Adv 1 – LeadershipThe US is neglecting Ocean Exploration nowDove and McClain 12, Al Dove is an Australian marine biologist currently serving as Director of Research and Conservation at the Georgia Aquarium Research Center in Atlanta, Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now,” October 16th, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/For too long ocean exploration has suffered from chronic underfunding and the lack of an independent agency with a dedicated mission. Here, Al Dove and I call for the creation of a NASA-style agency to ensure the future health of US ocean science and exploration . Over a decade ago, one of us (CM) made his first submersible dive off of Rum Cay in the Bahamas. At the surface the temperature was a warm 91˚F and at the bottom 2,300 feet down the temperature was near freezing. Despite my large size, I don’t remember feeling cramped inside the soda can-sized sub at any moment. The entire time I pressed my face against a 6-inch porthole, my cheek against the cool glass, and focused my eyes on the few feet of illuminated sea floor around me and the miles of black beyond. Here in the great depths of oceans I got my first look at the giant isopod, a roly-poly the size of a large shoe. This beast and the surrounding abyss instantly captured my imagination, launching me on a journey of ocean science and exploration to unravel the riddles of life in the deep. A thousand miles away, off the coast of Yucatan Mexico, the other of us (AD) experienced equal wonder at the discovery of the largest aggregation ever recorded of the largest of fish in the world, the whale shark. These spotted behemoths gather annually in the hundreds off the coast of Cancun, one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations, and yet this spectacular biological was unknown to science until 2006. Swimming among them, I reverted to a childish state of wonder, marveling at their size, power and grace, and boggling that they have probably been feeding in these waters since dinosaurs, not tourists, inhabited the Yucatan. Whether giant fish or giant crustaceans, are opportunities to uncover the ocean’s mysteries are quickly dwindling. The Ghost of Ocean Science Present Our nation faces a pivotal moment in exploration of the oceans . The most remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever due to engineering and technological advances. What limits our exploration of the oceans is not imagination or technology but funding . We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize ocean exploration and science. In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the total number of dollars spent here is large, we only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic product invested into research. The outlook for ocean science is even bleaker. In many cases, funding of marine science and exploration , especially for the deep sea, are at historical lows . In others, funding remains stagnant, despite rising costs of equipment and personnel. The J oint O cean C ommission I nitiative , a committee comprised of leading ocean scientists, policy makers, and former U.S. secretaries and congressmen, gave the grade of D- to funding of ocean science in the U.S . Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) within NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a move supported by the Senate. In NOAA’s own words, “NOAA determined that NURP was a lower-priority function within its portfolio of research activities.” Yet, NURP is one of the main suppliers of funding and equipment for ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the Hawaiian Underwater Research Laboratory and the underwater habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an overall request for a 3.1% increase in funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or 1/10 of NOAA’s budget and 1,675 times less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month. One of the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is “that other avenues of Federal funding for such activities might be pursued.” However, “other avenues” are fading as well. Some funding for ocean exploration is still available through NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Program. However, the Office of Ocean Exploration, the division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%) and is down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S. Naval funding for basic research has also diminished. The other main source of funding for deep-sea science in the U.S. is the National Science Foundation which primarily supports biological research through the Biological Oceanography Program. Funding for science within this program remains stagnant, funding larger but fewer grants. This trend most likely reflects the ever increasing costs of personnel, equipment, and consumables which only larger projects can support. Indeed, compared to rising fuel costs, a necessity for oceanographic vessels, NSF funds do not stretch as far as even a decade ago. Shrinking funds and high fuel costs have also taken their toll on The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) which operates the U.S. public research fleet. Over the last decade, only 80% of available ship days were supported through funding. Over the last two years the gap has increasingly widened, and over the last ten years operations costs increased steadily at 5% annually. With an estimated shortfall of $12 million, the only solution is to reduce the U.S. research fleet size. Currently this is expected to be a total of 6 vessels that are near retirement, but there is no plan of replacing these lost ships. The situation in the U.S. contrasts greatly with other countries. The budget for the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) continues to increase, although much less so in recent years. The 2007 operating budget for the smaller JAMSTEC was $527 million, over $100 million dollars more than the 2013 proposed NOAA budget. Likewise, China is increasing funding to ocean science over the next five years and has recently succeeded in building a new deep-sea research and exploration submersible, the Jiaolong. The only deep submersible still operating in the US is the DSV Alvin, originally built in 1968. The Ghost of Ocean Science Past 85% of Americans express concerns about stagnant research funding and 77% feel we are losing our edge in science . So how did we get here? Part of the answer lies in how ocean science and exploration fit into the US federal science funding scene. Ocean science is funded by

numerous agencies, with few having ocean science and exploration as a clear directive . Contrast to this to how the US traditionally dealt with exploration of space. NASA was recognised early on as the vehicle by which the US would establish and maintain international space supremacy, but the oceans have always had to compete with other missions. We faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or situations: do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose what appeared to be most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied science because it was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was easier to justify politically the expenditures involved. In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we lacked an understanding of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science, society, and often to applied research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and exploration but greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate change research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment and economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our country’s capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change work relies upon? Just a few short decades ago, the U.S. was a pioneer of deep water exploration. We are the country that in 1960 funded and sent two men to the deepest part of the world’s ocean in the Trieste. Five years later, we developed, built, and pioneered a new class of submersible capable of reaching some of the most remote parts of the oceans to nimbly explore and conduct deep-water science. Our country’s continued commitment to the DSV Alvin is a bright spot in our history and has served as model for other countries’ submersible programs. The Alvin allowed us to be the first to discover hydrothermal vents and methane seeps, explore the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and countless other scientific firsts. Our rich history with space exploration is dotted with firsts and it revolutionized our views of the world and universe around us; so has our rich history of ocean exploration. But where NASA produced a steady stream of occupied space research vehicles, Alvin remains the only deep-capable research submersible in the service in the United States.

We have the resources – ocean exploration is key to US economic dominanceCousteau 12, Philippe, special correspondent for CNN, “Why exploring the ocean is mankind's next giant leap,” March 13th, http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/why-exploring-the-ocean-is-mankinds-next-giant-leap/With the iconic space program ending, many people have asked, "What’s next? What is the next giant leap in scientific and technological innovation?" Today a possible answer to that question has been announced. And it does not entail straining our necks to look skyward. Finally, there is a growing recognition that some of the most important discoveries and opportunities for innovation may lie beneath what covers more than 70 percent of our planet – the ocean. Filmmaker James Cameron sets out to explore the deepest part of the ocean You may think I’m doing my grandfather Jacques Yves-Cousteau and my father Philippe a disservice when I say we’ve only dipped our toes in the water when it comes to ocean exploration . After all, my grandfather co-invented the modern SCUBA system and "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau " introduced generations to the wonders of the ocean. In the decades since, we’ve only explored about 10 percent of the ocean - an essential resource and complex environment that literally supports life as we know it, life on earth. We now have a golden opportunity and a pressing need to recapture that pioneering spirit. A new era of ocean exploration can yield discoveries that will help inform everything from critical medical advances to sustainable forms of energy. Consider that AZT, an early treatment for HIV, is derived from a Caribbean reef sponge, or that a great deal of energy - from offshore wind, to OTEC (ocean thermal energy conservation), to wind and wave energy - is yet untapped in our oceans. Like unopened presents under the tree, the ocean is a treasure trove of knowledge. In addition, such discoveries will have a tremendous impact on economic growth by creating jobs as well as technologies and goods. In addition to new discoveries, we also have the opportunity to course correct when it comes to stewardship of our oceans. Research and exploration can go hand in glove with resource management and conservation . Over the last several decades, as the United States has been exploring space, we’ve exploited and polluted our oceans at an alarming rate without dedicating the needed time or resources to truly understand the critical role they play in the future of the planet. It is not trite to say that the oceans are the life support system of this planet, providing us with up to 70 percent of our oxygen, as well as a primary source of protein for billions of people, not to mention the regulation of our climate. Despite this life-giving role, the world has fished, mined and trafficked the ocean's resources to a point where we are actually seeing dramatic changes that is seriously impacting today's generations. And that impact will continue as the world's population approaches 7 billion people, adding strain to the world’s resources unlike any humanity has ever had to face before. In the long term, destroying our ocean resources is bad business with devastating consequences for the global economy , and the health and sustainability of all creatures - including humans. Marine spatial planning, marine sanctuaries, species conservation, sustainable fishing strategies, and more must be a part of any ocean exploration and conservation program to provide hope of restoring health to our oceans. While there is still much to learn and discover through space exploration, we also need to pay attention to our unexplored world here on earth. Our next big leap into the unknown can be every bit as exciting and bold as our pioneering work in space. It possesses the same "wow" factor: alien worlds, dazzling technological feats and the mystery of the unknown. The United States has the scientific muscle , the diplomatic know-how and the entrepreneurial spirit to lead the world in exploring and protecting our ocean frontier .

Economic strength key to American influence- largest internal link

Hubbard ’10 (Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Analysis By: Jesse Hubbard Jesse Hubbard Program Assistant at Open Society Foundations Washington, District Of Columbia International Affairs Previous National Democratic Institute (NDI), National Defense University, Office of Congressman Jim Himes Education PPE at University of Oxford, 2010

Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearson’s r-value is -.836. In the case of American hegemony, economic strength is a better predictor of violent conflict than even overall national power , which had an r-value of -.819. The data is also well within the realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the data for British hegemony was not as striking,

the same overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively related with violent conflict, and yet use of force by the hegemon was

positively correlated with violent conflict in both cases. Finally, in both cases, economic power was more closely associated with conflict levels than military power. Statistical analysis created a more complicated picture of the hegemon’s role in fostering stability than initially anticipated. VI. Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers regarding the complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned first to the existing theoretical literature on hegemonic stability theory. The existing literature provides some potential frameworks for understanding these results. Since economic strength proved to be of such crucial importance, reexamining the literature that focuses on hegemonic stability theory’s economic implications was the logical first step. As explained above, the literature on hegemonic stability theory can be broadly divided into two camps – that which focuses on the international economic system, and that which focuses on armed conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from the first camp are still of relevance. Even Kindleberger’s early work on this question is of relevance.

Kindleberger posited that the economic instability between the First and Second World Wars could be attributed to the lack of an economic hegemon (Kindleberger 1973). But economic instability obviously has spillover effects into the international political arena. Keynes, writing after WWI, warned in his seminal tract The Economic Consequences of the Peace that Germany’s economic humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the nation’s political culture (Keynes 1919). Given later events, his warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second World War, however, the European continent has not relapsed into armed conflict. What was different after the second global conflagration? Crucially, the United States was in a far more powerful position than Britain was after WWI. As the tables above show, Britain’s economic strength after the First World War was about 13% of the total in strength in the international system. In contrast, the United States possessed about 53% of relative economic power in the international system in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild Europe’s economic strength with billions of dollars in investment through the Marshall Plan, assistance that was never available to the defeated powers after the First World War (Kindleberger 1973). The interwar years were also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars that likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast, when Britain was more powerful, it was able to facilitate greater free trade, and after World War II, the United States played a leading role in creating institutions like the GATT that had an essential role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an important factor in the overall security environment should not be discounted, especially given the results of my statistical analysis. Another theory that could provide insight into the patterns observed in this research is that of preponderance of power. Gilpin

theorized that when a state has the preponderance of power in the international system, rivals are more likely to resolve their disagreements without resorting to armed conflict (Gilpin 1983). The logic behind this claim is simple – it makes more sense to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This simple yet powerful theory can help explain the puzzlingly strong positive correlation between military conflicts engaged in by the hegemon and conflict overall. It is not necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon instigates further conflict in the

international system. Rather, this military involvement could be a function of the hegemon’s weaker position, which is the true cause of the higher levels of conflict in the international system . Additionally, it is important to note that military power is, in the long run, dependent on economic strength . Thus, it is

possible that as hegemons lose relative economic power, other nations are tempted to challenge them

even if their short-term military capabilities are still strong . This would help explain some of the variation found between the economic and military data. The results of this analysis are of clear importance beyond the realm of theory. As

the debate rages over the role of the United States in the world, hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the table. What this research makes clear is that a strong hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system. However, this should not give policymakers a justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international stability. If anything, this research points to the central importance of economic influence in fostering international stability . To misconstrue these findings to justify anything else would be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a stabilizing role in the international system, but this role is complicated. It is economic strength, not military dominance that is the true test of hegemony. A weak state with a strong military is a paper tiger – it may appear fearsome, but it is vulnerable to even a short blast of wind.

That’s key to global stabilityGelb ’10 (“GDP Now Matters More Than Force” Leslie H. Gelb is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a senior official in the U.S. Defense Department from 1967 to 1969 and in the State Department from 1977 to 1979, and he was a Columnist and Editor at The New York Times from 1981 to 1993. Published 2010 by Foreign Affairs in Washington DC, USA . Written in English. Table of Contents A U.S. Foreign Policy for the Age of Economic Power

Today, the U nited S tates continues to be the world's power balancer of choice . It is the only regional balancer against China in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe , and Iran in the Middle East . Although Americans rarely

think about this role and foreign leaders often deny it for internal political reasons, the fact is that Americans and non-Americans alike require these services. Even Russian leaders today look to Washington to check China. And Chinese leaders surely realize that they need the U.S. Navy and Air Force to guard the world's sea and trading lanes . Washington should not be embarrassed to

remind others of the costs and risks of the United States' security role when it comes to economic transactions. That applies, for example, to Afghan and Iraqi decisions about contracts for their

natural resources, and to Beijing on many counts . U.S. forces maintain a stable world order that decidedly benefits China's economic growth,

and to date, Beijing has been getting a free ride. A NEW APPROACH In this environment, the first-tier foreign policy goals of the United States should be a strong economy and the ability to deploy effective counters to threats at the lowest possible cost. Second-tier goals, which are always more controversial, include retaining the military power to remain the world's power balancer,

promoting freer trade, maintaining technological advantages (including cyberwarfare capabilities), reducing risks from various environmental and health challenges, developing

alternative energy supplies, and advancing U.S. values such as democracy and human rights. Wherever possible, second-tier goals should reinforce first-tier ones: for example, it makes sense to err on the side of freer trade to help boost the economy and to invest in greater energy independence to reduce dependence on the tumultuous Middle East. But no overall approach should dictate how to pursue these goals in each and every situation. Specific applications depend on, among other things, the culture and politics of the target countries. An overarching vision helps leaders consider how to use their power to achieve their goals. This is what gives policy direction, purpose, and thrust--and this is what is often missing from U.S. policy. The organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy should be to use power to solve common problems. The good old days of being able to command others by making military or economic threats are largely gone. Even the weakest nations can resist the strongest ones or drive up the costs for submission. Now, U.S. power derives mainly from others' knowing that they cannot solve their problems without the United States and that they will have to heed U.S. interests to achieve common goals. Power by services rendered has largely replaced power by command. No matter the

decline in U.S. power, most nations do not doubt that the United States is the indispensable leader in solving major international problems. This problem-solving capacity creates opportunities for U.S. leadership in everything from trade talks to military-conflict

resolution to international agreements on global warming. Only Washington can help the nations bordering the South China Sea forge a formula for sharing the region's resources.

Only Washington has a chance of pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians toward peace. Only Washington

can bargain to increase the low value of a Chinese currency exchange . rate that disadvantages almost every nation's trade with China. But it is clear to Americans and non-Americans alike that Washington lacks the power to solve or manage difficult problems alone; the indispensable leader must work with indispensable partners. To attract the necessary partners, Washington must do the very thing that habitually afflicts U.S. leaders with political hives: compromise. This does not mean multilateralism for its own sake, nor does it mean abandoning vital national interests. The Obama administration has been criticized for softening UN economic sanctions against Iran in order to please China and Russia. Had the United States not compromised, however, it would have faced vetoes and enacted no new sanctions at all. U.S. presidents are often in a strong position to bargain while preserving essential U.S. interests, but they have to do a better job of selling such unavoidable compromises to the U.S. public. U.S. policymakers must also be patient. The weakest of nations today can resist and delay. Pressing prematurely for decisions--an unfortunate hallmark of U.S. style--results in failure, the prime enemy of power. Success breeds power, and failure breeds weakness. Even when various domestic constituencies shout for quick action, Washington's leaders must learn to buy time in order to allow for U.S. power--and the power of U.S.-led coalitions--to take effect abroad. Patience is especially valuable in the economic arena, where there are far more players than in the military and diplomatic realms. To corral all these players takes time. Military power can work quickly, like a storm; economic power grabs slowly, like the tide. It needs time to erode the shoreline, but it surely does nibble away. To be sure, U.S. presidents need to preserve the United States' core role as the world's military and diplomatic

balancer--for its own sake; and because it strengthens U.S. interests in economic transactions. But economics has to be the main driver for current policy, as nations calculate power more in terms of GDP than military might . U.S. GDP will be the lure and the whip in the international affairs of the twenty-first century. U.S. interests abroad

cannot be adequately protected or advanced without an economic reawakening at home.

Independently, the US lags in STEM education – ocean exploration is key to innovation that solves the crisisBeattie and Schubel 13, Ted A, President, Shedd Aquarium, Jerry R, President, Aquarium of the Pacific, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,” July 19th – 21st, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdfIn the current competitive global economy, the U nited States faces a distinct disadvantage. Only 16 percent of American high school seniors are proficient in mathematics and interested in STEM careers. And among those who do pursue college degrees in STEM fields, only half choose to work in a STEM -related career . The benefits of STEM education are clear. By 2018, the U.S. anticipates more than 1.2 million job openings in STEM-related occupations, including fields as diverse as science, medicine, software development, and engineering. STEM workers, on average, earn 26 percent more than their non-STEM counterparts, and experience lower unemployment rates than those in other fields. In addition, healthy STEM industries are critical to maintaining a quality of life in the United States. A national program of ocean and Great Lakes exploration provides myriad ways to capture public imagination and curiosity to support sustained involvement and more intense exposure not only to STEM topics , but also the humanities and arts. New less expensive tools , such as small ROVs , remote sensing stations, and underwater cameras , enable everyone to participate in ocean and freshwater exploration as citizen scientists. These types of public engagements around exploration, such as through the NOAA kiosks stationed in Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers, provide a glimpse into the true nature of science: not merely as a bundle of textbook facts, but a dynamic enterprise of investigation that is constantly changing as our understanding evolves. The effectiveness of STEM-focused programs are evident; studies have show n not only that young people enjoy inquiry-based STEM activities in and out of school settings, but also that sustained involvement and more intense exposure to

STEM topics increase youth interest and confidence in their scientific abilities . By engaging the public with ocean and Great Lakes observation, we provide people of all ages with opportunities to explore their natural aquatic environments, and to fall in love with the magic and mystery of scientific exploration.

Inspiration overcomes alt causesBarker 4, Donald, Masters degrees in Physics, Psychology and Mathematics and is currently working on a Masters in Space Architecture. [“Mars: The Only Goal for Humanity,” December 13th, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/285/1] Let’s focus on one of the most prominent and endearing reasons for choosing Mars as the primary destination of our human space flight goals. That is, the inspiration of future generations. For years, our public representatives and those pursuing office continuously tout the need to bolster enrollment (and thereby interest) in engineering, math, and science, and therefore support any program—public or private—that seems to promote education in these fields. The overarching cure to the problem has been to throw money at it or establish policies that try to entice students and teachers alike. These have been Band-Aid cures at best. Real education can only occur in light of motivation, and that means motivating students as well as the teachers and even policymakers. A person has to want to learn by seeing a personal benefit in their future or, to a lesser degree, some altruistic sense of curiosity must be instilled. Once the problem of motivation has been addressed, then free market economics will be poised to support the expanding needs of the educational system. When students are motivated to learn , then a means of supplementing the cost either has been or will be found. Again, this author points out that there is only one modern, human-directed goal that has the intrinsic magnitude to provide the long-term impetus and inspiration for engendering this base level of human motivation.

Key to competitivenessHuggins 11, Michael, Air force research laboratory, propulsion directorate, Richard Negron, Air Force Research Laboratory, Plans & Programs Directorate, Casey Deraad, Air Force Research Laboratory, Phillips Technology Institute, Joe Sciabica, Air Force Research Laboratory, Headquarters, [“Air Force Research Laboratory Investments in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education” November 28th, Astropolitics, 9:193–212, 2011 ] Innovation in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) has served as the cornerstone of the rise to global leadership f or the U nited States. Such innovation will be essential if the nation hopes to maintain its technological and competitive edge in an increasingly competitive global economy. The ability to maintain that edge is at risk, however. There is great concern about the diminishing production of U.S. citizen STEM graduates. Recent trends show that the educational system in the United States is failing to produce graduating seniors who are academically equipped to pursue degrees in STEM fields.1 This dearth of science and technology literacy in the young professional workforce will diminish the country’s ability to create new products and generate high-value jobs . The National STEM Education Caucus agrees, reasoning that the ‘‘foundation of innovation lies in a dynamic, motivated, and well-educated work force equipped with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills.’’2 Others fear that U.S. national security will be placed at risk if student interest in STEM subject areas continues to dwindle. The United States Commission on the National Security in the Twenty-First Century has summed up this fear as follows: The harsh fact is that the U.S. need for the highest quality capital in science, mathematics and engineering is not being met . . . Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology and education for the common good over the next century.3

Great power warKhalilzad 11 – United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992 (Zalmay, 2/8, “The Economy and National Security,” 2-8, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth . Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out

conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today.

