction of a
single species could spell the destruction of the planet.
CNN 3 (8/21/03 Strieker, Gary http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html)

(CNN) -- The complex web of life on Earth, what scientists call "biodiversity," is in serious trouble.
"Biodiversity includes all living things that we depend on for our economies and our lives," explained Brooks
Yeager, vice president of global programs at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C.
"It's the forests, the oceans, the coral reefs, the marine fish, the algae, the insects that make up the living world
around us and which we couldn't do without," he said. Nearly 2 million species of plants and animals are
known to science and experts say 50 times as many may not yet be discovered. Yet most scientists agree that
human activity is causing rapid deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging, mining,
agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting nature's balance and driving many species to
extinction. There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period of mass extinction not
seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future
food supplies, our search for new medicines, and on the water we drink and the air we breathe. Estimates vary,
but extinction is figured by experts to be taking place between 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural "background"
extinction. At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago, world leaders signed a treaty to confront this
crisis. But its results have been disappointing. According to Yeager, "It hasn't been a direct kind of impact that some
of us had hoped for." One hundred eighty-two nations are now parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The United States is the only industrial country that has failed to ratify it. But there is wide agreement that the treaty
has had virtually no impact on continuing mass extinction. The treaty is more like a political statement than a plan of
action, setting very broad goals instead of real targets, and leaving it to national governments to decide how to reach
them.
Artificial extinction of one species guarantees extinction of exponentially more species

whose interconnectedness guarantees total extinction
MSNBC 4 (9/4/04 “Study sees far deeper species extinction http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:qk-

JkBCtr_0J:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5951649/+species+extinction+environment+single&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Study co-author Heather Proctor, of Canada’s University of Alberta, said in a statement that "what we
found is that with the extinction of a bird, or a mammal or a plant, you aren’t just necessarily wiping out just
one, single species. We’re also allowing all these unsung dependent species to be wiped out as well.” The team
used a mathematical model to look at what's termed "coextinction," adding the study marked the first time
the phenomenon had been quantitatively estimated. Not just mites, lice In many cases, species facing
coextinction tend to be things like mites and lice. But some others are more likely to be missed by humans,
such as a type of butterfly from Singapore that disappeared after the vines that had provided food for its
larvae became extinct. Overall, the researchers said, the loss of one species when a different one becomes
extinct shows how interconnected the world is. “What we wanted to learn was, if the host goes extinct, how
many other species will go with it,” Proctor said. “It would be easy if there were always a one-to-one
relationship with a host and its affiliate; however, not all parasites, for example, are restricted to a single host
species,” Proctor said. “The trick was in trying to determine how many other species could act as hosts and factoring
that degree of dependence into the study.” Beetles, butterflies at risk, too Using their model the group calculated
that extinction of the 6,279 plants listed as threatened or endangered by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature would also result in the loss of 4,672 species of beetles and 136 types of butterfly. Loss
of the 1,194 threatened birds could also mean disappearance of 342 species of lice and 193 types of mites. If
the 114 endangered primates were to go extinct, they said, there could also be the loss of 20 types of
nematodes, 12 lice and nine fungi to depend on the primates. "While coextinction may not be the most important
cause of species extinctions, " the researchers concluded, "it is certainly an insidious one."
Species Impact – Each Species Key

Each species performs a necessary function in its ecosystem-death of any single species can
destroy that ecosystem and the entire planet
NOVA 6 (“Science in the news”
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:iWVZFXPsVK8J:www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm+species+extinction+key+each&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)
A certain level of biodiversity (biological diversity) is necessary to keep our ecosystems healthy. This is
because each species performs a different function within an ecosystem. For example, some species allow
pollination to occur, some recycle nutrients, some maintain soil fertility. Species interact with each other and
rely on each other. One species may be a source of food for another, or may help keep another's population in
check.
As well as allowing natural ecosystems to function in a healthy manner, biodiversity is important for other
reasons (Box 3: Australia's biodiversity). Extinction has always occurred; the important thing today is that the
rate has greatly accelerated. This increased rate of extinction has already led to unstable ecosystems as well as
to the loss of potentially useful species. For instance plants provide us with all of our food (directly or indirectly),
as well as one-quarter of our medicines. The potential of many plants to supply food, medicines or other
commodities remains unexplored. And what other useful compounds could exist in unknown plants?
Each species is critical to the planet due to its environmental niche. These niches are critical
to ecosystem survival.
Hance 8 (Jeremy, staff writer for “Mongabay”4/29/08 http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:aeWHIJUA9E4J:news.mongabay.com/2008/0429-

hance_biodiv.html+species+extinction+key+each&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
Scientists from Brown University have discovered that an ecosystem's productivity is directly linked to
its diversity of plant species. The discovery has granted biodiversity new importance in the fight against
climate change: the more productive the ecosystem the more carbon it captures. "It's a double whammy,"
Osvaldo Sala explained. "We not only are disturbing our planet by putting more carbon into the atmosphere,
but we're reducing the ability of ecosystems to capture and store it." Sala is the director of the Environmental
Change Initiative and the Sloan Lindeman Professor of Biology at Brown. The Brown scientists conducted their
study for six years in Patagonia. They divided an area into ninety plots then began to systematically remove
native species from each plot and chart the changes in the plot's productivity. Productivity dropped as species
were removed. The scientists believe that productivity is linked to the diversity of species because of "niche
complementarity". In other words, in an intact environment each species has evolved its own niche without
interrupting other species' niches. This harmony between species allows them to positively interact with each
other and fully utilize the resources of a given space. In the experiments "the water is the same, the nitrogen is the
same, the sunlight is the same, what is different is the diversity of the plants," said Sala. Artificial landscapes proved
far less productive than natural ones. According to the paper: "In contrast [with artificial landscapes] natural
ecosystems presented mature individuals, populations, and species coexisting for long periods of time in natural
soils without chemical treatments and low artificial disturbance regimes."
Species Impact – A2: NUQ – Species Down

The non-unique doesn’t account for the placement of extinct species. Species in watershed
ecosystems have not YET gone extinct but are on the brink now.
ABC 7 (American bird conservatory “The alliance for zero extinction”

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:pfL9voNaaZIJ:www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/alliances/AZE.html+species+extinction+key+each&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=
us)
Across the Americas, large numbers of bird species are facing extinction, and more than one hundred
of these are now restricted to a single remaining site. It is time for practical, immediate steps to halt this
crisis-this is why ABC is dedicating a major effort to the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE), a global
initiative of biodiversity conservation organizations, which aims to prevent extinctions by identifying and
safeguarding key sites where species are in imminent danger of disappearing. The goal of the Alliance is to
create a front line of defense against total extinction by eliminating threats and restoring habitat to allow
species populations to rebound. Not only will this initiative help birds, but many other species, along with key
watersheds and unique habitats, will also be protected as a result. In 2001, biodiversity conservation scientists
came together over a common concern: that landscape-based conservation approaches alone could not
conserve all species, and that many extinctions would occur imminently if key sites were not identified and
protected. These concerns led to the formation of AZE, which set about creating a global plan to avoid site-based
species extinctions. The Alliance aims to prevent extinctions by identifying and safeguarding key sites, each one of
which is the last remaining refuge of one or more Endangered or Critically Endangered species.To date, AZE has
identified 595 sites that each represent the last refuges of 794 of the world's most highly threatened species. From
the start, ABC has been a leading member of AZE, identifying key bird sites in the Americas, and helping to
coordinate AZE's work. We are also actively involved in conservation at a number of AZE sites.
Species Impact – Hot spots

Megadiverse areas of the world contain 70% of all species on the planet and are critical to
planetary survival
Australian Gov. 7 (Department of the environment, water, heritage, and the arts “Australia’s biodiversity”
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:NZQFQtGQVo0J:www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html+hot+spots+biodiversity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&
gl=us)
Australia is one of seventeen countries described as being 'megadiverse'. This group of countries has
less than 10% of the global surface, but support more than 70% of the biological diversity on earth. The
concept was first developed by Russell Mittermeier in 1988, as a way to prioritise conservation action. Based on
an analysis of primate conservation priorities, he found that four countries accounted for two-thirds of all
primate species. The analysis was then expanded to include other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
plants and selected groups of insects. This resulted in 17 countries being identified, representing more than
two-thirds of all (known) life forms and the majority of tropical rainforests, coral reefs and other priority
systems. The results of the assessment were published in the Megadiversity: Earth's biologically wealthiest nations
(Mittermeier, Gil and Mittermeier eds. 1997. Cemex, Mexico). Australia is home to between 600,000 and 700,000
species, many of which are endemic, that is they are found nowhere else in the world. These include, for example,
84% of our plant species, 83% of mammals, and 45% of birds. Australia's biodiversity - the plants, animals, micro-
organisms and their ecosystems - is threatened from the impacts of human activities. Since European settlement,
more than 50 species of Australian animals and over 60 species of Australian plants are known to have become
extinct. Refer to our SPRAT database for listings and details of threatened flora and fauna.
Sustaining hotspot ecosystems is critical to halt planetary destruction
Australian Gov. 7 (Department of the environment, water, heritage, and the arts “Australia’s biodiversity”
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:NZQFQtGQVo0J:www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html+hot+spots+biodiversity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&
gl=us)
Biodiversity hotspots are areas that support natural ecosystems that are largely intact and where
native species and communities associated with these ecosystems are well represented. They are also areas
with a high diversity of locally endemic species, which are species that are not found or are rarely found
outside the hotspot. The current, planned or potential management activities in hotspots place the natural
values at risk, and it is likely this risk will increase in the future in the absence of active conservation
management. Because the natural values of hotspots are largely intact, undertaking action now to maintain
these values has the potential to provide value-for-money in contributing to our efforts in biodiversity
conservation.
Hotspots account for only 1.4% of the earth’s surface but contain 44% of the earth’s
species. Their destruction guarantees total destruction
Environmental Literacy Council 8 (“Hotspots of Biodiversity,

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BzVT5fEDfJoJ:www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory.php/202.html+hot+spots+biodiversity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us)
In order to concentrate resources on those areas that are most vulnerable, conservationists have
identified certain areas as biodiversity “hotspots.” The term, first used by British ecologist Norman Myers in
1988, designated areas losing habitat at a high rate in which there is a disproportionate number of species
found nowhere else. In 2000, Myers and others identified 25 “hotspots” that together comprise only 1.4
percent of the Earth's surface, yet contain 44 percent of all species of higher plants and 35 percent of all land
vertebrate species. Conservation International has since adopted the concept as the base of its conservation
management strategy.
Species Impact – Invisible Threshold

Loss of even one species can push an ecosystem over the invisible threshold which results in
its destruction
Earth’s tree news 7 (Livejournal, 206 edition

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:tOuV0Sbbt3YJ:olyecology.livejournal.com/54410.html+biodiversity+%22Invisible+threshold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl
=us)
We lived in cloud forest when we first arrived," Mr. Fogden says. "It's not cloud forest anymore, really."
Besides losing potential ingredients for new drugs or other useful compounds, scientists worry about more lost
benefits as species vanish. Healthy ecosystems are complex. Complexity lends resilience, the ability to ride out
disturbances. A resilient ecosystem will continue delivering the "services" humans expect, whether it's
harvesting abundant tuna from the sea or tapping fresh water as it tumbles down a mountainside. Each
species removed from an ecosystem brings it closer to a largely invisible threshold of collapse. Scientists tend
to use this economic reasoning about nature's importance when talking with journalists.
Species Impact – Intrinsic value

Animals of all species deserve to exist.
Earth’s tree news 7 (Livejournal, 206 edition

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:tOuV0Sbbt3YJ:olyecology.livejournal.com/54410.html+biodiversity+%22Invisible+threshold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl
=us)
We lived in cloud forest when we first arrived," Mr. Fogden says. "It's not cloud forest anymore, really."
Besides losing potential ingredients for new drugs or other useful compounds, scientists worry about more lost
benefits as species vanish. Healthy ecosystems are complex. Complexity lends resilience, the ability to ride out
disturbances. A resilient ecosystem will continue delivering the "services" humans expect, whether it's harvesting
abundant tuna from the sea or tapping fresh water as it tumbles down a mountainside. Each species removed from
an ecosystem brings it closer to a largely invisible threshold of collapse. Scientists tend to use this economic
reasoning about nature's importance when talking with journalists. When pressed, though, they make a
different argument. Species "should be preserved because of their intrinsic value," says Kayri Havens, director
of the Institute for Plant Biology and Conservation at the Chicago Botanic Garden, "because they deserve to exist.
Just as we do." Resplendent quetzals, iridescent tropical birds that he used to observe feeding frogs to their young,
are scarcer. Quetzal hatchlings may have lost a vital source of protein and calcium with the disappearance of once-
abundant amphibians, he reasons. Keel-billed toucans, meanwhile, have moved up from the foothills to the
mountain, perhaps competing with the quetzal. So has the morpho, a bright blue lowland butterfly. Snakes, which
also fed on the frogs, are much harder to come by even as lowland honeybees that previously avoided the mountain's
hive-infesting fungi now swarm up the mountain.
Species Impact – A/T Speciation

Speciation is not confirmed to be true and even if it were it would take too long to prevent
extinction
Boxhorn 95 (Joseph, talk origins archive. “Observed Instances of Speciation”
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ZNuUlV9V_ZcJ:www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-
speciation.html+Speciation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an
observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one
review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation
events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humble
opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a
settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have
actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the
department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature.
Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the
people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there
were papers in the literature. Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to
human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The
literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has
examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time. Third, the
literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these
cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur. Finally, most of the current
interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What
they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of
observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms. Most of the reports, especially the recent
reports, can be found in papers that describe experimental tests of hypotheses related to speciation. Usually
these experiments focus on questions related to mechanisms of speciation. Examples of these questions include:
Does speciation precede or follow adaptation to local ecological conditions? Is speciation a by-product of genetic
divergence among populations or does it occur directly by natural selection through lower fitness of hybrids?
How quickly does speciation occur? What roles do bottlenecks and genetic drift play in speciation? Can
speciation occur sympatrically (i.e. can two or more lineages diverge while they are intermingled in the same place)
or must the populations be separated in space or time? What roles do pleiotropy and genetic hitchhiking play in
speciation? It is important to note that a common theme running through these questions is that they all attempt to
address the issue of how speciation occurs.
***Species Extinction Answers***

A2: Species – NUQ

Alt. caus.-your salvation of even 100 species pales in comparison to the 16,0000 at risk
Sydney Morning Herald 4 (11/18/04, “Nearly 16,000 species threatened with extinction)
Nearly 16,000 of the world's plant and animal species face extinction largely because of the
destructive behaviour of mankind, says a major new environmental report . Over-exploitation, climate change
and habitat destruction are to blame for a crisis that has wiped out at least 27 species from the wild over the
last two decades, according to the World Conservation Union's (IUCN) red list of threatened species. The report
says more than 7000 animal species are threatened with extinction. They include 32 per cent of amphibians,
42 per cent of turtles and tortoises, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds. Among the casualties
since last year's report, the IUCN confirms the Hawaiian thrush has gone the way of the dodo with no sighting
of the bird for 15 years. Costa Rica's golden toad has also been listed as extinct largely through climate
change, pollution and disease.More than 8000 plants are listed as threatened with the St Helena olive tree the latest
to be declared extinct after the last remaining seedling withered and died in November last year without any seeds
kept.
N/U-30% of all species became extinct in the last 35 years.
CBC 8 (5/16/08 Canadian Broadcasting company http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/16/species-decline.html)

Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on Earth every year, a global
environmental report said Friday. The Living Planet Index, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological
Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and
amphibians has dropped by almost a third in the last 35 years. "You'd have to go back to the extinction of the
dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report. The main reasons for species
extinction are pollution, farming and urban expansion, overfishing and hunting, the report said. Between 1960 and
2000, the world's population doubled, said Ben Collen, one of the authors of the report. Decline 'caused by
humans' "Yet during the same period, animal populations have declined by 30 per cent on average. It's
beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans," he said. The report tracks birds, fish, mammals, reptiles
and amphibians around the world. Marine bird species alone have fallen by 30 per cent between 1995 and 2005, it
said. As well, between 1970 and 2005, land-based species fell by 25 per cent, marine by 28 per cent and
freshwater by 29 per cent. "Biodiversity underpins the health of the planet and has a direct impact on all our lives, so it is alarming that despite an
increased awareness of environmental issues we continue to see a downtrend trend," said WWF campaign head Colin Butfield. The report comes in the lead up to the
Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn next week. More than 5,000 delegates will gather from May 19-30 to "discuss the protection and the preservation of
species and habitats, a sustainable use of biological diversity as well as a fair distribution of access and exploitation," the conference website says.
N/U- One species goes extinct every twenty minutes
Science Daily 2 (1/10/02

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:Ys6ffti2ncsJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm+One+species+extinct+20+minutes&hl=en&ct=clnk
&cd=1&gl=us
Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring
in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in
the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. The co-author is Levin's son, Phillip S. Levin, a
National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an expert on the demography of fish, especially salmon.
Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes.
Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research
shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great
periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth. "The numbers are grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of
Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly
20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in
the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past." Biological
diversity ultimately recovered after each of the five past mass extinctions, probably requiring several million
years in each instance. As for today's mass extinction, Levin said some ecologists believe the low level of species
diversity may become a permanent state, especially if vast tracts of wilderness area are destroyed.
A2: Species – NUQ

N/U-We’re in the midst of a mass extinction
ENN 98 (Environmental news network, Ayres, Ed Sept. 16, 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20011222210519/www.enn.com/enn-features-

archive/1998/09/091698/fea0916_23526.asp)
Seven out of 10 biologists believe the world is now in the midst of the fastest mass extinction of living
things in the 4.5 billion-year history of the planet, according to a poll conducted by the American Museum of
Natural History and the Louis Harris survey research firm.
That makes it faster even than the crash which occurred when the dinosaurs died some 65 million years ago.
Unlike that and other mass extinctions of the pre-human past, the current one is the result of human activity,
and not natural phenomena, say the scientists.
The scientists surveyed rated biodiversity loss as a more serious environmental problem than the depletion of
the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and contamination. A majority (70 percent) said they believe that
during the next 30 years as many as one-fifth of all species alive today will become extinct, and a third of the
respondents think as many as half the species on Earth will die out in that time.
Marine Hotspots
Marine Ecosystems are vital to human survival and 80% of marine hotspots are adjacent
to terrestrial hotspots furthering there importance
Zubi 8 (Teresa, coastal scientist Deutsche Naturwissenschaften studieren http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wer+ist+Teresa+Zubi&btnG=Search)

Oceans cover 71 percent of earth's surface. Oceans have long been considered limitless places where
human activities have little or no impact. But the coral reefs, the richest of the tropical marine habitats, are at
risk of disappearing at an incredibly fast rate! Worldwide, already 25 percent of coral reefs have been
destroyed or badly degraded. Some scientist reckon, that by 2020 up to 70 percent might be permanently lost. In
2002 researchers identified global priority areas for coral reef conservation and prepared a list with the
world's top 10 coral reef hotspots. These are areas rich in marine species which are found only in small area.
Therefore they are highly vulnerable to extinction. These 10 hotspots contain just 24 percent of the world's coral
reefs, or 0.017 percent of the oceans, but claim 34 percent of restricted-range species. An interesting fast is, that
8 of the 10 coral reef hotspots are adjacent to a terrestrial hotspot. Those are regions of the world that harbor
the highest concentrations of species on land and are also at the greatest risk. In addition to the correlation
with terrestrial biodiversity hotspots, the paper notes that tropical reef ecosystems include "wilderness"
areas, which remain far less impacted by people, are rich in species, and relative to degraded areas, still
contain abundant populations of reef species that have already but disappeared from overexploited reefs. Why 11
marine hotspots? In 2002 the global environmental group Conservation International presented a strategy to
concentrate conservation efforts on these hotspots. This strategy prioritizes and targets conservation investments
where they have the greatest impact. They name 25 Biodiversity Hotspots (on land and in the sea) and divided
the so called Coral Triangle (Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea) in three different regions (Philippines,
Sundaland, Wallacea). I therefore added another hotspot to the list from the Centers for Applied Biodiversity Science
(CABS) resulting in 11 hotspots.
A2: Species – Invisible Threshold Bad

