Oceans 1AC

1AC – Oceans

1AC – Biodiversity Marine biodiversity is threatened with extinction in the squo because current MPA policy fails – collapse cascades resulting in massive human suffering and extinction – MPAs solve by limiting overfishing that controls the biggest internal link to biodiversityKubiak 19 [(Lauren Kubiak, Lauren Kubiak works on the management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems of the high seas, the two-thirds of ocean that lies outside of national jurisdiction. She also works to minimize the environmental impacts of offshore energy development, pulling from her previous experience as an energy policy analyst in NRDC’s Energy & Transportation program. Kubiak earned her bachelor’s and master’s of science degrees in earth systems from Stanford University. She is based in New York.) "Marine Biodiversity in Dangerous Decline, Finds New Report," NRDC, (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lauren-kubiak/marine-biodiversity-dangerous-decline-finds-new-report), 5-6-2019] TDI

Over one-third of marine mammals and nearly one-third of sharks, shark relatives, and reef-forming corals are threatened with extinction , according to a new report released today on the state of global biodiversity.

The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, written by an intergovernmental body of biological and ecological experts representing 50 countries, lays out the dire situation for species richness across the globe . The most comprehensive assessment on the state of nature since 2005, the report finds that between half a million and one million species are threatened with extinction globally , and extinction rates have accelerated sharply in the past century.

Humans rely on biodiversity for survival, but, unsurprisingly, human activities are the primary cause of these huge declines, particularly in the ocean where fishing is driving the greatest biodiversity loss . While the statistics outlined are alarming, there is good news. If we act quickly to eliminate unsustainable fishing practices, protect a greater portion of the ocean (at least 30 percent, say many scientists), and adopt a new treaty to protect the high seas—the area of ocean outside national jurisdiction that covers nearly half the planet—we can stem the loss of marine biodiversity.

Fishing, land use change are the most significant threats to marine biodiversity

In the ocean, fishing has had the single greatest impact on biodiversity over the past 50 years. To sustain global fish catches, fishing fleets have had to venture out further and deeper, including into areas beyond national jurisdiction which are currently managed by a patchwork of regional and sectoral organizations that do not adequately conserve

biodiversity. Overall one-third of fish stocks are overfished and another 60 percent are fished at their maximum sustainable levels.

Coastal land and sea use change has had the second largest impact on marine biodiversity. Development along coastlines as well as offshore aquaculture, bottom trawling, and oil and gas extraction have altered habitats, and toxic pollutants in agricultural and industrial runoff poison coastal fish harvests. Carbon dioxide emissions are making the ocean more acidic, making it harder for shellfish, corals, and types of plankton to survive. Because ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns are global , the impacts from ocean acidification are felt worldwide .

A third growing driver of marine biodiversity decline is climate change, which is expected to decrease ocean net primary production between 3 and 10 percent and fish biomass by 3 to 25 percent by the end of the century. As the oceans—which have absorbed 93 percent of excess heat from climate change since the 1970s—get warmer, fish populations are projected to migrate poleward. Despite increasing migration to cold waters, rapid sea ice loss and acidification are likely to prevent biodiversity increases in polar waters. In the tropics, more local species are likely to go extinct, and coral reefs are projected to undergo more extreme warming events with less recovery time in between, causing large bleaching episodes with high levels of mortality.

Coral reefs are threatened with extinction unless we take action.

The ocean needs stronger protections to overcome mounting pressures

Pressures on marine biodiversity are accumulating rapidly but we can reduce these threats by deploying science-based policies that improve marine ecosystem health. We need to stop overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks through catch limits and ecosystem-based fisheries management, establish well-managed and highly or fully protected marine protected areas (MPAs), protect a greater portion of the ocean and land (at least 30 percent by 2030), and mitigate climate change.

MPAs , ocean parks where human activity is limited so that fish and other species can thrive , are one of the most effective ways to protect biod iversity . The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument and California’s MPA network are two examples of biodiverse areas where fishing and other extractive activities are limited to maintain ecosystem health and increase climate resilience.

Despite the robust evidence that MPAs are effective tools for biodiversity conservation, less than 7 percent of the ocean is currently protected. This is a far cry from the at least 30 percent that scientists say is needed to ensure a healthy ocean. When countries party to the Convention on Biological Diversity meet in China in 2020 they will have the opportunity to set a new target to set aside at least 30 percent of the ocean and lands in

protected areas by 2030. Activities outside of the protected 30 percent must also be managed in a way that minimizes harmful impacts.