Adv 2 – Ocean ScienceThe oceans are on the brink now – further degradation risks catastrophe Martin 14, Paul, Global Ocean Commissioner, “Ocean Under Threat,” Insight Issue 1, http://www.lr.org/en/_images/12-6690_Insight_1-2014.pdf“The ocean crisis could make the financial crisis look like a peanut, and the time to act is now before the crisis becomes acute.” With these words Global Ocean Commissioner and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin fired a warning shot across the bows of international complacency on governing the marine environment. Speaking on BBC radio’s ‘Shared Planet’ programme, he called for a “global uprising” against the destruction of the common resources of the ocean. “We’ve just come through a massive banking crisis in the UK, the eurozone and in the US,” he said. “That banking crisis occurred because banks, institutions and countries were prepared to put their own interests ahead of the global interest and in fact what they did was to trigger a global recession. “We’ve now put in place an institution called the Financial Stability Board which took 20 years of discussions of the kind that the Global Ocean Commission (GOC)

has really now begun … it took a crisis to do it.” And all the evidence shows that the world cannot wait 20 years – or

for a crisis to happen – to prevent the damage to the oceans from becoming irreversible . The radio programme also featured interviews with marine scientist Callum Roberts of York University in the UK and renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle. They spoke about their first-hand experiences of seeing ocean species and habitats destroyed by human activities, including overfishing and pollution. Earle described how a whale, washed ashore on the California coast, was found to have “400lbs of plastic in its stomach”. Roberts made the striking observation that, while 12 men had walked on the moon, only three people had seen the deepest parts of the ocean. Underlining the importance of the sea to the planet’s survival, he said: “If you think of the earth as a clock , then the ocean is the mainspring that keeps it ticking over .” Blueprint for reform It is to keep that mainspring working that the GOC was formed. Paul Martin is one of 17 high-level leaders drawn from around the world to develop a blueprint for reforming governance and management of the high seas. They are aiming to produce a set of recommendations by the middle of this year for restoring the ocean to full health and sustainable productivity. The high seas account for two-thirds of the Earth’s 361 million square kilometres of ocean – the remaining third is controlled and managed by individual governments and extends up to 200 nautical miles from the shore – yet, according to the GOC’s ‘Oceans Under Threat’ report: “there is little monitoring and little policing for this vast area of the planet. Most fundamentally, the high seas sit under a legal system that has not evolved in response to modern practices, technologies or scientific understanding.” Currently the ocean provides food for more than three billion people and the oxygen it produces accounts for every second breath we take. But with the population set to grow from seven to nine billion in the next few decades, and as scientists unlock more of its secrets, the ocean’s resources will be in demand like never before. The sea will become a major source of minerals and genetic materials. Other uses include electricity generation and geo-engineering to increase absorption of carbon dioxide. Destructive fishing But the rich biodiversity that is only just being discovered is in danger from destructive fishing methods, pollution and climate change . The GOC report warns: “Illegal fishing vessels are an increasing threat to the security of nations and a commonplace scene of human rights abuses. Combating illegal fishing would improve prospects for nature, for the ecosystem services that we need, and for responsible businesses. It could also ensure that the benefits from the exploitation of ocean resources can be sustainably managed and equitably shared.”

extinctionSielen 13, Alan b, Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “The Devolution of the Seas: The Consequences of Oceanic Destruction,” November/December, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seasOf all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable descent of the world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago. A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and other sea life one associates with the oceans today. Yet that sea life is now in peril . Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of slime”: the transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats. The prospect of vanishing whales, polar

bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the

disruption of entire ecosystems threatens our very survival , since it is the healthy functioning of

these diverse systems that sustain s life on earth . Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs , health, and quality of life . It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a

better future. Humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats .

Marine ecosystem degradation puts humanity on the brink of extinction -- destructions occurring rapidly. Black 11 – Environmental Correspondent at BBC News (Richard, June 20, “World's oceans in 'shocking' decline,”)The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists. In a new report, they warn that

ocean life is "at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human

history". They conclude that issues such as over-fishing, pollution and climate change are acting together in ways

that have not previously been recognised. The impacts, they say, are already affecting humanity. The panel was convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), and brought together experts from different disciplines, including coral reef ecologists, toxicologists, and fisheries scientists. Its report will be formally released later this week. "The findings are shocking," said Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director and

professor of conservation biology at Oxford University. "As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the oceans, the implications became far worse than we had individually realized . "We've sat in one forum and

spoken to each other about what we're seeing, and we've ended up with a picture showing that almost right across the board we're seeing changes that are happening faster than we'd thought, or in ways that we didn't expect to see for hundreds of years." These " accelerated" changes include melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, sea level rise, and release of methane trapped in the sea bed. Fast changes "The rate of change is vastly exceeding what we were expecting even a couple of years ago," said Ove Hoegh-

Guldberg, a coral specialist from the University of Queensland in Australia. Some species are already fished way beyond their limits - and may also be affected by other threats "So if you look at almost everything, whether it's fisheries in temperate zones or coral reefs or Arctic sea

ice, all of this is undergoing changes , but at a much faster rate than we had thought ." But more worrying than this,

the team noted, are the ways in which different issues act synergistically to increase threats to marine life . Some pollutants, for example, stick to the surfaces of tiny plastic particles that are now found in the ocean bed. This increases the amounts of these pollutants that are consumed

by bottom-feeding fish. Plastic particles also assist the transport of algae from place to place, increasing the occurrence of

toxic algal blooms - which are also caused by the influx of nutrient-rich pollution from agricultural land. In a wider sense, ocean acidification, warming, local pollution and overfishing are acting together to increase the threat to coral reefs - so much so that three-quarters of the world's reefs are at risk of severe decline. The challenges are vast; but unlike previous generations, we know what now needs to happen” Life on Earth has gone through five "mass extinction events" caused by events such as asteroid impacts; and it is often said that humanity's combined impact is causing a sixth such event. The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively. But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say

- and far faster than any of the previous five. "What we're seeing at the moment is unprecedented in the fossil record - the

environmental changes are much more rapid," Professor Rogers told BBC News. "We've still got most of the world's

biodiversity, but the actual rate of extinction is much higher [than in past events] - and what we face is certainly a globally significant extinction event ."

Ocean collapse causes extinction. Donahue 11 - published author of five books, former reporter for The Times Herald (James, March 7, “Pushing The Mother’s Reset Button”)It is no secret that our planet is overpopulated and that the human existence has taxed the Mother Earth’s ecological system to the

limit. The air, land and our seas are polluted , the planet’s resources are almost used up, our glaciers and icecaps are on meltdown , the weather is going through dramatic change, wildlife is going extinct , and most people are acting as if

nothing is wrong. The big news story should be the looming threat of human and life extinction on our planet. Instead the talking heads devote hours to political issues, the wars that rage on and on, the economic crisis and what popular starlet has been arrested for being in possession

of some illicit narcotic. The news anchors are no longer completely ignoring the weather, however. They cannot look the other way when hurricanes and typhoons ravage the land, when heavy rains flood and bring mudslides down over entire towns killing hundreds, and when mile-wide tornadoes march across the landscape flattening everything in their paths. They no longer can ignore the extreme killing heat waves and the severe arctic winter blizzards that sweep the landscape. Somehow they are still

refusing to connect this extreme weather to the human footprint. A disconcerting article by Jeremy Hsu, senior science writer for the

Internet web magazine LiveScience, maps a belief by some researchers “that effects of humans – from hunting to climate change –

are fueling another great mass extinction . A few go so far as to say we are entering a new geologic epoch.” What Hsu wrote is that

geologists find evidence that the planet has gone through numerous mass extinctions over the ages that dramatically changed the diversity of species found in

oceans around the world. He says this has been found mostly in the fossil records. The warning is that humans are driving animals and sea life to extinction, and consequently altering the entire ecosystem of the planet . Once the ecosystem is gone, is there anything to save the human race from plunging into extinction along with the animals? When we think about it, humans may have a soul that makes them uniquely linked to spiritual powers, but we all occupy animal bodies born on the Mother Earth and totally dependent upon her for

life in this three dimensional existence. We must breathe clean oxygen-filled air, drink clean water and eat food produced from living plants and animals to sustain life. Indeed, we are all aware that great beasts like the dinosaurs, saber-toothed tigers, mastodons and a wide variety of other strange plants and animals lived on this planet before humans arrived. Something occurred that caused a mass extinction of all of those living creatures. Now scientists are finding evidence that the world was filled with other types of life even before the age of the dinosaurs, and that they also appear to have gone extinct. Thus Hsu is suggesting that the planet has a natural reset button that gets pushed every so many hundred thousand years that

dramatically changes the diversity of species and possibly cleans up the messes left behind by the outgoing epoch. He suggests that the “major changes in global temperatures and ocean chemistry , increased sediment erosion and changes in biology that range from altered

flowering times to shifts in migration patterns of birds and mammals and potential die-offs of tiny organisms that support the entire marine food chain” may be the trigger that starts the planet’s reset button. If he is correct, the irony is that all of the

changes listed above appear to have been brought about by human activities. Thus we may be r ecklessly setting ourselves up for a mass

extinction event and are refusing to take a serious look at what we are doing to our planet and ourselves.

US leadership in ocean science is key to revitalizing the ocean and spills over – sparks private sector follow onSielen 14, Alan B, Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “Sea Change: How to Save the Oceans,” 4/16, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141198/alan-b-sielen/sea-change?sp_mid=45656665&sp_rid=aHVyd2pzMTJAd2Z1LmVkdQS2Government leaders are in a unique position to seize the bully pulpi t. In the United States, successes under both Republican and Democratic administrations are reminders of what is possible. Russell Train, chairman of U.S. President Richard Nixon’s Council on Environmental Quality, led efforts to secure an international agreement on prohibiting the dumping of toxic waste into the ocean at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. In 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, responding to a series of tanker accidents off U.S. shores, called for a major international treaty on tanker safety and pollution prevention. Eleven months later, industries and most maritime countries backed two major international agreements: the MARPOL Protocol to prevent pollution from ships and the SOLAS Protocol for the safety of life at sea. Steady U.S. leadership contributed to the adoption in 1993 of a global ban on dumping radioactive waste into the ocean. In 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush established the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, the world’s largest ocean preserve. Where government goes, the private sector can follow. Some businesses , n on g overnmental o rganization s , and research institutions have brought the message of ocean health home to more and more people by educating consumers about such things as sustainable fisheries and the health dangers of industrial chemicals. Through a $53 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies, two environmental organizations and an investment firm recently joined forces to revitalize fishing off the coasts of Brazil, the Philippines, and Chile. In the United States, one of those organizations, Oceana, is also working with the energy industry and Congress to expand offshore wind production. But these are, by and large, the exceptions. Too often, government and industry have failed in their duty to safeguard the seas. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon spill concluded that “systematic failures in both industry practices and government policies” led to the spill. For years, the United States and other countries often stretched the definition of freedom of navigation -- a crucial principle of international law -- to avoid strict environmental standards and enforcement for vessels. Exaggerated concern over environmental regulation by defense and commercial interests continues today on issues such as restrictions on the military use of sonar to protect whales, dolphins, and other marine life and the creation of special shipping routes in ecologically sensitive areas to bypass endangered species. Although few would tolerate bulldozing the California redwoods or Madagascar’s baobab, industrial fishing fleets get away with destroy ing underwater Edens . The United States still hasn’t ratified the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, which established international rules for all uses of the oceans and their resources. As a result, the United States cannot fully participate in negotiations over how the convention applies to competing claims on continental shelf resources in the Arctic, or to protecting U.S. waters from pollution originating in other countries. ALL OR NOTHING Restoring the oceans will require a shift in how governments and societies act , including a fundamental transformation in the use and management of energy, agriculture, and natural resources in general. Achieving substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning to clean energy, eliminating the worst toxic chemicals, and cutting pollution from fertilizers and pesticides in watersheds will not be easy. All those are the results of long-standing political factors, economic behaviors, and consumer choices. Take climate change and ocean acidification. They are related to so many other pressing problems -- rising seas, extreme weather, destruction of ecosystems, loss of biological diversity, species extinction, drought, disease, food and freshwater scarcity, and the astronomical costs of responses -- that any strategy for the seas’ renewal is an empty vessel without concerted action on climate change and ocean acidification. The ultimate policy prescriptions for those problems might be clear -- carbon taxes, conservation, legally binding international rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions, enforceable environmental standards across industries, and

advanced fuel systems, from better batteries to fuel cells. But they are still years away. In the meantime, there is a great deal that can be done. Federal and state laws should be strengthened to end pollution from industrial chemicals, many of which eventually find their way to water systems, consumer goods, and the sea. Studies have linked exposures to so-called persistent organic pollutants to declines, diseases, or abnormalities in fish, birds, and mammals, as well as reproductive, developmental, and other adverse health effects in humans. Washington can begin by updating and strengthening the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which provides the regulatory basis for preventing pollution by the 80,000 industrial chemicals in commerce today and the roughly 700 new chemicals introduced each year. The law currently does not require that the health and environmental risks of chemicals be routinely assessed or that they be tested for toxicity. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be empowered to demand more health and safety information from the chemical industry and shift the burden for

demonstrating chemical safety to chemical companies, as many European countries already do. Washington must also lead the fight against the massive amount of pollution in watersheds -- what the EPA calls “nonpoint source pollution,” or pollution from

runoff, precipitation, drainage, and other diffuse sources. Industry and most state government s have failed to take effective acti on on their own. As a result, 40 percent of U.S. rivers, lakes, and estuaries are not clean enough for basic uses such as fishing or swimming. A leading source of this degradation is pollution from chemical fertilizers used in agriculture and from animal feed lots. Chemical runoff has also contributed to offshore dead zones, areas devoid of most ocean life, which have increased fourfold worldwide in the past decade and now number more than 600. The second largest dead zone in the world is in the United States, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington should strengthen the Clean Water Act to protect watersheds, building on the Obama administration’s successful efforts to limit the amount of pollutants that flow into the Chesapeake Bay from local streams, rivers, cities, and farms.

Ocean science creates spinoff tech – solves a litany of impactsEtzioni 9, Amitai, University Professor at The George Washington University, “Bring NASA Back to Earth,” March 20 th, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/bring-nasa-back-to-earth_b_177328.htmlAlthough oceans cover more than 70% of the Earth, less than 5% of them have been mapped with the same degree of detail as Mars. We have rarely ventured below 6,500 meters in the oceans, although they are more than 11,000 meters deep in places. We know much less about the deepest layers of the oceans than we know about the dark side of the moon. Yet, the potential payoffs are huge . First of all, the ocean floor is the place, bar none, where the largest amounts of untapped oil and gas are to be found. Next: NASA claims that space exploration has led to all kinds of new tech nology --for instance, it maintains that the coatings that allow space capsules to withstand the heat of reentry are used to make better pots and pans. But deep-sea expeditions are likely to yield even greater benefits . In order to freely explore the oceans' deepest reaches , we must learn to construct sub mersible s that can handle extreme pressure, as much as 18,000 pounds per square inch. The resulting materials and tech niques might help us design and construct homes that could withstand cyclones, hurricanes and earthquakes . In contrast to the remote chance of discovering conditions amenable to organic life on distant planets, it is estimated that there are up to 2 million marine life forms that are yet to be discovered in the oceans . Whenever we venture deeper, we find new species; for instance, lithistids, a rare kind of sponge present only in deep waters. Such discoveries are likely to reveal secrets of earlier life on Earth, and make up for other species that are being lost due to human expansion on the surface . Moreover, deep-water habitats teem with life that contains the promise of new drugs and new cures for diseases . In what are still largely unexplored deep-water reef communities, the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in Ft. Pierce, Florida, has discovered what is believed to be an anti-tumor agent (discodermolide); its value for humans is being tested in clinical trials. Also, scientists expect that organisms in the deep oceans can consume the methane that is seeping through the ocean floor and convert it into energy for themselves. They hope that we could learn to harvest such energy for our own use. The discovery that dust on Mars is finer than previously thought or that water once may have flowed down its now barren craters doesn't bowl me over. Even the seas' more obvious secrets are much richer--for instance, sunken ships. Consider the Swedish warship Vasa, which sank in 1628. Raised in the 1960s, it now tells us volumes about earlier historical periods. Perhaps most important, the oceans are a major part of our environment . They greatly affect the climate and the conditions that allow life --of real, two-legged creatures, our life--to survive. And yet we are turning one sea after another--the Mediterranean, for instance--into garbage dumps. Studying the health of oceans and how they may be protected is much more urgent than re-visiting Mars or watching shadows cross distant suns as Kepler aims to do. There are some--including researchers who do not receive grants from NASA--who believe that we can draw inspiration from walking on the moon, but not from diving into the oceans. They may be too young to remember the admiration with which many millions followed the explorations of Jacques Cousteau. All we need is a good race with other nations--measured by how much ocean we cover and who can find more goodies faster--and ocean exploration will be all the rage. Granted, Obama has more urgent priorities than worrying about either outer space or deep oceans. However, presidents have assistants, and they have assistants. Somebody, one cannot but hope, can bring some sense into setting priorities in spending those dollars dedicated to exploration. These may well be dedicated to discovering ways to fight disease and finding sustainable new sources of energy . But do not look for NASA for much help.

First – ocean exploration key to antibiotic research and drugs – resistance means new sources are keyNAS 7, The National Academies, “Oceans and Human Health: Highlights of National Academies Reports,” http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/Oceans-Human-Health.pdfThe ocean benefits human health and well-being in immeasurable ways. The nutritional benefits of eating fish, rich in protein and omega-3 fatty acids, make the ocean an indispensable – but not unlimited – source of healthy food. Ocean science is revealing many other ways in the ocean can benefit human health, from providing new sources of drugs to helping unravel many of the mysteries of human disease. The Ocean is the Most Promising Frontier for Sources of New Drugs. In 1945, a young organic chemist named Werner Bergmann set out to explore the waters off the coast of southern florida. Among the marine organisms he scooped from the sand that day was a Caribbean sponge that would later be called Cryptotethya crypta. Back in his lab, Bergmann extracted a novel compound from this sponge that aroused his curiosity. The chemical Bergmann identified in this sponge, spongothymidine, eventually led to the development of a whole class of drugs that treat cancer and viral diseases and are still in use today. For example, Zidovudine (AZD) fights the AIDS virus, HIV, and cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) is used in the treatment of leukemias and lymphomas. Acyclovir speeds the healing of eczema and some herpes viruses. These are just a few examples of how the study of marine organisms contributes to the health of thousands of men, women, and children around the world. New antibiotics, in addition to new drugs for fighting cancer, inflammatory diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases (which often cannot be treated successful today), are greatly needed. With drug resistance nibbling away at the once-full toolbox of antibiotics , the limited effectiveness of currently available drugs has dire consequences for public health . Historically, many medicines have come from nature – mostly from land-based natural organisms. Because scientists have nearly exhausted the supply of terrestrial plants , animals, and microorganisms that have interesting medical properties, new sources of drugs are needed . Occupying more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, the ocean is a virtually unexplored treasure chest of new and unidentified species – one of the last frontiers for sources of new natural products. These natural products are of special interest because of the dazzling diversity and uniqueness of the creatures that make the sea their home. One reason marine organisms are so interesting to scientists is because in adapting to the various ocean environments, they have evolved fascinating repertoires of unique chemicals to help them survive . For example, anchored to the seafloor, a sponge that protects itself from an animal trying to take over its space by killing the invader has been compared with the human immune system trying to kill foreign cancer cells. That same sponge, bathed in seawater containing millions of bacteria, viruses, and fungi, some of which could be pathogens, has developed antibiotics to keep those pathogens under control. Those same antibiotics could be used to treat infections in humans. Sponges, in fact, are among the most prolific sources of diverse chemical compounds. An estimated 30 percent of all potential marine-derived medications currently in the pipeline – and about 75 percent of recently patented marine-derived anticancer compounds – come from marine sponges. Marine-based microorganisms are another particularly rich source of new medicines. More than 120 drugs available today derived from land-based microbes. Scientists see marine-based microbes as the most promising source of novel medicines from the sea. In all, more than 20,000 biochemical compounds have been isolated from sea creatures since the 1980s. Because drug discovery in the marine frontier is a relatively young field, only a few marine-derived drugs are in use today. Many others are in the pipeline. One example is Prialt, a drug developed from the venom of a fish-killing cone snail. The cone snail produce neuro-toxins to paralyze and kill prey; those neurotoxins are being developed as neuromuscular blocks for individuals with chronic pain, stroke, or epilepsy. Other marine-derived drugs are being tested against herpes, asthma, and breast cancer. The National Research Council report Marine Biotechnology in the Twenty-First Century (2002) concluded that the exploration of unique habitats, such as deep-sea environments, and the isolation and culture of marine microorganisms offer two underexplored opportunities for discovery of novel chemicals with therapeutic potential. The successes to date , which are based upon a very limited investigation of both deep-sea organisms and marine microorganisms, suggest a high potential for continued discovery of new drugs .

ExtinctionYu ‘9 (Victoria, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,” Dartmouth Journal of Undergraduate Science, May 22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate)In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses . Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction . Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus.  It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years

without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system.  However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove   far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).