The “Invisible threshold” leads to oversimplification of policy decisions and a downward
spiral
Fox 3 (Douglas, Freelance science writer More than Meets the Eye: Behavior and Conservation
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:HPdca1eso6MJ:www.conbio.org/CIP/article43mor.cfm+biodiversity+%22Invisible+threshold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=
us)
Population models can be powerful tools for making policy decisions. But these tools can also
dangerously oversimplify reality, as a result overestimating how much exploitation a population can sustain
— or failing to predict the point where population decline crosses the invisible threshold into an accelerating
downward spiral.
“The opportunity we’re really missing,” says William Sutherland, a population biologist at the University
of East Anglia in the U.K., “is to create population models from an understanding of behavior. The reason that’s
incredibly important is we want to predict what will happen under novel conditions” such as exploitation or habitat
alteration.
The extinction of a single species does not spell destruction of the planet
Corneilius van Kooten &. Bulte 0 ( G, Cornelius , Erwin. A.R.E. Sinclair, University of British Columbia, Tilburg University and
University of BC, Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity: insights from biology, ethics and economics, eds. Van Kooten, Bulte and Sinclair, p. 6)
The neoclassical paradigm is the antithesis of the ecological view that natural capital imposes severe
constraints on growth—that economic collapse might be brought about by ecosystem collapse. The neoclassical
view is that, as biological resources become scarce, their relative values will rise, which leads to greater investments
in their conservation. These points are made by Simpson and Sedjo. The neoclassical view is that the elasticity of
substitution between natural capital and reproducible capital is high. Further, this view argues that loss of species is
exaggerated and that species loss does not result in ecosystem dysfunction, and possibly not a loss in genetic
diversity. It is possible to substitute some species for others. In Chapter 9, Bulte et al. explicitly argue that an
economist’s approach to conservation of nature and biodiversity is likely consistent with further conversion of
natural capital into alternative assets that are useful to society at large. They illustrate this point with several case
studies.
Biological history disproves that each species is key to survival
DALLAS MORNING NEWS 97, (October 27, 1997, p. lexis-nexis. (BLUEOC 0114)
Even though populations are disappearing quickly, Hughes said that the second "Science" paper is "a bright
spot in all this," describing how the tree of life could survive serious pruning. Even if 95 percent of all species are
lost, 80 percent of the underlying evolutionary history remains intact, write Nee and Sir Robert May, also a biologist
at Oxford. The scientists came up with equations to describe how much evolutionary history would remain after
some species went extinct. And they found that it didn't really matter whether they killed off species at random or in
a particular pattern. Choosing particular species to save didn't preserve much more evolutionary history than saving
species at random, the research shows. The work has implications for conservation biologists, who struggle with
choosing which species are the most important to protect. "It turns out that it really doesn't make a whole lot of
difference," Dr. Nee said.
A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species

Niche theory models are flawed
Botkin et al. 7 (Daniel, professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology UC Santa Barbara “Forecasting the effects of
global warming on biodiversity” http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/03-07.pdf)
However, niche-theory models have a number of limitations (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). First, they are
primarily correlative, using observed statistical relationships between occurrences of a species and its
environment. Second, they assume that observed distributions are in equilibrium (or quasi-equilibrium) with
their current environment, and that therefore species become extinct outside the region where the
environment, including the climate, meets their present or assumed requirements—contradicting the data
reviewed earlier, as well as many natural history observations of transplanted species, that show species have
survived in small areas of unusual habitat (Pearson 2006), or in habitats that are outside the well-established
geographic range but actually meet their requirements. Thus niche-theory models are likely to overestimate
extinctions, even when they realistically suggest changes in ranges of many species. Another problem with
niche-theory models, as with most models, is that they are difficult to validate, and few have been adequately
validated. For example, Lawler and colleagues (2006) compare six approaches to modeling the effects of global warming on fauna, but do not attempt to validate
any of the models independently. Indeed, bioclimatic models vary greatly in their projections of extinction (e.g., Thuiller et al. 2005, Lawler et al. 2006, Pearson et al.
2006). An additional complication is that the relationship between the occurrence of a species and climatic variables is not always correlated with the mean. For
example, amphibian declines due to outbreaks of a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) are related to the annual range of temperatures, not to
the mean temperature (Pounds et al. 2006).
Niche theory flawed
Guisan and Thuiler 5 (Le Science Laboratoire de Biologie de la Conservation (LBC), Département d’Ecologie et d’Evolution (DEE) “Predicting
species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models” http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2qpaAV-eH1YJ:www.will.chez-
alice.fr/pdf/GuisanThuillerEL2005.pdf+Guisan+and+Thuiller+2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
A useful framework for clarification was recently proposed by Pulliam (2000), who proposed four
theoretical views of the relationship between niche and distribution: (a) the Grinellian niche, where a species
occurs wherever the environmental conditions are suitable (i.e. fundamental niche, with a population growth rate
‡ 1); (b) the realized niche of Hutchinson, where a species is excluded from part of its fundamental niche by a
competitor or a predator, (c) the source-sink dynamics, where a species commonly occurs in a sink habitat
where its population growth rate is < 1, and thus where it would disappear without constant immigration
from source habitats, and (d) the dispersal limitation situation, where a species is frequently absent from
suitable habitats because of recurring extinction events and limited dispersal ability preventing full
recolonization (e.g. Svenning & Skov 2004). Traditionally, plant ecologists have relied on niche concepts (a)
and (b), whereas zoologists have been keener to additionally consider scenarios.
Predictions of species destruction are wrong-six reasons
The species–area method of forecasting changes in biodiversity under global warming has six
limitations (most summarized by Lewis 2006). First, it assumes an equilibrium (or very slowly changing)
relationship between species number and area. Second, the future climate probably will not be an exact
analog of the current one, so “moving” a bioclimatic zone for an ecological type may not be accurate
(Malcolm et al. 2006). Third, topographic variation, which affects the species–area curve shape,may be greater
or less in the future zone. Fourth, factors relating to the shape of areas and the amount of their fragmentation
suggest that an al ternative “endemics–area curve”may enable more accurate predictions (Harte et al. 2004).
Fifth, the correct z value must be chosen: It must apply to the entire area under consideration, and it must
also consider the type of area and timescale applicable (Rosenzweig 1995). Sixth,many species are not
confined to a particular vegetation zone or type. For the species–area relationship to predict species
extinctions, the area must be for closed communities. Thomas and colleagues (2004) used individual species
distributions as the basis for their analysis. They examined changes in realized niches without taking into account
the likelihood of changed interactions and adaptation, and thus the new areas that they predicted were probably too
small. How these area changes relate to changes in area of closed communities is unclear
A2: Species – A2: Keystone Species

Species models can’t be used theoretically or practically
In the last two decades, interest in species distribution models (SDMs) of plants and animals has grown
dramatically. Recent advances in SDMs allow us to potentially forecast anthropogenic effects on patterns of
biodiversity at different spatial scales. However, some limitations still preclude the use of SDMs in many
theoretical and practical applications. Here, we provide an overview of recent advances in this field, discuss the
ecological principles and assumptions underpinning SDMs, and highlight critical limitations and decisions
inherent in the construction and evaluation of SDMs. Particular emphasis is given to the use of SDMs for the
assessment of climate change impacts and conservation management issues. We suggest new avenues for
incorporating species migration, population dynamics, biotic interactions and community ecology into SDMs at
multiple spatial scales. Addressing all these issues requires a better integration of SDMs with ecological theory.
A2: Species – No Impact: Geographic Diversity
Geographically peripheral species check
However, the prospective loss of biodiversity due to global warming may still be mitigated by an exploitation
of the genetic diversity of species living in the semiarid ecosystems of Israel. There is a growing amount of
evidence supporting a theory which suggests that geographically peripheral populations of a species, as
compared to the populations of the same species inhabiting core areas of its geographical distribution, are
living under low environmental stability, have high within-species diversity, high evolutionary
potential, and most importantly high resistance to environmental changes, hence persistence under the
forecasted climatic change. There are therefore climate change scenarios that will cause core populations of
drought-resistant species to become extinct due to their low genetic diversity (hence a lack of drought-
resistant genotypes), whereas peripheral populations will persist and could be used to rehabilitate the
core areas of distribution of their species. This is not to say that the semiarid peripheral populations, if
protected from development and desertification, will not be affected by climate change. Climate change will
act as a selection agent, that will eliminate the non-resistant genotypes and thus will reduce genetic diversity.
But the populations will persist and will be used for rehabilitation of the core areas. The rehabilitated
population of a given species will differ in its genetic structure as compared to the extinct one it will be
composed predominantly of drought-resistant genotypes, originating in the semiarid region. But the species
will persist, and the ecosystems will not be damaged.
A2: Species – No Impact: Tech Solves

Technological advances have substantially reduced the negative effects of species extinction
Whitmore, Sayer 92 ( T. C. And J. L. Editors), “Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction”
extinction came to scientific prominence in 1979 with my debate opponent Norman Myers's book The Sinking
Ark. It then was brought to an international public and onto the U. S. policy agenda by the 1980 Global 2000 Report
to the President. These still are the canonical texts. Global 2000 forecast extraordinary losses of species
between 1980 and 2000. "Extinctions of plant and animal species will increase dramatically. Hundreds of
thousands of species -- perhaps as many as 20 percent of all species on earth -- will be irretrievably lost as
their habitats vanish, especially in tropical forests," it said. The actual data on the observed rates of species
extinction are wildly at variance with Myers's and following statements, and do not provide support for the
various policies suggested to deal with the purported dangers. Furthermore, recent scientific and technical
advances -- especially seed banks and genetic engineering, and perhaps electronic mass-testing of new drugs
-- have reduced the importance of maintaining a particular species of plant life in its natural habitat. But the
bandwagon of the species extinction issue continues to roll with ever-increasing speed. Society properly is
concerned about possible dangers to species. Individual species, and perhaps all species taken together, constitute a
valuable endowment, and we should guard their survival just as we guard our other physical and esthetic assets. But
we should strive for as clear and unbiased an under-standing as possible in order to make the best possible
judgments about how much time and money to spend in guarding them, in a world in which this valuable
activity must compete with guarding and supporting other valuable aspects of civilization.
A2: Species – No Impact: Migration

Natural and assisted migration solve species extinction
Zimmer 7 (Carl, Writer for New York Times. 1/23/07 “A Radical Step to Preserve a Species: Assisted Migration”)
Conservation biologists are talking seriously about assisted migration because the effects of climate
change are already becoming clear. The average temperature of the planet is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit higher
than it was in 1880. Dr. Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the University of Texas, reviewed hundreds of studies on
the ecological effects of climate change this month in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics. Many plant species are now budding earlier in the spring. Animals migrate earlier as well. And
the ranges of many species are shifting to higher latitudes, as they track the climate that suits them best. This
is hardly the first time that species have moved in response to climate change. For over two million years, the
planet has swung between ice ages and warm periods, causing some species to shift their ranges hundreds of
miles. But the current bout of warming may be different. The earth was already relatively warm when it began.
“These species haven’t seen an earth as warm as this one’s going to be in a long, long time,” said Dr. Mark
Schwartz, a conservation biologist at the University of California, Davis.
A2: Species – No Impact: Resilience

Species are too resilient for the impacts to occur
Sedjo 0 ( Roger, Sr. Fellow, Resources for the Future, “Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity: insights from biology,
ethics and economics”, eds. p. 114)
As a critical input into the existence of humans and of life on earth, biodiversity obviously has a very 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.
A2: Species – No Impact: A/T biggest wave of extinctions

The wave of mass extinctions forecasted by the aff has already come and gone
Motluk 2 (Alison, literary critic, Salon.com, book review, “Future Evolution” by Peter Ward, January 29,
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/01/29/ward/)
But Ward's Big Idea is a fascinating one. (Good thing, too, as this isn't the first book he's written on the
topic.) Unlike the doomsayers out there, he doesn't think there's another mass extinction looming. Rather, he's
convinced it's well underway, and that the worst is already over. Most of the big mammals that are going to die off
already have. Among those no longer with us are the mastodons, the mammoths, the saber-toothed tiger, the giant
short-faced bear. "It is visible in the rear-view mirror, a roadkill already turned into geologic litter -- bones not yet
even petrified -- the end of the Age of Megamammals," he writes.
A2: Species – No Impact: A/T Intrinsic worth

The intrinsic worth of any species is less than the intrinsic worth of humanity. We must
seek to preserve our own species
Randall & Farmer, (Alan, Michael Professors at Ohio State, 1995, “Handbook of Environmental Economics”
http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/eeeenvchp/)
Recognition of other co-equal or superior values, moral principles, or individual concerns returns us to the slick
terrain. The case for biodiversity is always circumstantial, that is, relative to the possibilities that are available and
the strength of the competing claims. Ehrenfeld (1988) claimed the high ground by resisting all the circumstantial
approaches as mere manifestations of the moral repugnancy of homocentrism. But, his victory is empy, since it
depends on first-principle or preeminent value status for biodiversity, and such status is unlikely to survive scrutiny
given the powerful appeal of many other candidates.
A2: Species – Turn: Speciation

Species loss is a natural process that allows for evolution of more resilient species.
Raup 91 (David, Dr. of Zoology. University of chicago., EXTINCTION: BAD GENES OR BAD LUCK, p.187 (MHHAR3474)
In Chapter 1, I suggested that without species extinction, biodiversity would increase until some saturation level was
reached, after which speciation would be forced to stop. At saturation, natural selection would continue to operate
and improved adaptations would continue to develop. But many of the innovations in evolution, such as new body
plans or modes of life, would probably not appear. The result would be a slowing of evolution and an approach to
some sort of steady-state condition. According to this view, the principal role of extinction in evolution is to
eliminate species and thereby to reduce biodiversity so that space -- ecological and geographic -- is available for
innovation.
A2: Species – DA Turns Case – NW = Species Extinction

A nuclear war would cause species extinction
Wade 90 (Nichola,s, The New York Times

[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0D8173CF936A35751C0A966958260] The Editorial
Notebook; Lessons of Nuclear Winter; Impassioned Experts Blow Hot and Cold/ February 5, 1990)
The horrors of nuclear war are hard to exaggerate. That hasn't stopped proponents of the ''nuclear winter''
theory, who announced in 1983 that the soot from a large nuclear war would blot out sunlight and create
weeks of icy darkness. The result could be ''global environmental changes sufficient to cause the
extinction of a major fraction of the plant and animal species on the Earth,'' wrote a group of eminent
biologists in Science magazine. ''In that event, the possibility of the extinction of Homo sapiens cannot
be excluded.''
***Water Scarcity***
Water Scarcity Bad – Failed States

Water scarcity globally creates failing states that threaten national security.
Sandia Lab 06 (Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory. “Address water scarcity, water
quality issues around the world now, Sandia/CSIS report says” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 31, 2006
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/waterpol.html accessed July 5, 2008)
Why does Sandia care if there is adequate potable drinking water in places other than the U.S.? The reason,
says Ray Finley, manager of Sandia’s Geohydrology Department, is that Sandia, as a national security
laboratory, has the responsibility to help provide for the security of the U.S. That includes regions of the
world that are of strategic importance to the U.S. and can impact this country’s national security. “The lack
of clean water can create conditions that lead to destabilization in regions of the world that are already
poor and having problems,” he says. “Lack of potable water can result in famine, conflict over
resources, and poor governance. Failed and failing states threaten U.S. security because of their
potential to harbor terrorist groups.” Examples are instability in the Middle East and Africa — both
places where fresh water for both consumption and sanitation is in short supply. The report expands this
theme, saying that “global trends of increasing population, increasing resource consumption, and
decreasing natural resource availability — including fresh water — have pushed many human social,
economic, and political systems to an important tipping point. We face large-scale future dislocations
and crises unless significant action is taken now by leaders in both developed and developing
countries.”
Water key to social, economic, cultural, and political wellbeing among isolated, poor
regions sharing sources
Sandia Lab 06 (Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory. “Address water scarcity, water
quality issues around the world now, Sandia/CSIS report says” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 31, 2006
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/waterpol.html accessed July 5, 2008)
The white paper included several other findings. They include: • Water is a foundation for human prosperity.
Adequate, high-quality water supplies provide a basis for the growth and development of human social,
economic, cultural, and political systems. Conversely, economic stagnation and political instability will
persist or worsen in those regions where the quality and reliability of water supplies remain uncertain.
• Water problems are geopolitically destabilizing. Water scarcity and poor water have the potential to
destabilize isolated regions within countries or regions sharing limited sources of water. There is an
increasing likelihood of social strife and armed conflict resulting from pressures of water scarcity and
mismanagement. • Poor governance and poor economies in regions around the world where water is
scarce impair the application of innovative technology and innovative policies.
Water wars are real and dangerous in both cases of water scarcity and flooding
WP 07 (Doug StruckWashington Post Staff Writer. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts”
Washington Post Monday, August 20, 2007; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967_pf.html accessed July 5, 2008)
The potential for conflict is more than theoretical. Turkey, Syria and Iraq bristle over the Euphrates
and Tigris rivers. Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt trade threats over the Nile. The United Nations has said
water scarcity is behind the bloody wars in Sudan's Darfur region. In Somalia, drought has spawned
warlords and armies. Already, the World Health Organization says, 1 billion people lack access to
potable water. In northern China, retreating glaciers and shrinking wetlands that feed the Yangtze River
prompted researchers to warn that water supplies for hundreds of millions of people may be at risk. "The
government is talking about harmony between man and nature. But we still haven't seen the turning
point," Ma Jun, author of "China's Water Crisis," said in a phone interview from Beijing. Even where global
warming brings more precipitation, it may come at the wrong time. If precipitation that traditionally
feeds a glacier comes too early, as rain instead of snow, the result is a quick torrent followed by months of
meager trickle. And if the rain comes in torrents, it brings scenes like those this summer from Texas and
India.
MidEast at risk for volatile water conflicts

Podesta and Ogden 08 (John Podesta is the President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, Peter
Ogden is Chief of Staff at American Progress specializing in energy policy. “G8 Must Consider the Security Risks of
Global Warming” Peter Ogden June 30, 2008
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/g8_ogden_podesta_column.html/print.html accessed July 5, 2008)
We should also begin to plan for the implications of increased water scarcity due to climate change in
the Middle East. The water politics of the region are enormously complex and volatile: The Jordan River
physically links the water interests of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority; the Tigris
and Euphrates links Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. While we are not likely to see “water wars” per se, these
countries will have no choice but to pursue more aggressively the kinds of technological and political
arrangements that will enable them to survive in this water-stressed region.
Water Scarcity Bad – Timeframe

Water Scarcity is an urgent problem globally, needs global action
IRC 07 (“Climate change: billions could face water scarcity by 2100” IPCC report Updated: Monday 19 February
2007 http://www.irc.nl/page/32665 accessed July 5, 2008)
By 2100, water scarcity could impact between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people, says a leaked draft of an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due to be published in April 2007. The report
focuses on the consequences of global warming and options for adapting to them. In February 2007 the panel
released a report on the scientific basis of climate change. The IPCC predicts critical water shortages in
China and Australia, as well as parts of Europe and the United States. Africa and poor countries such
as Bangladesh would be most affected because they were least able to cope with drought. One way to
deal with acute (drinking) water shortages, would be to ship water by tanker. This was already
happening between France and Algeria and Turkey and Israel, said Daniel Zimmer, executive director of the
World Water Council (WWC). In France, forty-five nations called for the establishment of a United
Nations Environment Organization (UNEO) to slow global warming and protect the planet, a body
that potentially could have policing powers to punish violators. The effort is led by President Jacques
Chirac of France, who also proposed an accompanying UN declaration of environmental rights, covering
rights to water and clean air, and responsibilities, such as emissions reductions.
Water Scarcity Bad – Laundry List

Diouf 07 (Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General of FAO, the coordinating agency within the UN system for World
Water Day this year “Coping with water scarcity” Q&A with FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf 22 March
2007 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2007/1000521/index.html accessed July 5, 2008)
How serious is the problem of water scarcity? Global water use has been growing at more than twice the
rate of population growth in the last century. Water scarcity already affects every continent and more than
40 percent of the people on our planet. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions
with absolute water scarcity, and two-thirds of the world’s population could be living under water
stressed conditions. In order to really understand how serious the problem is we first must take stock of the
immense impact water has on our daily lives and our ability to provide for a better future. Lack of access to
adequate, safe water limits our ability to produce enough food to eat or earn enough income. It limits
our ability to operate industries and provide energy. Without access to water for drinking and proper
hygiene it is more difficult to reduce the spread and impact of life-threatening diseases like HIV/AIDS.
Every day, 3 800 children die from diseases associated with a lack of safe drinking water and proper
sanitation.
Is water scarcity being caused by climate change? The water scarcity situation is being exacerbated by
climate change, especially in the driest areas of the world, which are home to more than 2 billion
people and to half of all poor people. The human impact on the earth’s environment and climate must be
addressed in order to protect the world’s water resources. But there are other factors involved, such as
increases in the amount of water needed to grow the food for a growing population. Agriculture is the
number-one user of freshwater worldwide. Also, the trend towards urbanization and increases in
domestic and industrial water use by people who live in more developed areas are factors that lead to
growing water use. Ultimately, though, the problem is one of the way in which we manage existing
water resources and whether we as a global community truly have the political will to support policies
and invest in programmes that protect our natural environment, conserve water and use less water to
do more.
Water Scarcity Bad – Agriculture