Establishing MPAs covering 30 percent of the ocean won’t be possible without finalization of a new treaty currently under negotiation at the United Nations addressing biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Because the high seas are managed by a patchwork of outdated policies, there is no globally recognized mechanism to establish fully protected areas, a gap that the new agreement aims to fill. To enable strong protections covering at least 30 percent of the ocean, governments at the UN should finalize the new treaty in 2020 and immediately after begin establishing high seas MPAs.

We need action now

We rely on the ocean for the oxygen we breathe , the food we eat , and the moderate climate we live in. We need to implement strong protections in over 30 percent of it and sustainable fishing practices in all of it to prevent more drastic biodiversity loss. Billions of people are counting on it .

Scenario 1: Marine BiodiversityCorals and other deep sea ecosystems are vastly damaged by the effects of offshore drilling and mining Watson 18 [(Sara Kiley, - student of environmental studies and journalism at UNC. Writes about the environment, animals, health, food, technology and education) “Future offshore drilling could wreak havoc on deep sea ecosystems” Popular Science, April 26th 2018 ] TDI

In addition to affecting marine mammals, oil drilling can have multiple impacts, spill or no spill, on the coral reefs at the ocean bottom.

Danielle DeLeo, a postdoctoral researcher at Florida International University, says that these deep water coral communities act as engineers that set up seafloor ecosystems and provide shelter for other organisms. Crustaceans, fish, and other animals depend on these ecosystems. When coral feels the sting of spills or dispersants, dependent animals suffer as well.

Alexis Weinnig, a marine ecology doctoral student at Temple University, works with deep water coral communities

and studies the impacts of stressors like levels of pH, temperature, and oil-dispersant mixtures, which break up oil into miniscule droplets to clean up a spill, on the health of the corals.

She says that when drilling first starts, tiny metal particles, known as drill cuttings, break off and rise to the top of the water. If enough build up, that alone can suffocate a reef. If the reef

happens to contain a significant amount of coral larvae, the drill cuttings could lead to lower populations in the future, disrupting the entire structure of a deep sea ecosystem.

Weinnig worked directly in the Gulf of Mexico where the Deepwater Horizon spill took place. She noticed an oily slick

that formed on the deep water floor after the disaster, and sea coral in the area had that oily material on them for a long period of time. The reefs are recovering, but at a very slow rate.

“The ocean is essentially just one big system,” she says, “If you think about it on the grand scale, if you’re impacting the deep sea, in the long term or broad term, you’re impacting that whole ocean system.”

Dispersants, which help oil spills go away, aren’t a perfect solution either, says Weinning, and can be more toxic to the organisms than the oil themselves.

Pollution decimates key fish species – destroys entire communities and severe rights violations.Bender ’17 [Michelle Bender (Ocean Rights Manager, Earth Law Center Executive Committee, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature), “THE EARTH LAW FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ADOPTING A HOLISTIC, SYSTEMS, AND RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO OCEAN GOVERNANCE” Earth Law Center, 2017] TDI

Finally, plastic pollution and marine debris is now pervasive in ocean ecosystems. As much as eight million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year,266 and estimates show that the ocean may already contain upwards of 150 million tons of plastic.267 Plastic ingestion causes physiological stress , liver cancer , and endocrine dysfunction in fish species.268 Forty-five percent of species on the IUCN Red List APPENDIX F Human Rights and Indigenous Rights Depend on Nature’s Rights APPENDIX F 54 were reported to have ingested or become entangled in marine debris,269 and as many as 100,000 marine mammals die every year in the North Pacific due to entanglement in plastic nets and fishing line.270 Plastic ingestion by seabirds, half of which are in decline worldwide, is predicted to reach 99 percent of all seabird species by 2050.271 By 2025, there could be one ton of plastic for every three tons of fish in the ocean. 272 Impacts of the current worldview and management on human rights The rapid decline in fish populations threatens a critical food source for the 20 percent of the population that relies on fish as its primary source of protein . The impact of declining fish populations also goes beyond nutrition. The FAO has estimated that 120 million people rely on fish for all or part of their livelihoods,273 and other estimates are even higher.274 For example, when the Canadian government closed the groundfish fishery in Newfoundland in 1992, 275 40,000 jobs were lost and entire communities virtually disappeared.276 Sustainable relationships with fish populations could have avoided this result. An additional human rights concern arises from a growing number of fishing operations that have been closely associated with slavery , human trafficking , drug smuggling , and other harmful activities. 277 In Thailand, thousands of migrants have been kidnapped and forced to work on fishing boats.278 Stories from freed slaves relate the horror of cages, beatings, lack of food and sleep, and the fear of being thrown overboard. Globally, an estimated 10 to 15 percent of fishermen “work under conditions