Nobel Prize winners vote aff GREGER 08 – M.D., is Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at The Humane Society of the United States (Michael Greger, , Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching,

http://birdflubook.com/a.php?id=111)

Senate Majority Leader Frist describes the recent slew of emerging diseases in almost biblical terms: “All of these [new diseases] were advance patrols of a great

army that is preparing way out of sight.”3146 Scientists like Joshua Lederberg don’t think this is mere rhetoric. He should know. Lederberg won the

Nobel Prize in medicine at age 33 for his discoveries in bacterial evolution. Lederberg went on to become president of Rockefeller University. “Some

people think I am being hysterical,” he said, referring to pandemic influenza, “but there are catastrophes ahead . We live in evolutionary

competition with microbes—bacteria and viruses. There is no guarantee that we will be the survivors .”3147

There is a concept in host-parasite evolutionary dynamics called the Red Queen hypothesis, which attempts to describe the unremitting struggle between immune systems and the pathogens against which they fight, each constantly evolving to try to outsmart the other.3148 The name is taken from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen instructs Alice,

“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.”3149 Because the pathogens keep evolving, our immune systems have to keep adapting as

well just to keep up. According to the theory, animals who “stop running” go extinct. So far our immune systems have largely retained the upper hand, but the fear is that given the current rate of disease emergence, the human race is losing the race .3150 In a Scientific

American article titled, “Will We Survive?,” one of the world’s leading immunologists writes: Has the immune system, then, reached its apogee after the few hundred million years it had taken to develop? Can it respond in time to the new evolutionary challenges? These perfectly proper questions lack sure answers because we are in an utterly unprecedented situation [given the number of

newly emerging infections].3151 The research team who wrote Beasts of the Earth conclude, “Considering that bacteria, viruses, and protozoa had a more than two-billion-year head start in this war, a victory by recently arrived Homo sapiens would be remarkable.”3152 Lederberg ardently believes that

emerging viruses may imperil human society itself . Says NIH medical epidemiologist David Morens, When you look at the relationship

between bugs and humans, the more important thing to look at is the bug. When an enterovirus like polio goes through the human gastrointestinal tract in three days, its genome mutates about two percent. That level of mutation—two percent of the genome—has taken the human species eight million years to accomplish. So who’s going to adapt to whom? Pitted against that kind of competition, Lederberg concludes that the human evolutionary capacity to keep up “may be dismissed as almost totally inconsequential.”3153 To help prevent the evolution of viruses as

threatening as H5N1, the least we can do is take away a few billion feathered test tubes in which viruses can experiment, a few billion fewer spins at pandemic roulette. The human species has existed in something like our present form for approximately 200,000 years. “Such a long run should itself give us confidence that our species will continue to survive, at

least insofar as the microbial world is concerned. Yet such optimism ,” wrote the Ehrlich prize-winning former chair of zoology at the University College of London, “might

easily transmute into a tune whistled whilst passing a graveyard .”3154

Second – Ocean exploration key to solve water scarcityLang 13, David, 2013 TED fellow, co-founder of OpenROV, He is a writer for MAKE: Magazine and the author of Zero to Maker, “Underwater Exploration with David Lang,” 12/17, http://studentsrebuild.org/blog/2013-12-17/underwater-exploration-david-langStudent Rebuilders: The world water crisis has many complex parts that are all related: drinking water scarcity, food insecurity, declining ocean health, gender inequality and climate change—just to name a few. In this blog post, Water Wisdom is focusing on ocean exploration, and the diverse ways in which innovation and technology can help us find solutions to the water crisis. We’re tremendously excited to share the work of our next guest blogger, David Lang, and his project OpenROV. OpenROV is an underwater robot that you can actually build yourself, and from checking on underwater pollution to finding the next sunken treasure, even to making new freshwater discoveries- it' s just one exciting tool that can help users better understand the water systems around them. The water crisis is a big, complex issue. It means different things to different people. It has a different meaning for someone living in sub-Saharan Africa who lacks access to clean drinking water than it does to a farmer in California. But for anyone who has gone without, it's most certainly a crisis. To be perfectly honest and transparent, I'm not an expert. I'm just a guy who builds underwater robots. There are others more qualified than me (like Prof. Christiana Peppard) who can tell you more about the details of the situation. But I do know one thing: with such a multi-faceted issue, the solutions will have to come on multiple fronts. I want to offer one angle that doesn't get a lot of attention (well, until recently): exploration. In the face of crisis , it's easy to brush aside

exploration as a luxury. But it's an absolute necessity . Take the most recent discovery of vast fresh water reserves underneath the ocean floor. This discovery - made only months ago - changes human understanding of fresh water on our planet. Admittedly, the economics of extracting this fresh water will need to be better understood, as well as the potential environmental impacts, but it still sheds an incredible new light on the issu e . A perspective we wouldn't have if it wasn't for exploration . Humans are explorers. It's in our blood. There have always been members of our tribes and clans and cultures that took it upon themselves to wander over the horizon (and across the oceans and into space, too). It's always been the explorers who've gone ahead to find new resources and drive the species forward. But the nature of exploration has changed. It's no longer about finding things, it's about making things. Makers are the new explorers of the universe, and the technology they create will drive the new opportunities. Scratch that, the technology you create. It's an incredible moment in history. All of a sudden, the tools for making and inventing and exploring are at your fingertips. The maker movement - a combination of accessible makerspaces, powerful digital fabrication tools, and collaborative online communities - have lowered the barriers to bringing a new idea into the world. What used to take years of prototyping experience, millions of dollars of capital, and access to a cutting-edge facility can now be made by a group of amateur enthusiasts in a matter of months at a neighborhood makerspace. Sounds crazy, right? I know. I wouldn't believe it was possible if it didn't happen to us. Two years ago, my friend Eric Stackpole and I were tinkering around in his garage, trying to build an underwater robot we could use to explore a cave in Northern California (with rumors of lost treasure). Now, we're collaborating with an open-source community of amateur ocean explorers to build a network of thousands of these low-cost underwater robots. It's a thrill! No one ever told us this was possible; that we could create this network of collaborators and innovative tools (in fact, many people told us we wouldn't be able to). We just did it. And, in doing so, opened up entirely new possibilities.

Waters wars escalate- it’s blue goldArsenault 11 (Chris, guest lecturer the University of Toronto, Queen’s University, York University, Laurentian, Saint Mary's University and the Universidad Anáhuac, BA in history and economics from Dalhousie University and an MA in history from the University of British Columbia, “Risk of water wars rises with scarcity,” 8/26, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/2011622193147231653.html)

The author Mark Twain once remarked that "whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting over" and a series of reports from intelligence agencies and research groups indicate the prospect of a water war is becoming increasingly likely. In March, a report from the office of the US Director of National Intelligence said the risk of conflict would grow as water demand is set to outstrip sustainable current supplies by 40 per cent by 2030. "These threats are real and they do raise serious national security concerns," Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said after the report's release. Internationally, 780 million people lack access to safe drinking water, according to the United Nations. By 2030, 47 per cent of the world’s population will be living in areas of high water stress, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Environmental Outlook to 2030 report. Some analysts worry that wars of the future will be fought over blue gold , as thirsty people , opportunistic politicians and powerful corporations battle for dwindling resources. Dangerous warnings Governments and military planners around the world are aware of the impending problem; with the US senate issuing reports with names like Avoiding Water Wars: Water Scarcity and Central Asia’s growing Importance for Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With rapid population growth, and increased industrial demand, water withdrawls have tripled over the last 50 years, according to UN figures. "Water scarcity is an issue exacerbated by demographic pressures , climate change and pollution," said Ignacio Saiz, director of Centre for Economic and Social Rights, a social justice group. "The world's water supplies should guarantee every member of the population to cover their personal and domestic needs." "Fundamentally, these are issues of poverty and inequality, man-made problems," he told Al Jazeera. Of all the water on earth, 97 per cent is salt water and the remaining three per cent is fresh, with less than one per cent of the planet's drinkable water readily accessible for direct human uses. Scarcity is defined as each person in an area having access to less than 1,000 cubic meters of water a year. The areas where water scarcity is the biggest problem are some of the same places where political conflicts are rife, leading to potentially explosive situations.

Water scarcity causes Pakistan collapseRT ‘12 (Russia today, citing an intelligence report from The Office of the Director of National Intelligence “Global 'water war' threat by 2030 - US intelligence,” March 22nd, http://rt.com/news/water-conflict-terrorism-rivers-239/)

And while the prospect of “water wars” has been touted for decades, it may start to be come reality within a decade .

The ODNI predicts that by 2040 water demand will outstrip current supply by 40 per cent. Impoverished volatile states will be worst off Water shortages “will hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, posing a risk to global food markets and hobbling economic growth.” North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia will be hit the hardest, the report states. And while the coming shortage is a manageable problem for richer countries , it is a deadly “ destabilizing factor” in poorer ones . As a rule, economically disadvantaged countries are already prone to political, social and religious turmoi l, and failure to provide water for farmers and city dwellers can be the

spark for wider “state failure .” Among those most vulnerable to this scenario are Sudan, Pakistan and Iraq , which are all locked in debilitating civil conflicts, and Somalia, which has effectively ceased to function as a state. ODNI envisages countries restricting water for its own citizens to “pressure populations and suppress separatist elements.” The report predicts many ordinary citizens will have to resort to the kind of purification tablets currently used by soldiers and hikers to obtain clean water. Most dangerously, there are whole clusters of unstable countries fight ing for the same waterways . The report lists the Nile, which runs through Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt, the Jordan, which runs through Israel and several Arab countries, and the Indus, which is shared by Pakistan and India. These areas are managed by special commissions, and the report states that “historically, water tensions have led to more water- sharing agreements than violent conflicts .” But once there is not enough water to go around , these fragile pacts may collapse , with “more powerful upstream nations impeding or cutting off downstream flow.”

Pakistan instability causes nuclear warPitt ‘9 (New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." (5/8/09, William, “Unstable Pakistan Threatens the World,” http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=commentary&article=2183)

But a suicide bomber in Pakistan rammed a car packed with explosives into a jeep filled with troops today, killing five and wounding as many as 21, including several children who were waiting for a ride to school. Residents of the region where the attack took place are fleeing in terror as gunfire rings out around them, and government forces have been unable to quell the violence. Two regional government officials were beheaded by militants in retaliation for the killing of other militants by government forces. As familiar as this sounds, it did not take place where we have come to expect such terrible events. This, unfortunately, is a whole new ballgame. It is part of another conflict that is brewing, one which puts what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep

shade, and which represents a grave and growing threat to us all. Pakistan is now trembling on the edge of violent chaos , and is doing so with nuclear weapons in its hip pocket, right in the middle of one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world. The situation in brief: Pakistan for years has been a nation in turmoil, run by a shaky government supported by a corrupted system, dominated by a blatantly criminal security service, and threatened by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with deep

ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. All this is piled atop an ongoing standoff with neighboring India that has been the center of political gravity in the region for more than half a century. The fact that Pakistan, and India, and Russia, and China all possess nuclear weapons and share the same space means any ongoing or escalating violence over there has the real potential to crack open the very gates of Hell itself. Recently, the Taliban made a military push into the northwest Pakistani region around the Swat Valley. According to a recent Reuters report: The (Pakistani) army deployed troops in Swat in October 2007 and used artillery and gunship helicopters to reassert control. But insecurity mounted after a civilian government came to power last year and tried to reach a negotiated settlement. A peace accord fell apart in May 2008. After that, hundreds — including soldiers, militants and civilians — died in battles. Militants unleashed a reign of terror, killing and beheading politicians, singers, soldiers and opponents. They banned female education and destroyed nearly 200 girls' schools. About 1,200 people were killed since late 2007 and 250,000 to 500,000 fled, leaving the militants in virtual control. Pakistan offered on February 16 to introduce Islamic law in the Swat valley and neighboring areas in a bid to take the steam out of the insurgency. The militants announced an indefinite cease-fire after the army said it was halting operations in the region. President Asif Ali Zardari signed a regulation imposing sharia in the area

last month. But the Taliban refused to give up their guns and pushed into Buner and another district adjacent to Swat, intent on spreading their rule. The United States, already embroiled in a war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, must now face the possibility that Pakistan could collapse under the mounting threat of Taliban forces there . Military and diplomatic advisers to President Obama, uncertain how best to proceed, now face one of the great nightmare scenarios of our time. "Recent militant gains in Pakistan," reported The New York Times on Monday, "have so alarmed the

White House that the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, described the situation as 'one of the very most serious problems we face.'" "Security was deteriorating rapidly," reported The Washington Post on Monday, "particularly in the mountains along the Afghan border that harbor al-Qaeda and the Taliban, intelligence chiefs reported, and there were signs that those groups were working with indigenous extremists in Pakistan's populous Punjabi heartland. The Pakistani government was mired in political bickering. The army, still fixated on its historical adversary India, remained ill-equipped and unwilling to throw its full weight into the counterinsurgency fight. But despite the threat the intelligence conveyed, Obama has only limited options for dealing with it. Anti-American feeling in Pakistan is high, and a U.S. combat presence is prohibited. The United States is fighting Pakistan-based extremists by proxy, through an army over which it has little control, in alliance with a government in which it has little confidence." It is believed Pakistan is currently in possession of between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons. Because Pakistan's stability is threatened by the wide swath of its population that shares ethnic, cultural and religious connections to the fundamentalist Islamic populace of Afghanistan, fears over what could happen to those nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government collapses are very real. "As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan," reported the Times last week, "senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities. In public, the administration has only hinted at those concerns, repeating the formulation that the Bush administration used: that it has faith in the Pakistani Army. But that cooperation, according to officials who would not speak for attribution because of the sensitivity surrounding the exchanges between Washington and Islamabad, has been sharply limited when the subject has turned to the vulnerabilities in the Pakistani nuclear infrastructure." "The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons," reported Time Magazine last month. "Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 — the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials. Pakistani officials insist their personnel safeguards are stringent, but a sleeper cell could cause big trouble, U.S. officials say." In other words, a shaky Pakistan spells trouble for everyone, especially if America loses the footrace to secure those weapons in the event of the worst-case scenario. If Pakistani militants ever succeed in toppling the government, several very dangerous

events could happen at once. Nuclear-armed India could be galvanized into military action of some kind, as could nuclear-armed China or nuclear-armed Russia. If the Pakistani government does fall, and all those Pakistani nukes are not immediately accounted for and secured, the specter (or reality) of loose nukes falling into the hands of terrorist organizations could place the entire world on a collision course with unimaginable disaster . We have all been paying a great deal of attention to Iraq and Afghanistan, and rightly so. The developing situation in Pakistan, however, needs to be placed immediately on the front burner. The Obama administration appears to be gravely serious about addressing the situation. So should we all.

SolvencyPlan: The United States federal government should create and adequately fund an Ocean Science and Exploration Agency.

Ocean science funding is at historic lows and agency patchwork makes exploration impossible – an independent, NASA-style agency is key Dove and McClain 12, Al Dove is an Australian marine biologist currently serving as Director of Research and Conservation at the Georgia Aquarium Research Center in Atlanta, Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now,” October 16th, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-3/We are at a time for renewed commitment to ocean exploration and science. As stated by the Joint Ocean Commission, “Ocean programs continue to be chronically underfunded , highlighting the need for a dedicated ocean investment fund . ” Captain Don Walsh, one of three men to visit the deepest part of the ocean, recently stated it best: “What we need is an Ocean NASA .” We borrow and modify John F. Kennedy’s famous speech at Rice University on the decision to go to the moon: In short, our leadership in science and in industry , our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all r equire us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading ocean-faring nation…We set sail because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. There is much to be gained from creating NASA-style Ocean Science and Exploration Agency (OSEA). Every dollar we commit to science returns $2.21 in goods and services. Meeting the scientific, technological, logistical, and administrative demands of scientific exploration creates jobs and requires substantial personnel beyond just scientists and engineers. The materials purchased for this cause support even further employment. As with NASA, meeting these scientific and engineering challenges will disseminate ideas , knowledge, applications, and technology to rest of society . This knowledge gained from basic research will form the backbone for applied research and economic gain later. And much like NASA has, OSEA will inspire the next generation of scientist and engineers , instilling in the young a renewed appreciation for the oceans of which we are all stewards: our oceans. It will provide a positive focus for society in a time where hope is often lacking and faith in science is low. OSEA will be the positive message that renews interest in our oceans and their conservation. What Does an OSEA look like? At the core OSEA would need a mission dedicated to basic research and exploration of the >;90% of the world’s oceans that remain unexplored. High risk with the potential for high impact would be the norm. Pioneering knows no other way to achieve those truly novel and impactful gains. To achieve these goals, OSEA would need substantial infrastructure and fleet including international and regional class research vessels, a submersible, remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater vehicles. Funding would need to be secure on decadal cycles to insure both the longevity and permanence of this mission but allow for oversight to ensure OSEA was meeting its mission and financial responsibilities. An ocean exploration center would be staffed with a vibrant community of researchers, engineers, and administrators, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and visiting experts with a strong interacting and supportive community working toward uncovering the mysteries of the oceans. Research would be funded internally from a broad OSEA budget, not externally, freeing scientists and engineers to actually do science and engineering as opposed to the only current option, which is writing grants to other agencies with a less than 10% chance of funding. OSEA would also be a resource both for the research community and the public by being dedicated to open science, i.e. making scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. Publications, data, software, and engineering would be freely available and open to all. All internal processes would be transparent. The mission of OSEA in the spirit of open science would be equally dedicated to public outreach. For too long have science and society been disconnected. OSEA would involve the public as the ultimate funders of our work. A novel and cutting edge education and outreach group would develop a strategic plan to involve children and adults in the mission. There would be multiple opportunities for anyone to be involved including the public. Citizen scientists would be essential components , allowing adults to take a residence and contribute to

OSEA and become life long ambassadors long after their residence. Although parts of OSEA are realized in other government and private organizations , they do not meet the full mission nor can such a distributed structure be expected to meet the challenges of this pivotal moment . For example, NOAA fills a much-needed role but its mission is largely applied. NOAA’s mission statement is “Science, Service, and Stewardship. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resource”. Contrast that to NASA’s simple mission, “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” In an agency with a chiefly applied mission, those programs that are purely exploratory must eventually invent an applied focus or face the axe. For example, even under NURP, exploration often focused on corals and fish of considerable economic and conservation importance rather than those species of greatest novelty or knowledge deficit. The current situation at NOAA also highlights how less applied scientific programs are likely to be lost . Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute also provides another model that comes close to OSEA but is heavily reliant on private funding that can often be significantly reduced during recessions as endowments shrink. Moreover, a private foundation is unlikely to meet the full financial burden to support the full mission of an OSEA or provide a resource to the ocean science community as whole. This is not meant to criticize either NOAA or MBARI, indeed both supported our own research and have made immense contributions to ocean science and exploration, but neither do they fully realize our vision for OSEA. As John F. Kennedy stated, “ We must be bold .” It is time for a great national effort of the United States of America, time for us to renew our commitment to uncovering the mysteries of the blue planet we live on. We need a NASA-style Ocean Science and Exploration Agency (OSEA). to explore and research the greatest depths of oceans with a community of scientists, engineers, and citizens .

***Ocean Leadership***

Funding down now

US ocean exploration investment down nowHelvarg 14, David, David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, a marine conservation and policy group. His latest book is "The Golden Shore: California's Love Affair With the Sea." “It's no surprise we can't find Flight 370,” April 1st, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0401-helvarg-flight-370-ocean-exploration-20140401-story.htmlEven accounting for more than 70 years of classified military hydrographic surveys, we've still mapped less than 10% of the ocean with the resolution we've used to map all of the moon, Mars or even several moons of Jupiter. Obviously, our ability to search for a missing aircraft at sea has come a long way since Amelia Earhart disappeared while trying to cross the Pacific in 1937. But the patched-together satellite data and electronic-signals processing that has so far pointed the Flight 370 search to an area 1,800 miles from Perth, Australia, is no more than a crisis-mode, jury-rigged, extraordinary effort. Consider this: If you're a drug smuggler and you enter U.S. coastal waters in a speedboat at night, and then go dead in the water during the day, with a blue tarp thrown over your vessel, odds are that you'll successfully deliver your contraband. Our investment in ocean exploration, monitoring and law enforcement efforts is at a 20-year low in the United States and not much better elsewhere. Our chances of quickly finding the missing Malaysian flight would have been improved if we had invested more money and effort on our planet's last great commons, with observational tools such as in-situ labs and wired benthic observatories, remote and autonomous underwater vehicles and gliders, forward-looking infrared cameras and multi-beam shipboard, airborne (and space-deployed) scanning systems, and other smart but woefully underfunded sea technologies. The fact remains that while hundreds of people have gone into space, only three humans have ventured to the lowest point on our planet seven miles down in the Mariana Trench, and the latest of these — filmmaker explorer engineer James Cameron — had to self-fund his 2012 mission. Meanwhile, when it comes to exploring the cosmos, NASA — even in its diminished state — outspends NOAA's ocean exploration program roughly 1,000 to 1. Yet when we get to Mars, the first thing we seek as proof of life is water. Meanwhile, we have a whole water planet that remains a challenge we've once again discovered to be far greater than we thought. Whatever the final resolution of the Flight 370 tragedy, that challenge is bound to become greater as our food and coastal security, marine transportation systems, even our basic ecosystem processes such as the oxygen generated by ocean plankton, are increasingly stressed through overfishing, pollution, loss of coastal habitat and ocean impacts from climate change. Investing in the exploration and understanding of our planet's largest habitat should be a given. Perhaps that will be a lesson learned from our latest human disaster. Unfortunately, while the sea is still vast, our ability to act wisely in our own interests is often limited.