Diouf 7 (Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General of FAO, the coordinating agency within the UN system for World
Water Day this year “Coping with water scarcity” Q&A with FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf 22 March
2007 http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2007/1000521/index.html accessed July 5, 2008)
You say that agriculture is the world’s number-one user of freshwater. Shouldn’t the solution to water scarcity
lie in agriculture? First of all, there is no magic wand, no flip of the switch that is going to suddenly
eliminate water scarcity. But there are concrete ways to turn the tide against water shortages. We at FAO
recognize that the agriculture sector must take the lead in coping with water scarcity by finding more
effective ways to conserve rain-fed moisture and irrigate farmlands. There is no question that growing
enough food is fundamental to fighting hunger and improving lives on every continent. But agriculture
consumes about 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawn and up to 95 percent in several developing
countries. To tackle water scarcity even as the demand for food increases, we must support initiatives
to produce more food with proportionally less water. Again, this means protecting our waterways, keeping our forests
healthy and improving the way in which we irrigate crops and manage livestock. Can you give an example of how you would do that?
By thinking both big and small. First FAO advocates short-term, small-scale irrigation projects at the village level, including the
development of low-cost and relatively simple, cost-effective methods which can be used by small farmers to irrigate crops. We have
organized and supported pilot programmes in places like South Africa, Turkey and Mexico that focus on small scale irrigation or
community-based systems for harvesting rainfall. Often, one must help people to recover from severe water and food shortages by
providing new crops and livestock while setting up irrigation projects, as we are doing right now with the support of the government and
international donors in Niger. But the secret to long-term success is to break out of the cycle of responding to
one water emergency after another and to put into place workable, sustainable long-term programmes.
This requires policy changes and cooperation on a larger scale. It means upgrading and improving the
management of the facilities and then working across national borders to develop and protect water
basins.
Water scarcity creates irrigation problems in both the US and developing countries
WP 7 (Doug StruckWashington Post Staff Writer. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts” Washington
Post Monday, August 20, 2007; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
Humans have long attempted to reconcile nature's inconstancies with giant plumbing: reservoirs and
dams that hold back floodwaters for more gradual release; dikes and other barriers to protect developed
areas; canals and pipelines to take water from wet areas to dry. But that kind of infrastructure is expensive,
especially for Third World governments. Environmentalists decry the impact on wildlife. And building
dams in earthquake zones tempts disaster. Even in rich California, "there's been no significant reservoir
construction for many years," said Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the state Farm Bureau. "Reservoir
construction is terribly expensive. It's easier to block a reservoir than to build one." Researcher Seager
suggests that humans ought to bend more to nature than trying to bend nature. "We're not going to be
able to carry on like we are," he said. "Do we really want to keep growing irrigated alfalfa in the high
desert, in New Mexico and Arizona? It really makes no sense." But Mark McKean, a Fresno Valley farmer,
had to leave some of his fields of cotton unwatered when the flow in the irrigation canals stopped this
summer. But he chafes at Seager's suggestion. "Sure, my tomatoes can be grown in other parts of the world,"
he said. "But do we want to give up the economic base that supports small, rural towns? Do we want to
ignore child labor growing our food somewhere else? Do we want to know if pesticides are being used?
What are we willing to pay for all that?"
Water Scarcity Bad – US Econ

Water scarcity is hurting the public economy both in perception and costs
Ostroff 8 (Jim, “Drought's Impact on Businesses Gaining Scrutiny: Lenders, investors and customers are becoming increasingly aware of
how water shortages can be a negative for businesses.” The Kiplinger Washington Editors, June 3, 2008
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/drought_impact_on_firms_gains_scrutiny_080603.html accessed July 5, 2008)
Droughts plaguing many parts of the U.S. are nabbing the attention of lenders and investors. They are
zeroing in on businesses' exposure to water supply risks and how they might affect customer service
and costs. Power plants, food processors, mining companies and semiconductor makers could see
disruptions that hurt the bottom line and their reputation with customers and investors. If outages
force a firm to cut production or close facilities, higher costs ensue. Banks are including that assessment
when conducting due diligence on companies' accounting or contingency plans. Look for banks and
Wall Street to hone in on water supply disruption risks when mulling loan applications and evaluating
the outlook for public firms. "[Public] companies provide a great deal of information about potential risks
to their operations, earnings, profits, but they don't do an adequate job of disclosing the risks they face in the
event of water shortages -- even short-term ones," says Marc Levinson, an economist with JPMorgan Chase.
"Most companies that think about water supply risks at all are very shortsighted...they figure they can
truck in water...not only is it very expensive to truck in water, but they'll be in competition with scores of
hundreds of others scrounging to get water at the same time." The risks affect companies in many
parts of the nation. Water shortages loom over many firms in the Southwest, Southeast and parts of the
Midwest and Northwest. Warming temperatures that reduce snowfall in the mountains will prolong
periods of drought. The spring runoff from snow in California, critical to its water supply, is forecast to
be 55% of normal, forcing summer water restrictions.
Companies face reputational risk with investors and customers with water shortage
Ostroff 8 (Jim, “Drought's Impact on Businesses Gaining Scrutiny: Lenders, investors and customers are becoming increasingly aware of
how water shortages can be a negative for businesses.” The Kiplinger Washington Editors, June 3, 2008
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/drought_impact_on_firms_gains_scrutiny_080603.html accessed July 5, 2008)
Water shortage risks are already an issue in emerging economies, such as in China, India and South
Korea. In those nations and in the U.S., even the potential for problems related to water can influence
perceptions of companies held by individual and commercial customers and investors. Craig Hanson,
deputy director of the World Resources Institute program for people and ecosystems, says: "Companies
should expect they'll face a reputational risk over water usage...[and] companies that are perceived as
water hogs in areas where water is becoming scarce will become targets of community groups."
Water Scarcity Bad – Climate Refugees

Increased water shortage is creating more climate refugees
Global warming threatens water supplies in other ways. Much of the world's fresh water is in glaciers
atop mountains. They act as mammoth storehouses. In wet or cold seasons, the glaciers grow with snow. In
dry and hot seasons, the edges slowly melt, gently feeding streams and rivers. Farms below are dependent
on that meltwater; huge cities have grown up on the belief the mountains will always give them
drinking water; hydroelectric dams rely on the flow to generate power. But the atmosphere's
temperature is rising fastest at high altitudes. The glaciers are melting, initially increasing the runoff,
but gradually getting smaller and smaller. Soon, many will disappear. At the edge of the Quelccaya Glacier,
the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes, Ohio State University researcher Lonnie Thompson sat in a cold tent at a
rarified 17,000 feet. He has spent more time in the oxygen-thin "death zone" atop mountains than any other scientist,
drilling ice cores and measuring glaciers. He has watched the Quelccaya Glacier shrink by 30 percent in 33 years. Down
the mountain, a multitude of rivulets seep from the edge of Quelccaya to irrigate crops of maize, the water flowing
through irrigation canals built by the Incas. Even farther downstream, the runoff helps feed the giant capital, Lima,
another city built in a desert. "What do you think is going to happen when this stops?" Thompson mused of the water.
"Do you think all the people below will just sit there? No. It's crazy to think they won't go anywhere. And
what do you think will happen when they go to places where people already live?"
Agricultural problems will force migration from Mexico to the US

The spacing of tree rings suggests there have been numerous periods of drought going back to A.D. 800, he
said. But, "mechanistically, this is different. These projections clearly come from a warming forced by
rising greenhouse gases." Farmers in the Central Valley, where a quilt of lush, green orchards on brown
hills displays the alchemy of irrigation, want to believe this is a passing dry spell. They thought a wet 2006
ended a seven-year drought, but this year is one of the driest on record. For the first time, state water
authorities shut off irrigation pumps to large parts of the valley, forcing farmers to dig wells. Farther south
and east, the once-mighty Colorado River is looking sickly, siphoned by seven states before dribbling into
Mexico. Its reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are drying, leaving accusatory rings on the shorelines
and imperiling river-rafting companies. Seager predicts that drought will prompt dislocations similar to
those of the Dust Bowl. "It will certainly cause movements of people. For example, as Mexico dries out,
there will be migration from rural areas to cities and then the U.S.," he said. "There is an emerging
situation of climate refugees."
Reuters 08 (Story by Emma Graham-Harrison. “China Drought Underlines Hydropower Reliance Risks” Reuters
News Service Jan 18, 2008, http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=46494 accessed July 5,
2008)
A major drought has squeezed electricity output at big dams across southwest China, highlighting the risks of
Beijing's massive hydropower expansion plans on coal and oil markets in a warmer, drier world. Ships are stranded,
millions are short on drinking water, and power supplies to big consumers in several Chinese provinces have been
cut back, industry officials and local media have said. And while building more dams will help Beijing meet more of
its electricity demand using resources within its own borders, it also risks short-term surges in consumption of oil,
coal or natural gas to generate emergency power when rivers run low. The world's number-two energy user already
gets 15 percent of its electricity from hydropower and aims to increase capacity by more than half to 190 gigawatts
—over double Britain's entire stock of power plants -- by the end of the decade. But Australia's similarly ambitious
Snowy Hydro power scheme, designed more than half a century ago as a lifeline for the fertile yet dry Murray-
Darling river basin, offers a grim warning. Normally the provider of three quarters of the mainland's renewable
energy, it has seen output tumble and drowned towns re-emerge from shrinking reservoirs after years of poor rains.
"The Australian example shows how risky hydropower is, from the point of view of droughts," said CLSA analyst
Simon Powell. "The Snowy system really is not being dispatched at all. And that has caused a tightening of supply
on the generation side, resulting in a spiking of wholesale electricity prices." Other countries like Pakistan and
Vietnam that are heavily reliant on hydropower have been forced to step up imports of fuel oil or buy power from
neighbours during dry spells, driving up costs for producers and unsettling regional oil markets.
SHORTAGES CREEP BACK

In 2004, China endured its worst power shortages in decades as new plant construction lagged far behind rapid
economic growth. Many businesses turned to diesel-fired generators to stave off blackouts, causing oil demand to
surge by 15 percent, a key factor behind oil prices' first ascent above US$50 a barrel. The International Energy
Agency estimated that up to 350,000 barrels per day of oil demand, or over a third of total consumption growth that
year, went to power generation. That strain has since eased, as China builds new power stations at a rate
unprecedented anywhere in the world; installed capacity has grown by half since the end of 2004. But in some areas
the shortage of local resources -- from coal to water -- is emerging as a new cause of an old problem. Southwestern
Yunnan and Sichuan provinces are both facing electricity shortages because of low water levels in rivers. The strain
is so serious in Sichuan that it has affected supplies to major users like metals smelters. Nearby Guizhou province is
also suffering from outages because tight supplies of thermal coal are compounding problems caused by low water
levels. Water levels on the country's longest river, the Yangtze, are the lowest since records began in 1866, state
media reported, though reservoirs at its massive Three Gorges project -- the world's biggest hydroelectric plant --
remain healthy. "This year's dry season came a month earlier than usual and water levels fell sooner than expected,"
the China Daily quoted an unnamed government official saying on Thursday. The dry spell is not a one-off. Last
year also saw historic droughts in some parts of the country and officials have repeatedly warned that climate
change is already affecting China. "With the impact of global warming, drought and water scarcity are increasingly
grave," the State Council, or cabinet, said in a recent directive. Beijing's fight to curb greenhouse gas emissions
includes boosting the role of renewables in powering its economy, which has the added attraction of cutting reliance
on oil imports. "In terms of energy security the government is right to push for hydropower. China also has a lot of
water resources that are untapped," said Donovan Huang, research analyst at Nomura.
WORSE TO COME
But the country has naturally low per capita water resources, and China's top water official has warned that the
challenge of managing scarce supplies is compounded by climate change. The frequency of both the droughts and
floods that regularly batter China are expected to increase in a warmer world. And rural demands could compound
the impact of short supplies, because China tends to time releases of water to suit the needs of farmers rather than
power companies. For instance, water levels behind major reservoirs nationwide rose 6 percent in early January
from 2006, but only because dam operators are stocking up ahead of spring planting season. Below dams, boat
traffic piled up on drought-stricken rivers, and authorities had to release water from behind the Three Gorges Dam to
ease cargo ship stranding downstream. That may have helped power wholesalers in the manufacturing hub of
Guangdong, which is looking to the dam for extra supply to help tide over expected summer shortfalls, local media
reported. But if the dam cannot deliver, generators will have to chase tight coal or pricey fuel oil supplies, pushing
prices up in a cycle that global warming could make unpleasantly familiar.
Christian Science Monitor 08 (“Is water becoming ‘the new oil’? Population, pollution, and climate put the
squeeze on potable supplies – and private companies smell a profit. Others ask: Should water be a human right?” By
Mark Clayton: Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. May 29, 2008 edition
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/is-water-becoming-‘the-new-oil’/ accessed July 5, 2008)
Water, Dow Chemical Chairman Andrew Liveris told the World Economic Forum in February, “is the oil of this
century.” Developed nations have taken cheap, abundant fresh water largely for granted. Now global population
growth, pollution, and climate change are shaping a new view of water as “blue gold.” Water’s hot-commodity
status has snared the attention of big equipment suppliers like General Electric as well as big private water
companies that buy or manage municipal supplies – notably France-based Suez and Aqua America, the largest US-
based private water company. Global water markets, including drinking water distribution, management, waste
treatment, and agriculture are a nearly $500 billion market and growing fast, says a 2007 global investment
report. But governments pushing to privatize costly to maintain public water systems are colliding with a
global “water is a human right” movement. Because water is essential for human life, its distribution is best
left to more publicly accountable government authorities to distribute at prices the poorest can afford, those
water warriors say. “We’re at a transition point where fundamental decisions need to be made by societies
about how this basic human need – water – is going to be provided,” says Christopher Kilian, clean-water
program director for the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. “The profit motive and basic human need
[for water] are just inherently in conflict.”
Will “peak water” displace “peak oil” as the central resource question? Some see such a scenario rising.
“What’s different now is that it’s increasingly obvious that we’re running up against limits to new [fresh water]
supplies,” says Peter Gleick, a water expert and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Envi-
ronment, and Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Oakland, Calif. “It’s no longer cheap and easy to drill another
well or dam another river.” The idea of “peak water” is an imperfect analogy, he says. Unlike oil, water is not
used up but only changes forms. The world still has the same 326 quintillion gallons, NASA estimates. But
some 97 percent of it is salty. The world’s remaining accessible fresh-water supplies are divided among industry
(20 percent), agriculture (70 percent), and domestic use (10 percent), according to the United Nations. Meanwhile,
fresh-water consumption worldwide has more than doubled since World War II to nearly 4,000 cubic
kilometers annually and set to rise another 25 percent by 2030, says a 2007 report by the Zurich-based
Sustainable Asset Management (SAM) group investment firm. Up to triple that is available for human use, so
there should be plenty, the report says. But waste, climate change, and pollution have left clean water supplies
running short. “We have ignored demand for decades, just assuming supplies of water would be there,” Dr.
Gleick says. “Now we have to learn to manage water demand and – on top of that – deal with climate change,
too.”
Population and economic growth across Asia and the rest of the developing world is a major factor driving
fresh-water scarcity. The earth’s human population is predicted to rise from 6 billion to about 9 billion by 2050, the
UN reports. Feeding them will mean more irrigation for crops.
Increasing attention is also being paid to the global “virtual water” trade. It appears in food or other products that
require water to produce, products that are then exported to another nation. The US may consume even more
water – virtual water – by importing goods that require lots of water to make. At the same time, the US exports
virtual water through goods it sells abroad.
In the US today, about 33.5 million Americans get their drinking water from privately owned utilities that make up
about 16 percent of the nation’s community water systems, according to the National Association of Water
Companies, a trade association.
“While water is essential to life, and we believe everyone deserves the right of access to water, that doesn’t
mean water is free or should be provided free,” says Peter Cook, executive director of the NAWC. “Water should
be priced at the cost to provide it – and subsidized for those who can’t afford it.”
But private companies’ promises of efficient, cost-effective water delivery have not always come true. Bolivia
ejected giant engineering firm Bechtel in 2000, unhappy over the spiking cost of water for the city of Cochabamba.
Last year Bolivia’s president publicly celebrated the departure of French water company Suez, which had held a 30-
year contract to supply La Paz.
In her book, “Blue Covenant,” Maude Barlow – one of the leaders of the fledgling “water justice” movement – sees
a dark future if private monopolies control access to fresh water. She sees this happening when, instead of
curbing pollution and increasing conservation, governments throw up their hands and sell public water
companies to the private sector or contract with private desalination companies.
“Water is a public resource and a human right that should be available to all,” she says. “All these companies are
doing is recycling dirty water, selling it back to utilities and us at a huge price. But they haven’t been as
successful as they want to be. People are concerned about their drinking water and they’ve met resistance.”
Private-water industry officials say those pushing to make water a “human right” are ideologues struggling to
preserve inefficient public water authorities that sell water below the cost to produce it and so cheaply it is
wasted – doing little to extend service to the poor.
Water and war: Will scarcity lead to conflict?

Cherrapunjee, a town in eastern India, once held bragging rights as the “wettest place on earth,” and still gets nearly
40 feet of rain a year. Ironically, officials recently brought in Israeli water-management experts to help manage and
retain water that today sluices off the area’s deforested landscape so that the area can get by in months when no rain
falls.
“Global warming isn’t going to change the amount of water, but some places used to getting it won’t, and
others that don’t, will get more,” says Dan Nees, a water-trading analyst with the World Resources Institute.
“Water scarcity may be one of the most underappreciated global political and environmental challenges of
our time.” Water woes could have an impact on global peace and stability.
In January, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cited a report by International Alert, a self-described
peacebuilding organization based in London. The report identified 46 countries with a combined population of 2.7
billion people where contention over water has created “a high risk of violent conflict” by 2025.
In the developing world – particularly in China, India, and other parts of Asia – rising economic success means a
rising demand for clean water and an increased potential for conflict.China is one of the world’s fastest-
growing nations, but its lakes, rivers, and groundwater are badly polluted because of the widespread dumping
of industrial wastes. Tibet has huge fresh water reserves.
While news reports have generally cited Tibetans’ concerns over exploitation of their natural resources by China,
little has been reported about China’s keen interest in Tibet’s Himalayan water supplies, locked up in rapidly melting
glaciers.
“It’s clear that one of the key reasons that China is interested in Tibet is its water,” Dr. Gleick says. “They don’t
want to risk any loss of control over these water resources.”
The Times (London) reported in 2006 that China is proceeding with plans for nearly 200 miles of canals to
divert water from the Himalayan plateau to China’s parched Yellow River. China’s water plans are a major
problem for the Dalai Lama’s government in exile, says a report released this month by Circle of Blue, a branch of
the Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
Himalayan water is particularly sensitive because it supplies the rivers that bring water to more than half a
dozen Asian countries. Plans to divert water could cause intense debate.
“Once this issue of water resources comes up,” wrote Elizabeth Economy, director of Asia Studies at the Council
on Foreign Affairs, to Circle of Blue researchers in a report earlier this month, “and it seems inevitable at this point
that it will – it also raises emerging conflicts with India and Southeast Asia.”
Tibet is not the only water-rich country wary of a water-poor neighbor. Canada, which has immense fresh-water
resources, is wary of its water-thirsty superpower neighbor to the south, observers say. With Lake Mead low in
the US Southwest, and now Florida and Georgia squabbling over water, the US could certainly use a sip (or gulp)
of Canada’s supplies. (Canada has 20 percent of the world’s fresh water.)
But don’t look for a water pipeline from Canada’s northern reaches to the US southwest anytime soon. Water
raises national fervor in Canada, and Canadians are reluctant to share their birthright with a United States
that has mismanaged – in Canada’s eyes – its own supplies. Indeed, the prospect of losing control of its water
under free-trade or other agreements is something Canadians seem to worry about constantly.
A year ago, Canada’s House of Commons voted 134 to 108 in favor of a motion to recommend that its federal
government “begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.”
.
***Water Scarcity Answers***