that make them virtual modern day slaves .” 279 The health of marine ecosystems is also strongly correlated to the well-being of indigenous populations that rely upon the ocean for spiritual traditions and subsistence. For example, in Australia, many marine species once gathered by Aboriginals are either depleted or licensed for take, and Aboriginals have been largely excluded from the fishery management process.280 Additionally, over 70 indigenous groups rely on the collapsing Great Barrier Reef for their culture and livelihoods.281 Similarly, in the United States, Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest struggle to maintain their traditional diet of and cultural relationship with salmon, with five salmon populations listed as endangered and 23 as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.282 Finally, climate change impacts to the oceans affect human populations worldwide. Sea level rise could displace up to 760 million people, or about 10 percent of the world’s population, in this century.283 It could also completely wipe out island nations such as Kiribati by 2100.284 In the United States, the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter, sea level rise could displace 13 million people.285 Increased ocean temperatures are linked to an increase in the intensity, frequency, duration of North Atlantic hurricanes and other storms, which destroy homes and result in significant loss of life.286

Pollution destroys biodiversity.STAP ’12 [Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions,” 2012, GEF CBD Technical Series No. 67 ISBN 92-9225-444-8] TDI

IMPACTS ON MARINE BIODIVERSITY This report reviewed and synthesized literature in order to describe the impact of marine debris on biodiversity. The review focused on the following impact categories: entanglement and ingestion (including microplastics), dispersal via rafting (potential to facilitate transport of invasive species), provision of new habitat (potential to provide new habitats), and ecosystem level effects. Impacts of marine debris were reported for 663 species. Over half of these reports documented entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris, representing a 40 % increase since the last review in 1997, which reported 247 species (Laist, 1997). Entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris can be fatal but can also have a range of sublethal consequences, compromising the ability to capture and digest food, sense hunger, escape from predators, and reproduce as well as decreasing body condition and compromising locomotion, including migration. Ingestion, particularly of microplastics, is also of concern as it could provide a pathway for transport of harmful chemicals. Reports revealed that all known species of sea turtles , about half of all species of marine mammals, and one-fifth of all species of sea birds were affected by entanglement or ingestion of marine debris. The frequency of impacts varied according to the type of debris; over 80 % of the impacts were associated with plastic debris while paper, glass and metal accounted for less than 2 %: � Plastic—Rope and netting (24 %) �

Plastic—Fragments (20 %) � Plastic—Packaging (17 %) � Plastic—Other fishing debris (16 %) � Plastic—Microplastics (11 %) � Paper (0.64 %) � Glass (0.39 %) � Metal (0.39 %) The species for which incidence of entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris was greatest were: � Callorhinus ursinus (Northern fur seal) � Zalophus californianus (California sea lion) � Fulmarus glacialis (Northern fulmar) � Chelonia mydas (Green Turtle), � Eubalaena glacialis (North Atlantic Right Whale) � Caretta caretta (Loggerhead Turtle) About 15 % of the species affected through entanglement and ingestion are on the IUCN Red List. Of particular concern are the critically endangered Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi, endangered loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, and vulnerable northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus and white chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis. Population level effects are evident in some species such as the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis (van Franeker et al., 2011), and the commercially important lobster Nephrops norvegicus (Murray & Cowie, 2011).

Marine biod loss causes extinction.FHE 13 – Future Human Evolution Team, Includes: Bradley LaChance, MBA; USA – Founder and Executive Editor, Dr. Stanley T. Crawford; an educator, author, poet, and military veteran. His education includes a Doctorate in Educational Administration, Master of Arts in Management, a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology, and an Associate of Applied Science in Avionics Systems Technology, Bijay Dhungel, MS Molecular Biology; Leiden, Netherlands – Author, Norell Hadzimichalis, PhD; USA – Author and more (“Human Extinction and Biodiversity Loss” http://futurehumanevolution.com/humans-and-biodiversity-loss) TDI

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a United Nations-backed panel of 1360 experts from about 95 countries, published a 2005 report entitled Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends that assessed the changing conditions of Earth’s ecosystems and the services they provide.3 Of the many ecosystem services identified by the group, they selected eleven services that they considered “of vital importance almost everywhere in the world and represent, in the opinion of the Working Group, the main services that are most important for human well-being and are most affected by changes in ecosystem conditions.” The following are the services they identified: Fresh water Food Timber , fuel , and fiber New biodiversity products and industries Biological regulation Nutrient cycling Climate and air quality Ecosystem regulation of infectious diseases Waste processing and detoxification Regulation of floods and fires Cultural and amenity services According to the MA, “Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.”4 The group also found that about 15 out 24 (roughly 60%) of the ecosystem services it examined were being “degraded or