Subs are decommissionedDokoupil 13, Tony, former senior reporter for Newsweek, senior writer for NBC News, “The Last Dive? Funding for Human Expeditions in the Ocean May Have Run Aground,” 1/14, http://www.newsweek.com/last-dive-funding-human-expeditions-ocean-may-have-run-aground-63201Last spring James Cameron became a modern newsreel hero, diving the Mariana Trench, the Earth’s deepest point, and seeming to signal a new golden age of discovery. Virgin Oceanic’s Sir Richard Branson and Sylvia Earle herself, with money from Google chairman, Eric Schmidt, were each developing their own deep-diving machines. And this (quite collegial) “race to the bottom” was heralded as the ocean version of NASA’s hand-off to private rocket-makers. On with the era of civil inquiry! On with individual enterprise! Or as Cameron tweeted from the ocean floor, in a message Twitter declared one of 2012’s best moments of “just plain awesomeness”: “Hitting bottom never felt so good.” But a year later, something far from a golden age has emerged. When the public looked away, piloted exploration stopped. Schmidt stopped funding Earle. Branson’s effort stalled indefinitely. Even Cameron ran out of time and money, completing just eight “first phase” dives around Australia and Papua New Guinea. Today he says his history-making machine is in his engineering shop in Santa Barbara, Calif., “ready to dive” and available to the science community, but stowed like a moldy wet suit. The hoped-for second phase of his work has no committed funding. At the same time, government support for ocean exploration has sunk to unprecedented lows. The Pisces subs—once part of an arsenal of public ships, submarines, and laboratories that gave American scientists unmatched access to the deep—were defunded the same month Cameron touched bottom. As of today, none of those subs is operational, the last extended-stay underwater laboratory was shuttered, and at least 40 percent of the academic fleet is scheduled for retirement in the next decade. It’s a record dry spell, the result of budget cuts but also a shift in philosophy, a definitive break in the decades-old debate over whether it’s even necessary to send people into extreme spaces, when machines are cheaper, safer, and harder working. “The body is a pain,” says Robert Ballard, the marine geologist who discovered the Titanic, striking a common note about the problems with manned travel. “It has to go to the bathroom. It has to be comfortable. But the spirit is indestructible. It can

move at the speed of light.” For two decades, he’s been arguing the virtues of “telepresence” technology: remotely controlled subs and rovers, pumping video to an unlimited number of researchers worldwide. This year he seems to have finally closed the conversation. While the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) pulled money from manned exploration, Ballard’s telepresence efforts comprise “the only federal program dedicated to systematic exploration of the planet’s largely unknown ocean,” according to NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research. “It’s a paradigm shift,” says Ballard, at the University of Rhode Island, a move into “the next great era of exploration.” He promises to provide digital access of more of the Earth than was visited by all previous generations combined—“and still be home in time for cocktails.” It’s a perspective that mystifies Earle, Cameron, and many others trying to find the funds to maintain piloted exploration of the sea. “I love this,” she says, on deck after our dive. “It’s obscene that we would let this go. What are we thinking?”

Funding down nowTerdiman 10, Daniel, senior writer at CNET News, “Oceans' salvation may lie in exploration,” April 15th, Oceans' salvation may lie in explorationIndeed, the fact that humans haven't returned to the bottom of the Mariana Trench highlights a disturbing fact: while we have spent billions putting men on the moon and building space stations, we have, by comparison at least, neglected the most significant environments on Earth,

our oceans. And that has, to some experts, forced our hand. Either we turn things around and make the future of ocean exploration a very high priority, they say, or we face some sobering realities. "To paraphrase [author] Tom Wolfe, we had the

right stuff, but [went in] the wrong direction," Walsh said. "In the oceanographic community globally, not just in the United States, we have really failed to make the necessary investments to learn about the world's oceans, which cover 70 percent of our planet." 'Far behind the curve'

If there's anyone who has gravitas in the field of ocean exploration, it's National Geographic Society explorer-in-residence Sylvia Earle. A longtime ocean explorer, author, lecturer, and former chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Earle was awarded the 2009 TED Prize for her work and created Mission Blue, which aims to "heal and protect the Earth's oceans through the creation and management of

essential marine protected areas." "We're far behind the curve from where we need to be ," Earle tol d CNET. "People look at

the surface, and they think that's the ocean, and because they can't see what's going on below, they think everything's just fine. But those of us with decades of exploration [experience know that] the ocean is in trouble, and therefore so are we." That's because, she said, it's the world's oceans that drive climate and weather and which generate most of our oxygen. Indeed, she said, fully one-fifth of the planet's oxygen comes from a single marine-based, blue-green bacterium: the prochlorococcus. Yet, before our eyes, she said, the marine ecosystems are dying out or struggling from a wide variety of factors including over-fishing, pollution, changes in chemistry, and more. So why have we, as a people, spent so little energy exploring the seas, even though 50 years ago, it was considered a great national triumph to have conquered the Mariana Trench? Earle recalled a lunch she once had with Clare Boothe Luce, the famous playwright and former U.S. ambassador to Italy and congresswoman. "[Boothe] was musing about the disparity [between space and ocean exploration] and

she looked up at the puffy clouds, and she said, 'You know, heaven is up there. And you know what's down there.'" Deep-sea technology Today, there are not nearly enough ships, sonars, or submarines of any kind to do ocean exploration justice, said Stephen Hammond, the chief scientist for NOAA's office of ocean exploration and research. But at least some things are moving in the right direction, he added. The urgent goal, Hammond said, is to make a dent in the 90 percent of the world's oceans that humans know nothing about. And that's where NOAA is putting its money where its mouth is: by taking a former Department of Defense acoustic surveillance vessel that it acquired in 2005 and retrofitting it as a world-class "global range ship of discovery." Christened the Okeanos Explorer--okeanos is Greek for ocean--the ship, which is undergoing field trials in Hawaii right now and should embark on its first major expedition in June, is a testament to scientists applying technology to solve some significant problems. Among its innovations, the Okeanos Explorer is outfitted with what is called a remotely operated vehicle (ROV), essentially an unmanned submersible, that can descend to 6,000 meters below the surface. Like many of its cousins, it is tethered to its mothership with fiber-optic cable that can transmit data from a host of sensors and cameras. But what makes the Okeanos unique is that it features telepresence technology that will allow it to beam any kind of data gathered from the ROV, be it high-definition video or high-resolution photographs, to anywhere in the world via a super-high-speed satellite Internet connection in real-time. And that means, Hammonds explained, that scientists in command centers anywhere in the world can participate in the exploration as it's happening, a major leap forward given the economics of putting people on board ships that might be anywhere on Earth at any time. The National Science Foundation, too, is investing in ROVs and seeing them as a way to expand the reach of its research. For some time, it has operated an ROV known as Jason, which has a 6,000-meter depth range. But over the last year, the NSF has been putting much of its ocean exploration energy into a new ROV developed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute known as Nereus, which, according to Brian Midson, a technology operations specialist in the NSF's submersible support program, is today the world's only vehicle proven to be able to reaching the bottom of the Mariana Trench. What sets Nereus apart is a state-of-the-art, Navy-developed fiber-optic tether system originally designed for torpedoes, Midson said. That system allows Nereus to move laterally away from its mothership, meaning that it is more nimble--and so can explore much more--than its predecessors. In addition, Nereus is an example of a submersible that has pressure housings made from high-strength ceramics rather than titanium, which means it is smaller and lighter and requires a smaller ship from which to operate than have older models. Now, while Nereus has already taken two operational missions, it is awaiting the kind of scientific proposals that justify its use. Batteries a challenge As with cars, one of the biggest challenges facing submersibles is battery power. According to Bob Houtman, the head of NSF's integrative programs section, traditional submersible batteries have used lead acid and have therefore been large and heavy and inefficient. Today, however, researchers are hopeful that they will soon be able to turn to the kind of lithium ion batteries found in many electronic devices. There are no clear paths to that future, but it's clearly a priority, particularly because the batteries are lighter and more efficient. However, lithium ion batteries currently require a protective housing that adds weight and offsets much of the weight loss. Another challenge is finding a way to build manned deep-sea submersible housings out of ceramics. That may be a long way off, but Houtman said the NSF has recently funded an entirely new type of titanium submersible housing, one which he suggested could improve performance and efficiency. Cost, too, is a big barrier between researchers and the exploration they'd like. Traditionally, submersibles have been seven-figure expenditures. But on Thursday, one of the leaders in the personal submersible field, Hawkes Ocean Technologies , is announcing a spinoff company, called Hawkes Remotes, which is setting out to begin producing ROVs as well as autonomous unmanned vehicles (AUVs) that will cost at least 50 percent less than traditional models. "Our view...is that the traditional architecture for AUVs and ROVshas been relatively unchanged" for years, said Jonathan Epstein, the CEO of Hawkes Remotes, "and that by deploying the principles of flight underwater and [founder Graham Hawkes'] control systems and batteries and material science, we will be able to reduce the cost of ocean access by 50 percent right away, and possibly by an order of magnitude within two-to-three years." The lowest-priced models will cost less than $100,000, and the top end will start around $500,000. This will make it much easier, Epstein said, for research institutions to purchase submersibles and then to do deep-sea exploration. The company's vessels will combine very deep-sea range with the latest in electronics, allowing customers to send back HD video, high-resolution imagery, and much more from thousands of meters

below the surface and at much lower cost than today. A closing window While the field has been neglected for some time, there is a blossoming of interest in ocean exploration today. Disney Nature will release its feature film, "Oceans" on Earth Day, April 22. One of the

first efforts of the crowdsourced social change organization Armchair Revolutionary is a video game called Make Waves, which launched on April 5. It is designed to

provide users with real-life social activism tools while they manage part of the ocean in a virtual environment modeled on the real-world. Still, it may be more important than ever to dive in quickly, as it were, to ocean exploration for science and research, said Hawkes. That's because,

he said, with natural resources on the surface of the planet dwindling quickly, it is only a matter of time before industrial interests take to the seas to search for energy and mineral deposits. "As soon as we're short of cobalt [or other resources], the commercial pressure to start to exploit the oceans becomes real and that's all going to happen very quickly," Hawkes said. "That's an engine and impetus that's just going to dwarf science [and research] and it's just going to run right over it. My feeling is, we're running out of time to get a few solid decades of science and understanding under our belts before we get to exploitation."

Ocean key to leadership

There’s an ocean race – winning is key to leadershipMarlow 13, Jeffrey, geobiologist at the California Institute of Technology, “Ocean exploration: the deep space age,” March, http://vision.ae/en/life/articles/ocean_exploration_the_deep_space_age

The race is on to discover what lies at the bottom of the world’s final undiscovered frontier: its seas. Far from being

a pursuit of wealthy celebrities or curious scientists, oceanography has become a key geopolitical consideration , with marine conservation and the securing of resources new priorities for global powers

On 26 March of last year, a large green submersible touched down gently on the sea floor. Plumes of silt billowed across the surface – which had likely been undisturbed for centuries – while spindly crabs and slithering eels peered out warily at their unusual visitor. On the water’s surface, 11,000 metres above the isolated sea craft, the visit to the ocean bottom was creating substantially more attention. After all, the pilot was Hollywood mogul James Cameron, and he had just become the first man to glide solo to the world’s deepest point. Cameron may be the most high-profile deep-ocean explorer of recent years, but he’s certainly not alone among billionaires in pursuit of glory, adventure and scientific discovery on the sea floor. Virgin Oceanic – funded by Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson – is developing a submersible to visit the deepest point in each of the planet’s five oceans. Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos, used advanced deep-sea sonar instruments to locate the discarded engines of Nasa’s Apollo 11 spacecraft, and is planning an expedition to retrieve them from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Eric Schmidt, the Executive Chairman of Google, who is estimated to be worth US$7bn, is bankrolling the Schmidt Ocean Institute. The ocean’s depths – the final unexplored frontier on Earth – are suddenly getting rather crowded. Exploration resurgence In China, the Jiaolong submersible (capable of 7,000-metre dives) has access to a larger proportion of sea floor than all other manned research vehicles. Last June, three Chinese oceanauts at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean placed a call to their countrymen in space, who were piloting their Shenzhou 9 spacecraft through complex docking manoeuvres. The message was clear: China is investing significant financial and political capital in deep-sea exploration, which fuels the duel fires of national pride and technological advancement in much the same way as its fledgling space programme. So why is deep-sea exploration seeing a resurgence? What is so fascinating about the darkness beneath the waves that has billionaires and governments racing to develop new capabilities? Among private oceanographic benefactors, the combination of enhanced submersible technologies and the urge to distinguish themselves from their caviar-slurping, mansion-building, peers have fuelled the race to the bottom. Sylvia Earle, the grande dame of oceanography, has rubbed neoprene-covered elbows with many of the big players through her work as an ocean researcher, ambassador and advocate. “There are some wealthy individuals who are just indulging their fantasies,” she says. “But for the most part, they get a thrill out of making a difference, by finding something really important to contribute to, and that makes it much more worthwhile.” Victor Zykov is the Director of Science Operations at the Schmidt Ocean Institute, which he believes was founded with the same world-changing intent that characterised Schmidt’s tenure as Google’s CEO. “One of the reasons Eric and his wife, Wendy, wanted to do this is that changes in the oceans are occurring, and the consequences of those changes are difficult to understand,” he explains. Government-backed endeavours have different motivations – from strategic defence interests to resource acquisition to national prestige. China’s deep-sea programme embodies all three, and while it’s a relatively recent participant on the world stage, oceanographic advancement has been a deliberate, concerted effort for nearly two decades. Dean Cheng, a Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, points to the 863 plan as the birth of China’s scientific ambitions. Initiated in 1986 by four prominent engineers, the programme focuses on investments in science and technology. In its initial configuration, 863 prioritised seven sectors (including biotechnology, space and automation), and marine technology was added to the roster in 1996. Remarkable discoveries To Cheng, the addition of oceanography to the plan made perfect sense. “China had become more of a maritime power,” he says, “and the ocean had become more strategically important as the country’s centre of gravity moved from inland areas to the coast.” The government recently broke ground on the National Deep Sea Center in Qingdao, which will manage an ambitious 50 dives per year, as well as a nuclear-powered deep-sea station that would create a more permanent presence on the sea floor. “This is an opportunity to kill multiple birds with one stone,” explains Cheng, “to build prestige, expand economic development, explore underwater canyons that might be useful for transporting a submarine fleet, and provide an impetus for keeping people interested in studying various sciences. It makes perfect sense for China to invest in oceanographic research, and it has become a major programme.”

SolvencyThe US has fallen behind in ocean exploration – a new agency will develop the tech and info to regain ocean leadershipMcNutt 2000, Dr. Marcia, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, chair of the report. Members: DR. VERA ALEXANDER University of Alaska, Fairbanks MR. JESSE AUSUBEL Alfred P. Sloan Foundation DR. ROBERT D. BALLARD National Geographic Society, Institute for Exploration MR. THOMAS CHANCE C & C Technologies, Inc. MR. PETER DOUGLAS California Coastal Commission DR. SYLVIA EARLE National Geographic Society, Sustainable Seas Expeditions DR. JAMES ESTES University of California, Santa Cruz DR. DANIEL J. FORNARI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution DR. ARNOLD L. GORDON Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, DR. FRED GRASSLE Rutgers University DR. SUE HENDRICKSON Underwater Archaeologist MS. PAULA KEENER-CHAVIS National Marine Educators Association DR. LARRY MAYER University of New Hampshire DR. ARTHUR E. MAXWELL University of Texas, Austin DR. WILLIAM J. MERRELL H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment DR. JOHN MORRISON North Carolina State University DR. JOHN ORCUTT Scripps Institution of Oceanography DR. ELLEN PIKITCH Wildlife Conservation Society DR. SHIRLEY POMPONI Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution MS. URSULA SEXTON National Science Teachers Association, Teacher-of-the-Year, DR. JEFFREY STEIN Quorex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. DR. GEORGE BOEHLERT* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DR. JOAN CLEVELAND* United States Navy DR. THOMAS CURTIN* United States Navy DR. ROBERT EMBLEY* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DR. ERIC LINDSTROM* National Aeronautics and Space Administration DR. MICHAEL PURDY* National Science Foundation DR. MICHAEL REEVE* National Science Foundation DR. WILLIAM SCHWAB* United States Geological Survey DR. MICHAEL SISSENWINE* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration DR. RICHARD SPINRAD* United States Navy, “EARTH’S FINAL FRONTIER: A U.S. STRATEGY FOR OCEAN EXPLORATION: The Report of the President ’ s Panel for Ocean Exploration,” http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/about-oer/program-review/presidents-panel-on-ocean-exploration-report.pdfNew exploration tools can place researchers into the deepest reaches of the oceans, either directly or by telepresence. Hundreds of new marine species and entirely new ecosystems have been discovered. The benefit attributed to these advances has been enormous; for example, a new industry, marine biotechnology, has shown impressive returns. Understanding biodiversity of the oceans is critical to sustaining their immense global economic value. Furthermore, the deep oceans may hold the keys to the origin of life itself. Despite these gains, 95 percent of the oceans remain unknown and unexplored. On June 12, 2000, President Clinton announced the commencement of a new era of ocean exploration. In an Executive Directive to the Secretary of Commerce, the President requested that the Secretary convene a panel of leading ocean explorers, scientists, and educators to develop a national strategy for exploring the oceans. The Panel has completed its work and presents its recommendations for a national strategy in this report. The Panel recommends that the U.S. undertake a national program in ocean exploration in which discovery and the spirit of challenge are the cornerstones. Multidisciplinary exploration approaches, covering all three dimensions of space, as well as the fourth dimension of time, should include natural and social sciences as well as the arts. The US Ocean Exploration Program should be global in scope, but concentrated initially in areas under US jurisdiction. Results must be carefully documented and widely disseminated: the program must be innovative and bold. The President requested objectives and priorities to guide ocean exploration, as well as identification of key sites of scientific, historic, and cultural importance. The Panel identified the following key objectives of an Ocean Exploration Program: 1 | Mapping the physical, geological, biological, chemical, and archaeological aspects of the ocean, such that the U.S. knowledge base is capable of supporting the large demand for this information from policy makers, regulators, commercial ventures, researchers, and educators ; 2 | Exploring ocean dynamics and interactions at new scales, such that our understanding of the complex interactions in the living ocean supports our need for stewardship of this vital component of the planet’s life support system; 3 | Developing new sensors and systems for ocean exploration, so as to regain U.S. leadership in marine technology; and 4 | Reaching out in new ways to stakeholders, to improve the literacy of learners of all ages with respect to ocean issues . The Panel notes that the United States currently does not support a program in ocean exploration, despite our inadequate understanding of the ocean and the living and nonliving resources it contains, and its undeniable importance to the health of the planet and the wealth of our nation. Furthermore, in a number of areas, the U.S. has fallen behind other nations in our capabilities for undertaking ocean exploration. American leadership in ocean exploration can be achieved through the following recommendations. The U.S. government should establish an Ocean Exploration Program for an initial period of 10 years, with new funding at the level of $75M / year, excluding capitalization costs.

The program should include:

US ocean science investment is key to accessing economic benefits

Conathan 13, Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,” June 20th, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak . Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course space exportation does have benefits beyond the “cool factor” of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our lives—cell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a few—and research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities .

STEM UQSTEM worker shortage nowRosen 13, Linda, Chief Executive Officer, Change the Equation, “The Truth Hurts: The STEM Crisis Is Not a Myth,” 9/11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-the-stem-_b_3900575.htmlHere we go again. Social media sites are buzzing with claims that there is no shortage of U.S. workers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Last time this happened, they were responding to a report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which has since been soundly refuted. This time, it's an article in IEEE's Spectrum Magazine by Robert Charette, who proclaims that "the STEM crisis is a myth." Like EPI, Charette is simply wrong. Charette suggests that people who have a STEM background are down on their luck -- unable to find stable jobs, making do with flat wages, or bailing out of STEM entirely. The STEM shortage "myth," he writes, was manufactured by a cabal of special interests who "cherry pick" data to keep themselves in business and depress STEM wages. Yet Charette does a fair bit of cherry picking himself while missing the big picture. He argues from anecdotes and a handful of studies that support his point but leaves aside the mountain of data that demonstrate a shortage. More important, he unwittingly points to one of the biggest causes of this shortage: Demand for STEM skills has intensified across the entire economy. Not just crying wolf Charette limits his attention to the demand for people to fill jobs in traditional STEM fields like technology or healthcare. But even in those fields, demand is strong and growing. Rising demand for STEM workers is in fact nothing new. A sidebar to Charette's article quotes 80 years' worth of warnings that a looming STEM crisis will hobble U.S. economic growth. The clear implication of the sidebar is that the education and business leaders who have been making these warnings have been crying wolf since before the Second World War. But were their fears of a STEM shortage really much ado about nothing? Hardly. The National Science Foundation (NSF) reports that S&E workforce grew from some 182,000 to about 5.4 million people between 1950 and 2009, almost 15 times faster than the U.S. population and nearly four times faster than the total U.S. workforce. Surely all those worried education and business leaders were on to something. They foresaw a steep rise in demand for STEM talent as the U.S. economy made the transition from an industrial economy to an economy focused more squarely on technological innovation. We can count ourselves lucky that the GI Bill, the national response to Sputnik, the race to put someone on the moon, and a host of other seminal events helped fuel the growth of the STEM workforce to meet this demand. Economists have argued that the technology those STEM workers helped create has accounted for nearly half of the nation's economic growth in the second half of the twentieth century. Now is no time to rest on our laurels. While the rate of growth in STEM jobs may have slowed through our two 21st-century recessions, it remains robust. NSF puts it at 20 percent between 2000 and 2010, a period during which the overall workforce experienced little growth. And that robust growth will probably continue. Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce predicts that the total number of STEM jobs will grow 26 percent between 2010 and 2020. The Georgetown Center also projects that professional and technical jobs in healthcare, which it doesn't include in its STEM numbers, will grow by 31 percent, far faster than the workforce as a whole. (Charette criticizes a previous projection Georgetown released in 2011 for not foreseeing the depth and duration of the recession, but he neglects to mention this more recent projection, which appeared in June of this year.) It's nice to be in demand Even in recent years of slower growth, it has been good to be a STEM worker. Yes, as Charette notes, some STEM employees have been laid off or unable to find jobs, which is an important reminder that nothing in life is a sure bet. But such anecdotes don't stack up against the bulk of the data, which tell a dramatically different story: • A Change the Equation study found that, even in the sluggish years between 2009 and 2012, there were nearly two STEM-focused job postings for every unemployed STEM professional. • During those same years, unemployment in STEM stood at just over 4 percent, well less than the 9.3 percent unemployment rates for non-STEM workers. People in STEM jobs benefit from being in such high demand. Study after study confirms that STEM professionals get paid more than non-STEM professionals -- often much more -- even when you control for their education and other factors. Contrary to Charette's claim that STEM wages have stagnated, reports from Georgetown, the Commerce Department, and the Information Technology