AT Water Wars- Solved Now

Existing development programs solve water scarcity and resource wars.
IRDC 97 (“Helping the Thirsty to Solve Their Water Crisis” IDRC 1997-11-25 http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5522-
201-1-DO_TOPIC.html accessed July 16, 2008)
Bridge over Troubled Waters IDRC has supported a number of research initiatives to deal with water as
a source of conflict in places where the potential exists and in the Middle East, where water has been
the key natural-resource issue for at least 3 000 years. Dr David Brooks, an IDRC chief scientist and an
expert in this field, writes that "no other region of the world embraces such a large area, with so many people
striving so hard for economic growth on the basis of so little water." IDRC was part of the Canadian
representation on the team discussing water issues during the Middle East peace talks. The talks brought
together Israeli and Palestinian researchers who, until then, did not know, and were unlikely to speak to, one
another. The two teams of researchers are now seeking peaceful and effective means to manage jointly
the Mountain Aquifer, the region's largest source of quality drinking water. The researchers have
identified the problems and defined alternative management options. A second phase of the research is
seeking ways to select among the options. Researchers will also try to define who -- Israel or Palestine and
which group within each country -- would win or lose under each option. This kind of project enables
Canada to contribute to peace and security in a volatile region. IDRC water projects also showcase
Canada's considerable expertise. Hans Schreier says some of the data he collects in his IDRC-funded
research in Asia and the Middle East could be important to Canada. The kinds of storms he is studying in the
Himalayas could provide an indication of what Canada can expect if it experiences significant climate
change. He regards IDRC as "quite unique" in its use of research to seek a solution to what he calls "the crisis
of the year 2000.
Cooperative water sharing negotiations will solve for now, even with conflicts of interest
Spillmann 5 (Kurt R., “Attention is increasingly being drawn towards rivalries around the precious resource
water.” Science Life Published: 06.10.2005, 06:00 http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/kolukrsp3.html
Water wars? Accessed July 16, 2008)
In his painstaking analysis of all conflicts related to water listed by the FAO, Aaron T. Wolf concludes that
predictions of water wars are exaggerated and that willingness to co-operate and co-operative solutions
are more often employed to resolve this type of altercation. The German scientist Petra Holtrup has also
found many examples proving the capability, in practice, of numerous non-binding action programmes
which enable those involved to agree on a co-operatively regulated, and therefore non-violent, use of
waterways that flow through more than one country. The Research Center for Security Studies at ETH
Zurich has also shown, within framework of the NCCR North-South Programme, how co-operation can be
fostered with regard to scarce water supplies in the basin of the Nile by the means of so-called
"dialogue workshops“ (1).
Such co-operative solutions nevertheless come in for some fundamental criticism. Co-operation calls for
renunciation, says John Waterbury, political scientist and President of the American University in Beirut.
Waivering one's right to something is fundamentally irreconcilable with one's own interests, he states,
and this is the reason why the problem-solving power of such regulations was, at best, only a "Utopian
vision". It was difficult in practical terms to grasp the concept of "for the common good", which
counted for far less with the individual than costs that touched him or her directly.
AT Water Wars- People Migrate

Water alone can’t cause a violent enough resource war—people migrate instead.
Spillmann 5 (Kurt R., “Attention is increasingly being drawn towards rivalries around the precious resource
water.” Science Life Published: 06.10.2005, 06:00 http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/kolukrsp3.html
Water wars? Accessed July 16, 2008)
One area that is plagued by extreme drought is the belt stretching from Morocco in Africa's north-east all
the way to Oman. Individuals living in this region have less than 500 cubic metres of water per year at
their disposal, which is the equivalent of less than 1,400 litres per day. When the 70 per cent employed in
agriculture and the 20 per cent used by industry are deducted from this, it leaves only around 10 per cent–
roughly 140 litres per person per day–for household and personal use. (By comparison Europeans use
200 to 300 litres and North Americans 500 litres a day for their personal and household needs.) The crux of
the matter is that precisely in these regions the population is strongly increasing. Under these conditions
isn't it inevitable that armed conflict will result over available water supplies and the courses of rivers?
As unfortunate as the current situation and predictions are for this region, from historical experience we can
deduce that, to date, water alone has never been the sole source of violent conflict or war.
Conflicts about water reflect the nature of this commodity. In contrast to land, water cannot be
occupied and thus become immovable property. Water flows, falls as rain, sometimes here, sometimes
there, floods, disappears; it is not hard, like a stone, durable like a mountain or solid like a piece of land.
Water doesn't seem to engage our feelings in the same way as the ownership of a plot of earth does and
this is why skirmishes about water are generally less intractable. Just as water flows around obstacles or
avoids them, faced with a glut or scarcity of water people react with mobility–usually by fleeing, and
water conflicts appear to be carried out with less aggression than conflicts over land.
AT Water Scarcity -- General

New and existing infrastructure is definitely sufficient for solving water scarcity
Azam 2 (By M. Zaki Azam “Solving water scarcity problem” May 6, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/06/ebr3.htm accessed July 16, 2008)
The study warned that the water scarcity would be a major constrain on food production, human health
and environmental quality. Many of the countries on food production, human health and environmental
quality. Many of the countries in this category, including Pakistan, will have to divert water from
irrigation to supply their domestic and industrial needs and will need to import more food. However
the study concluded that around 50 per cent of the increase in demand for water by the year 2025, can be
met by increasing the effectiveness of irrigation. While some of the remaining water development needs
can be met by small dams and conjunctive use of aquifers. In some cases medium and large dams may
also be needed. The productivity of irrigation water can be increased in four ways: (i) increasing the
productivity per unit of transpiration; (ii) reducing flows of usable water to sinks and converting this into
productive use; (iii) controlling salinity and pollution and (iv) reallocating water from lower valued to higher
valued crop.
Market Forces solve water scarcity

Zubrzycki 6/4 (Carly Zubrzycki “The rain in Spain…” Adam Smith Institute Saturday, 4 June 2008
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/ accessed July 16, 2008)
While on the other hand, when costs and the decreasing availability of water actually had an effect,
farmers moved towards more efficient irrigation methods and crops that required less water.
Incentives matter. Governments shouldn’t be subsidizing unsustainable lifestyles in arid locations,
especially when that will only worsen the situation. If farming is only economically sustainable with
subsidized water, people should not be farming there. Water should be more expensive where it’s scarce or
hard to access, even if that means fewer farmers or a shift in population towards more fertile areas. As
water gets scarcer, a more market-based system would surely also do more to encourage the
development of private desalination plants and water-saving technology, as opposed to simply pouring
billions of taxpayer dollars into such projects. If farming isn’t working out, Spain should move towards
less water-intensive industries in those areas and import crops from places with more adequate resources and
a comparative advantage. Very high water prices would encourage even the resorts and golf courses to
find ways to reduce water usage rather than search for bureaucratic loopholes. People find ways
around bureaucracies, but it’s much harder to find a way around the market.
***Climate Refugees Answers***

AT Climate Refugees- No Data

Studies on climate refugees and conflict are speculative and unqualified—empirically,
cooperation trumps violence
UNDEP 7 (“Climate Change and Conflict: The Migration Link” International Peace Academy members Nils
Petter Gleditsch, Ragnhild Nordås and Idean Salehyan UNDEP May 2007, PDF accessed July 16, 2008)
One concrete link between climate change and violent conflict is suggested by the TAR, which observes that
“much has been written about the potential for international conflict (hot or cold) over water resources.” The
report comments that a change in water availability has the potential to induce conflict between different
users. But such disputes need not be violent; they could even stimulate cooperation. The sources cited
by the IPCC provide weak support for the idea of conflict over scarce water resources.The writings of
Peter Gleick,Michael Klare, and others suggest a potential for water wars,but other scholars such as Peter
Beaumont and Aaron Wolf argue that cooperation generally trumps conflict in handling shared water
resources. Statistical studies have found that neighboring countries that share rivers experience low-
level interstate conflict somewhat more frequently, but that they also tend to cooperate more. Whether
conflict or cooperation will dominate is not a simple function of scarcity but depends on other variables
such as mediation and dispute resolution mechanisms, the nature of property rights, and the ability to
enforce agreements The overall impression from the IPCC report is that the link between climate change
and conflict is unclear.Where such a link is mentioned, it is weakly substantiated with evidence.The Stern
Review on the economics of climate change invites the same charac- terization. Its references to how conflict
“may” occur as a result of climate change are mostly based on second-hand sources of the same nature as
those used by the IPCC. The expected causal link from climate to conflict seems to be cited uncritically from
one source to the next.
The link between warming, migration, and conflict is too shaky for you to vote on this
impact.
The link between climate change, migration, and conflict remains conjectural. Because it is difficult to
isolate different causes of migration, it is unclear whether specific population movements have
occurred as a direct result of environmental stresses rooted in climatic shift.There is good evidence
linking conflict and emigration in sending areas and immigration and conflict in receiving areas. On the
other hand, there is a lack of consensus and systematic data on the effects of climate change on
migration and on the effect of climate-induced migration on conflict. Clearly identifying the sources of
environmentally- induced migration and environmental conflicts is a difficult, yet much needed endeavor.
Empirical evidence can only reveal patterns of social behavior that have already occurred. Much of the
debate about climate change involves future forecasts and possible scenarios.It is quite possible that the
most disruptive effects of climate change will occur at some point in the future. Thus, preparation for future
events must be rooted in an analysis of best and worst case scenarios and firm theoretical foundations
AT Climate Refugees- Alt Cause

Tension over environmental factors is based on the community background, not simply
scarcity.
Secondly, environmental stress may lead to resource conflicts, and these conflicts may produce
refugees. Each type of migration may lead to conflict in receiving areas; however, they may not have the
same effects. Migration directly caused by environmental factors may lead to social tensions and
sporadic violence in receiving areas, but is not likely to cause sustained, organized armed conflict. In
contrast, political refugees from violent regions are more likely to become involved in militant
activities, although even this is not a foregone conclusion.
No water wars from migration—at worst, there will be small unorganized riots.
Purely environmental migrants, on the other hand, often do not have political agendas in their home
region and they do not necessarily regard themselves as victims of persecution deserving justice. If
people flee for economic or environmental reasons rather than because of armed conflict, the risk of
importing organized and sustained conflict should be lower. Current migration patterns are instructive in
this regard. Across Europe and North America, hundreds of thousands of economic migrants gain access each
year. Although racist attacks, ethnic riots, and murders do occur, such incidents have generally been
short-lived and without large-scale organization.
***Warming Answers***
A2: Warming = Fires – Turn: Decreases Fires

Climate change decreases forest fires
Bergeron et al 98 (Another Look at the Little Ice Age Yves Bergeron, Mike Flannigan and David W. Schindler
BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 11 (Nov., 1998), pp. 884-885)
However, our own research indicates that there is a large regional variation in the response of fire
activity and lake levels to climate warming. Contrary to what is portrayed by Schindler for northwestern
Ontario, the warming after the end of the Little Ice Age (c. 1850) in Quebec's boreal forest has led to a
decrease in forest fire activity (Bergeron and Archambault 1993) and an increase in lake water levels
(Begin and Payette 1988, Tardif and Bergeron 1997). Schindler argues that climatic warming implies an
increase in temperature, which in itself may cause an increase in fire activity as well as increased
evapotranspiration and lake level decline. However, increased temperature is often associated with an
increase in precipitation that often can more than compensate for the effect of increased temperature
on the water balance. Our work strongly suggests that decreased forest fire activity and increased
lake levels in Quebec's boreal forest are related to a more positive water balance since the post- Little
Ice Age warming began. This interpretation has been confirmed by simulations of the Fire Weather Index
(FWI) for a doubling of carbon dioxide scenario using a general circulation model (GCM; FWI integrates
weather variables that control fire intensity and spread and is inversely related to the water balance.
Simulations showed that except for Central Canada, where the FWI might increase significantly, most of
the boreal forest would be characterized by a decreased or un- changed maximum or mean FWI. In a
recent study (Flannigan et al. in press), we were able to show that historical frequency of forest fires
observed in the Canadian boreal forest was indeed what was predicted by the GCMs. Although we
tend to agree with Schindler that boreal forests are threatened, we think that the scientific arguments on
climatic warming developed in his article do not properly take into account large regional differences
in the climate and in the response of the ecosystem to changes in the climate.
A2: Warming = Species Extinction

Projections of species destruction are overestimated and fail to consider multiple factors
Now that it is widely accepted that global warming is happening, there is a growing demand for accurate
forecasts of its effects, and much concern about its effects on biological diversity. Specialists know that
theoretical models of these effects are limited—although useful in certain contexts when all the provisions,
preconditions, and limitations of a given model are understood—and should not be taken literally. Often,
however, the media do not convey these caveats. It is no wonder that policymakers and the general public are
confused. The purpose of an environmental forecast is either to support a decision process or to test a
scientific hypothesis. To support a decision process, it must be clear which decisions the forecast expects to
improve. To mitigate the effects of global warming on biodiversity, two distinct kinds of actions are needed: long-
term actions, such as reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and short-term ones, such as designing an appropriate
nature reserve. Fossil evidence and recent ecological and genetic research, along with specific problems with present
forecasting methods, lead us to believe that current projections of extinction rates are overestimates. Previous
work has failed to adequately take into account mechanisms of persistence. We note a Quaternary
conundrum:While current empirical and theoretical ecological forecasts suggest that many species could be at
risk from global warming, during the recent ice ages few extinctions are documented (Willis et al. 2004). The
potential resolution of this conundrum gives insights into the requirements for more accurate and reliable
forecasting.
Projections of species extinction are overestimated-fossil records prove
Fossil evidence and recent ecological and genetic research, along with specific problems with present
forecasting methods, lead us to believe that current projections of extinction rates are overestimates. Previous
work has failed to adequately take into account mechanisms of persistence. We note a Quaternary
conundrum:While current empirical and theoretical ecological forecasts suggest that many species could be at
risk from global warming, during the recent ice ages few extinctions are documented (Willis et al. 2004). The
potential resolution of this conundrum gives insights into the requirements for more accurate and reliable
forecasting.
Their conception of biodiversity is oversimplified
Among the many meanings of the term “biodiversity,” it is important to select one as the focus for
each specific forecast. Most of the existing literature on forecasting the effects of global warming on
biodiversity seems to assume that “biodiversity” has some universally accepted meaning, and that readers
already know what this is. However, biodiversity is a complex concept, and its meanings are becoming both
more complex and more quantitative as greater emphasis is placed on DNA analysis as a determinant of
genetically distinct units. As if distinctions among different levels of organization of biodiversity (genes,
species, ecosystems, etc.) were not already complex, there are even more fundamental distinctions between
different ways of valuing biodiversity: intrinsic value (species’ value independent of human use and needs)
and use value (the human use of diversity, ranging from the desire to harvest one species to the ability to see
and appreciate complex ecosystems).
***Oil Spills***
Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [1/2]

Oil spills push tuna over the brink to extinction
ENS`6 (Enviromental News Service, Lebanon Oil Spill a Biodiversity Disaster, Cleanup Blocked ATHENS, Greece, August 8,
2006, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2006/2006-08-08-01.asp)
Marine species such as the commercially important bluefin tuna are believed to have been affected by
the oil spill. �This oil slick definitely poses a threat to biodiversity," said marine biologist Dr. Ezio
Amato of Italy, who arrived in Damascus today to assess the spill. Dr. Amato is a specialist in the impact of
human activities on marine benthic ecosystems, fate and effects of pollutants in these ecosystems. He is
from ICRAM, the Istituto Centrale per la Ricerca scientificae tecnologica Applicata al Mare, an Italian
research institute that is part of a group of organizations cooperating to address the spill. �Because tuna’s
eggs and larvae float on the water surface, they can be directly affected by this oil slick, with potential
serious consequences for the tuna population in the Mediterranean," Amato said. The largest of the
tunas, bluefin tuna migrate from the Atlantic Ocean to the eastern Mediterranean and form spawning
aggregations. The species is already at risk due to overfishing, warned WWF in a July report, saying
current levels of fishing are 2.5 times higher than the bluefin tuna populations can sustain. �Atlantic bluefin
tuna stocks risk imminent commercial collapse,� said Roberto Mielgo Bregazzi, CEO of Advanced Tuna
Ranching Technologies and author of the WWF report. �In the race to catch shrinking tuna stocks,
industrial fleets are switching from traditional fishing grounds to the last breeding refuges in the
eastern Mediterranean,� he said. At this time of year, critically endangered Mediterranean green turtles
nest on a beach in Lebanon, but the coast is coated with oil from the spill. "I saw many fish and crabs dead
by the Ramlet al-Baida beach," environmental activist Iffat Edriss told the "Daily Star," describing the
situation as a disaster for the marine ecosystem. Ramlet al-Baida is the only public beach in Beirut.
B) Tuna key to herring-A keystone species

Velasquez-Manoff`7 (Moises, Can we save the bluefin tuna? Can the world act fast enough to save the disappearing
tuna?, Christain Science Monitor, 12.27.2007 http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=1219)
The warm-blooded bluefin, the largest of the tuna species, travels vast distances during its life. Living up to 30 years, adults
fatten up in highly productive northern waters, like, historically, those in the Gulf of Maine, and then spawn in the warmer waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean.
Since the early 1980s, managers have treated North Atlantic bluefin as two separate populations: eastern and western. A north-south line that bisects the Atlantic divides the two
stocks. Many scientists assumed a mere 4-to-5 percent exchange between eastern and western tuna. But "no fisherman that I know of ever believed for a second that the two-stock
theory was viable," says Mayhew. Enabled by new tagging technology, studies conducted during the past decade substantiate Mayhew's hunch. "Since the late '90s, we've
confirmed that the mixing is much greater than assumed," says Dr. Lutcavage – up to 30 percent. The new evidence has US scientists worried about what's happening in the East,
particularly in the Mediterranean. Even by European scientists' account, bluefin catches there are currently at unsustainable levels. The Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics (SCRS) recommended a quota of 15,000 tons in 2007. But the ICCAT set the allowable catch at 29,500 tons. Worse, studies put the actual catch somewhere around
50,000 tons. And, says Lutcavage, while 73 inches (about 250 pounds) is the minimum harvest size in US waters, it was only 10 kgs (22 lbs.) in European waters until recently. In
late November, ICCAT raised the minimum catch size there to 30 kgs (66 lbs.). "If you're taking 70,000 metric tons [77,000 tons] and it's much smaller fish, the number of fish
you're taking is much greater," she says. For each 250-pounder caught here, up to 10 were potentially removed there. Presumably, these fish never came west. The Gulf of Mexico
and the Mediterranean leave distinct chemical signatures on fish that swim their waters. A laboratory at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, is currently analyzing
bluefin ear bones to better determine their origin, the results of which should be available early next year, says Dr. Porch. Calls for a moratorium ignored In October, meanwhile,
Bill Hogarth, director of NMFS, called for a three-to-five year moratorium on bluefin fishing. In November, the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling for the same.
But despite warnings from both sides of the Atlantic that collapse was imminent, ICCAT implemented only a small reduction. By 2010, the eastern quota will drop to 25,000 tons
yearly. The World Wildlife Foundation called the decision the "final blow for Mediterranean tuna." Rich Ruais, executive director of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association in
Salem, N.H., and an adviser to the American delegation to ICCAT, characterizes it as "an utterly preposterous inadequate response to the crisis at hand.... The European
Community has just totally refused to address the issue." The fault, he and others say, lies with tuna-farming interests in the Mediterranean. The recent boom in capturing and
fattening tuna in mobile sea pens has created a powerful lobby worried about recouping its investment. "There's nowhere else to point the finger," Mr. Ruais says. But other ocean
The few tuna that still swim the western Atlantic are showing
anomalies have some thinking that eastern fishing fleets aren't the only stress on western tuna.
up quite lean. "The quality of the fish that I've seen has definitely declined over the last few years," says Bob Campbell, manager of the Yankee Fisherman's Cooperative
in Seabrook, N.H. After analyzing 14 years' worth of Mr. Campbell's logbooks, Walter Golet, a PhD candidate in Lutcavage's lab, agreed. Bluefin "come here for one reason – they
come here to feed," says Mr. Golet, who recently published his findings in the journal Fishery Bulletin. But "they don't seem to be obtaining the forage that they were getting 10 to
This thinning has some
15 years ago." (This year, which was not included in the study, has seen a slight rebound in tuna quality, says Campbell.)
wondering about what bluefin eat, particularly herring, a keystone species in the northern Atlantic. Herring
biomass seems high, similar to the way it was before the advent of modern industrial fishing fleets in
the 1960s. But both fishermen and conservationists consider this five-inch-long fish important
enough that they've formed an alliance devoted to its protection. Known as CHOIR, the Coalition for the Atlantic Herring
Fishery's Orderly, Informed, and Responsible Long-Term Development, has repeatedly called for large herring trawlers to leave New England waters. The coalition fears that if
herring numbers greatly diminish, everything that feeds on them, from tuna to cod, will suffer. Indeed, while herring biomass seems healthy, scientists have noted that an individual
four-year-old herring is smaller than in the past. "The size at that age has decreased over the last decade or so," says Bill Overholtz, a senior scientist with NMFS in Woods Hole,
There are so many herring that each one eats less, making them
Mass. The most obvious cause is the "density effect," he says:
smaller. And smaller herring could mean that feeding tuna have to work harder for each meal.
Oil Spills Bad-Bio D-Tuna [2/2]

C) Extinction
Diner`94 (David, JD Ohio State, Military Law Review, Winter, 1994)
4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is better than simplicity. As the current
mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend
occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the
number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems
are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These
ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the
more successfully it can resist stress... [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several
strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which is
cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially
simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The
spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are
relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal
or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem
collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Oil Spills Bad-Econ-Tourism