used unsustainably.” These unfortunate ecosystem services include the purification of air and water; the regulation of regional and local climates, natural hazards, and pests; fresh water; and capture fisheries. 3 To illustrate the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystems, and society, consider that of the estimated 9 million species of plants, animals, fungi and protists that make Earth their home, only 12 species of plants make up 80% of the world’s total food needs and only 15 species of mammals and birds are used in 90% of domestic livestock production worldwide.5,6,7 The numbers may indicate that loss of biodiversity is not vital to human survival, but when we consider the ecosystem in which these plants and animals live, we find that these few species depend on thousands of other species for their survival. Plants rely on many types of insects and birds for pollination. In fact, in the European Union, of the 264 crops grown in its member countries, 80% depend on insects as pollinators. Insects such as ladybugs, dragonflies, and wasps and small animals such as moles, bats, and frogs all serve as natural pest control agents for many crops.8 Many animals raised as livestock depend on non-food plants such as hay and other species of grass for fodder. All these plants and animals host a variety of bacteria and fungi that maintain symbiotic relationships with their hosts. Furthermore, various non-food plant species make up the forest ecosystem that is responsible for trapping and cycling water, providing fertile soils, purifying the air, sequestering carbon, and regulating natural hazards such as fires and floods. The animals that thrive in it have unique predator-prey relationships that prevent the dominance and outbreak of any one species. There is also a vast marine and freshwater ecosystem that covers much more of the Earth. So not only does biodiversity serve its own ecosystem, this ecosystem is also a resource upon which every system and every life on Earth draws upon. Diaz et al (2005) presented two important effects of biodiversity on the global climate and human life.9 First, the diversity of species in marine ecosystems is largely responsible for biogeochemical cycling (i.e. carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycling by benthic organisms) and carbon sequestration (marine photosynthesis by phytoplankton). It is important to note that benthic organisms and phytoplankton also have an important role in the food web that maintains marine biodiversity. Second, a diverse number of marine microorganisms functions in detoxification processes such as filtering water, reducing the effects of eutrophication, and degrading toxic hydrocarbons. By creating a clean marine environment, the plants and animals are able to thrive and humans are able to harvest them for food and other uses. The major reason for the loss of biodiversity is habitat destruction. Rockstrom et al (2009) identified two causes for habitat loss: land use change due to man-made and natural causes and climate change.1 Man-made changes in land use have the most significant effect and primarily involve the conversion of natural ecosystems for agriculture and urban uses. Other causes of change include disturbances from wildfires and the introduction of new and invasive species into land and water ecosystems.8 The speed at which the global climate changes is expected to become an increasingly

important driver of biodiversity loss as, for instance, polar habitats diminish and the increase in sea temperatures threaten the existence of marine ecosystems. In fact, stresses put on other areas (e.g. agriculture and energy use) may eventually become stressors to biodiversity and ecosystem services, thus further worsening the problem.8 Biodiversity clearly plays a much more important role to humans than just the number of species. Changes or losses in biodiversity have direct and indirect societal consequences that if not addressed will impact the future survival of humanity. Cardinale et al are calling for efforts to conserve biodiversity on an international scale through policies that would prevent further loss of species and perhaps restore the degraded ecosystems that host them.2 By doing so, we would not only be helping biodiversity, we would also be ensuring that ecosystem services that derive from biodiversity can continue to provide vital resources that are necessary for human survival.

Scenario 2: OverfishingComprehensive empirics prove, overfishing that threatens extinction to thousands of species is rapidly increasing in the squo Environmental Defense Fund 19 [Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading international nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships., 5-7-2019, "New UN Report on Species Extinction Highlights Need for Fishing Reform," https://www.edf.org/media/new-un-report-species-extinction-highlights-need-fishing-reform, accessed 7-8-2019] TDI

Fishing

A report from the United Nations on dramatic acceleration of species extinction threatening human well-being highlights the need to put fisheries reforms in place that will allow for sustainable seafood production and resilient ecosystems.

The new report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystems Services ( IPBES ) raises the threat of extinction for one million species

around the world and is believed to be the most comprehensive assessment of its kind ever assembled. It includes alarming analysis on the health of global marine ecosystems, including that a third of fisheries are presently overfished and that more than 33 percent of marine mammal species are threatened with extinction.

The following is a statement from Dr. Douglas Rader , Chief Ocean Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund:

“This report should serve as a warning siren to all those responsible for oceans management. The findings are alarming and the threats are real. We know that if nothing changes, by 2030 more than 80 percent of global fisheries will be in serious trouble. Global climate change is only accelerating the severity of the problem, including a projected decline in potential harvest for nearly half of the world’s fish stocks.