Innovation Foundation show that they have risen faster than non-STEM wages, even in recent years. That is a sign that employers are feeling the pinch . Of course, not every STEM degree is a ticket to success. Charette is right to point out that people with PhDs

in some sciences can have a tough time finding a job that matches their degrees. But such jobs represent only a very small sliver of the STEM job market. The fact that STEM jobs have fared so well even through the recession is telling. If anything, demand will only intensify as the economy picks up. Don't forget the STEM technicians! Charette does not address the high demand for a large category of STEM workers: those who have two-year degrees or certificates rather than bachelor's degrees or higher. In fact, he barely acknowledges that such workers exist. "Of the 7.6 million STEM workers counted by the Commerce Department, only 3.3 million possess STEM degrees," he writes. "If many STEM jobs can be filled by people who don't have a STEM degree, then why the big push to get more students to pursue STEM?" Charette does not mention that, by "STEM degrees," he means bachelor's or advanced degrees in STEM. Yet the Commerce Department report clearly indicates that the large majority of STEM workers who lack a bachelor's degree in STEM actually lack a bachelor's degree in any subject. Instead, most have 2-year degrees or certificates and do jobs that require nothing higher than that. In fact, Jonathan Roswell of the Brookings Institution feels that studies like Commerce Department report dramatically undercount such STEM jobs. By his reckoning, STEM workers with an associate's degree or less account for 10 percent of the entire U.S. workforce. And don't imagine for a moment that the jobs they do require only low skills. Roswell finds that those jobs demand a "high level of knowledge" in STEM, and employers are quick to pay a premium for that knowledge. He estimates that, on average, STEM jobs that don't require a four-year degree pay 10 percent more than non-STEM jobs with similar education requirements. Indeed, when business leaders in Change the Equation's coalition talk about the STEM worker shortage, they are often referring to

the trouble they have finding qualified STEM workers below the bachelor's level. The evidence is on their side. It's not just about "STEM Jobs" Anymore One major flaw in Charette's argument is that he overlooks the growing demand for STEM skills beyond traditional STEM jobs. In fact, what Charette sees as a sign of anemic demand for STEM professionals is quite the opposite. He observes that people with STEM credentials are not staying in STEM jobs, but that is only because they have strong job prospects well beyond the traditional STEM fields. That does not mean that their STEM skills are going to waste. According to NSF, two thirds of people with degrees in Science and Engineering who end up in jobs outside of those fields report that their jobs are "closely or somewhat related" to their degrees. Georgetown's 2011 report on STEM found that STEM professionals are hot commodities in high-paying fields like finance and management, leaving many more employers to compete for people in a limited pool of STEM talent. Again, employers are willing to pay for that talent. People with STEM degrees who go into non-STEM jobs earn 12 percent more than those don't hold degrees in STEM. That wage premium drives home the point that even non-STEM employers value STEM skills. STEM for all After making such a spirited attack on claims of a STEM shortage, Charette devotes a scant concluding paragraph to what he calls another "STEM crisis": "the fact that today's students are not receiving a solid grounding in science, math and engineering." On that point, at least, we agree. We need to make all young people STEM literate to help them cope with the broader challenges of life and citizenship in the twenty-first century. Yet that crisis is at the heart of the STEM worker shortage. Employers of all stripes are looking for people with strong STEM knowledge and skills, but the U.S. talent pool is currently too shallow to meet their needs . The consequences of this shortage are not merely economically devastating. They are devastating to the prospects of millions of low-income and minority youth who have not received a solid grounding in STEM and therefore have almost no chance to enjoy the benefits of a STEM career.

STEM Impact – WarmingSTEM education key to solving warming Mejia 9 – * Employment Services Manager at South Bay Workforce Investment Board, City University of New York-Baruch College (education) [Robert T. Mejia, “What’s Old is New: Green Jobs & What America’s Federal Workforce Investment System Can Do Now to Develop a Green Workforce”, 1/14/09, www.southbayresource.net/articles/whatsoldisnew.pdf, tables, charts, and graphs omitted]

In addition to adaptation, science, technology and innovation may prove to be our greatest allies in the battle to defeat global warming. A number of promising eco-tech solutions to our environmental challenges are starting to emerge; they hinge on further research and development, access to capital, and accommodating government regulations. Innovations such as Bio-char (a stable and rich charcoal produced from biomass) for carbon sequestration, improved soil fertility, sustainable (carbon-negative) energy production, and poverty reduction; the use of algae as an alternative fuel source; and bioorganisms and nano devices that clean up toxic spills and improve solar technology hold great potential for solving some of the world’s most difficult consumption challenges and contamination problems. Sustained advances and U.S. leadership in environmental technologies, not only in terms of global warming, but in terms of competitiveness, will rely on an expansion of the nation’s knowledge workforce, with a strong emphasis on green-centered science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Sadly, the U.S. lags other developed countries in its preparation of technologists, scientists, engineers and mathematicians. The U.S.’ share of the world’s scientists and engineers is projected to fall from 40 percent in 1975 to 15 percent in 2010.22 This trend must be reversed. As reported by the U.S. Department of Labor on January 15, 2008 in the Federal Register: There is a broad consensus that the long-term key to continued U.S. competitiveness and growth in an increasingly global economic environment is the adequate supply of qualified Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workers capable of translating knowledge and skills into new processes, products and services. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), scientific innovation has produced roughly half of all U.S. economic growth in the last fifty years and the STEM disciplines, including those who work in them, are critical engines to that innovation and growth--one recent estimate, while only five percent of the U.S. workforce is employed in STEM fields, the STEM workforce accounts for more than fifty percent of the nation’s sustained growth (Babco 2004). The National Academy of Sciences study, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2006), argues that: Absent a serious and rapid response, the U.S. will lose quality jobs to other nations; lowering our standard of living, reducing tax revenues, and weakening the domestic market for goods and services. Once this cycle accelerates, it will be difficult to regain lost pre-eminence in technology-driven innovation and its economic benefits.23 In Thrive: The Skills Imperative, the Council on Competitiveness states that: Looking ahead, skills for sustainability could become a key competitive differentiator. As Joseph Stanislaw has noted: we are at the very beginning of a global race to create dominant green economies.(42) Global warming and competition for resources could very well change the ground rules of globalization-at the very least, the need to reduce carbon footprints and achieve higher resource productivity could alter corporate calculations about where and how to distribute operations and assets globally. America could get out in front of this paradigm shift. But it is not clear that the United States will have enough talent with the right set of skills, or has even defined the path forward on skills for sustainability.24 To defeat global warming, we must focus on developing both the intellectual and physical infrastructure of our country. A national campaign to promote STEM education in environmental technologies, with strong federal financing of community and public sector organizations to provide career and academic support, will make a difference.

ExtinctionTickell, 8 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, 8/11http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean , in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction . The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable , bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland . The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced . Billions would undoubtedly die . Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-

Eocene Thermal Maximum , when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

a/t: fund stem cpInspiration is keyEhlmann 2, Bethany, Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Washington University, studies Environmental Change at Oxford, Jeeshan Chowdhury, School of Medicine, University of Alberta, Eric Collins, School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Brandon DeKock, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Douglas Grant, Department of Chemistry, University of Mississippi, Stuart Ibsen, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Jessica Kinnevan, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Wendy Krauser, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Mercer University, Julie Litzenberger, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Timothy Marzullo, Department of Neuroscience, University of Michigan, Rebekah Shepard, Department of Geology, Oberlin College [“Humans to Mars: The Political Initiative and Technical Expertise Needed for Human Exploration of the Red Planet,” April 25-26, Group report of the 2002 Astrobiology Academy] Some argue that money put into the space program could be better spent by putting it directly into the education al system to encourage students into the sciences and engineering. This is an unfortunate misconception. America is already one of the top spenders per student in the world (NSF, 2002). Although more funding could always be useful to the American educational system, it does not promise the sustained effort needed to increase the number of Americans pursuing advanced degrees in science or engineering. The government cannot simply buy more computers, fund more scholarships, and lower teacher-to-student ratios enough to convince an 18 year old freshman to invest at least 8 years in the pursuit of a science and engineering advanced degree. Students need something to inspire their efforts. The idea of space exploration significantly influencing America’s youth is not without precedent. During the Apollo era of the 1960’s, there was a dramatic increase in the number of students pursuing advanced degrees in science, math, and engineering (Figure 1b). Furthermore, as the Apollo program was dismantled and NASA’s funding cut, the number of students going into these fields correlates with the downward trend of NASA’s budget. The Apollo era “To the Moon” goal serves as model for how NASA can inspire a generation.

***Ocean Science***

Solvency – modelingA US agency gets modeled internationally Kearny 3, William Kearney, Director of Media Relations Heather McDonald, Media Relations Assistant Office of News and Public Information, “Major Ocean Exploration Effort Would Reveal Secrets of the Deep,” November 4th, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10844WASHINGTON -- A new large-scale, multidisciplinary ocean exploration program would increase the pace of discovery of new species, ecosystems, energy sources, seafloor features, pharmaceutical products, and artifacts, as well as improve understanding of the role oceans play in climate change, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies' National Research Council. Such a program should be run by a nonfederal organization and should encourage international participation, added the committee that wrote the report. Congress, interested in the possibility of an international ocean exploration program, asked the Research Council to examine the feasibility of such an effort. The committee concluded, however, that given the limited resources in many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. program that would include foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries . Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then collaborate on research and pool their resources under international agreements. " The United States should lead by example ," said committee chair John Orcutt, professor of geophysics and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Vast portions of the ocean remain unexplored. In fact, while a dozen men have walked on the moon, just two have traveled to the farthest reaches of the ocean, and only for about 30 minutes each time, the report notes. "The bottom of the ocean is the Earth's least explored frontier, and currently available submersibles -- whether manned, remotely operated, or autonomous -- cannot reach the deepest parts of the sea," said committee vice chair Shirley A. Pomponi, vice president and director of research at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Fla. Nonetheless, recent discoveries of previously unknown species and deep-sea biological and chemical processes have heightened interest in ocean exploration. For example, researchers working off the coast of California revealed how some organisms consume methane seeping through the sea floor, converting it to energy for themselves and leaving hydrogen and carbon dioxide as byproducts. The hydrogen could perhaps someday be harnessed for fuel cells, leaving the carbon dioxide – which contributes to global warming in the atmosphere – in the sea. Likewise, a recent one-month expedition off Australia and New Zealand that explored deep-sea volcanic mountains and abyssal plains collected 100 previously unidentified fish species and up to 300 new species of invertebrates. Most current U.S. funding for ocean research, however, goes to projects that plan to revisit earlier sites or for improving understanding of known processes, rather than to support truly exploratory oceanography, the report says. And because the funding bureaucracy is discipline-based, grants are usually allocated to chemists, biologists, or physical scientists, rather than to teams of researchers representing a variety of scientific fields. A coordinated, international ocean exploration effort is not unprecedented, however; in fact, the International Decade of Ocean Exploration in the 1970s was considered a great success.

Exploration keyExploration key – we don’t even know what questions to askGoldstone 14, heather, science editor at WCAI and host of Living Lab on The Point, a weekly show exploring how science gets done and makes its way into our daily lives. Goldstone holds a Ph.D. in ocean science from M.I.T. and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and spent a decade as researcher before leaving the lab to pursue journalism., “How Live Stream Video Is Catalyzing Ocean Research,” April 28 th, http://capeandislands.org/post/how-live-stream-video-catalyzing-ocean-researchWe're often taught that a hypothesis is the first step in the scientific method. In actuality, what comes first is an observation - a rare commodity for ocean scientists. The NOAA ship Okeanos Explorer is nicknamed America's Ship for Ocean Exploration. Not science. Exploration. What's the difference? Science is about testing ideas - hypotheses - through experimentation. Exploration is simply observing the world around us, although in the deep sea it's far from simple. It's technically challenging and it's expensive. That's why it's estimated only 5 percent of the world's ocean has been seen by human eyes. And since observations are the necessary starting material for developing good, interesting questions to investigate scientifically, that's a problem for ocean scientists. Enter the NOAA ship Okeanos Explorer. This ship is dedicated to deep sea exploration, and it's pioneering a new technique, known as telepresence. The ship broadcasts deep sea video from a remotely operated vehicle to the internet in near real-time - a 10 second delay for the public (you can check it out here), but just a 2-5 second delay for scientists participating in an expedition. Those scientists also have the ability to talk to each other and back to the ship, enabling them to work in collaboration to identify what's being seen and make decisions about how to proceed. Scientists involved with the Okeanos Explorer say it's exciting and worthwhile work that's accelerating education of young scientists and catalyzing new ocean research.

Funding keyFunding keyCohn 13, Alicia, reporter for The Washington Examiner., “James Cameron directs Congress: Fund deep sea exploration,” June 11th, http://washingtonexaminer.com/james-cameron-directs-congress-fund-deep-sea-exploration/article/2531633"How is it that we've managed to get into the 21st century thinking that we've explored this whole planet, and we've missed an entire continent," he said. "The idea behind building this thing was to open that up." Cameron, who says he has "always had an affinity for the ocean," commissioned the manned (or "personed," as Cameron pointedly noted, in deference to the many female oceanographers) submersible, which took seven years to build, and piloted it more than 35,000 feet below the ocean's surface. "Sending a piloted vehicle down gets a lot more media and public attention," Cameron said at a Capitol Hill briefing. "I don't have a degree in any of the sciences or in engineering, but I didn't have a degree in filmmaking either, and that didn't stop me." He told

congressional staff members that he does not have a "specific call to action" on policy, but that it "boils down to funding " deep sea exploration. He and Dr. Susan Avery, director of Woods Hole, compared exploring the deeper ocean to exploring space -- but said the former has been neglected in comparison. "As much as I love space exploration in the abstract, going to Mars is not speaking directly to our life-support systems," Cameron said. His first two speaking appearances were a warm-up for his appearance at the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in the afternoon, where he made a similar pitch to some of the lawmakers holding the federal purse strings.

New Agency key

A NASA of the oceans is key – NOAA failsBierman 14, Christopher, member of the American Chemical Society at Ashland University, BS in Biology from Ashland University, “Is there a NASA for ocean exploration? (presentation)” March 17th, http://ashlandmarinebio.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-there-nasa-for-ocean-exploration.htmlTaking marine biology you would think NOAA is the NASA for exploring the ocean. Remember that NOAAs mission is focusing on the ocean conditions and the condition of the atmosphere. This includes the National Weather Service (NWS). NASA and NOAA do work together in ocean exploration. NOAA is the ground crew while NASA takes charge of the (aging) satellites. However, this is limited. This

partnership can only go so far . If we have a NASA like organization for ocean exploration, it can

benefit us in many ways. We can have a better understanding of global warming, better ways to combat pollution, and have a sense of innovation thanks to our expiration of the ocean. We know more about space and the planets and starts in it, but we know so little about our oceans. Edith Widder says that it can improve our understanding of evolution and discover biologics that can benefit the human species. With the help of voters, we can generate more public support for ocean exploration and science overall.

Disease Impact – general

Empirics on our side – prefer recent evidence that assumes new studies – disease can lead to extinction Keirn 08 – citing PLOSONE study by Kelly B. Wyatt - Biological Sciences Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America, Paula F. Campos and M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis and Rob DeSalle,, Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics and Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, United States of America Wayne H. Hynes, Biological Sciences Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America, Peter Daszak, Consortium for Conservation Medicine, Wildlife Trust, New York, New York, United States of America, Ross D. E. MacPhee and Alex D. Greenwood, Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, United States of America, (Brandon, November 5, “Disease Can Cause Extinction of Mammals” http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/yes-disease-can/)

Disease can drive a mammal species to extinction : this doesn’t seem surprising, but until today it hadn’t been proven. And now that it has, members of our own mammalian species might understandably feel uneasy.The extinction in question took place a century ago on Christmas Island , an uninhabited Indian Ocean atoll to which a merchant ship inadvertently carried flea-ridden black rats. Within a decade, both of the island’s native rat species were extinct.Scientists have argued whether the native rats were outcompeted by the newcomers, or fell victim to diseases carried by the fleas. According to DNA analysis of remaining native rat specimens, infection was widespread within the population after contact , and nonexistent before — suggesting that disease caused the die-off . Resolving this argument has implications for another debate, over the hypothesis that disease can be so lethal and contagious as to drive a mammal species extinct . This had been observed in snails and amphibians, but not in mammals.The authors of the study, published today in Public Library of Science ONE, hope conservationists will take heed: accidentally-introduced pathogens could wipe out endangered species . But to me, the findings also have human implications . Some would say that the rats were vulnerable because they lived on an island; but the Earth is an island, too.

Disease Impact – economy Zoonotic disease pandemic would crush the global economyBURGOS AND OTTE 2010 (Sigfrido Burgos and Joachim Otte (FAO), Department for International Development, “Managing the Risk of Emerging Diseases: From Rhetoric to Action,” www.hpai-research.net/docs/Research.../FAO_2010HPAI_rbr22.pdf)These events share something in common: the associated diseases are caused by micro-organisms that have been able to pass from their original animal host to humans. The looming risk is that once they have accomplished this first step, they may further evolve and develop the capacity to sustain person-to-person transmission. Arguably, in human populations that have had no prior exposure to these pathogens, such ‘invasions’ cause fear and can potentially lead to severe pandemics. Economic Impacts The economic impacts of these novel diseases are enormous, even when human morbidity and mortality remain comparatively low. For example, in 2003, globally SARS involved some 8,500 cases and killed less than one thousand people, yet it represented an economic loss of approximately two percent of East Asia regional GDP for the second quarter of that year. Moreover, during SARS, infection minimization efforts resulted in a dramatic supply shock due to workplace absenteeism, disruption of production processes and shifts to more costly procedures, as well as severe demand shocks for service sectors such as restaurants, hotels, stores, supermarkets, tourism, and mass transportation (Brahmbhatt, 2005). Precise quantification of the full costs of emerging zoonotic diseases on livestock industries is complicated by the fact that impacts propagate up- and downstream through supply and distribution networks, and that short term reactions are likely to be followed by longer term adjustments. However, some estimates indicating the order of magnitude of losses can be found. It has been estimated that Mad Cow disease resulted in losses amounting to US$10–$13 billion in the UK alone. In Canada, the discovery of one case of Mad Cow disease in cattle (and not a single human case) in May 2003 was sufficient to cause losses in the order of US$1.5 billion. For 2009, Mexican authorities estimate that Pandemic H1N1 Influenza cost their economy over US$2 billion, much of which comes from foregone revenues in trade and tourism. It is estimated that for the U.S. a severe influenza pandemic might cause economic losses between US$71 and US$167 billion, excluding disruptions to commerce and society. The World Bank predicts that a highly fatal HPAI pandemic could cost the world economy as much as US$800 billion a year (Baumuller and Heymann, 2010; Meltzer et al., 1999).

Disease Impact – trade

Disease collapses trade and leads to economic collapse Hansch 08 – Teaches at Stanford about disaster response, has lectured and taught courses on humanitarian aid, with a primary focus on NGO capacity building, at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, Georgetown's McDonough School of Business, the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin at Madison (the Disaster Management Program) and American University, conducted field work implementing and developing disaster response programs in Ethiopia, Sudan, Kosovo, Rwanda, Azerbaijan and Somalia, working with NGOs like the International Rescue Committee, CARE, Relief International, and Partners for Development, served as Program Director of the NGO consortium Food Aid Management, served as Senior Program officer at the Refugee Policy Group, where he led evaluations of NGO field programs and organized a number of lessons-learned workshops among emergency NGOs. (Steve, June 15, “food, nutrition and livelihood preparedness For a pandemic influenza disaster Guidance for low-income countries” http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadu257.pdf)

The household economic implications would not be limited to the periods of influenza infection and deaths. Rather, an economic crisis would endanger millions of additional lives in advance of and even in the absence of the virus ever arriving in a community, due to global economic contractions . Those experts who have examined the transport and economic effects of a pandemic predict that liquidities and insolvencies would lead to a global recession .46 In other words, there would be a 28% reduction in demand, reductions in trade , investment, and a rise in unemployment . Even if large banks are relatively prepared for continuity through a 10-week epidemic, the economic contraction will expose many banks' inability to manage outstanding debt, similar to the crisis in 1998 after the East Asian financial crisis forced industry-wide reforms of the banking sector. In a pandemic, food and economic disruption may be greatly amplified by interruptions in the transport and delivery of energy, particularly petroleum which is required for transport.47 Port closures to contain an epidemic would automatically reduce travel and transport . The short-term SARS epidemic led to 1% reductions in gross income in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and billions in losses to Canada. The plague in Surat, India led to trade embargoes, outmigration, job loss and mass migration out of Surat, costing a relatively poor economy an estimated $2 billion. Milan Brhmbhatt and Arindam Dutta also estimate that the cholera epidemic which reached Peru in 1991 cost $770 million.48But none of these examples come close to exemplifying what would happen in the case of a pandemic that killed millions in every part of the world. The extent of a 1918-like pandemic could be enough to close all ports and reduce all trade , including trade between regions and cities in a country or district.