Oil spills kill tourism
Tre`7 (Tuoi, Oil spills attack Vietnam’s most beautiful beaches, 4/21/2007,
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/travel/2007/04/687502/)
Local residents said as of 3.30 pm yesterday that many oil clods had melted and absorbed into the sand. Mr.
Nguyen Dinh Khoa, Vice President of Nha Trang urban Environment Company, said, “If they aren’t timely
collected, these oil clods can melt and be absorbed into the sand, polluting beaches even more.” Around April
14, oil spills also appeared at Ngang Beach within Van Phong Bay. Yesterday morning, the investigation team from
the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment also discovered coalesced substances along 800 m of
Doc Le Beach in Van Phong Bay. Oil spills also appeared and have been collected within the Tri Nguyen Island
area. Oil clods are causing a general concern for Nha Trang tourism. Many think that if oil spills can drift as
far as the beach right at the centre of Nha Trang city, they will certainly attack other beaches within Nha Trang
Bay. As of yesterday morning, however, some islands within Nha Trang Bay said they hadn’t seen any oil spills yet.
The Khanh Hoa Department of Natural Resources and the Environment said, “It isn’t clear where the coalesced oil
recently discovered at Doc Let Beach as well as Nha Trang’s central beach came from, but unlike the oil that
appeared at Dam Mon Beach, it can’t spread to pollute a wider environment. But since oil spills appear at
frequently-visited beaches, tourism will be significantly affected. Oil spills may continue to drift to beaches.”
B) Tourism key to economic growth

Makova`7 (Patrice, ZBC News, African News Network, Tourism key to promoting economic development, February 14,
2007, http://www.newsnet.co.zw/index.php?nID=9810)
Tourism is a key factor for promoting the economic and social development of people as well as an
essential means of fostering communication, cooperation and mutual understanding. The industry generates
employment and wealth, at the same time it enables countries to open up to the world and project their
profile abroad and brings into play all the natural, historical, artistic and cultural assets that nations
have to offer. According to the World Tourism Organisation, international tourism continues to perform
favourably, surpassing expectations and proving to be resistant to external factors and effectively
challenging traditional arguments. Last year, it is estimated that world tourism grew by four percent and
the African continent, especially the sub-Saharan region, had an excellent performance, which saw the
number of foreign tourists’ arrivals increasing by 12 percent.
C) Extinction
Bearden`2k(Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000,
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm)
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising,
it is inevitable that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations
on others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as
fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction
weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its
perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range
missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic
collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw
in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the
great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have
about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.
Oil Spills Bad-Sea Food Industry

Oil spills hurt the sea food industry
Tucker`7 (Jill, San Francisco Chronicle, Seafood industry feeling pinch of the oil spill, November 13, 2007,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/13/MN6ITB1TU.DTL&feed=rss.news)
Kevin Lunny stood near the bow of his 18-foot oyster boat Monday morning and scanned the calm water of
Drakes Bay with binoculars, praying he wouldn't see any more rainbow sheen on the surface of the high tide.
The co-owner of Drakes Bay Family Farms searched 90 minutes for any trace of the fuel oil that spilled out
of the cargo ship Cosco Busan after it hit the base of a Bay Bridge tower Wednesday. By Friday, the oil
drifted out of San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate and up the coast into Drakes Estero, where
millions of Lunny's oysters grow. Midday Friday, Lunny spotted the slick, a few hundred feet wide,
shimmering on the surface of the water over his oyster beds. Within hours, the state health department
shut him down. Monday, Lunny didn't see any oil. But even as experts calculate the long-term
environmental impact related to last week's oil spill, local seafood businesses are already feeling it in their
wallets. On a busy day, 100,000 oysters are harvested out of Drakes Estero - fetching 50 cents each,
wholesale. Health officials could determine that the amount of oil was too small to harm oysters and other
shellfish. Or they could require laboratory testing to make sure. Lunny, whose farm harvests 3.6 million
pounds of oysters annually, accounting for 60 percent of the state's total crop, hopes to know more
within the next day or two. "Weeks could kill us," he said. How much the oil will affect the state's $4.5
million oyster industry is unknown, said Robin Downey, executive director of the Pacific Coast Shellfish
Growers Association. "It's going to depend on what happens with prevailing winds and the currents."
Nonetheless, diners might not notice an oyster shortage at Bay Area restaurants, which typically offer oysters
from a variety of regions. At San Francisco's Swan Oyster Depot, there will continue to be plenty of
Washington and British Columbian oysters available raw on the half shell, said worker Brian Dwyer. But not
the saltier, grittier local oysters many people prefer. "We won't be getting those for a while," Dwyer said.
Crab and herring catches will be impacted by the oil as well, said Zeke Grader, executive director of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Crabbers asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to delay
the sport-fishing season opening to ensure that no tainted crab products land on store shelves or restaurant
plates. Commercial crab season in the Bay Area was scheduled to begin Nov. 15, but local fishermen voted
Saturday to delay it indefinitely. For the rest of the West Coast, crab season begins Dec. 1. Herring fishermen
also asked for a delay of the season, scheduled to start Dec. 2. More than 4,000 tons of herring are pulled out
of the bay each year - a $2.7 million annual catch. In Drakes Estero, even if the oysters are deemed safe to
eat, those that come into contact with fuel oil might not be very desirable to slurp from the half shell.
"They could still have a bit of a smell or a bit of a taste," said Downey of the shellfish growers
association. Just up the coast from Drakes Estero, Terry Sawyer of the Hog Island Oyster Co. has spent the
last few days waiting for high tide at the mouth of Tomales Bay, searching the waves for that same rainbow
shimmer.
**Oil Spills Good**

Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Detergent

Cleaning it up is worse-The detergent used is more toxic than the oil
Choi`7 (Charles, Live Science, Bad to Worse: Oil Spills Cleaned with Deadly Detergent, July 13, 2007,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070731_corals_oil.html)
Oops—the detergents often used to clean up oil spills appear more toxic to coral reefs than the oil itself,
scientists now find. In 2006, some 13,000 metric tons of oil were accidentally spilt from tankers and similar
vessels, compared with the 37,000 metric tons spilt from the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. When spills
happen near tropical coral reefs or shorelines, government authorities commonly use detergents to
disperse the oil into smaller and supposedly less harmful droplets, much as soap helps break stains
down. To see what effects these detergents might have on corals, researchers exposed millimeters-sized
clumps of two different Red Sea coral species to six commercial oil dispersants and six different
concentrations of crude oil under lab conditions. More toxic The detergents and the dispersed oil droplets
all proved significantly more toxic to the coral than the crude oil itself, causing rapid, widespread death
or stunted growth rates, even at doses recommended by the dispersant manufacturers. The team's
findings are detailed in Aug. 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. Oil can kill corals
by directly enveloping and suffocating them. Toxins in the oil can also dissolve in water and poison
corals. Although the detergents help break up oil slicks and prevent them from smothering coral, the
increased surface area the smaller droplets present "means that more toxic components of the oil can
come out," explained marine biologist Buki Rinkevich at the Israel Oceanographic and Limnological
Research. There are other considerations, however. Oil spills that are not dispersed can kill birds and other
wildlife. Amy Merten, an environmental scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), said the study gives information on a worst-case scenario that should be considered
in trade-off decisions. This includes choosing whether to disperse oil into the water and risk harming coral
versus getting the oil slick off the surface of the water "so birds, mangroves, and nesting turtles aren't as
affected," she said. Few alternatives Rinkevich and his colleagues recommended banning these detergents
from anywhere near coral reefs and to only use them in emergencies, when oil slicks are shore-bound. Still,
"there are limited alternatives for responding to spills," Merten said. "Essentially, there are mechanical
methods [such as skimmers], in-situ burning or dispersants," Merten explained. "Generally, in open water,
there is a very short window for using any method since the slick will spread and move with the wind and
currents. Dispersants will continue to be considered as an option. After the oil spills, no one wins. Our job is
to try to minimize further impacts, and there may be a time when dispersants help us do that for a portion of
the spill."
The clean up of oil spills is just as destructive

NHS, No date (Needham Highschool, Advanced HIghschool, Oil Spills and Effects on Wildlife, Informational handout
excerpt, http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Envir98_99/p1/emtp1/oilspills.htm)
Oil is one of the main pollutants in our oceans and can be very harmful to the environment. Oil spills near the
shoreline have proven to be far more damaging than the spills that occur in the open sea. The spills closer to
the shore contaminate the beaches and the land nearby as well as the entire body of water and are much more
difficult to clean up. Because these shoreline oil spills contaminate the entire surrounding area of the spill,
the effect on wildlife can be larger and more dangerous. Oil spills in general have severe affects on all
different forms of wildlife, but it does not stop there; not only are the oil spills bad for the environment, but
the clean up techniques can be destructive as well. HOW ARE THE ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFE
EFFECTED BY OIL SPILLS? RECREATION AND COASTAL ACTIVITIES: The contamination of coastal
areas is very common in oil spills. Coastal areas are not only damaged by the spill itself, but clean-up
techniques can further damage the area. The United States usual form of oil spill clean-up is risky and
has been known to cause more problems in the environment. The U.S. uses special ships to vacuum up the
oil or dispersants, solvents and detergent chemicals are sprayed over the oil spill to break it into smaller
sections so it does not reach the coast. If these forms of clean-up are used incorrectly, the chemicals are
hazardous to the environment and are powerful enough to harm coastal areas.
Oil Spills Good-Cleaning Bad-Coral

Cleaning up oil spills kills coral
ACS`7 (American Chemical Society (2007, July 31). Oil Spill Clean-up Agents Threaten Coral Reefs. ScienceDaily. Retrieved
July 18, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730172426.htm)
In a setback for efforts to protect endangered coral reefs from oil spills, researchers in Israel report that oil
dispersants -- the best tool for treating oil spills in tropical areas --are significantly more toxic to coral
than the oil they are used to clean up. Their study, which urges caution in the use of these materials, is
scheduled for the August 1 issue of ACS' Environmental Science & Technology. Called the 'rainforests of the
sea,' coral reefs are an endangered ecosystem and are disappearing at an alarming rate due to numerous
threats, including over-fishing, global warming and pollution, particularly oil spills. Besides hosting a rich
diversity of marine organisms, these habitats are also potential sources of life-saving medicines and
food for humans. Scientists looking for better ways to protect this important habitat have recently focused
on the environmental impact of oil dispersants, detergents used break down oil spills into smaller, less
harmful droplets. In the new report, Shai Shafir and colleagues evaluated the effects of both crude oil and
six commercial oil dispersants under laboratory conditions on the growth and survival of two
important species of reef corals. The dispersants and dispersed oil droplets were significantly more
toxic to the coral than the crude oil itself, the scientists report. The dispersants caused "significant
harm," including rapid, widespread death and delay in growth rates, to the coral colonies tested even
at doses recommended by the manufacturers, they add. "Decision-making authorities should carefully
consider these results when evaluating possible use of oil dispersants as a mitigation tool against oil
pollution near coral reef areas," the report said.
B) Extinction
McMichael`3 (Anthony J, National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health Director, Climate Change and Human
Health: Risks and Responses, p. 254,
http://books.google.com/books?id=tQFYJjDEwhIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=coral+reefs+critical+human+survival&source
=web&ots=PpvyXNZ_Ve&sig=HuTi0RaOUUfhEhs1_zYoDQhJFz0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP
1,M1)
Coral reefs are one of the most threatened global ecosystems and also one of the most vital. They offer
critical support to human survival, especially in developing countries, serving as barriers for coastal
protection; major tourist attractions; and especially as a productive source of food for a large portion of
the population (39, 40). Coral reefs supply a wide variety of valuable fisheries, including both fish and
invertebrate species (41). Some fisheries are harvested for food, others are collected for the curio and
aquarium trades.
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Indict

The true impact can’t be assessed-Little is known and the science is biased
ITOPF`7(International Tankers Owners Pollution Federal, Effects of Oil Spills, 2007, http://www.itopf.com/marine-
spills/effects/)
Many spill impacts have been documented in the scientific and technical literature, and although not all the
effects of oil pollution are completely understood, an indication of the likely scale and duration of damage
can usually be deduced from the information available. However, it can be difficult to present a balanced
view of the realities of spill effects, given the often highly charged and emotional nature of a spill and
its aftermath. The scientific community can become polarised into opposing camps with one side intent
on quantifying every aspect of damage, and the other emphasising the capacity of the environment to
recover naturally. The simple reality is that sometimes significant damage occurs, sometimes not and
the aim of these pages is to draw together what general information is known about spill effects and
their longevity.
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Spills = Natural

Most oil spills are natural
Current`8 (Current.com recent events website/blox, facts from Fox, Study: 63% of Oil Spills Natural Seepage; Mother
Nature Declines Comment, July 14, 2008,
http://current.com/items/89103304_study_63_of_oil_spills_natural_seepage_mother_nature_declines_comment)
A National Academy of Science study recently estimated that about 47 percent of the oil entering the
marine environment is a result of natural seepage from subsurface reservoirs. The Gulf of Mexico is an
area where such natural seepage occurs at a very high rate. Oil exploration and extraction are
responsible for only 3 percent of the petroleum that enters the sea. Another 47 million gallons seep into
the ocean naturally from the seafloor. Of the 200,000 metric tons of oil seepage that is thought to occur
each year, about 150,000 metric tons escapes from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. Oil exploration and
extraction are responsible for only 3 percent of the petroleum that enters the sea. Another 47 million
gallons seep into the ocean naturally from the seafloor. Aerial, surface, and underwater investigations
reveal that natural seeps off Coal Oil Point, California, introduce about 50 to 70 barrels (approximately
8,000 to 11,000 liters) of oil per day into the Santa Barbara Channel. The resulting slicks are several hundred
meters wide and are of the order of 10-5 centimeters thick; tarry masses within these slicks frequently wash
ashore. The situation varies somewhat from ocean to ocean. In the Pacific Ocean, areas of high seep potential
are by far the major contributors. In the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern oceans, areas of moderate seep
potential are most significant because areas of high seep potential are relatively rare in these realnis. The
circum-Pacific area is the area of greatest seepage; it contributes about 40 percent of the world's total.
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-No Long Term Effect

Oil spills are just a short term problem-There’s no long term effect on ecosystems
Edwards`2 (Rob, It's natural to panic about oil spills, but how bad are they in theSunday Herald, The. Nov 24, 2002.
FindArticles.com. 18 Jul. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20021124/ai_n12579324)
But the pollution, worrying as it can be, does not last for ever. Oil is a naturally occurring mineral that is
eventually broken down by bacteria in the sea. So an oil spill, although it can inflict immediate damage,
rarely causes long-lasting or irreversible harm to natural ecosystems. "It is a natural reaction after a
major incident to get out the dictionary of superlatives and talk about disaster and catastrophe," says
John Baxter, the national oil spill advisory officer with the government conservation agency Scottish Natural
Heritage. "While in the short term major spills can have a dramatic impact on certain species, such as birds,
the marine environment is extremely robust and will recover quite quickly." Baxter estimates that it
would only take five to 10 years for the diversity of wildlife to return to oil-polluted areas. "It is a major
event when it occurs, but in ecological terms it is only a short- term problem," he explained.
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Large Fish

Oil Spills aren’t that bad for big fish
Under Water Times`6 (Under Water Times, Marine Magazine, Group: Impact of Lebanese Oil Spill Not as Bad as
Feared; 'We Don't Have Corals Here', August 25, 2006, http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=35081496271)
The impact on marine life of an oil slick off the Lebanese coast, caused by Israel's bombing of a power
plant, might not be as devastating as had been feared, a Lebanese environmentalist group said on Friday.
Shellfish, fish larvae and baby turtles have been badly hit but larger fish have survived virtually
unscathed, the group, Bahr Loubnan (Lebanon's Sea), said. Bahr Loubnan said it was not trying to play
down the impact of the slick, which it described as dire, but rather to inject a dose of realism into the
debate over how to tackle it.
Big fish go to deeper water

Under Water Times`6 (Under Water Times, Marine Magazine, Group: Impact of Lebanese Oil Spill Not as Bad as
Feared; 'We Don't Have Corals Here', August 25, 2006, http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=35081496271)
Some environmentalists have said the oil could kill large fish and even dolphins, but Bahr Loubnan said
that was unlikely. "People don't seem to want to look into the scientific aspects of this," said Manal
Nader, a group member and director of the institute of the environment at Balamand University in northern
Lebanon. "The impact on fish larvae and immature fish is quite extensive because they live close to the
shoreline, but big fish migrate to deeper waters where the oil is not mixing." Sarji, whose scuba team
inspected 10 sites between the southern port of Sidon and the northern city of Tripoli, said the impact on
marine life would have been worse had the slick occurred in winter, when the eastern Mediterranean can be
choppy. "We've got around three months before storms start churning up the waters," he said. "It's essential
we start cleaning it up as soon as we can." Bahr Loubnan said it was safe to eat Lebanese fish.
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Marine Species-Shipping Lanes

Solve
Changed shipping lanes keep the oil away from major marine habitats
Doyle`2k (Jim, San Francisco Chronicle, Shipping Lanes Moved Farther Out
New routes should keep oil spills from reaching Central California coast, June 1, 2000, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/01/MN54659.DTL)
The new shipping lanes are aimed at preserving the rugged Central California coastline, especially the
waters of four national marine sanctuaries that commercial cargo vessels pass through. The Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, the nation's largest offshore refuge, has the greatest biodiversity of cold-water
marine life in the world. Its kelp forests provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife, including rare sea otters,
sea birds, fish and invertebrates, many of which are particularly susceptible to the effects of an oil spill. `À
major spill can kill thousands of animals,'' said Holly Price, water quality director for the sanctuary. ``The
name of the game here is prevention -- preventing that oil from reaching the coast.''
Oil Spills Answers – AT: Spills Bad-Shipping lanes solve

Shipping lanes are farther out-It solves their impacts
Doyle`2k (Jim, San Francisco Chronicle, Shipping Lanes Moved Farther Out
New routes should keep oil spills from reaching Central California coast, June 1, 2000, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/01/MN54659.DTL)
Large ships will be cruising farther off the Central California coast, thanks to a landmark agreement
designed to reduce the risk of a catastrophic oil spill. A coalition of government regulators, shippers
and conservationists took years of informal talks, negotiations and approvals at various levels to
hammer out the voluntary compromise. Environmentalists had pressed for mandatory regulations, which
shippers opposed. The new sea lanes are `à major environmental victory,'' said Warner Chabot, a
regional director for the Center for Marine Conservation. `Ìf they could, the cormorants and sea otters and
other marine life would applaud you,'' Chabot told an assembled group of bureaucrats, maritime industry
officials and others who labored to put together the agreement. The new sea lanes, approved last week by the
International Maritime Organization in London, are designed to prevent collisions and groundings by the
thousands of commercial vessels that ply the waters between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the busiest
shipping corridor in the United States. VALDEZ SPILL CONCERNS The new routes were prompted in
part by Alaska's nightmarish Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and also by a vexing spill last year off Coos
Bay, Ore. In that incident, rough seas prevented rescue workers from recovering a freighter's fuel before it
washed ashore. Officials of the National and Oceanic Atmospheric Association and the U.S. Coast Guard
highlighted the fine points of the agreement yesterday at a news conference on Yerba Buena Island. The new
sea lanes are slated to go into effect in less than six months, once U.S. and foreign shippers are notified and
navigation charts are altered. Similar to freeway lanes, the sea lanes include northbound and southbound
corridors for large commercial vessels, as well as separate routes for ships carrying hazardous materials such
as liquefied gases and other toxic chemicals. NEW LANES AVOID ACCIDENTS ``This helps keep an
accident from happening,'' said Scott Gudes, a NOAA official, who praised the unique partnership between
federal and state regulators, the shipping and oil industries, bar pilots, port officials, fishermen and
environmentalists that led to ratification of the proposal. `Ìt's very encouraging that these diverse groups
came together and hashed out the details,'' said Vice Admiral Ernest Riutta, commander of the Coast Guard
for the Pacific Area. ``The fact that we're all here today and still talking to each other reflects the spirit of the
agreement.'' More than 4,000 large vessels make their way along the Central California coast every year,
most traveling between 2.5 and 15 miles offshore. Each carries up to 1 million gallons of bunker fuel, a
heavy fuel similar to crude oil, which they use in their engines. Routing vessels farther offshore, officials
said, will provide more time for rescue tugs and aircraft to respond to disabled vessels to prevent them
from grounding and spilling their fuel. The new routes also will further separate commercial traffic
from the fishing boats and recreational vessels that typically travel closer to shore.
Oil Spills Answers – DA Turns Case-War
War empirically increases terrestrial and coastal oil spills

SIA`2 (Science In Africa, Africa’s first continental science network, Threats to the environment posed by war in Iraq,
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/war.htm)
In 1991 BirdLife International and RSPB (BirdLife in the UK) sent three teams of scientists to the Gulf
region to collaborate with the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (BirdLife in
Saudi Arabia) to assess the environmental impacts of the war and resulting toxic oil pollution. The results
of these and other assessments were published in 1993 in Sandgrouse, the Journal of the Ornithological
Society of the Middle East. These and other published data show that the 1990-1991 Gulf War resulted in
by far the largest marine oil spills in history with 6-8 million barrels of crude oil spilled, severely
polluting 560km of coast, totally obliterating intertidal ecosystems and resulting in large-scale oil
slicks. Severe damage to marine environments in the northern Arabian Gulf resulted. Extensive mechanical
damage by the manoevering armies also harmed the fragile desert crust and its ecosystem. The
environmental damage resulting from the 1990-1991 Gulf War was judged to be unprecedented according to
a number of sources. On 19th January 1991, crude oil from five bombed oil tankers moored off the Mina
Al-Ahmadi oil terminal and nearby oil pipelines in Kuwait produced a slick extending south-eastwards
over 1,500km2. At the same time another major oil slick was reported from the Mina Al-Bakr terminal
in Iraq. Other oil spills occurred at Basrah refinery at the mouth of the Shatt Al-Arab, from refineries on
the coast of Kuwait, and from the storage depot at Al-Khafji just south of the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian
border. At the end of the Gulf War in March 1991 a total of 650 inland oil wells were left ablaze, 76
gushing crude oil and a further 99 were damaged. This resulted in 25-30 million barrels of crude oil
spilling onto land with the larger of the numerous oil lakes estimated to cover 19km2. The last of the
gushing wells were capped after nine months in November 1991.
***Deforestation***
Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss
Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and human extinction
Akhand Jyoti 3 (Akhand Jyoti is the leading magazine in Mathura, India. “The Disaster of Deforestation” March-April 2003.
http://www.akhandjyoti.org/?Akhand-Jyoti/2003/Mar-Apr/Deforestation/)
Imagining Earth without forests is a horrifying picture to conceive. As its knowledge base has expanded and
deepened, mankind has realised that forests are extremely important to the survival of humans and other life
forms on earth. Yet deforestation continues unabated in different parts of the world. According to the World Resource Institute based at
Washington DC (U.S.A.), the rates of rainforest destruction are 2.4 acre per second, 149 acres per minute, 214000 acres per day and 78
million acres per year. Literature survey and research by Stephen Hui reveals that British Columbia has about 40% of its original forests
remaining, while Europe has less than half; the United States have approximately 1-2% of their original forest cover; more than
80% of the planet’s natural forests have already been destroyed.1 This article examines the importance of forests,
the effects of deforestation on health and environment and an effective remedy to replenish the flora already lost. Plants and animals,
along with microorganisms, comprise life on Earth. Herbivorous animals sustain their life by consuming plants. Carnivorous animals
and birds kill herbivorous animals for food; therefore indirectly they also depend on plants. Sea creatures eat aquatic plants and humans
consume crop plants. A large variety of birds feed on seeds. There would rarely be any animal or bird who do not use plants directly or
indirectly to satisfy their food requirements. It is thus not surprising that tropical forests are the home to 70% of the world’s plants and
animals (more than 13 million distinct species) 30% of all bird species and 90% of invertebrates.2 Loss of forests has led to the
extinction of thousands of species, estimated to be 50000 species annually. Besides being the source for
food, plants help us in a number of other ways. Animals, including humans, inhale oxygen and exhale
carbon dioxide; plants take up carbon dioxide and in return they release oxygen – this exchange is very
important. Forests in particular act as a huge carbon dioxide sink. If there were not enough trees to
absorb carbon dioxide, its accumulation would make the environment poisonous. Over the last 150 years, the
amount of carbon dioxide has increased by about 25%.3 Carbon-dioxide also contributes to global warming.
Impact Deforestation – Global Disease Spread/Extinction
Deforestation causes human extinction through new disease outbreaks
Butler 7 (Rhett Butler has been researching and studying rainforests since 1995. “INCREASE OF TROPICAL DISEASES”
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0904.htm)
The emergence of tropical diseases and outbreaks of new diseases, including nasty hemorrhagic fevers like ebola
and lassa fever, are a subtle but serious impact of deforestation. With increased human presence in the
rainforest, and exploiters pushing into deeper areas, man is encountering "new" microorganisms with
behaviors unlike those previously known. As the primary hosts of these pathogens are eliminated or
reduced through forest disturbance and degradation, disease can break out among humans. Although
not unleashed yet, someday one of these microscopic killers could lead to a massive human die-off as
deadly for our species as we have been for the species of the rainforest. Until then, local populations will continue
to be menaced by mosquito-borne diseases like dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, and malaria, and water-borne diseases like cholera.
Many emergent and resurgent diseases are directly linked to land alterations which bring humans in closer contact with such pathogens.
For example, malaria and snailborne schistosomiasis have escalated because of the creation of artificial pools of water like dams, rice
paddies, drainage ditches, irrigation canals, and puddles created by tractor treads. Malaria is a particular problem in deforested and
degraded areas, though not in forested zones where there are few stagnant ground pools for mosquito breeding. These pools are most
abundant in cleared regions and areas where tractors tear gashes in the earth. Malaria is already a major threat to indigenous peoples who
have developed no resistance to the disease nor any access to antimalarial drugs. Malaria alone is cited as being responsible for killing
an estimated 20 percent of the Yanomani in Brazil and Venezuela. Malaria—caused by unicelluar parasites transferred in the saliva of
mosquitoes when they bite—is an especially frightening disease for its drug-resistant forms. Thanks to poor prescribing techniques on
the part of doctors, there are now strains in Southeast Asia reputed to be resistant to more than 20 anti-malarial drugs. There is serious
concern that global climate change will affect the distribution of malaria, which currently infects roughly 270 million people worldwide
and kills 1-2 million a year— 430,000-680,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The outbreak of disease in the tropics does not
affect only the people of those countries, since virtually any disease can be incubated for enough time to allow penetration into the
temperate developed countries. For example, any Central African doctor infected with the ebola virus from a
patient can board a plane and land in London within 10 hours. The virus could quickly spread,
especially if airborne, among the city's population of 8 million. Additionally, every person at the
airport who is exposed can unknowingly carry the pathogen home to their native countries around the
world.
Impact Deforestation – Extinction
Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and extinction
Rochen and Stock 98 (Andy Rochen and Jocelyn Stock are undergraduate researchers at the University of Michigan. “Deforestation
and Society” http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm)
To understand why deforestation is such a pressing and urgent issue, forests must first be given credit for
what they bring to global ecosystems and the quality of life that all species maintain. Tropical Rainforests
presently give a place to call home for 50% - 90% of all organisms, 90% of our relatives, the primates, and
50 million creatures that can live no place but the rich rainforests (World Rainforest Movement 16). Not only
are other species at risk, but the human race also benefits from what the trees give. From something as minor as
the spices that indulge food to life giving medicines, the rainforests amplify and save lives. According to the World
Rainforest Movement, 25% of medicines come from the forests (28). This is a number that does not do
justice to all the cures that have yet to be discovered or that have been destroyed. The forests give life, not
only to other species, but they help to prolong the human race. The forests have global implications not just on
life but on the quality of it. Trees improve the quality of the air that species breath by trapping carbon and other particles
produced by pollution. Trees determine rainfall and replenish the atmosphere. As more water gets put back in the
atmosphere, clouds form and provide another way to block out the sun’s heat. Trees are what cool and regulates the earth’s
climate in conjunction with other such valuable services as preventing erosion, landslides, and making the most infertile soil
rich with life. Mother earth has given much responsibility to trees.
Impact Deforestation – Extinction/Biod Loss
Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and extinction
Abiola 97 (Jayeola Omotola Abiola is an Undergraduate, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, College of Environmental
Resources Management, University of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2240, AbeoLuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. “FORESTRY FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT: TOWARD THE 21st CENTURY” http://www.fao.org/forestry/docrep/wfcxi/publi/V8/Ee/V8E_E1.HTM)
Forest degradation as a result of deforestation ignites a lot of problems for human existence and the
problem if unchecked can cause further ecological problems leading to human extinction. Forest clearing due
to logging, land degradation resulting from shifting cultivation social and economic development, range10 depletion as a result of
overgrazing, project execution without environmental impact assessment (EIA) leads to climatic changes, global warming,
loss of biological diversity pollution and desertification. The tropical forest ecosystem which has been
described as home to more than half the earth's species (Spore 59 1995) has been disappearing at the rate of tens of
thousands of square kilometers per year. Over this period, tropical deforestation rate increased by more than 50 percent and the world
lost 10% of its tropical forest. Loss of biological diversity is another major area of` concern in forestry for
sustainable development. Countless plants and animals have been driven into extinction through
deforestation, thus contributing to the build up of green house gases. Biodiversity is a comprehensive word for the
degree of nature variety including both the number and frequency of ecosystems, species and genes in a given assemblage (Mc Neely
1988). Biological diversity is a word which embraces both species richness and genetic diversity of an
ecosystem, both of which are threatened. Throughout the world, species extinction and a reduction in
genetic variability is taking place at rates never before witnessed, especially in the tropical forests
which are often thought of as being the richest area. These losses can be attributed to various factors including
pollution, physical disturbance of the forest, exploitation for food and other uses, deliberate extirpation, habitat loss and fragmentation.
Impact Deforestation – Poverty
Deforestation causes poverty
Jakarta Post 7 (“Avoiding deforestation will help eradicate poverty” http://westpapuafree.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/avoiding-