Causes a long term backlash against trade COWEN AND MORALES 02 (Peter Cowen, D.V.M., Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Farm Animal Health and Resource Management North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Roberta A. Morales, D.V.M., Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, Center for Regulatory Economics and Policy Research Research Triangle Institute, The emergence of zoonotic diseases: understanding the impact on animal and human health : workshop summary, googlebooks)

Unfortunately, the specific relationships between trade, economics, and the emergence of disease have not been adequately characterized. One question, for example, is how the West Nile virus got to the Western Hemisphere. It may have been due to human travel, mosquitoes traveling in airplanes, altered patterns for migratory birds, traffic between zoological parks, or some other mechanism. We need to get very specific in terms of what disease has been caused by what specific economic activity or demographic change. It is important that we begin to unravel the causal web in derail and put some specificity on trade as a cause of disease. Molecular epidemiology tools might be very valuable in such an endeavor. Whatever the etiology, the introduction of a major zoonotic disease has the potential for resulting in significant alterations in the structure of world trade. A particularly dramatic and threatening zoonotic disease linked to a trading incident could potentially shift globalization trends to a much more protectionist stance .

a/t: defenseAll of their defense is wrong—pandemics could wipe out humanityLEDERBERG 92 (Joshua, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, In Time of Plague: The History and Social Consequences of Lethal Epidemic Disease, Google Books)

As crowded as we are, humans are more dispersed over the planetary surface than are the "bugs" in a glass tube, and we have somewhat fewer opportunities to infect one another, jet airplanes notwithstanding. The culture medium in the test tube offers fewer chemical and physical barriers to virus transmission than the space between people—but you will understand why so many diseases are sexually transmitted. The ozone shield still lets through enough solar ultraviolet light to make aerosol transmission less hospitable ; and most viruses are fairly vulnerable to desiccation in dry air. The unbroken skin is an excellent barrier to infection ; the mucous membranes of die respiratory tract much less so. And we have evolved immune defenses , a wonderfully intricate machinery for producing a panoply of antibodies, each specifically attuned to the chemical makeup of a particular in- vading parasite. In the normal, immune-competent individual, each incipient infection is a mortal race: between the penetration and proliferation of the virus within the body, and the development of antibodies that will dampen or extinguish the infection. If we have been vaccinated or infected before with a virus related to the current infection, we can mobilize an early immune response. But this in turn provides selective pressure on the virus populations , encouraging the emergence of antigenic variants . We see this most dramatically in the influenza pandemics; and every few years we need to disseminate fresh vaccines to cope with the current generation of the flu virus.10 Many quantitative mitigations of the pandemic viral threat are then inherent in our evolved biological capabilities of coping with these competitors. Mitigation is also built into the evolution of the virus: it is a pyrrhic victory for a virus to eradicate its host! This may have happened historically, but then both that vanquished host and the victorious parasite will have disappeared. Even the death of the single infected individual is relatively disadvantageous, in the long run, to the virus—compared to a sustained infection leaving a carrier free to spread the virus to as many contacts as possible. From the virus's perspective, its ideal would be a virtually symptomless infection, in which the host is quite oblivious of providing shelter and nourishment for the indefinite propagation of the virus's genes. Our own genome probably carries hundreds of thousands of such stowaways. The boundary between them and the "normal genome" is quite blurred; intrinsic to our own ancestry and nature are not only Adam and Eve, but any number of invisible germs that have crept into our chromosomes. Some confer incidental and mutual benefit. Others of these symbiotic viruses (or "plasmids"11) have reemerged as oncogenes, with the potential of mutating to a state that we recognize as the dysregulated cell growth of a cancer. As much as 95 percent of our DNA may be "selfish," parasitic in origin. At evolutionary equilibrium, we would continue to share the planet with our parasites , paying some tribute but deriving some protection from them against more violent aggression. Such an equilibrium is unlikely on terms we would voluntarily welcome: at the margin, the comfort and precariousness of life would be evenly shared. No theory lets us calculate the details; we can hardly be sure that such an equilibrium for earth even includes the human species . Many prophets have foreseen the contrary, given our propensity for technological sophistication harnessed to intraspecies competition. In Fact, innumerable perturbations remind us that we cannot rely on " equilibrium"—each individual death of an infected person is a counterexample . Our defense mechanisms do not always work; viruses are not always as benign as would be predicted to serve their long-term advantage . The historic plagues, the Black Death of the fourteenth century, the recurrences of cholera , the 1918 swine influenza should be constant reminders of nature's sword over our head . They have been very much on my mind for the past two decades.Ia However, when I have voiced such fears, they have been mollified by the expectation that modern hygiene and medicine would contain any such outbreaks. There is, of course, much merit in those expectations: the plague bacillus is susceptible to antibiotics, and we understand its transmission by rat-borne fleas. Cholera can be treated fairly successfully with simple regimens like oral rehydration (salted water with a touch of sugar). Influenza in 1918 was undoubtedly complicated by bacterial infections that could now be treated with antibiotics; and if we can mobilize them in time, vaccines can help prevent the global spread of a new flu. On the other hand, the role of secondary bacterial infection in 1918 may well be overstated: it is entirely possible that the virus itself was extraordinarily lethal. The retrospective scoffing at the federal campaign against the swine flu of 1976 is a cheap shot on the part of critics who have no burden of responsibility for a wrong guess. It underrates health officials* legitimate anxiety that we might have been seeing a recurrence of 1918 13—and underscores the political difficulty of undertaking the measures that might be needed in the face of a truly species-threatening pandemic. This so-called fiasco in fact mitigated an epidemic that happily proved to be of a less lethal virus strain. The few cases of side-effects attributed to the (polyvalent) vaccine are undoubtedly less than would have appeared from the flu infections avoided by the vaccination program. However, the incentives to attach fault for damages from a positive intervention have predictable consequences in litigation, not to be confused with the balance of social costs and benefits of the program as a whole. Many outbreaks of viral or bacterial infections have destroyed large herds of animals, of various species, usually leaving a few immune survivors. With all the discussion of faunal extinctions, nothing has been said about infectious disease. It would be impossible to verify this from the fossil record, but disease is the most plausible mechanism of episodic shifts in populations. Incontrovertible examples of

species wipeouts are seen with fungi in the plant world: Dutch elm disease and the American chestnut blight. Yes, it can happen.

Water Impact – general studies our authors cite over 8,000 historical examplesMontenegro ‘9 (Maywa, editor and writer at Seed magazine, “The Truth About Water Wars,” May 14, 2009 http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_truth_about_water_wars/)It’s often been said that the next resource wars will be fought not over oil but over water. In 2007 an 18-month study of Sudan by the UN Environment Program concluded that the conflict in Darfur had its roots in climate change and water shortages. According to the report, disappearing pasture and evaporating water holes—rainfall is down 30 percent over 40 years in some parts of the Sahel—had sparked dispute between herders and farmers and threatened to trigger a succession of

new wars across Africa . Months later, the British nonprofit International Alert released a study identifying 46 countries—home to 2.7 billion people—where water and climate stresses could ignite violent conflict by 2025, prompting UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to say, “The consequences for humanity are grave. Water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict.” Those remarks came just as David Zhang of Hong Kong University published a study linking water shortages to violence throughout history. Analyzing half a millennium’s worth of human conflict—more than

8,000 wars —Zhang concluded that climate change and resulting water shortages had been a far greater

trigger than previously imagined . “We are on alert, because this gives us the indication that resource shortage is the main cause of war,” Zhang told the London Times. Now, in UNESCO’s third major World Water Development Report, released in March at the World Water Forum in Istanbul, the threat is again plainly stated: “As climate change and adverse water impacts increase in politically charged areas, conflicts will likely intensify, requiring new and rapid adaptive security strategies.”

Water Impact – indopak warWater causes Indo-Pak warPriyadarshi ‘12 (Nitish, lecturer in the department of environment and water management at Ranchi University in India, “War for water is not a far cry”, June 16, http://www.cleangangaportal.org/node/44)

Such is the deep nexus between water and global warming that the increased frequency of climate change-driven extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and flooding, along with the projected rise of ocean levels, is likely to spur greater interstate and intrastate migration- especially of the poor and the vulnerable- from delta and coastal regions to the hinterland. As the planet warms, water grow scarcer. Global warming will endanger the monsoon, which effects much greater than those of drought alone-particularly in India given that 70 percent of India’s rainfall comes from the monsoon. The declining snow cover and receding glaciers in the Himalayan state of Jammu and Kashmir could trigger renewed hostilities between India and Pakistan, neighbouring states in the South Asian region that are at odds on a host of issues. The two countries share the Indus River, one of the longest rivers in the world. The river rises in southwestern Tibet and flows northwest through the Himalayas. It crosses into the Kashmir region, meandering to the Indian and Pakistani administered areas of the territory. Pakistan and India have long been embroiled in a territorial dispute over Kashmir, but have so far managed to uphold a World Bank-mediated Indus Water Treaty (IWT) that provides mechanisms for resolving

disputes over water sharing. Any drastic reduction in the availability of water in the region has the potential of causing a war between the hostile south Asian neighbors. The Indus water system is the lifeline for Pakistan , as 75 to 80 percent of water flows to

Pakistan as melt from the Himalayan glaciers. This glacier melt forms the backbone of irrigation network in Pakistan, with 90 percent of ag ricultural land

being fed by the vastly spread irrigation network in Pakistan , one of the largest in the world. Any disruption of water flow would cause a grave impact on agriculture produce in Pakistan. The Indus Waters Treaty is a water-sharing treaty between the Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank (then the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). The treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960 by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President of Pakistan Mohammad Ayub Khan. The treaty was a result of Pakistani fear that since the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India, it could potentially create droughts and famines in Pakistan, especially at times of war. However, India did not revoke the treaty during any of three later Indo-Pakistani Wars. Until now, the Indus Water Treaty has worked well, but the impact of climate change would test the sanctity of this treaty. Under the treaty signed in 1960, the two countries also share five tributaries of the Indus river, namely, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. The agreement grants Pakistan exclusive rights over waters from the Indus and its westward-flowing tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab, while the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers were allocated for

India’s use. Transboundary water sharing between India and Pakistan will become an extremely difficult proposition as surface water would become a scarce commodity with the depletion of water reserves up in the mountains . The sharing of the Ganges waters is a long-standing issue between India and Bangladesh over the appropriate allocation and development of the water resources of the Ganges River that flows from northern

India into Bangladesh. The issue has remained a subject of conflict for almost 35 years, with several bilateral agreements and rounds of talks failing to produce results .

Goes nuclear – cooperation impossibleZahoor ‘11 (Musharaf, is researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics, National Defence University, Islamabad, “Water crisis can trigger nuclear war in South Asia,” http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.php?77008-Water-Crisis-can-Trigger-Nuclear-War-in-South-Asia)

South Asia is among one of those regions where water needs are growing disproportionately to its availability. The high increase in population besides large-scale

cultivation has turned South Asia into a water scarce region. The two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India share the waters of Indus Basin . All

the major rivers stem from the Himalyan region and pass through Kashmir down to the planes of Punjab and Sindh empty into Arabic ocean. It is pertinent that the strategic importance of Kashmir , a source of all major rivers, for Pakistan and symbolic importance of Kashmir for India are maximum list positions. Both the countries have fought two major wars in 1948, 1965 and a limited war in Kargil specifically on the Kashmir dispute. Among other issues, the newly born states fell into water sharing dispute right after their partition. Initially under an agreed formula, Pakistan paid for the river waters to India, which is an upper riparian state. After a decade long negotiations, both the states signed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. Under the treaty, India was given an exclusive right of three eastern rivers Sutlej, Bias and Ravi while Pakistan was given the right of three Western Rivers, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. The tributaries of these rivers are also considered their part under the treaty. It was assumed that the treaty had permanently resolved the water issue, which proved a nightmare in the latter course. India by exploiting the provisions of IWT started wanton construction of dams on Pakistani rivers thus scaling down the water availability to Pakistan (a lower riparian state). The treaty only allows run of the river hydropower projects and does not permit to construct such water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers, which may affect the water flow to the low lying areas. According to the statistics of Hydel power Development Corporation of Indian Occupied Kashmir, India has a plan to construct 310 small, medium and large dams in the territory. India has already started work on 62 dams in the first phase. The cumulative dead and live storage of these dams will be so great that India can easily manipulate the water of Pakistani rivers. India has set up a department called the Chenab Valley Power Projects to construct power plants on the Chenab River in occupied Kashmir. India is also constructing three major hydro-power projects on Indus River which include Nimoo Bazgo power project, Dumkhar project and Chutak project. On the other hand, it has started Kishan Ganga hydropower project by diverting the waters of Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum, in sheer violation of the IWT. The gratuitous construction of dams by India has created serious water shortages in Pakistan . The construction of Kishan Ganga dam will turn the Neelum valley, which is located in Azad Kashmir into a barren land. The water shortage will not only affect the cultivation but it has serious social, political and economic ramifications for Pakistan. The farmer associations have already started protests in Southern Punjab and Sindh against the non-availability of water. These protests are so far limited and under control. The reports of international organizations suggest that the water availability in Pakistan will reduce further in the coming years. If the situation remains unchanged, the violent mobs of villagers across the country will be a major law and order challenge for the government. The water shortage has also created mistrust among the federative units, which is evident from the fact that the President and the Prime Minister had to intervene for convincing Sindh and Punjab provinces on water sharing formula. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) is responsible for distribution of water among the provinces but in the current situation it has also lost its credibility. The provinces often accuse each other of water theft. In the given circumstances, Pakistan desperately wants to talk on water issue with India. The meetings between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India have so far yielded no tangible results. The recent meeting in Lahore has also ended without concrete results. India is continuously using delaying tactics to under pressure Pakistan. The Indus Water Commissioners are supposed to resolve the issues bilaterally through talks. The success of their meetings can be measured from the fact

that Pakistan has to knock at international court of arbitration for the settlement of Kishan Ganga hydropower project. The recently held foreign minister level talks between both the countries ended inconclusively in Islamabad, which only resulted in heightening the mistrust and suspicions. The water stress in Pakistan is increasing day by day . The construction of dams will not only cause damage to the agriculture sector but

India can manipulate the river water to create inundations in Pakistan. The rivers in Pakistan are also vital for defense during wartime. The control over the water will

provide an edge to India during war with Pakistan. The failure of diplomacy , manipulation of IWT provisions by India and growing water scarcity in

Pakistan and its social, political and economic repercussions for the country can lead both the countries toward a war . The existent A-

symmetry between the conventional forces of both the countries will compel the weaker side to use nuclear

weapons to prevent the opponent from taking any advantage of the situation. Pakistan's nuclear programme is aimed at to create minimum credible deterrence. India has a declared nuclear doctrine which intends to retaliate massively in case of first strike by its' enemy. In 2003, India expanded the operational parameters for its nuclear doctrine. Under the new parameters, it will not only use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike but will also use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike on Indian forces anywhere. Pakistan has a draft nuclear doctrine, which consists on the statements of high ups. Describing the nuclear thresh-hold in January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, in an interview to Landau Network, said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in case India

occupies large parts of its territory, economic strangling by India, political disruption and if India destroys Pakistan's forces. The analysis of the ambitious nuclear doctrines of both the countries clearly points out that any military confrontation in the region can result in a

nuclear catastrophe . The rivers flowing from Kashmir are Pakistan's lifeline , which are essential for the livelihood of 170 million people of the country and the cohesion of federative units. The failure of dialogue will leave no option but to achieve the ends through military means.

Scarcity breaks down the Indus Waters Treaty – causes warCFR ’11 (report based on travel in the region by the Committee’s staff and the work of experts in government, academia, and other international institutions “Avoiding Water Wars: Water Scarcity and Central Asia’s Growing Importance for Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Feb 22nd, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/chair/release/?id=0b32e452-9c4c-4417-82ee-d201bcefc8ae [download link at the bottom)

The National Intelligence Council echoed these concerns in their Global Trends 2025: A Trans- formed World, finding that with ‘‘water becoming more scarce in Asia and the Middle East, coop eration to manage changing water resources is likely to become more difficult within and between states.’’ 5 Given the important role water plays in Central and South Asia as a primary driver of human insecurity, it is important to recognize that for the most part, the looming threat of so-called ‘‘water wars’’ has not yet come to fruition. Instead, many regions threatened by water scarcity have avoided violent clashes through discussion, compromise, and agreements. This is because ‘‘[w]ater—being international, indispensable, and emotional—can serve as a

corner- stone for confidence building and a potential entry point for peace.’’ 6 However, the United States cannot expect this region to continue to avoid ‘‘water wars’’ in perpetuity. In South Asia, the Indus Waters Treaty has been the primary vehicle for resolving conflicts over the shared waters between India and Pakistan. It is a prescriptive agreement that has recently been criticized for its inflexibility to adjust to changes in water levels. Experts are now questioning whether the IWT can adapt to these changes, especially when new demands for the use of the river flows from irrigation and hydroelectric power are fuel ing tensions between India and Pakistan. A breakdown in the treaty ’s utility in resolving water conflicts could have serious ramifications for regional stability .

Indo-pak water war escalates – India won’t cooperate because they’re causing the problemMalik 10, Zahid, Editor-in-Chief, Daily Pakistan Observer, Masters in Mass Communications “Is Pakistan Ready for Water War?” March 15th, http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=20374Apart from Kishanganga, India has initiated four other mega projects on the Chenab and Jhelum Rivers in Occupied Kashmir that can result in major water shortage in Pakistan in due course of time. India has also planned three dams on River Indus which will have devastating impact on Pakistan's Northern Areas. These are Nimoo Bazgo, Dumkhar, and Chutak. Work on Nimoo Bazgo hydropower project, 70 km from Leh is already underway while Chutak is under construction on River Suru. In case any of these dams collapses or large quantity of water is deliberately released, it will not only endanger our proposed Bhasha Dam but also submerge Skardu city and airport. In that case strategic KKH between Besham and Jaglot would also be washed away. Stopping water by India is the policy of

desertification of Pakistan creating invisible aggression and concomitant serious consequences for the agriculture of the country. It is a hostile and destructive attack on our sovereign rights over waters of three rivers and we must take this battle to the international arbitrators. Pakistan has to assert its right over the eastern rivers and must do everything for strict implementation of the Treaty. I am of the considered view

that in the given and future scenario, water is as much a nuclear flashpoint as is Kashmir . We must make the world realize seriously that if it is interested in peace in this region, it must act urgently to help both the countries restart negotiations and resolve the contentious issue of water on an urgent basis. I say this because in the coming years, Pakistan would be in a very difficult situation. According to a recent United Nations report, Pakistan's water supply has dropped from about 5,000 cubic meters per person in the 1950s to 1,420 cubic meters in 2009- perilously close to the threshold at which water shortage becomes an impediment to economic development and a serious hazard to human health.

Water Impact – African instabilityJacks African stabilityMontenegro ‘9 (Maywa, editor and writer at Seed magazine, “The Truth About Water Wars,” May 14, 2009 http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_truth_about_water_wars/)

It’s often been said that the next resource wars will be fought not over oil but over water. In 2007 an 18-month study of Sudan by the UN Environment Program concluded that the conflict in Darfur had its roots in climate change and water shortages. According to the report, disappearing pasture and evaporating water holes—rainfall is down 30 percent over 40 years in some parts of the Sahel—had sparked dispute between herders and farmers and threatened to trigger a succession of

new wars across Africa . Months later, the British nonprofit International Alert released a study identifying 46 countries—home to 2.7 billion people—where water and climate stresses could ignite violent conflict by 2025, prompting UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to say, “The consequences for humanity are grave. Water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict.” Those remarks came just as David Zhang of Hong Kong University published a study linking water shortages to violence throughout history. Analyzing half a millennium’s worth of human conflict—more than

8,000 wars —Zhang concluded that climate change and resulting water shortages had been a far greater

trigger than previously imagined . “We are on alert, because this gives us the indication that resource shortage is the main cause of war,” Zhang told the London Times. Now, in UNESCO’s third major World Water Development Report, released in March at the World Water Forum in Istanbul, the threat is again plainly stated: “As climate change and adverse water impacts increase in politically charged areas, conflicts will likely intensify, requiring new and rapid adaptive security strategies.”

Goes globalGlick ‘7 (Caroline Glick 7, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Center for Security Policy, “Condi's African holiday”, December 11, http://www.rightsidenews.com/20071211309/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/our-world-condis-african-holiday.html)The Horn of Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars, which rage continuously, can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All of the conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, can potentially give rise to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers.

Water Impact – food securityWater scarcity triggers conflict and destabilizes food supplyHiggins ’12 (Alexander, citing an intelligence report from The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Higgins is a Senior NJ ASP.Net Developer “Report: Water Shortages To Spark Global Unrest, US Privatizing Supplies,” March 22nd, http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/22/privatize-water-report-shortages-spark-global-unrest-102171/

An intelligence report based on classified information warns water shortages will soon lead to global unrest and threaten the National Security of the United States. The intelligence reports that wars over water won’t happen over night, but within another 10 years the lack of water is expected to become crucial to the point where it can contribute to conditions that cause the collapse of governments or spark wars in areas of political instability. The most immediate concern is depleted groundwater used for farming could destabilize supplies of food and trigger hyperinflation in food prices. It names the Amu Darya river in Central Asia and Afghanistan, which flows from Tibet through India to Bangladesh, as flash points of war because these governments will be “inadequate” to handle “political grievances ” over the water coming from shared water supplies. The report also rates the Indus in south Asia and the Jordan in the Middle East as being at “moderate” risk of political instability and rated the “Mekong River watershed in Southeast Asia; the Tigris and Euphrates in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran; and the Nile Basin in northern Africa as “limited.”Food insecurity escalatesTrudell ‘5 (Robert H., Fall, Trudell,  J.D. Candidate 2006, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Lexis)

2. But, Is It Really an Emergency?  In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill dismisses the scenario where environmental degradation destabilizes an area so much that "security problems and ... resource scarcity may lead to war." 101 McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one, largely because history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of widespread calamity due, in part, to the slow pace of any major environmental change. 102 This may be so. However, as the events in Rwanda illustrated, the environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before one's eyes - when food insecurity drives people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural practices. 103 Furthermore, as Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation and land scarcity can contribute to a breakdown of society itself. 104  Mr. McNeill's assertion closely resembles those of many critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue we face (e.g., environmental change or overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we can face the problem long before any calamity sets in. 106  This wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of which are a functioning society and innovations in agricultural productivity. But, today, with up to 300,000

child soldiers fighting in conflicts or wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts, the very fabric of society is under increasing world-wide pressure . 107 Genocide, anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic throughout Africa; it is a troubled

continent whose problems threaten global security and challenge all of humanity . 108 As  [*292]  Juan Somavia, secretary

general of the World Social Summit, said: " We've replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is part of the fuse burning to set that bomb off . It is an emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is too late.