deforestation-will-help-eradicate-poverty/)
Many understand that deforestation contributes a lot to global warming, but few are aware that forest
plundering will lead to poverty. On the sidelines of the UN climate change conference in Bali, Papua’s
Governor Barnabas Suebu, one of Time’s Hero of the Environment awardees, talked to The Jakarta Post contributor I.
Christianto about his efforts to combat poverty through the protection of 31-million hectares of forest remaining
in the province. Question: You often mention Papua’s forests are rich but the people are poor. What are you trying to say? Answer:
Papua is impoverished. The state of people’s health, their nutrition, education, housing and clean water,
to name a few, is still very poor. It will worsen if the forest is destroyed. Therefore we are trying to protect
our forest and stop deforestation. There must be a funding mechanism from the international community, an issue that we have
discussed with some parties like Greenpeace. The fund must go to the people to improve their welfare. No single tree can be felled.The
benefit of forest exploitation for the local government and people is trivial, but the impact is devastating,
including the loss of rich biodiversity inside the forest. There’s no benefit at all to plunder the forest, as it
is the people who are then made to suffer. Logging activities, for example, have impoverished the people.
A timber log is valued at US$10, but the price can climb to more than $10,000 after being processed into wooden goods. That’s why we
have introduced a policy aimed at benefiting both the government and people.
Scholars Lab File Title
AT – Deforestation
Despite decreased deforestation, rates are rising and forests are still at risk
WWF 7 (The WWF is the largest multinational conservation organization in the world. “Amazon Deforestation Rates Decreasing,
Rainforests Still Threatened” http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2007/WWFPresitem6285.html)
New data from the government of Brazil shows that deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon from
August 2006 to July 2007 have fallen for the third consecutive year - and are the lowest registered for the region since 1991.
While these rates have reached historic lows, deforestation in the Amazon still proceeded at an
alarming speed. During the government's survey period more than 2.7 million acres disappeared -
equaling about four football fields of rainforest per minute. There are also indications that
deforestation rates may be on the increase since the end of the reporting period.
***Deforestation Answers***
Turn – Deforestation Good – Economy/Food
Deforestation is key to industry, food production, housing and economic growth
Fiset 7 (Nathalie Fiset, M.D., is an expert author at ezinearticles.com. “Benefits of Deforestation” March 2007.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Benefits-of-Deforestation&id=504455)
Whenever people talk about deforestation, usually the things that spring to mind are negative thoughts brought on mostly by media
hypes and environmentalist drives. People think about global warming, depletion of natural resources, and the casual extinction of
indigenous fauna and flora. Yet people don't seem to realize that there are actually quite a few benefits of deforestation.
One of the easiest benefits of deforestation to spot are the economic ones. Lumber products are one of the most staple
constructive materials in human society. Whether it's raw lumber used for making tables and houses, or paper and other
wood by-products, we simply cannot live without the use of lumber. Like steel and stone, wood is one of the most basic
natural resources, and unlike steel and stone, it is renewable simply by growing more trees. The only real trick to balancing it's
consumption is to grow more trees to replace the ones taken. On a similarly related note, keep in mind that a lot of jobs revolve
around the use of lumber. Wood cutters aside, there are those who work in processing plants to make
glue from wood sap, process pulp into paper, and others. This is another benefit of deforestation; it
opens more job opportunities for people who would otherwise be unemployed. These job opportunities are more than simply a
humanitarian concept; society at large would suffer if all of the people working in the wood industry were to
suddenly find themselves jobless. This benefit of deforestation not only covers the people who cut down
trees and process them, but also extends to the people who "clean up" after them. For every patch of forest
cut down, arable land becomes available for farmers, or can be used as an area to place urban living
sites like apartments, houses, and buildings. The number of people employed by such a construction project are many and
varied. Or, if the city/government mandates replanting trees to replace the lost ones, then jobs are also provided for those people who do
the seeding after a patch of forest is stripped. Thinking about it, the cleared areas are places which provide a lot of
potential for growth, and this is yet another benefit of deforestation. As stated above, arable land is
valuable, and the act of deforestation to clear a place for farm land provides a much needed additional
food source for man. More often than not, the soil in a forest is much richer than that of regular farm lands because of the wide
variety of life it supports. This new land area grants a much needed place to grow a food supply to deal with the planet's steadily
expanding population of humanity. Then, of course, there is the fact that these cleared areas may be razed for urban renewal. Given
our burgeoning population growth, additional living areas made on cleared forest land is another
benefit of deforestation. These places can be converted into more than just housing areas. Buildings which can house offices for
work, or factories to produce clothing and other essential items, or even research facilities for things like new medical or technological
advances can be placed in these deforested areas. Lastly, another benefit of deforestation to consider is the access it provides to other
natural resources that may lay within the forest's land area. Some places with heavy forests are home to iron ore, mineral, and even oil
deposits which can be used for man's needs. These natural resources would otherwise lay dormant and untapped unless people access
them. The act of deforestation may not be entirely necessary to get at these deposits sometimes, but coupled with the advantages given
above, the combination of opening up a new mine or oil well when taken with extra living spaces or farm lands for food makes a lot of
sense. So, given all of the benefits of deforestation outlined above, you can see that more often than not, the good
outweighs the bad. The planet's environment may indeed suffer from the effects of deforestation, but
that is due to irresponsible use of the resources and other benefits provided, not the deforestation itself.
As people living on the planet, our duty is not to "hold back" and stop cutting trees. It is to use what we glean from the Earth responsibly
and wisely for humanity and the planet's benefit.
Turn – Deforestation Good – Economics
The economic benefits of deforestation outweigh the costs
Andersen 97 (Lykke E. Andersen, Professor, Department of Economics University of Aarhus, Demmark. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon” Rio de Janeiro, January 1997 www.ipea.gov.br/pub/td/td0455.pdf)
This paper has attempted to collect the best available evidence on the total economic value of standing
Amazonian rain forest. Estimates were calculated for both a low discount rate of 2% and a higher discount rate of 6%. The low
discount rate is most compatible with the rate a global social planner would adopt. At this rate the total economic value of a standing rain
forest is estimated at roughly $l8,000/hectare (in 1990 US$). The value of a standing forest was compared with
estimares of the net present value of different agricultural land uses. It was shown that a sequence of
land uses provides the optimal development strategy. Loggers should first be allowed to extract the
commercially valuable timber from the virgin forest. Then smallscale farmers should be granted
property rights and be allowed to use the land as they find optimal. This is likely to be unsustainable slash-and-
burn cultivation of annual crops initially, but as the area develops and population densities and land prices increase, there will be a
natural intensification in the use of land and the area will eventually be covered with sustainable perennial crops. This sequence of land
uses yields an estimated net present agricultural value of roughly $24,000/hectare. With spill-over effects to the urban
sector the total net present value of agricultural land increases to about $l20,000/hectare. The potential
benefits of deforestation thus seem to exceed the costs at the current level of deforestation. However, these
two estimares of the costs and the benefits of deforestation only represent one point on the cost curve and one point on the benefit curve,
namely the points associated with approximately 10% deforestation. As the level of deforestation increases, the global costs of
deforestation will rise, and it will eventually pass the value of agricultural land. At that point, the international comunity has to provide
incentives to induce Brazil to preserve the remainder of the forest. The external benefits of a standing rain forest amounts to roughly
$9,000/hectare at the current level of deforestation. At the optimal level it will be much higher. Thus, international transfers in excess of
$9,000/hectare will be needed to secure that deforestation in the world largest remaining rain forest will not exceed the globally optimal
level.
Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling
Despite increases in CO2, deforestation causes global cooling
Bala et al. 7 (G. Bala, K. Caldeira, M. Wickett, T. J. Phillips, D. B. Lobell, C. Delire, and A. Mirin, “Combined climate and carbon-cycle
effects of large-scale deforestation” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871823)
Atmospheric CO2 content is greater in the Global deforestation experiment by 381 ppmv because of both
the release of carbon stored in trees in the early 21st century and the loss of CO2 fertilization of
forested ecosystems seen in the Standard simulation (Fig. 1). Despite higher atmospheric CO2
concentrations, the global- and annual-mean temperature in the Global case is cooler by ≈0.3 K than the
Standard case. Thus, on a global-mean basis, the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are
overwhelmed by the cooling biophysical effects. Relative to the Standard case, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is
higher by 299, 110, and 5 ppmv in the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal cases. The global-mean temperature differences relative to the
Standard case in year 2100 in the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal experiments are +0.7 K, −0.04 K, and −0.8 K, respectively (Fig. 1),
implying that the combined carbon-cycle and biophysical effects from tropical, temperate, and boreal deforestation are, respectively, net
warming, near-zero temperature change, and net cooling. These latitude-band experiments thus suggest that projects in the tropics
promoting afforestation are likely to slow down global warming, but such projects would offer only little to no climate benefits when
implemented in temperate regions and would be counterproductive, from a climate-perspective, at higher latitudes. The linear sum of the
area-weighted global-mean temperature change over all of the latitude-band experiments is −0.1 K in the year 2100. This value is close
to the corresponding −0.3 K temperature change of the Global deforestation simulation, suggesting a near-linear behavior of the large-
scale climate system despite the many nonlinear processes represented by the INCCA model. The linear sum is slightly larger because,
in the latitude-band experiments, our dynamic vegetation model allows the forests to expand in the regions that are not deforested (23,
26), and forests have lower albedo and absorb more solar radiation than grasses. The presence of trees in the latitude-band deforestation
experiments and the consequent higher CO2 fertilization causes the linear sum of CO2 changes from the Tropical, Temperate, and
Boreal experiments to be lower than that of the Global case by 67 ppmv in year 2100. Because the linear sum of the temperature
response from latitude-band experiments is approximately equal to that of the Global case (Fig. 1), we focus our analysis on our global-
scale deforestation simulation for brevity. The removal of forests in the Global case results in an atmospheric CO2 concentration at year
2100 that is 381 ppmv greater than in the Standard simulation (1,113 vs. 732 ppmv; Fig. 1). In the Standard A2 scenario, 1,790 PgC
carbon is emitted to the atmosphere over the 21st century (Fig. 2). By year 2100, the terrestrial biosphere in the Global deforestation
experiment has 972 Pg less carbon than in the Standard case. Approximately 82% (799 PgC) of this carbon resides in the atmosphere,
with the oceans taking up the remaining 18% (173 PgC). The ocean uptake increases in the Global case (444 vs. 271 PgC in Standard)
because the higher atmospheric CO2 concentration drives an increased flux of carbon into the oceans.
Turn – Deforestation Causes Global Cooling
Deforestation causes net global cooling
Bala et al. 7 (G. Bala, K. Caldeira, M. Wickett, T. J. Phillips, D. B. Lobell, C. Delire, and A. Mirin, “Combined climate and carbon-cycle
effects of large-scale deforestation” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871823)
The prevention of deforestation and promotion of afforestation have often been cited as strategies to
slow global warming. Deforestation releases CO2 to the atmosphere, which exerts a warming influence on Earth's climate.
However, biophysical effects of deforestation, which include changes in land surface albedo, evapotranspiration, and cloud
cover also affect climate. Here we present results from several large-scale deforestation experiments performed
with a three-dimensional coupled global carbon-cycle and climate model. These simulations were performed by using a fully three-
dimensional model representing physical and biogeochemical interactions among land, atmosphere, and ocean. We find that global-
scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth's climate, because the warming carbon-cycle
effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and
evapotranspiration. Latitude-specific deforestation experiments indicate that afforestation projects in the tropics would be clearly
beneficial in mitigating global-scale warming, but would be counterproductive if implemented at high latitudes and would offer only
marginal benefits in temperate regions. Although these results question the efficacy of mid- and high-latitude afforestation projects for
climate mitigation, forests remain environmentally valuable resources for many reasons unrelated to climate.
AT – Deforestation Causes Flooding
New studies prove that deforestation does not cause flooding
Monga Bay News 5 (“Deforestation does not cause flooding says new study FAO/CIFOR news release”
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1012-fao-cifor.html)
Deforestation and logging do not increase the risk of major floods according to a new report from the
UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR). The study, citing evidence showing that the frequency and extent of major floods has not
changed over the last century despite significant reductions in forest cover, challenges the conventional
belief that forest loss causes floods. Instead, FAO and CIFOR say that deforestation does have a role in small floods and
topsoil erosion by eliminating the buffering and soil anchoring effects of forests. Further, the report accuses Asian governments of using
deforestation as an excuse to deflect criticism over their poor handling of human settlement in areas unsuitable for habitation.
Deforestation does not cause flooding
CIFOR 5 (Center for International Forestry Research Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations “Forests and floods:
Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts?” RAP Publication 2005/03 Forest Perspectives,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae929e/ae929e04.htm#bm04)
It is commonly believed that forests are necessary to regulate stream flow and reduce runoff, and to some extent this is true. But, in
reality, forests tend to be rather extravagant users of water, which is contradictory to earlier thinking (FAO 2003). Considerable
quantities of rainfall (up to 35 per cent) are commonly intercepted by the canopies of tropical forests and evaporated back into the
atmosphere without contributing to soil water reserves. Much of the water that does soak into the soil is used by the trees themselves.
This should put to rest the belief that extensive reforestation or afforestation will increase the low flows in the dry season (Hamilton and
Pearce 1987). Therefore, replacing forest cover with other land uses almost always results in increased runoff and stream flow. Runoff
and stream-flow patterns will gradually return to original levels if an area is left to revert back to forest. Converting forest to grasslands,
however, will normally result in a permanent increase in total water runoff. Contrary to popular belief, forests have only a
limited influence on major downstream flooding, especially large-scale events. It is correct that on a local scale
forests and forest soils are capable of reducing runoff, generally as the result of enhanced infiltration and storage capacities. But this
holds true only for small-scale rainfall events, which are not responsible for severe flooding in downstream areas. During a major
rainfall event (like those that result in massive flooding), especially after prolonged periods of preceding rainfall, the forest soil
becomes saturated and water no longer filters into the soil but instead runs off along the soil surface.
Studies in America (Hewlett and Helvey 1970), and South Africa (Hewlett and Bosch 1984) were amongst some of the first
to question the importance of the link between forest conversion and flooding. Studies in the Himalayas
indicate that the increase in infiltration capacity of forested lands over non-forested lands is
insufficient to influence major downstream flooding events (Gilmour et al. 1987; Hamilton 1987). Instead, the main
factors influencing major flooding given a large rainfall event, are: (i) the geomorphology of the area; and (ii) preceding rainfall
(Bruijnzeel 1990, 2004; Calder 2000; Hamilton with King 1983; Kattelmann 1987).
No evidence for deforestation causing flooding
CIFOR 4 Center for International Forestry Research Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The great flood myth”
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Publications/Corporate/NewsOnline/NewsOnline36/flood.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished
"Haiti's deforestation allows flood water to run unchecked," declared USA Today. Haiti's prime minister pointed the finger at poor
farmers for cutting down trees for fuel and to make charcoal. The Associated Press ran touching interviews with the elders of the flood-
ravaged Haitian town of Mapou about how they had been forced to fell trees to cook their food even though they knew it would
eventually bring about their own destruction. France's foreign minister promised aid to reforest the denuded hillsides. It was a
predictable response. Just about every time there is a major flood anywhere in the world, small farmers and loggers are held to account.
Floods in Bangladesh are blamed on forest clearing in the Himalayas. In the late 1990s, loggers took the rap for the thousands who died,
and the billions of dollars of damage done, during Hurricane Mitch in Central America, and for the floods along China's Yangtze river.
Indeed, the idea that loggers and small farmers help cause devastating floods is so ingrained inmost
people's minds that few would think to question it. But the idea is deeply flawed. There is not a shred
of scientific evidence to suggest that logging or deforestation play significant roles in massive floods.
And the myth is doing great damage to farmers who need forests to survive.
AT – Deforestation - Exaggerated
There is little scientific information about the extent of deforestation
Rothbard and Rucker 97 (David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “The rainforest issue:
Myths and facts” CFACT Briefing Paper #102. http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=5&idarticle=214)
Why these claims are wrong: While some advocates like to make grand, sweeping statements about rainforest
loss and put in big numbers that make it sound catastrophic, Roger Sedjo and Marion Clawson, writing for
Resources for the Future, dug into the available evidence and said, "Information about the tropical moist forests is
relatively scant. What information we do have comes from anecdotal evidence -- provided by isolated
investigations at single times and places -- than from systematic studies conducted over large areas and
lengths of time... A hard look at the available data supports the view that some regions are
experiencing rapid deforestation. However, the view that this is a pervasive phenomenon on a global
level is questionable." (Rational Readings, Julian Simon, p. 745) So what does available evidence show? And where do
environmentalists begin to get their numbers? Well U.S. News and World Report (12/13/93) explains that while the figure of 40 million
acres per year "has taken on a life of its own," it is being "cited and recited without reference to its origins. Yet almost half the estimated
total comes from a very rough estimate made by a Brazilian scientist who used sensors on a U.S. weather satellite to count the number of
fires burning in the Amazon at one time in 1988 [at the height of government-subsidized deforestation]. He estimated the size of each,
[guessing at the number of acres being cleared by each fire then assumed that 40 percent would never return to their forested condition,
and finally doubled this number to arrive at an estimated guess for global deforestation.] The resulting number was into the widely cited
report by the World Resources Institute...that helped fuel the alarm over vanishing tropical forests; [and] was cited by Gore and other
administration officials last spring in announcing support for the Biodiversity Treaty.
AT – Biodiversity Loss
Biodiversity claims are exaggerated, there is no risk of extinction from deforestation
Another important fact, according to Sedjo and Clawson, relates to a study done by the Food and Agriculture Organization and U.N.
Environmental Programme by J.P. Lanly. Lanly is Forest Coordinator for the UNEP/FAO Tropical Resources Assessment Project and his
study "indicates that [of the roughly 7 million acres worldwide per year] the undisturbed or "virgin"
broadleaved closed forests have a far lower rate of deforestation than the total, being only 0.27 percent
annually as compared with 2.06 percent annually for logged over secondary forest. This figure indicates that
deforestation pressure on the more pristine and generally more genetically diverse tropical forests is quite low."
Further, "these findings are in sharp contrast to the conventional view that the tropical forests are
`disappearing at an alarming rate' and suggest that concerns over the imminent loss of some of the
most important residences of the world's diverse genetic base, based on rates of tropical deforestation,
are probably grossly exaggerated." (Simon, Rational Readings, p.746) Sedjo and Clawson also said "While the local effects
of rapid deforestation may be severe, the evidence does not support the view that either the world or the tropics are experiencing rapid
aggregate deforestation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that current rates of deforestation are quite
modest in much of the world's virgin tropical forests, for example those of the Amazon; and therefore
they are probably in little danger of wholesale destruction in the foreseeable future." (Eco-Sanity, p.90)
Sandra Brown, professor of forestry at U. of Illinois and Ariel Lugo, project leader at the U.S. Forest Service's Institute of Tropical
Forestry in Puerto Rico also studied available data and "concluded the `dangerous' misinterpretation and exaggeration of the rate of
deforestation has become common." As for the amount of deforestation in relation to total forest area, Thomas Lovejoy, then of the
World Wildlife Fund, offered a low projection of 50% deforestation between 1980 and 2000 in Latin America and a high of 67%. The
source for this was a set of satellite photos taken in 1978 and reported in the Washington Post to show that "as much as one-tenth of the
Brazilian Amazon has been razed." But according to Fulbright scholar and ecologist Robert Buschbacher
working in Brazil, the Landsat photos "concluded that 1.55 percent of the Brazilian portion of the Amazon has
been deforested." "On the basis of this and other evidence, Buschbacher says, `Because of a relatively
low percentage of forest clearing and the remarkable capacity of the forest to recover its structure...the
threat of turning the Amazon into a wasteland is exaggerated.'
AT – Biodiversity Loss
Numbers about species loss are exaggerated, actual extinctions remain low and don’t
threaten human survival
Another real-world observation that casts doubt on the Wilson theory actually comes from an island, Puerto
Rico, where according to Lugo, human activity reduced the area of primary forest by 99%. "But because of
extensive use of coffee shade trees in the coffee region and secondary forests, forest cover was never less than 10 to 15%...[and] in an
analysis of bird fauna, [it was] concluded that seven bird species (four of them endemic) became extinct after
500 years of human pressure...and that exotic species enlarged the species pool. In the 1980's, more birds were
present on the island (97 species) than were present in pre-Columbian times (60 species)...Secondary forests in Puerto Rico have [also]
served as refugia for primary forest tree species as well." (Lugo, "Biodiversity," p.66) So what do real-world observations say about the
worldwide loss of species? Well in response to questions about species extinction, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) commissioned
a book in 1992 to look into the matter. According to Simon, all the authors are ecologists who express concern abut the
rate of extinction. Nevertheless, they all agree that the rate of known extinctions has been and continues to
be very low. They found, "60 birds and mammals are known to have become extinct between 1900 and
1950," "actual extinctions remain low...many species appear to have either an almost miraculous
capacity for survival, or a guardian angel watching over their destiny," and not "a single known animal
species...could be properly declared as extinct, in spite of the massive reduction in area and
fragmentation of their habitats in the past decades and centuries of intensive human activity." (Simon,
Scarcity or Abundance, pp. 200-202) So given all of this, why do environmentalists persist in using grandiose numbers to express their
concerns about species loss? Dr. Julian Simon notes that "biologists with whom I have discussed this material agree that the
numbers in question are most uncertain. But they say the numbers do not matter scientifically. The conclusion would be
the same, they say, if the numbers were different even by several orders of magnitude. If that is so, why mention any numbers at all? The
answer, quite clearly is that these numbers do matter in one important way; they have they power to frighten in a fashion that numbers
much smaller would not. The [Congressional Office of Technology Assessment] OTA 1986 document says: `Conveying the importance
of biological diversity will require a formulation of the issue in terms that are easily understandable and convincing.' These frightening
numbers meet that test. I can find no scientific justification for such use of numbers." Thus, the lack of any
evidence for mass extinctions causes no hesitation on the part of those environmentalists calling for
quick and draconian action.
Nuclear war produces firestorms that destroy forests
Jays Net News 6 (NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON" Nuclear & Biological Weapons. http://www.jaysnet.com/666nuke.html)
In a thermonuclear bomb, the explosive process begins with the detonation of what is called the primary stage. This consists of
a relatively small quantity of conventional explosives, the detonation of which brings together enough fissionable uranium to create a
fission chain reaction, which in turn produces another explosion and a temperature of several million degrees. The force
and heat of this explosion are reflected back by a surrounding container of uranium and are channeled toward the secondary stage, made
up of tritium or other fusion fuel. The tremendous heat initiates fusion, and the resulting explosion of the secondary stage blows the
uranium container apart and causes it too to fission, thus contributing to the explosion and producing fallout (the deposition of
radioactive materials from the atmosphere) in the process. (A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear device in which the uranium container is
absent, thus producing much less blast but a lethal "enhanced radiation" of neutrons.) The entire series of explosions in a
thermonuclear bomb takes a fraction of a second to occur.A thermonuclear explosion produces blast,
light, heat, and varying amounts of fallout. The concussive force of the blast itself takes the form of a shock wave that
radiates from the point of the explosion at supersonic speeds and that can completely destroy any building within a radius of several
miles. The intense white light of the explosion can cause permanent blindness to people gazing at it from a distance of dozens of miles.
The explosion's intense light and heat set wood and other combustible materials afire at a range of
many miles, creating huge fires that may coalesce into a firestorm. The radioactive fallout contaminates air, water,
and soil and may continue years after the explosion; its distribution is virtually worldwide.Thermonuclear bombs can be hundreds or
even thousands of times more powerful than atomic bombs. The explosive yield of atomic bombs is measured in kilotons, each unit of
which equals the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. The explosive power of hydrogen bombs, by contrast, is frequently expressed in
megatons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000,000 tons of TNT. Hydrogen bombs of more than 50 megatons have
been detonated, but the explosive power of the weapons mounted on strategic missiles usually ranges from 100 kilotons to 1.5 megatons.
Thermonuclear bombs can be made small enough (a few feet long) to fit in the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles; these
missiles can travel almost halfway across the globe in 20 or 25 minutes and have computerized guidance systems so accurate that they
can land within a few hundred yards of a designated target.Edward Teller and other American scientists developed the first hydrogen
bomb, which was tested at Enewetak atoll on Nov. 1, 1952. The U.S.S.R. first tested a hydrogen bomb on Aug. 12, 1953, followed by the
United Kingdom in May 1957, China (1967), and France (1968). During the late 1980s there were some 40,000 thermonuclear devices
stored in the arsenals of the world's nuclear-armed nations. This number declined during the 1990s. The massive destructive threat of
these weapons has been a principal concern of the world's populace and of its statesmen since the 1950s.
AT: Defo – DA Turns Case – NW
Bombs cause firestorms which cause deforestation
Armageddon Online 6 (“Firestorm” http://www.armageddononline.org/firestorm.php)

A firestorm is a conflagration which attains such intensity that it creates and sustains its own wind
system. It is most commonly a natural phenomenon, created during some of the largest bushfires, forest fires, and wildfires. The Great
Peshtigo Fire is one example of a firestorm. Firestorms can also be deliberate effects of targeted explosives such as
occurred as a result of the aerial bombings of Dresden and Tokyo during World War II. Mechanism of firestorms: A firestorm is
created as a result of the "chimney effect" as the heat of the original fire draws in more and more of
the surrounding air. This draft can be quickly increased if a low level jet stream exists over or near the fire, or when an
atmospheric temperature inversion cap is pierced by it. As the updraft mushrooms, strong gusty winds develop around the fire, directed
inward. This would seem to prevent the firestorm from spreading on the wind, but for the fact that tremendous turbulence is also created
by the strong updraft which causes the strong surface inflow winds to change direction erratically. This wind shear is capable of
producing small tornadoes or dust devils which can also dart around erratically, damage or destroy houses
and buildings, and quickly spread the fire to areas outside the central area of the fire. The greater draft of a
firestorm draws in greater quantities of oxygen which significantly increases combustion, thereby also substantially increasing the
production of heat. The intense heat of a firestorm manifests largely as radiated heat (infrared radiation) which
ignites flammable material at a distance ahead of the fire itself. Besides the enormous ash cloud produced by a
firestorm, under the right conditions, it can also induce condensation, forming a cloud called a pyrocumulus or "fire cloud". A large
pyrocumulus can produce lightning, which can set off further fires. Apart from forest fires, pyrocumuluses can also be produced by
volcanic eruptions. In Australia, the prevalence of eucalyptus trees that have oil in their leaves results in forest fires that are noted for
their extremely tall and intense flame front. Hence the bush fires appear more as a fire-storm than a simple forest fire. The trees are full
of oil to survive dry conditions. The oil evaporates during the day too, leaving a layer of flammable gas above the treeline. The oil fuels
the fire and the fires are very difficult to bring under control, with firefighters resorting to saving buildings and lives when the hot dry
days during summer encourage the occurrence of enormous fires.
Deforestation
The deforestation rate has been cut in half, represents a downward trend
Environmental News Service 5 (“Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon Cut by Half” http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-29-03.asp)
Over the last 11 months there has been a 50 percent drop in deforestation in the Amazon region,
according to satellite data released Friday by the Brazilian Environment Ministry. From August 2003 to July 2004, a total
of 18,724 square kilometers were logged in the region. From August 2004 to June 2005, the area
destroyed was 9,106 square kilometers, explained Environment Minister Marina Silva at a news conference in the capital.
The new figures are based on images from the Brazilian space agency INPE, the first results of an observation
project called STOP (Detection of Deforestation in Real Time), conducted with the support of the Institute for the Environment and
Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) and the Environment Ministry. The purpose of STOP is to supply to the government and the
public with information about new areas of deforestation in Amazonia. "STOP underestimates the areas cleared, utilizing sensors of
smaller spatial resolution with high frequency of observation to reduce the limitations of cloud cover," explains Gilberto Câmara,
general coordinator of INPE's Land Observation division. Silva told reporters that two sensors aboard different satellites,
each monitoring deforestation, both show a downward deforestation trend. The MODIS, aboard Landsat, has
spatial resolution of 250 meters and covers Brazil every three to five days. The WFI, carried on the CBERS-2 satellite, presents a spatial
resolution of 260 meters and covers Brazil every five days.
Deforestation
Deforestation is decreasing, companies replant the trees they cut down
Carnacchio 97 (C. J. Carnacchio is a staff writer for the Michigan Review. “The Sky Falls on Environmental Myths”
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1997/10-8-97/environment.htm)
Myth #3: Deforestation and Clear-cutting: America's forests are not vanishing. There are 730 million acres of
forest land in the United States today. The growth on those acres is extremely dense, with a total of 230
billion trees (that's 900 trees for each American). When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, 45 percent of
what is now the 48 contiguous United States was covered by mature forest land. Today, 32 percent is
still covered by forest, two thirds of the total before the pilgrims arrived. Contrary to environmentalist propaganda,
clear cutting does not leave behind a scarred and barren wasteland. It is usually done in a
checkerboard manner leaving behind large areas of forest. The areas where cutting occurs are then
replanted. Trees are a valuable commodity, and companies have an incentive not to overcut them. Today,
many companies are planting millions of trees on their own land and carefully harvesting them. Even the U.S. Forest Service admits
that, "Drastic as it may seem, clear cutting plays a legitimate and prominent role in scientific forestry. Properly done, it paves the way for
a new, unencumbered and hence vigorously growing forest." Clear cutting was even practiced by the Indians, who burned areas to
provide a cleared space for new growth, which was favored by animals they hunted such as elk and deer.
There is little scientific information about the extent of deforestation
Why these claims are wrong: While some advocates like to make grand, sweeping statements about rainforest
loss and put in big numbers that make it sound catastrophic, Roger Sedjo and Marion Clawson, writing for
Resources for the Future, dug into the available evidence and said, "Information about the tropical moist forests is
relatively scant. What information we do have comes from anecdotal evidence -- provided by isolated
investigations at single times and places -- than from systematic studies conducted over large areas and
lengths of time... A hard look at the available data supports the view that some regions are
experiencing rapid deforestation. However, the view that this is a pervasive phenomenon on a global
level is questionable." (Rational Readings, Julian Simon, p. 745) So what does available evidence show? And where do
environmentalists begin to get their numbers? Well U.S. News and World Report (12/13/93) explains that while the figure of 40 million
acres per year "has taken on a life of its own," it is being "cited and recited without reference to its origins. Yet almost half the estimated
total comes from a very rough estimate made by a Brazilian scientist who used sensors on a U.S. weather satellite to count the number of
fires burning in the Amazon at one time in 1988 [at the height of government-subsidized deforestation]. He estimated the size of each,
[guessing at the number of acres being cleared by each fire then assumed that 40 percent would never return to their forested condition,
and finally doubled this number to arrive at an estimated guess for global deforestation.] The resulting number was into the widely cited
report by the World Resources Institute...that helped fuel the alarm over vanishing tropical forests; [and] was cited by Gore and other
administration officials last spring in announcing support for the Biodiversity Treaty.
***Toxic Waste Answers***

Toxic Waste Answers- No Health Risk

Love canal proves there is no health risk form toxic waste
Whelan 99 (Dr. Elizabeth M. President of the American Council on Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/
healthissues/newsID.408/healthissue_detail.asp)
Was there ever any real health problem at Love Canal? Yes, there was, in the sense that there was an
enormous amount of media-induced stress placed on residents who were terrified that they and their children
would become ill. But no there was never any documented evidence that exposure to chemicals at the
site caused death or disease. Indeed, in 1980, a panel of scientists appointed by Governor Hugh Carey
concluded that "inadequate" scientific studies might have exaggerated the seriousness of the health
problems caused by toxic waste. Dr. Lewis Thomas of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, chairman
of the panel, declared "as a result of this review, the panel has concluded that there has been no
demonstration of acute health effects linked to exposure to hazardous wastes at the Love Canal site.
The panel also concluded that the chronic effects of hazardous wastes exposure at Love Canal have neither
been established or ruled out yet." Nearly 20 years have passed since those blue-ribbon panel findings and
there is still no evidence of an increased incidence of disease or birth defects associated with exposure
to the Love Canal chemicals. Clearly, we must strive to manage the benefits of technology safely and
appropriately. We must also acknowledge that heavily industrialized areas of this country are no longer
pristine. But such acknowledgements do not justify exaggeration or sheer fabrication of health risks
that were never documented.
Hazardous waste does not increase health problems
Milloy 1 (Steven J. Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com; a
portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for FoxNews.com http://books.google.com
/books?id=q78ACwC9xYwC&pg=PA144&vq=hazardous+waste&dq=%22hazardous+waste%22,+junk+science%2
2&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1TCYz4OwbrZereNX6IIex-UckZgw)
Hazardous waste studies have not linked childhood cancer with hazardous waste sites. A recent study of
hazardous waste sites in North Carolina reported “No significantly elevated cancer incidences were
found at the county level . Two Zip Code areas had statistically significant elevations in cancer incidence (p
< .05) Only three of the cancer cases we mapped resided within a 1.6-km (1 mile) buffer zone of a National
Priorities list hazardous waste site. These three cases were not in the zip code areas that had increased
incidence rates.” Another recent study found no association between childhood cancer and 460
hazardous waste sites in the United Kingdom.
Toxic Waste Answers - Exaggerated