Water Impact – central asiaScarcity destabilizes Central AsiaPriyadarshi 12 (Nitish, lecturer in the department of environment and water management at Ranchi University in India, “War for water is not a far cry”, June 16, http://www.cleangangaportal.org/node/44)

That's been a constant dilemma for the Central Asian states since they became independent after the Soviet break-up. Much of Central Asia's water flows from the mountains of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, leaving downstream countries Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan dependent and worried about the effects of planned hydropower plants upstream. Tashkent fears that those two countries' use of water from Central Asia's two great rivers -- the Syr Darya and Amu Darya -- to generate power will diminish the amount reaching Uzbekistan, whose 28 million inhabitants to make up Central Asia's largest population. After the collapse of communism in the 1990s, a dispute arose between Hungary and Slovakia over a project to dam the Danube River. It was the first of its type heard by the International Court of Justice and highlighted the difficulty for the Court to resolve such issues decisively. There are 17 European countries directly reliant on water from the Danube so there is clear potential for conflict if any of these countries act selfishly. Experts worry that dwindling water supplies could likely result in regional conflicts in the future . For example, in oil-and-gas rich Central Asia , the upstream countries of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan hold 90 percent of the region's water resources, while Uzbekistan, the largest consumer of water in the region, is located downstream.

That escalates- no cooperation on waterRadin ’10 (Adam Radin 10, masters in security studies from the naval postgraduate school, “the security implications of water: prospects for instability or cooperation in south and central asia”, March, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518674)

Water, an issue so important to numerous facets of each state’s economy and overall stability, must not be left to loosely observed and nonbinding agreements . Tajikistan has even gone as far as to appeal to the United Nations General Assembly to focus on the “Central Asia water dilemma.”142 In a region that is still developing , and where the government’s survival rely more on its relations with it people versus its regional neighbors, domestic needs will continue to

trump international cooperation . As Linn notes in his plan, the need for global actors to take an active role is likely needed in order for sustained cooperation. Additionally, this also provides an opportunity for Russia to actively insert itself through diplomacy and infrastructural investments, seeing that they still consider the CARs under their sphere of influence.143 The chapter presents a contrasting case study to South Asia, as in Central Asia water is not viewed as a regional security issue, but in terms of fulfilling short-term domestic needs . Without the looming threat of conflict or significant retribution from regional neighbors, cooperation is consistently undervalued and abandoned once domestic pressures increase. The problem with this pattern is that resources will likely continue to deteriorate and the CARs will continue to be dependent on each other to provide water and energy. Without sustained and flexible cooperation, the region at the very least will see greater stresses on government to provide for their populations, leading to domestic and potential regional instability.

ExtinctionBlank 2k (Stephen J. - Expert on the Soviet Bloc for the Strategic Studies Institute, “American Grand Strategy and the Transcaspian Region”, World Affairs. 9-22)

Thus many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia . The outbreak of violence by disaffected Islamic elements, the drug trade, the Chechen wars, and the unresolved ethnopolitical conflicts that dot the region, not to mention the undemocratic and unbalanced distribution of income across

corrupt governments, provide plenty of tinder for future fires. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors also have great potential for unintended escalation . Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their proxies and proteges. One or another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises about

intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not

prevail in a long war against Russia, or if it could, would conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the

erratic nature of Russia's declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major war is higher here than almost everywhere else in the CIS or the

"arc of crisis" from the Balkans to China. As Richard Betts has observed, The greatest danger lies in areas where (1) the potential for serious instability is high; (2) both superpowers perceive vital interests; (3) neither recognizes that the other's perceived interest or commitment is as great as its own; (4) both have the capability to inject conventional forces; and (5) neither has willing proxies capable of settling the situation.(77)

Water Impact – Chinese stabilityWater scarcity collapses Chinese food productionJohn Johnston 11, writer for the 9 billion, “Can the sea solve China’s water crisis?”, February 15, http://www.the9billion.com/2011/02/15/can-huge-desalination-plants-solve-chinas-water-shortage-crisis/In case you missed it, China is currently in the throes of its worst drought in 60 years , and has announced a billion dollars worth of emergency water aid . The harvest of the world’s biggest wheat producer is threatened , and China is saying it will use grain reserves to reduce pressure on global food prices , which have been at record highs. Floods in Australia and dryness in Russia are said to be at the root of global food price escalation.

Food shortages topple the regime and causes mass social instabilityInkerman Group 11 The Inkerman Group is an international business risk, intelligence and investigation consultancy, which takes an intelligence-led approach to the issue of threat mitigation. The company’s philosophy is based on the fact that businesses have a responsibility for protecting their most valuable assets from both actual and potential threats and that each business has its own set of unique challenges http://blog.inkerman.com/index.php/2011/02/22/chinese-weather-with-global-breadbasket-implications/ The crisis in the wheat-producing provinces of Eastern China, which includes Shandong, Henan, Hebei, Anhui, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu and Jiangsu provinces, comes after only 0.5 inches of rain have fallen in the province since September 2010, causing domestic wheat prices to rise and the price of flour to increase by 8%. Observers are keeping a close eye on whether China will be forced to begin importing wheat and what that means for the Chinese peoples’ ability to buy a basic food stuff as well as what this will do to the global market price of wheat which has already risen 35% since November 2010. The crisis which is affecting 2.6 million people and has also hit 2.8 million livestock is being referred as “weather with global breadbasket implications”. The crisis also comes at an even more pressing time, as a plethora of protests over the increase of commodity prices coupled with the call for human rights reforms, sweep across North Africa and the Middle East. This is something which China is more than acutely concerned about and will try every measure to prevent it from affecting its own populous, including heavily censoring internet searches for key words such as “Egypt”, “Tunisia”, “Libya”, “Bahrain” and “food price protests” as a result. Last week the World Bank, in its Food Price Watch, warned that that food prices have “hit dangerous levels ” that could contribute to “macro vulnerabilities” including political instability . Even as senior Chinese officials exhort local officials to do everything possible to cope with a severe drought in the country’s wheat belt, the government is trying to reassure the public that food prices will not rise any further. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao assured the public in televised remarks late last week that the supply and demand of grain were “basically” in balance and that large stockpiles were available. China’s drought-control headquarters posted a statement on its Web site on 20 February 2011, which described conditions as “grim” across a wide area of the wheat belt in Northern China and called for emergency irrigation efforts. However, agricultural experts say it is too early to assess the damage to the wheat harvest, as it remains within the winter months now, which it is typically drier anyway, and normal seedlings would normally still be alive awaiting the spring bloom. If the weather turns warmer and there is still no rain, then the real fear is that the Chinese will not be talking about lower agricultural production, but rather zero production, because the seedlings will all be dead. Beijing’s plan includes measures to divert water, build wells and other efforts to help drought-stricken areas of central and northern China, such as offering emergency subsidies of US$9 to US$11 an acre to help farmers pay for irrigation, but many analysts claim these measures are too little too late and that there is a real possibility for mass social unrest if the very basic of food stuffs for the people cannot be provided. China has essentially been self- sufficient in grain for decades, as the necessity to feed 1.3 billion mouths has made food production of wheat a security priority since 1949. However, the need to import wheat in volume is also creating shortages elsewhere in the world. Wheat futures prices have already risen 47% in a year, buoyed by a series of weather events including drought and fires in Russia, flooding in Australia, Pakistan, Europe, North America and Argentina, and perhaps most importantly rising Asian demand for the commodity. The emerging situation in China is expected to push prices higher. Shandong faces its worst drought in 200 years and greater Beijing remains without any rain for almost 100 days. To compound matters, vital emergency irrigation efforts are on hold because of a cold snap which means that officials are advising farmers not to water their crops, because the temperature is too low. One interesting approach to the crisis was seen in Wuwei when meteorologists fired artillery shells and truck and aircraft-mounted rockets loaded with the cloud-seeding chemical silver iodide into the atmosphere which produced light snow and minimal rain. According to State Media, it reportedly “produced one-tenth of the drought-stricken area with adequate moisture for now”. It is more than likely that this was a publicity stunt in order to reassure the populous that the government was acting in their best interests to try every alternative to make rain. Its ability to yield positive results in mass quantities remains questionable however, but as African tribes have known for a millennia, prayers and tribal dances alone cannot bring about the rains, and

as a result the waiting game for the precious blue gold continues for China. It remains the world’s largest wheat grower and as such the pressure on its ability to account for one-sixth of the world output will now be tested to the limit. In 2011, Beijing’s top priority is to fight inflation. Food accounts for a third of China’s consumer price index which is the main barometer for the inflation figures, this inability to grow any crops for its main east coast financial and populous centres; Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing, Shanghai and Xiamen will not go unnoticed and as a result China’s leadership appears to have become alarmed by the slow response to the crisis. Moreover, the longer it continues the greater the likelihood of social unrest occurring. Without a quick response, or realisation that China is the most susceptible it has ever been to global price rises for food, it may prove to be an unhappy and hungry start to the Year of the Rabbit.

Water Impact – Mideast stabilityWater scarcity causes Middle East warNitish Priyadarshi 12, lecturer in the department of environment and water management at Ranchi University in India, “War for water is not a far cry”, June 16, http://www.cleangangaportal.org/node/44

The crisis over water in the Middle East is escalating. Despite existing agreements, dwindling resources – increasingly affected by pollution, agricultural/industrial initiatives and population growth – have elevated the strategic importance of water in the region . For Middle Eastern nations, many already treading the razor’s edge of conflict, water is becoming a catalyst for confrontation – an issue of national security and foreign policy as well as domestic stability. Given water’s growing ability to redefine interstate relations, the success of future efforts to address water sharing and distribution will hinge upon political and strategic approaches to this diminishing natural resource .In the Middle East, water resources are plummeting. While representing 5% of the total world population, the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region contains only 0.9% of global water resources.1 The number of water-scarce countries in the Middle East and North Africa has risen from 3 in 1955 (Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait) to 11 by 1990 (with the inclusion of Algeria, Israel and the Occupied Territories, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen). Another 7 are anticipated to join the list by 2025 (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Oman and Syria).In addition to its scarcity, much of Middle Eastern water stems from three major waterways : the Tigris- Euphrates, Nile and Jordan River systems. Mutual reliance on these resources has made water a catalyst for conflict, spurring confrontations such as the 1967 War (fomented by Syria’s attempts to divert water from Israel) and the Iran-Iraq War (which erupted from disputes over water claims and availability). Recognition of water’s role as an obstacle in interstate relations has spurred numerous attempts at resolution, including diplomatic efforts (most notably the 1953-1955 U.S.-brokered Johnston negotiations) and bilateral and multilateral treaty efforts, ranging from the 1959 Agreement for the Full Utilization of Nile Waters to the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Treaty.Along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, Turkey and Syria are currently approaching a massive confrontation over water resources . Relations between the two countries, strained at best, have been exacerbated since the 1980s by growing tensions over water, which have brought them to the brink of war several times.The Jordan River Basin has also emerged as a flashpoint for conflict over water . Resources in the area, suffering serious overuse as a result of pollution and population growth, have increasingly impacted interstate relations.Between Jordan and Israel, water resource issues are reaching a fever pitch. Despite the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Treaty – which established comprehensive guidelines regulating the distribution, preservation and availability of water from the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers – conflicts over water have risen to the forefront of relations between the two countries. Jordan, fed only by underground sources and the Jordan River, has experienced an escalating water deficit – one that is expected to reach 250 million cubic meters (nearly 1/3rd of current annual consumption) by 2010. At the same time, Israel – currently utilizing almost all available water from its National Water System (consisting of the West Bank Mountain Aquifer, the Coastal Aquifer and the Lake Kinneret Basin) – has been forced to resort to overexploitation of available resources for expanding agricultural and industrial ventures. As a result, water has become a critical bone of contention between the two countries.The historically troubled relations between Israel and the Palestinians have also been magnified by water . Mutual reliance on the West Bank Mountain Aquifer , which rests atop the demarcating border of the

disputed West Bank territory (and currently provides 1/3rd of Israel’s water supply and 80% of Palestinian consumption), has created friction between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Nuclear warJames A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, ‘9 (Spring) “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East” IFRI, Proliferation Papers, #26, http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf

Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists ; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons . It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

a/t: AlloucheAllouche agrees that water causes wars – he just think they’ll stay smallAllouche 11, research Fellow – water supply and sanitation @ Institute for Development Studies, frmr professor – MIT (Jeremy, “The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade,” Food Policy, Vol. 36 Supplement 1, p. S3-S8, January)Overall, it seems clear that perceived resource scarcity is not an adequate explanation for war at the international level. At the national level, water and food insecurity are relatively important factors in the causes of civil wars. At the local level, water scarcity and food insecurity may lead to local political instability and sometimes violent forms of conflict . Armed conflict creates situation of emergency food and water insecurity and has a long-term impact on post-conflict societies. In the near future, it seems that despite climate change, international resource wars are unlikely and resource allocation will be settled through diplomatic negotiation and perhaps most importantly international trade as will be discussed in the next section.

a/t: Dinara/t: Dinaragrees water exacerbates tensionDinar 10/18, Hlomi, associate professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations and associate director of the School of International and Public Affairs at Florida International University, Lucia De Stefano, associate professor at Complutense University of Madrid and researcher at the Water Observatory of the Botín Foundation, James Duncan, consultant on natural resource governance and geography with the World Bank, Kerstin Stahl, senior scientist at the Institute of Hydrology in the University of Freiburg, Kenneth Strzepek, research scientist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Aaron Wolf, professor of geography in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University “No Wars for Water,” 10/18, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138208/shlomi-dinar-lucia-de-stefano-james-duncan-kerstin-stahl-kenneth/no-wars-for-water?page=showIf the past is any indication, the world probably does not need to worry about impending water wars. But they must recognize how tensions over water can easily fuel larger conflicts and distract states from other important geopolitical and domestic priorities . Since formal inter-state institutions are key to alleviating tensions over shared resources, it would be wise, then, for the involved governments as well as the international community to negotiate sufficiently robust agreements to deal with impending environmental change. Otherwise, freshwater will only further frustrate stability efforts in the world's volatile regions.

a/t: no scarcityyes scarcityNitish Priyadarshi 12, lecturer in the department of environment and water management at Ranchi University in India, “War for water is not a far cry”, June 16, http://www.cleangangaportal.org/node/44The battles of yesterday were fought over land. Those of today are over energy. But the battles of tomorrow may be over water. Along with population growth and increasing per capita water consumption, massive pollution of the world's surface water systems has placed a great strain on remaining supplies of clean fresh water . Global deforestation , destruction of wetlands, dumping of pesticides and fertilizer into waterways, and global warming are all taking a terrible toll on the Earth's fragile water system . The combination of increasing demand and shrinking supply has attracted the interest of global corporations who want to sell water for a profit . The water industry is touted by the World Bank as a potential trillion-dollar industry. Water has become the “blue gold” of the 21st century. In many parts of the world, one major river supplies water to multiple countries. Climate change, pollution and population growth are putting a significant strain on supplies. In some areas renewable water reserves are in danger of dropping below the 500 cubic meters per person per year considered a minimum for a functioning society . In recent times, several studies around the globe show that climatic change is likely to impact significantly upon freshwater resources availability. In India, demand for water has already increased manifold over the years due to urbanization, agriculture expansion, increasing population, rapid industrialization and economic development. At present, changes in cropping pattern and land-use pattern, over-exploitation of water storage and changes in irrigation and drainage are modifying the hydrological cycle in many climate regions and river basins of India.

a/t: alternate actor CP

doesn’t solve the leadership advantage – government action’s key to leverage investmentGaffney 13, Paul G, President Emeritus, Monmouth University, Vice Admiral, US Navy (retired), “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,” July 19th – 21st, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdfFast forward to 21st century America, no longer a tentative nation, now the greatest maritime nation in world history. Its place in the middle of the great ocean system enables prosperous trade and a unique security situa tion. Yet, that ocean system is still largely unexplored. A world power unavoid ably dependent on the ocean still does not understand the ocean’s full range of opportunities and dangers. A world maritime power—The World Power, The United States—cannot afford to be surprised by the very natural features that characterize her as a maritime nation. Exploration projects in the high Arctic have found unexpected (previously undiscovered) ocean bottom variability and changes in water temperature structure. Now that is important to defense, especially safe U.S. submarine operations. It also gives a hint about past climate fluctuations so we can get a better idea of the ocean’s and Arctic’s role in climate excursions. Arctic exploration discoveries will also help America argue for rights to minerals off its northern coast. There are a few, scattered ocean exploration efforts within our nation. Federal agencies do make new discoveries incidental to their separate missions. And, privately funded citizen explorers are getting excited about the ocean. While this collection of small efforts survives, each for its own purpose, the Congress expected more. The nation needs more to ensure maritime strength . A broad, coordinated national program envisioned by Congress in PL 111-11 could help prioritize cross-agency oceanographic campaigns, strain from mission and research-driven expeditions and private excursion those bits of information that are of new-discovery-quality and guarantee that it will be archived within government and shared with an increasingly excited group of American citizen explorers It is government’s role to set the nation’s priorities, create and maintain the information backbone, and carry out comprehensively over the long term a program to understand the opportunity and dangers in an ocean system in whose middle America sits. Only after it has demonstrated this commitment to leadership can it fully leverage investments from the private sector.

perm do both – partnerships solve bestAP and NOAA 13, Aquarium of the Pacific and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,” July 19th – 21st, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdfEach individual and each institution brings experience, expertise, and creativity to the table. Partnerships that bring together individuals and institutions that span multiple interfaces among different sectors enhance the potential for significant new advances in discovery, understanding, wisdom, and action. In a time of shrinking federal resources, if there is to be an effective national program of explo ration, it will be accomplished through partnerships. There was a strong consensus—near unanimity—that in 2020 and beyond, most ocean exploration expeditions and programs will be partnerships—public and private, national and international. NOAA has been assigned a leadership role in developing and sustaining a national program of ocean exploration under the Ocean Exploration Act of 2009 (Public Law iii-ii). The act mandated that NOAA undertake this responsibility in collaboration with other federal agencies. Ocean Exploration 2020 invitees felt that federal and academic programs should be more assertive in seeking partnerships with ocean industries. It was, however, acknowledged that the necessity of sharing data might pose a challenge for some industry partners as well as federal agencies with restricted missions, like the Navy’s Office of Naval Research. There was a strong feeling that the community of ocean explorers needs to be more inclusive and more nimble, two sometimes conflicting qualities. Nimbleness will require more non-governmental sources of support and a small, dedicated, dynamic decision-making group that represents the interests of the ocean exploration com munity and that commands their trust. A coherent, comprehensive national program of ocean exploration requires sustained core support at some predictable level from the federal government and dem onstrated coordination among the federal agencies involved in ocean exploration, in order to leverage involvement of business, industry, foundations, and NG Os. Timely and effective communication among partners is necessary to build and sus tain the expanded community of ocean explorers.