Claims that toxic waste damages health are alarmist and exaggerated
To scare Americans into supporting a political agenda, former EPA administrator Carol Browner
utters alarmist half-truths such as “Half a million children live within a mile of a toxic waste site in the
United States”, and “Were very concerned about the one-quarter of Americans who live within four
miles of a superfund site.” But there is no evidence- none- that just living near a toxic waste site has
harmed any childs health.
Past examples prove that the EPA is alarmist about chemicals
By early 1983, though, the EPA changed its tune. The agency was reeling from a major scandal involving
its toxic waste cleanup program. Looking to restore the agencies reputation, EPA staff recommended
the very public banning of a chemical. Alar was targeted. But the available data wouldn’t allow the
chemical to go quietly. Some EPA staff determined the alleged health effects from Alar were well within
the range of safety. A panel of outside scientific advisors agreed with those EPA staff. They rejected the
proposed ban. The agency repealed the proposed ban in January 1986, only to have activists pick up the ball.
Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Power Plant Emissions

Power plan emissions are not that bad
Morrone and Lohner 2 (pg. 83 Michele Ph.D., R.S. Director, Environmental Studies. College of Arts and Sciences · Voinovich School of Leadership and Public
http://books.google.com/books?id=JjgbVjyzsfAC&dq=%22
Affairs, Timothy W. senior environmental specialist with American Electric Power
hazardous +waste%22,+junk+ science%22&pg=PP1&ots=NRcljDuINn&source=citation&sig=0ENHBG
XVV_PVdRsvbAHYGavPXSo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result#PPA72,M1)
Similar studies have been done by independent organizations fro individual power plants. In an analysis of
the emissions of an eastern utility company power plant that burns almost 7 million tons of eastern coal
per year. Dr. Gray found very low levels of risk associated with the emissions, non-cancer risks were
below the acceptable RFC, and the cancer risks were below the 1 in a million level. In a similar analysis
of ten Midwestern power plants, it was found that the cancer risk ranged between 0.06 and 0.5 in 1
million, well below the level the EPA considers negligible. All ten plants release chemicals that have the
potential to cause noncancer health effects if exposure is high enough. However, the analysis found that the
hazard index was much less than one, indicating that exposure was much lower than the air concentration
considered “safe”.
Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Waste Water

Waste water being solved now
Science Daily 7 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071108080114.htm)

Now, Duygu Özsoy and colleagues in the Department of Environmental Engineering, at Mersin University,
Turkey, have begun investigating the potential of several materials to absorb the dissolved form of
copper from waste water. They have looked at how well untreated peanut husks and another potential
cleanup material, pine sawdust, compare in absorbing copper ions from waste water. The team measured the
levels of copper ions that could be extracted from waste water at different temperatures, acidity, flow rate,
and initial concentration of dissolved copper. They found that, as expected the longer the waste water is
exposed to the materials the more efficient the process. However, there is a stark difference between peanut
husk extraction and pine sawdust. The peanut husks could remove 95% of the copper ions whereas the
pine sawdust only achieved 44% extraction. Efficiency works best if the water is slightly acidic but
temperature had little effect on efficiency. The researchers conclude that both untreated peanut husks, a
cheap waste product of the food industry and pine sawdust from the timber industry could be used in
waste water cleanup to reduce significantly levels of toxic copper levels.
Toxic Waste Answers - A/T- Brownfield Waste

Brownfield toxic contamination being solved now
Science Daily 7 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029132654.htm)

Common contaminants of industrial sites include copper, chromium, and arsenic. A pilot-scale experiment
compared the industrial-scale, long-term effects of treating these areas with iron-containing blaster sand (BS)
or oxygen-scarfing granulate (OSG). The study showed that treatment with BS appeared to produce
better long-term effects than treatment with OSG. A common practice to remediate brownfield sites at
this time is landfilling, which involves the excavation and burial of the contaminated soil to restrict the
pollutants to a controlled area. The problem with landfilling is that it can be problematic when large
numbers of sites need remediation, and the pollutants are still retained in the soil mix, which can result
in a future risk of contaminant mobilization, perhaps unpredictably. Treatments done in the laboratory
and as field experiments for this study were successful with high additions of ameliorant, a substance
that improves the physical condition of soil and aids in plant growth.
***Econ Tools***
A2: Resilience 1/1

Recession leads to Depression.
Palley 6 (Thomas Paley Economics Professor at the New School of Social Research, July 1996 The Atlantic
Monthly pg 50)
These problems would be bad enough in a economy with strong labor unions and low unemployment,
but they are likely to be worsened in an economy in which labor is wake and companies not only lay off
workers but also force wage concessions from those not laid off. Widespread wage concession could
weaken demand to the point where mass layoffs occur. Such a possibility now haunts the US economy,
and that is why the next recession may turn into a depression.
Recession leads to Depression.

Palley 6 (Thomas Paley Economics Professor at the New School of Social Research, July 1996 The Atlantic
Monthly pg 50)
The past twenty-five years have witnessed a persistent weakening of structural conditions within the
US economy. This weakening has been predicated on changes in labor markets which have undermined
the position of American workers polarizing income distribution and increasing job insecurity. The
effects of these changes have been obscured by a debt binge by households and government and by
favorable demographic factors. However, households now face increasing financial constraints and the
demographic situation is changing rapidly. At the same time in the face of increased capital mobility,
wages continue to decline and job insecurity widens, these are grounds for believing that the next
recession could spiral into a depression.
Econ Resilient 1/1
Global economy is resilient—inflation is contained and economic growth is high

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary Treasury of the United States, April 14, 2007 (“International Monetary and
Financial Committee Fifteenth Meeting”, http://www.imf.org/External/spring/2007/imfc/statement/eng/usa.pdf)
WASHINGTON, DC—Today’s meeting is taking place against the backdrop of a continued strong and
resilient global economy, which provides a favorable setting for overcoming the challenges we face.
Both advanced and emerging economies have put in place improved policy frameworks that are
underpinning sustained growth. With global growth expected to be near 5% this year, the past five years
mark the strongest period of world growth since the early 1970s. Recent bouts of moderate financial
turbulence, in mid-2006 and again in early 2007, have tested the system, but it has performed well. While
ongoing vigilance is required, inflation risks appear contained and international trade continues to
expand.
US economy resilient
Kevin L. Kliesen, Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, January 2006 (“Despite Setbacks, the U.S.
Economy Steams Forward”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3678/is_200601/ai_n17170028)
Through it all, the economy has exhibited extraordinary resilience, experiencing only a relatively minor
recession in 2001 and only a moderate recovery over the next year or so. But since mid-2003, real GDP has
increased at a little more than a 4 percent annual rate. This rate is about one percentage point higher than the
Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential real GDP growth but a bit lower than other estimates.
With actual growth exceeding potential growth, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5 percent (as of
November 2005) and the manufacturing capacity utilization rate in October rose to its highest level in five
years. The U.S. economy's resilience reflects two key developments. First, growth of labor productivity
(output per hour in the nonfarm business sector) remains historically elevated. Over the past five years, labor
productivity has increased at a brisk 3.4 percent annual rate, far above the 50-year average growth of 2.2
percent. second, financial markets and the business community are confident that the Federal Reserve
will keep inflation low and stable. This credibility not only reduces risk premiums that are embedded in
interest rates, but it enables the Fed to offset potentially damaging economic disturbances without the
markets calling into question its inflation-fighting bona fides. As long as long-term inflation expectations
remain low and stable and labor productivity growth stays strong, the economy should continue to grow at
or slightly above its estimated potential rate of growth in 2006. Economic activity in 2006 should also
receive a boost from the rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast and, hopefully, from the absence of further large
increases in crude oil and natural gas prices. The rebuilding and relative stability in energy prices would help
boost business investment and help produce a more moderate headline inflation rate in 2006. The end result
would be an improvement in household purchasing power. With this outcome, the economy in 2006 should
add jobs at a rate of about 150,00 to 175,000 per month.
Growth = inflation 1/1

Growth causes inflation – Fed reactions
People’s Daily Online, 7-3-07 [“Rebound in U.S. economic growth could fuel inflation: report”
http://english.people.com.cn/200707/03/eng20070703_389713.html, accessed 7-6-07]
Economic growth in the United States is likely to recover as the year progresses, but that could fuel
inflation, according to the latest Wall Street Journal survey of forecasters.
Having run a veritable gantlet of threats to its health, the nation's economy is in a better place than it was just
a few months ago.
Forecasters, however, also see a mounting risk: Thanks to longer-term shifts in the U.S. and global economic
landscapes, even a little growth could lead to a resurgence of inflation, the Wall Street Journal reported
Monday.
A resurgence of inflation would be painful for U.S. consumers and could cause the Federal Reserve
(Fed) to ride the brakes by raising short-term interest.
With consumer spending holding up, a weaker dollar propelling U.S. exports and a pickup in production and
investment, the 60 economists who took part in the survey expect the economy to grow at an annual rate of
2.6 percent in the second half of this year and 2.9 percent in 2008.
That is down from 3.3 percent in 2006, but much better than the 0.7 percent pace of the first quarter of 2007.
In the survey, conducted in mid-June, one in five forecasters saw a resurgence of inflation as the greatest
risk facing the economy. That is more than twice the proportion who saw it as the No. 1 risk six months
ago.
As a result, they now see little chance that the Fed will lower its target for short-term interest rates from the
current 5.25 percent by December.
Inflation low, but growth would increase inflation, crushing global economic growth
Daily Times 6-27-07 [“World growth stronger, inflation poses risk,”
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C06%5C27%5Cstory_27-6-2007_pg5_29]
FRANKFURT: The world economy is powering ahead at a faster pace than expected two months ago,
building up global inflationary pressures, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund said
on Tuesday. Inflationary dangers pose the greatest risk to the rosy world outlook. But so far rapid gains
in commodity prices, now spreading from metals and energy to food and agricultural products, have not
pushed up consumer prices broadly, Simon Johnson said at a news briefing. “There are real inflationary
pressures when you run a world economy this fast,” Johnson said at a briefing where he forecast global
growth of around 5 percent this year. The United States, Japan and Europe are no longer benefiting from
falling prices for imported goods, which adds to inflationary dangers associated with fast growth, he
said. Despite these pressures, Johnson said: “We see very little inflation feeding through.”
Growth decreases inflation 1/1

Economic growth REDUCES inflation
Bob Murphy, Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College, visiting scholar at the Ludwig von
Mises Institute, May 15, 2007, online: http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy113.html, accessed July 6,
2007
As with most faulty economic doctrines, the claim that economic growth causes price inflation isn’t
just wrong, it’s exactly backwards. Let’s go back to basics. The price of something (quoted in dollars) is
just the exchange ratio between dollar bills and the good in question.
Now what happens when the quantity for sale of a particular good or service increases? For example, why are
American laborers worried about Mexican immigrants coming into the country? Why, they’re worried that
with a larger supply of labor, the wage rate (measured in dollars) will go down. Nobody in his right mind
would say, "Because of huge increases in the pool of laborers, economists are worried that wages might
spike out of control, making it difficult for employers to maintain their profit margins."
It’s the same thing when it comes to other goods and services. If the economy cranks out five percent
more stuff this year than last year, those items will be more affordable to consumers, not less! If you’re
haggling with a merchant at a fruit stand over some bananas, and then another merchant pulls his banana cart
up next to the first guy, is that going to help you or hurt you in your negotiations?
Now granted, there are all sorts of caveats. The dollar price of a good isn’t due to a simple mechanical
formula, whereby one divides the "total amount of output" (whatever the heck that phrase even means) by the
total quantity of money to come up with the "price level" (again, whatever the heck that phrase even means).
Even if the amount of money and amount of production remain constant, if all of a sudden people decide they
detest holding pictures of U.S. presidents, then dollar prices will rise as people try to unload their dollars in
exchange for other goods. So I don’t want my above musings to detract from the subtleties of the analysis;
supply and demand matter, even when it comes to the "price" of money.
Even so, the point remains: Other things equal, the larger the growth in real output, the lower dollar
prices will be. Economic growth reduces inflation. The financial press has it exactly backwards.
US Key to World Econ 1/1

US Econ Key to Global Econ
Freedomyou 07 (“USA's Future Economic Collapse” Freedomyou February 19, 2007 acessed 07/03/07
http://www.freedomyou.com/prophecy/USA_economic_colapse.htm)
America's unquenchable materialistic appetite is the machine that fuels a global economy. Japan's
economy would collapse if it were not for the billions of dollars per year gained in trading with
America. When America goes into a recession, the world follows. When America's economy is
booming, the world's economy strengthens. America devours, yet, is never satisfied. Running out of
money, she tells the waiter to put it on her tab. He gladly complies making a tidy profit from the interest. He
cannot serve her quick enough. The more she eats, the hungrier she becomes. As time passes, less goes to
paying for food and more is needed to pay for the huge debt she is accumulating. Finally, all of her resources
are used up in paying for the interest she owes. America falls crashing to the ground in economic ruin, so
suddenly, it sends shock waves throughout the world. She is incapable of paying for her massive
imports. Merchant ships sit offshore, heavy laden with cargo, weeping and wailing in horror for
Babylon has fallen.
US still key to Global Econ

Diana 07(“Global economy to slow in 2007: Asia emerges as driving force.” Tom Diana Monday, January 1 2007
http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/credit-intermediation-related-activities/3961416-1.html)
In summary, the consensus among economists is for slower global economic growth in 2007, with more
driving force coming particularly from China and other countries such as India and from Latin America.
While the huge account deficit of the U.S. continues to finance a good portion of world trade, more
financial activity is being generated by the economic juggernaut of China. Speaking of the growing global
economic influence of China, Leach joked, "If you don't know the answer to a question, the answer is
China." However, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy and has a profound impact on the global
economy. North added, "The American economy is very resilient and adaptable to change." Exporting
the products demanded by the growing economies overseas might be a winning strategy for those U.S.
companies in 2007 that haven't yet taken the plunge into exporting. Nonetheless, 2007, barring a
calamitous event, promises to be a year of modest growth for the global economy.
US Not Key to World Econ 1/1

World economy resilient to US growth slump
Tim Colebatch, economics editor at The Age, April 13, 2007 (“World Economy Resilient to US Growth Slump:
IMF”, http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/imf-tips-output-growth-dip/2007/04/12/1175971264415.html)
World Economy Resilient to US Growth Slump: IMF The IMF's half-yearly Outlook, released in
Washington, reiterates its bullish forecast that the world economy will grow by 4.9 per cent this year, and
predicts the same for next year. In recent years, IMF estimates have been consistently too conservative. It
now tells us that the global economy last year grew by 5.4 per cent, its best for decades. And its forecast
implies that from 2002 to 2008, the world's output will have grown by 33 per cent, the strongest run of
growth since the long post-war boom. The IMF also predicts that the risks to the world economy have
decreased with the decline in oil prices, although it warns that current account imbalances still pose a risk
of "a possible disorderly unwinding" — its polite term for a global recession.
Europe is sustaining global economy despite US slowdown.

The Wall Street Journal, December 2006 (“Europe is Giving Economy a Surprise Boost Amid US Lull”,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8580)
BERLIN – Europe's economy is firing on all cylinders after years of feeble growth, helping to sustain
global expansion as the U.S. economy slows and surprising many economists who doubted the Continent
could muster enough demand to break its reliance on exports. Europe's economic recovery was ignited by
rising exports, but it is now spreading to investment, job creation and consumer spending. While some
countries around Europe's edges have performed well for years, including the United Kingdom and the
Nordic countries, prolonged stagnation in its heartland – the 12-nation euro currency area dominated by
Germany, France and Italy – earned Europe a reputation rivaling Japan's as the world's economic laggard.
Euro-zone gross domestic product is on course to grow by 2.7% this year, unspectacular by recent U.S.
standards but a big improvement on the 1.4% growth the euro zone averaged the previous five years. Even
though a U.S. slowdown, a strengthening euro and looming tax increases in Germany could brake
euro-zone growth next year, most forecasters still expect an expansion of around 2%. By Europe's
lackluster standards, that's nothing short of a comeback – and is good news for exporters and investors
from the U.S. and Asia.
US not key—Asia is outgrowing US economy.

YaleGlobal, 6/12/07 (“$12 Trillion Monster Threatens Globalization”,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9286)
Some countries control great pools of wealth, building funds from oil or other natural-resource revenue,
according to William Pesek, Bloomberg news columnist. But with funds growing by leaps and bounds,
their owners look to make good use of these savings – and in the process could transform global financial
markets. The funds together, many based in Asia, could outgrow the entire US economy by 2015. Many
countries turn to investments abroad, offering potential for solid financial returns, but such investments can
raise protectionist concerns. The US, for example, might balk at China or Russia investing in Silicon
Valley firms. Many governments are taking efforts to understand the implications of these large stockpiles.
Governments cannot dump reserves for fear the market will drop nor can they keep accumulating reserves
because their currencies would surge. Pesek advises wise and careful study into the best use for such funds. –
A2: Growth solves war 1/1
Newest evidence confirms growth doesn’t stop war
Ferguson Oct 6, 6 (Foreign Affairs, Niall, Harvard, EBSCO)

It might have been expected that such prosperity would eliminate the causes of war. But much of the worst
violence of the twentieth century involved the relatively wealthy countries at the opposite ends of Eurasia.
The chief lesson of the twentieth century is that countries can provide their citizens with wealth, longevity,
literacy, and even democracy but still descend into lethal conflict. Leon Trotsky nicely summed up the
paradox when reflecting on the First Balkan War of 1912-13, which he covered as a reporter. The conflict,
Trotsky wrote, "shows that we still haven't crawled out on all fours from the barbaric stage of our history. We
have learned to wear suspenders, to write clever editorials, and to make chocolate milk, but when we have to
decide seriously a question of the coexistence of a few tribes on a rich peninsula of Europe, we are helpless
to find a way other than mutual mass slaughter." Trotsky later made his own contribution to the history of
mass slaughter as the people's commissar for war and as the commander of the Red Army during the Russian
Civil War.
And economic decline doesn’t cause war
Ferguson Oct 6, 6 (Foreign Affairs, Niall, Harvard, EBSCO)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern
historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that
simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had
recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did
all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is
discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather
than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Environmental Harms Toolbox - Scholars

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Environmental Harms Toolbox - Scholars

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Scholars Environmental Harms

DA Turns Case – NW – General

Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Decreasing

Arable land is steadily decreasing.

Desertification: Impact – Large Scale

Desertification: Impact – War/Laundry List

Desertification: Impact – Biodiversity (I/L)

Desertification destroys biodiversity, which destroys food supplies and medical

Desertification destroys biodiversity – specific scenario.

Desertification: Impact – Water Scarcity (I/L)

Desertification leads to drought.

Desertification depletes ground water reserves.

Desertification destroys quality water sources.

Diallo 4 [Hama Arba, UNCCD Executive Secretary, “Joining Up to Stop Desertification,”

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

Drought causes fires and air pollution.

Desertification: Impact – Refugees (I/L)

Desertification results in mass refugee movements.

Diallo 4 [Hama Arba, UNCCD Executive Secretary, “Joining Up to Stop Desertification,”

Desertification: Impact – Refugees => Conflict

Migration from desertification sparks multiple scenarios for conflict.

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

Drought causes fires and air pollution.

Desertification: Impact – Global Warming (+) Feedback Cycle

Desertification: AT Gender Equity Turn

Desertification subjects women to violence and loss of educational opportunities.

Many alternative causes for local patriarchy.

AT Desertification: Uniqueness – Arable Land Up

AT Desertification: Turn – Prioritizing the Environment

Desertification leads to adaptation which solves

AT Desertification: Turn – Gender Equity

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

UNEP 3 [United Nations Environment Programme, Chapter 4: “Women and desertification:

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

USGS 97 [Publications Service Center, “Desertification,” Oct 29, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/

AT Desertification: Alt Cause

They don’t solve the main causes for desertification.

Various human activities cause desertification.

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

AT Desertification: Alt Cause

Salinization is the main cause of desertification.

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

Rocky Mountain News 4 [“Issues of Dignity Focus of U.S.-Vatican Ties,” September 2,

AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Now

AT Desertification: Organic Agriculture Solves

Organic agriculture solves all the root causes of desertification.

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

AT Desertification: Pastoralism Solves

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

AT Desertification: Wind Breaks Solve

Windbreaks can prevent desertification.

USGS 97 [Publications Service Center, “Desertification,” Oct 29, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/

AT Desertification: Cacti Solve

Cacti can reverse the effects of desertification.

Cacti can adapt to desertified regions.

Empirically cacti have been used successfully to counteract desertification.

***Air Pollution Harms***

Air Pollution – It’s Up

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

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

Air Pollution=Species Extinction

Air Pollution Harms

Air Pollution Answers

Water Pollution Answers

Endocrine Disruptors Answers