Government’s key to jumpstart tech developmentAP and NOAA 13, Aquarium of the Pacific and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,” July 19th – 21st, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdfBy 2020, private sector investments in exploration technology development, specifically for the dedicated national program of exploration, exceed the federal investment, but federal partners play a key role in testing and refining new technologies. Forum participants agreed that a top priority for a national ocean exploration program of distinction is the development of mechanisms to fund emerging and creatively disruptive technologies to enhance and expand exploration capabilities. In addition to significant federal government investment in ocean exploration technology over time—whether by the U.S. Navy NASA, NOAA, or other civil ian agencies involved in ocean exploration—many felt strongly that to shorten the time from development to unrestricted adoption, more of the required investment would come from the private sector. These emerging technologies will likely include the next generations of ships; remotely operated vehicles; autonomous underwater vehicles; telepresence capa bilities; and new sensors. Most participants felt that continuing to develop human occupied vehicles should be a much lower priority for a national program than focusing on autonomous vehicles, sensors, observatories, and communications systems. Participants also felt that federal partners in the national program of exploration should play a key role in testing and refining these technologies as well as working to adapt existing and proven technologies for exploration.

a/t: NOAA solvesNOAA failsNAP 3, “Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown,” pg 136-7, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10844&page=136The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Ocean Exploration, which was established in 2000, does not have the wherewithal to undertake the interdisciplinary, global ocean exploration program proposed in this report. Significantly higher allocations are needed to support a more comprehensive program. More money is needed to increase the program’s scope, its flexibility, and researchers access to equipment – all of which will serve to increase its chances for success. The budget for NOAAs Office of Ocean Exploration is indicative of current limitations on US ocean exploration. Initially funded at $4 million in 2001, during ensuing years the program has been funded for $13.2 million and $14.2 million annually. The budget for fiscal year 2004 is in the same range although at the time of publication Congressional support is uncertain. This initial effort has been worthwhile, and it serves as a basis for evaluating what can be accomplished. The effort has been partially proposal driven and partially driven by agency mission, without significant thematic direction or input from the scientific community. That aside, some regional workshopes have been held to engage more members of the scientific community in the office’s efforts. Fiscal limitations have constrained NOAAs ability to carry out a comprehensive exploration program. Critical elements, such as the following, have been compromised by a lack of money: Postcruise science is not funded. Not all discoveries are made during an actual offshore effort, and some discoveries could be missed if specialized onshore tests cannot be performed. Few significant discoveries have been announced or exploited Data management is not funded, so the oceanographic research community has little access to information Only limited technology development is funded. New sensors, for example, to investigate novel sites or measure unsampled properties of the ocean, are not being developed. Ship costs are usually leveraged with other planned programs. The resulting ad hoc efforts do not allow complete freedom to explore a particular site or to venture out of relatively well-studied areas to explore the entire world’s oceans. Project planning is often for the short term because of the nature of government budgeting and within-agency appropriations International cooperative efforts are not supported The scientific community does not see the program as a significant resource of funding for sustained exploration programs. The NOAA effort is not large enough to generate significant discoveries in the ocean sciences nor is it likely to advance the new technologies that could initiate commercial opportunities. Despite its small budget, however, the NOAA program has demonstrated that there is a substantial interest from the US ocean research community. The NOAA exploration program has received many proposals that it was unable to fund.

a/t: space tradeoff DAIndependent agency solves – either/or budget decisions are because of squo agency structuresDove and McClain 12, Al Dove is an Australian marine biologist currently serving as Director of Research and Conservation at the Georgia Aquarium Research Center in Atlanta, Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now,” October 16th, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/85% of Americans express concerns about stagnant research funding and 77% feel we are losing our edge in science. So how did we get here? Part of the answer lies in how ocean science and exploration fit into the US federal science funding scene. Ocean science is funded by numerous agencies, with few having ocean science and exploration as a clear directive. Contrast to this to how the US traditionally dealt with exploration of space. NASA was recognised early on as the vehicle by which the US would establish and maintain international space supremacy, but the oceans have always had to compete with other missions. We faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or situations: do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose what appeared to be most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied science because it was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was easier to justify politically the expenditures involved. In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we lacked an understanding of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science, society, and often to applied research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and exploration but greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate change research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment and economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our country’s capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change work relies upon? Just a few short decades ago, the U.S. was a pioneer of deep water exploration. We are the country that in 1960 funded and sent two men to the deepest part of the world’s ocean in the Trieste. Five years later, we developed, built, and pioneered a new class of submersible capable of reaching some of the most remote parts of the oceans to nimbly explore and conduct deep-water science. Our country’s continued commitment to the DSV Alvin is a bright spot in our history and has served as model for other countries’ submersible programs. The Alvin allowed us to be the first to discover hydrothermal vents and methane seeps, explore the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and countless other scientific firsts. Our rich history with space exploration is dotted with firsts and it revolutionized our views of the world and universe around us; so has our rich history of ocean exploration. But where NASA produced a steady stream of occupied space research vehicles, Alvin remains the only deep-capable research submersible in the service in the United States. The Ghost of Ocean Science Future that We Want to See We are at a time for renewed commitment to ocean exploration and science. As stated by the Joint Ocean Commission, “Ocean programs continue to be chronically underfunded, highlighting the need for a dedicated ocean investment fund.” Captain Don Walsh, one of three men to visit the deepest part of the ocean, recently stated it best: “What we need is an Ocean NASA.” We borrow and modify John F. Kennedy’s famous speech at Rice University on the decision to go to the moon: In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading ocean-faring nation…We set sail because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. There is much to be gained from creating NASA-style Ocean Science and Exploration Agency (OSEA). Every dollar we commit to science returns $2.21 in goods and services. Meeting the scientific, technological, logistical, and administrative demands of scientific exploration creates jobs and requires substantial personnel beyond just scientists and engineers. The materials purchased for this cause support even further employment. As with NASA, meeting these scientific and engineering challenges will disseminate ideas, knowledge, applications, and technology to rest of society. This knowledge gained from basic research will form the backbone for applied research and economic gain later. And much like NASA has, OSEA will inspire the next generation of scientist and engineers, instilling in the young a renewed appreciation for the oceans of which we are all stewards: our oceans. It will provide a positive focus for society in a time where hope is often lacking and faith in science is low. OSEA will be the positive message that renews interest in our oceans and their conservation. What Does an OSEA look like? At the core OSEA would need a mission dedicated to basic research and exploration of the >;90% of the world’s oceans that remain unexplored. High risk with the potential for high impact would be the norm. Pioneering knows no other way to achieve those truly novel and impactful gains. To achieve these goals, OSEA would need substantial infrastructure and fleet including international and regional class research vessels, a submersible, remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater vehicles. Funding would need to be secure on decadal cycles to insure both the longevity and permanence of this mission but allow for oversight to ensure OSEA was meeting its mission and financial responsibilities. An ocean exploration center would be staffed with a vibrant community of researchers, engineers, and administrators, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and visiting experts with a strong interacting and supportive community working toward uncovering the mysteries of the oceans. Research would be funded internally from a broad OSEA budget, not externally , freeing scientists and engineers to actually do science and engineering as opposed to the only current option, which is writing grants to other agencies with a less than 10% chance of funding.

a/t: kritiks – framework public engagement with ocean exploration’s keyLang 13, David, Cofounder of OpenROV, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,” July 19th – 21st, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf

The solutions to the challenging issues facing our oceans—global warming, acidification, over-fishing— require the right combination of strong science, informed policy, and skilled engineering. However, there is one challenge (indeed, the grandest ocean

challenge) that doesn’t fit that formula: public engagement. Solving the ocean challenges require an engaged and supportive public. A public that understands what is at stake, and can draw a clear connection between ocean health and the health of their families and communities. Unfortunately, the same tactics needed to address the pressing ocean issues also work to cognitively erase that public connection with the ocean. The immensity of the ocean and its corresponding challenges create a willful blindness among the public—it’s just too overwhelming to comprehend, so people stop trying. The most effective way to build an engaged and informed public is just the opposite. instead of highlighting the problems, we need now more than ever to use a positive approach to show what’s wonderftil about our oceans. We

need to strengthen the public connection through positive association. From a postive perspective, there’s no better tactic than ocean exploration . It taps into everything that’s awe-inspiring about the ocean: its vastness, its mystery its wonder. But it also taps into everything that’s awe-inspiring about our humanity: our curiosity, our ingenuity our wonder. Public engagement is the highest imperative—every other issue is derivative. People will only protect and pursue something in their field of awareness. We need a direct emotional connection. Ocean exploration gives us the power to tell that story.

Food add-onUS ocean exploration key food securityUSCOP 4, United States Commission on Ocean Policy, “Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,” http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/25_chapter25.pdfAbout 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored , much of it located in harsh environments such as the polar latitudes and the Southern Ocean. Experience teaches us, however, that these vast regions teem with undiscovered species and natural and cultural resources . On virtually every expedition , oceanographers make fascinating new discoveries . Hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, chemosynthetic communities in the Gulf of Mexico, numerous new species of fish and invertebrates, and important archeological sites are but a few of the important discoveries made in the past thirty years. Advances in deep-sea technologies have made it easier to locate shipwrecks and historical artifacts lost in the ocean depths, such as the stunning discovery of Lhe RMS Titanic in 1985. The continued exploration of marine archaeological sites will help us to better understand human history and our global cultural heritage. In addition, preliminary evi dence indicates that immense new energy sources exist in the deep sea. The amount of carbon bound in frozen gas hydrates on the seafloor is conservatively estimated to be twice the total amount of carbon existing in all the other known fossil fuels on Earth.6 Ocean exploration also offers an unprecedented opportunity to engage the general public in marine science and conservation. Exploration missions to the depths of the ocean provide images of ancient human artifacts, amazing creatures, and never-before- seen ecosystems. These images fire the imagination of people of all ages and can be used in both formal and informal educational settings. This kind of popular excitement and support can be an enormous asset in sustaining exploration projects over the long term. Given the importance of the ocean in human history and in regulating climate change, guaranteeing food security providing energy resources, and enabling worldwide commerce, it is astounding that we still know so little about it. This is due primarily to the lack of a long-term, large-scale national commitment to ocean exploration. The ocean and its depths need to be systematically explored to serve the interests of the nation and humankind. Growing Calls for a National Program Although our dependence on healthy marine ecosystems continues to grow, ocean exploration remains a relatively minor component of U.S. ocean science and is a missing link in the national strategy to better understand Earth’s environment . Comprehending the genetic diversity of ocean life, developing fisheries, discovering energy resources, investigating submerged cultural resources, and mapping the seafloor all require more extensive exploration. U.S. leadership in ocean exploration will increase what is known about all aspects of ocean life and resources and make it possible to reach management decisions based on more complete scientific information.

Extinction Lugar ‘4 – U.S. Senator (Richard, http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing

starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security . History tells us that states may go to war over access to resources , and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the prolif eration of weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion

people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means

eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution

to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears , people destroy timber resources and

even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves . The long-term environmental

consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe . Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare.

Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural

science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.

REM mining add-onREM mining is inevitable and will wreck ocean biodiversityGrant 13, Kevin Douglas, Senior Editor of Special Reports at GlobalPost, M.A. in Online Journalism from the University of Southern California's Annenberg School, where he was a Dean's Scholar and the founding Executive Editor of Annenberg's thriving 24/7 news organization Neon Tommy, “Deep-sea mining could make 'largest footprint of any single human activity on the planet',” December 19th, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/groundtruth/undersea-mining-boom-hawaii-pacificModern tech nologies like cell phones, laptops, wind turbines and hybrid vehicles all require rare minerals , often difficult and expensive to extract from the earth . As demand for these kinds of products surges globally and more accessible deposits of those minerals are depleted , Civil Beat reported Wednesday, countries around the world are flocking to Hawaii to explore a vast undersea area believed to contain massive mineral deposits worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The area is called the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, and organizations from countries including Japan, Great Britain, Russia, South Korea, China, France, Germany and the US are now using Honolulu as a departure point for exploration. Though the zone is just one of several in the sights of deep-sea mineral industry pioneers, researchers involved believe it holds great promise. Their expeditions are mapping parts of the zone about 500 miles southeast of Hawaii, which covers a total estimated area of 6 million total square miles. The treasured minerals include "nickel, copper, cobalt and rare earth elements with tongue-twisting names like praseodymium, ytterbium and neodymium," Civil Beat reports, believed to lie among the ocean bed in the form of "polymetallic nodules." As the Wall Street Journal reported last year, "a team of Japanese scientists said that they found an estimated 80 billion to 100 billion metric tons of rare-earth deposits in the Pacific Ocean, or nearly a thousand times more than current proven recoverable onshore rare-earth reserves." “This mining , when it occurs, is going to be just massive in scale . It probably will have the largest footprint of any single human activity on the planet ,” said Craig Smith, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii, which is helping to facilitate exploration. He believes the mining could begin as soon as 2018, though the underwater minerals industry remains in its infancy with specialized technology — like the business model for undersea mining — that is largely untested. Despite the significant economic and environmental risks associated with undersea mining, the sheer size of the anticipated deposits have attracted a range of companies ranging from giants like Lockheed Martin to smaller upstarts like Nautilus Minerals. In endorsing a Pacific Ocean exploration partnership between Lockheed the British government in March, Prime Minister David Cameron said, "The UK is leading the way in this exciting new industry which has the potential to create specialist and supply chain jobs across the country and is expected to be worth up to £40 billion [$65.5 billion] to the UK economy over the next 30 years." The environmental cost, like that of deep-sea drilling campaigns now being planned in the Arctic, is difficult to calculate because relatively little is known about the planet's deep sea ecosystem. “The deep sea is the most prevalent ecosystem on the planet, but people know very little about it because it’s so big and it’s expensive to explore,” said Jack Kittinger, a science advisor for Conservation International’s Hawaii Fish Trust program and fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Ocean Solutions." It could impact thousands of species , including deep sea fish, cucumbers, worms and crustaceans. These are systems that are characterized by high biodiversity .”

US ocean science investment is key to environmentally sustainable mining normsConathan 13, Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,” June 20th, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak . Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course space exportation does have benefits beyond the “cool factor” of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our lives—cell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a few—and research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations

that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities .

Ocean biodiversity collapse causes extinctionCraig ‘3 – Assc Prof Law Indiana. (34 McGeorge Law Rev 155, 2003 ln)Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, " ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycl ing of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable ." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity.  [*265]   Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much : if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.

There’s an invisible threshold – uncertainty means you default affYoung, PhD coastal marine ecology, 10 [Ruth, “Biodiversity: what it is and why it’s important”, February 9th, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/biodiversity/biodiversity-what-and-why/]

Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche . They interact with each other and the physical environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival . For example

plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and energy from the sun into useful things such as food, medicines and timber. Pollination carried out by insects such as bees enables the production of ⅓ of our food crops. Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential for many fishery species . To

make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of services offered by biodiversity, a team of researchers estimated their value – it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. “By protecting biodiversity we maintain ecosystem services” Certain species play a “keystone” role in maintaining

ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal of these species can result in the collapse of an ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century when sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters’ main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hance’s post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years, over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as

fisheries. One could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we don’t need to protect biodiversity but rather, we only need to protect the species and functional groups that fill the keystone roles . However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for most ecosystems we don’t know which species are the keystones! Ecosystems are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem .

Second, even if we did complete the enormous task of identify ing and protecting all keystone species, what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g. pollution or disease) led to the demise of these ‘keystone’ species? Would there be another species to save the day and take over this role ? Classifying some species as ‘keystone’ implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone species being considered ecologically worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes

we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The “over-fishing” was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem – the coral became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But, surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed ‘unimportant’ species – the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was previously thought to feed on invertebrates – small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore – a cow of the sea – grazing the algae in no time. So a fish previously thought to be ‘unimportant’ is actually a

keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases it’s easy to see who the keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant species are also capable of changing

niches and maintaining ecosystems. The more biodiverse an ecosystem is, the more likely these species will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts . Presently we’re only scratching the surface of understanding the full importance of biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise insurance policy for maintaining ecosystem services would be to conserve biodiversity . In doing so, we increase the chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of biodiversity – a

time to recognize that biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of biodiversity maintains this service.

Science diplomacy add-onStatus quo marine cooperation is ad hoc and temporary – science diplomacy can be revolutionary, but must be more concreteTjossem 5, Sara, Senior Lecturer in SIPA’s Master of Public Administration program in Environmental Science and Policy, and the program’s Associate Director of Curriculum, “PICES: Scientific Cooperation in the North Pacific,” http://aquaticcommons.org/169/1/akub05002.pdfTraders, explorers, cartographers, and scientists have shaped our understanding of oceans as vital to the development of coastal states’ security, commerce, and prestige. Beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, merchant sailing vessels started a systematic effort to exchange observations on the state of the seas on their trade routes. Not until the late nineteenth century, however, did marine science begin to reveal the ocean’s extraordinary complexity. Extensive seagoing expeditions like those of the HMS Challenger of the mid 1870s revealed ever-greater economic and scientific riches from coasts to depths.’ Although these expeditions required tremendous coordinating and marshalling of people and resources to carry out research at sea, the rewards of ocean exploration seemed well worth the costs. By the early twentieth century a growing number of scientists argued that a robust marine science was essential for the rational exploitation of the ocean and its resources. The ocean was both a source of valuable harvestable resources and a path to loftier goals of international exchange and cooperation. Ideally marine science could foster new understanding among nations and reduce world tensions through its international reach. Marine systems challenge scientific study with their vastness, and their complex processes that operate over equally extensive temporal dimensions. Exploring their processes is extremely expensive in ship time and researcher effort, encouraging careful planning for greatest cost-effectiveness. Marine expeditions require tightly coordinated teams of researchers working in cramped quarters on expensive research vessels in unpredictable, often poor, weather conditions. Because controlled experiments are difficult and some times impractical or impossible, marine scientists must at times interpret their observations by relying on natural experiments. For example, because winds cannot be turned on or off at will, studying the nature of coastal current upwelling requires a natural experiment comparing different coasts around the world. Such an undertaking requires cooperative efforts drawing on scores of field observations, which in turn depend on measurements of comparable quality and technique. Methodology and scientific approaches, however, can differ among fields, institutions, and nations. Producing a plausible explanation for large oceanic processes requires synthesis across these realms. Marine science is particularly dependent on effective cooperation among scientists, laboratories, disciplines, institutions, and governments. Although marine scientists have a long tradition of collaboration, it is generally through informal, temporary arrangements for particular projects. These ad hoc ventures by their nature lack continuity as researchers gather together for specific projects and disperse at their end. Scientists working on international projects also face scientific, political, and cultural challenges. Although science has been called a universal language, transcending the limitations of different languages and uniting scientists in a common cause, collaborative research reveals significant variety in scientific goals, styles, and techniques.2 One account of oceanography during the Cold War era has questioned whether, given disparate styles of scientific inquiry and the desire for national prestige, there could ever be a truly international, univer sal scientific community. It suggests the rhetoric of universalism and inter nationalism has been an ideal pursued only from a position of strength.3

A US agency gets modeled internationally – that solves ocean science diplomacyKearny 3, William Kearney, Director of Media Relations Heather McDonald, Media Relations Assistant Office of News and Public Information, “Major Ocean Exploration Effort Would Reveal Secrets of the Deep,” November 4th, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10844WASHINGTON -- A new large-scale, multidisciplinary ocean exploration program would increase the pace of discovery of new species, ecosystems, energy sources, seafloor features, pharmaceutical products, and artifacts, as well as improve understanding of the role oceans play in climate change, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies' National Research Council. Such a program should be run by a nonfederal organization and should encourage international participation, added the committee that wrote the report. Congress, interested in the possibility of an international ocean exploration program, asked the Research Council to examine the feasibility of such an effort. The committee concluded, however, that given the limited resources in many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. program that would include foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries . Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then collaborate on research and pool their resources under international agreements. " The United States should lead by example ," said

committee chair John Orcutt, professor of geophysics and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Vast portions of the ocean remain unexplored. In fact, while a dozen men have walked on the moon, just two have traveled to the farthest reaches of the ocean, and only for about 30 minutes each time, the report notes. "The bottom of the ocean is the Earth's least explored frontier, and currently available submersibles -- whether manned, remotely operated, or autonomous -- cannot reach the deepest parts of the sea," said committee vice chair Shirley A. Pomponi, vice president and director of research at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Fla. Nonetheless, recent discoveries of previously unknown species and deep-sea biological and chemical processes have heightened interest in ocean exploration. For example, researchers working off the coast of California revealed how some organisms consume methane seeping through the sea floor, converting it to energy for themselves and leaving hydrogen and carbon dioxide as byproducts. The hydrogen could perhaps someday be harnessed for fuel cells, leaving the carbon dioxide – which contributes to global warming in the atmosphere – in the sea. Likewise, a recent one-month expedition off Australia and New Zealand that explored deep-sea volcanic mountains and abyssal plains collected 100 previously unidentified fish species and up to 300 new species of invertebrates. Most current U.S. funding for ocean research, however, goes to projects that plan to revisit earlier sites or for improving understanding of known processes, rather than to support truly exploratory oceanography, the report says. And because the funding bureaucracy is discipline-based, grants are usually allocated to chemists, biologists, or physical scientists, rather than to teams of researchers representing a variety of scientific fields. A coordinated, international ocean exploration effort is not unprecedented, however; in fact, the International Decade of Ocean Exploration in the 1970s was considered a great success.

Prevents global conflictAgre and Pickering 10¸Peter, Nobel Laureate, physician and director of the Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Thomas, served as undersecretary of state from 1997-2000 and chairs the advisory council of the Civilian Research and Development Foundation [“Science diplomacy aids conflict resolution,” Feb 20th, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflict-reduction/]

The talks were emblematic of a promising global trend that features researchers, diplomats and others collaborating on science and, in the process, building closer ties between nations. Even countries with tense government-to-government relations share common challenges in infectious diseases, earthquake engineering, energy production and environmental protection. The White House and Congress have made welcome moves to embrac e the potential of science diplomacy, but in the months and years ahead, they will need to exert still more leadership and make sure the effort has the resources needed to succeed. Science diplomacy is hardly a new idea. A 1979 agreement between the United States and China paved the way for bilateral scientific cooperation that has generated vast benefits for both nations, including reduced tensions and billions of dollars in economic activity. U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a Cold War thaw through scientific exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas.

Now, science diplomacy may help America open a door toward improved relations with Pyongyang , too. Last December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their North Korean counterparts. High-level science delegations from the United States in recent months

also have visited Syria, Cuba and Rwanda, not to mention Asian and European nations. America’s scientific and technological accomplishments are admired worldwide, suggesting a valuable way to promote dialogue. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that a deeply unfavorable view of the U.S. in many Muslim nations, but a profoundly favorable view of U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries shows that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. Within the scientific community, journals

routinely publish articles cowritten by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for the professional exchange of ideas. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all essential. The North Korea visit, organized by the U.S.-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Science Engagement Consortium, exemplifies the vast potential of science for diplomacy. The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science engagement. In June, in Cairo, he promised a range of joint science and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for foreign doctors, scientists and engineers. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical contributions to human welfare and to our economy, and they often become informal goodwill

ambassadors for America overseas. Science is a wide-ranging effort that naturally crosses borders, and so scientist-to- scientist collaboration can promote goodwill at the grass roots. San Diego boasts a remarkable initiative at High Tech High charter school. Twice in recent years, biology teacher Jay Vavra has led student teams to Africa to study the illegal trade in meat from wild and endangered animals. Working with game wardens and tribal

leaders, they use sophisticated DNA bar coding techniques to analyze the meat and track down poachers. Such efforts advance science while supporting peace and the health of the planet. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy can be crucial to finding solutions both to global problems

and to global conflict .