The plan bans overfishing Environment Foundation 18 [Environment Foundation, 2-8-2018, "Marine Protected Areas • Environment Guide," OECD, http://www.environmentguide.org.nz/issues/marine/marine-protected-areas/, accessed 7-8-2019] TDI

(MPA Policy) prepared jointly by the Department of Conservation and the former Ministry of Fisheries in 2005, has defined a marine protected area as being:

“An area of the marine environment especially dedicated to, or achieving, through adequate protection, the maintenance and/or recovery of biological diversity at the habitat and ecosystem level in a healthy functioning state.”

Government has adopted the objective of establishing a network of marine protected areas to protect the full range or marine habitats and ecosystems representative of New Zealand’s indigenous marine biodiversity. In 2000 the government released the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy in order to fulfil, in part, the country’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. As an action to achieve the objective of protecting marine habitats and ecosystems, the Biodiversity Strategy identifies:

“Achieve a target of protecting 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine environment by 2010 in view of establishing a network of representative protected marine areas.”

Marine protected areas can be designed to protect complete habitats and ecosystems within an area, or can be more specifically tailored to protect specific

habitats such as seamounts. Spatial areas can also be used to protect specific species such as marine mammals or seabirds, although such areas are not included within the definition of marine protected areas set out in the Government’s MPA Policy.

Marine protected areas may be fully protected, where all potentially harmful activities are excluded, such as fishing, mining, aquaculture and dredging. These are classified as ‘Type 1’ under the MPA Policy. Alternatively, the areas may be subject to varying degrees of regulation, such as those excluding activities like dredging and trawling which might impact on sensitive seabed habitats. There are classified as ‘Type 2’. Where there

is only partial protection in place, certain minimum requirements must be met, for the area to be considered a marine protected area under the MPA Policy.

Peak fishing is coming – overfishing exacerbates EVERY global conflict – Japan-China war, U.S.-China War, U.S.-Russia War, SCS escalation, ECS escalation, and drug cartel explosion in Central AmericaHiggins-Bloom 18 [(Kate, a commander in the U.S. Coast Guard) “Fish Wars Are Coming.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 12 Sept. 2018, foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/12/food-fight-illegal-fishing-conflict/.] TDI

Humans have always depended on the sea. For as long as there have been fishermen, there have been conflicts over fish. And though it may seem anachronistic, the odds that a squabble over fishing rights could turn into a major armed conflict are rising. The return of great-power competition has actually increased the likelihood of a war over fish. The past 17 years of the fight against terrorism, and Washington’s renewed focus on developing high-end capabilities to prepare for great-power conflict, have led to a lack of preparation for a low-end, seemingly mundane but increasingly likely source of conflict in the world: food. As incomes rise around the world, so too does the demand for food—especially protein. The United Nations currently estimates that between mid-2017 and 2050, the number of humans on Earth will rise by 29 percent, from 7.6 billion to 9.8 billion. Most of that population growth will occur in Asia, Africa, and Latin America—areas where millions of people have recently risen from deep poverty to the middle class. Part of a middle-class lifestyle is a middle-class diet, which includes far more protein than poor people consume. As a result of that shift, the global demand for protein will outpace population growth, increasing between 32 and 78 percent, according to some estimates. Meeting that demand could require an additional 62 to 159 million metric tons of protein per year. To maintain political support at home, leaders must ensure access to the high-quality food that is part of a middle-class lifestyle. The supply of both wild and farmed fish will not keep up. The current annual global catch of seafood is 94 million metric tons. And all around the world, the wild populations of both migratory fish, such as tuna, and less mobile species, such as flounder, are being overfished. Scarcity has already forced Chinese fishing fleets further and further afield in search of their catch. Serious international efforts to manage the world’s wild fisheries are underway, but this work is stymied by widespread illegal, unreported, and unregulated (or IUU) fishing. Today, such harvests comprise somewhere from 20 to 50 percent of the global catch and inflict economic, social, and environmental damage on some of the world’s most vulnerable populations as fisheries collapse from overfishing and poor and rural fishing communities wrestle with the subsequent loss of income and, eventually, their social fabric. The classic example of this is fishermen in Central America turning to drug cartels for employment or poaching

from closed fisheries, feeding the cycle of violence and environmental damage. The political leaders of rising powers will feel enormous pressure to secure the resources their citizens demand—even if it means violating international norms and rules. This pressure could sow the seeds of potential conflict in two distinct ways. The first is that some states will overplay their hand when using fishing fleets and fisheries enforcement to exert influence in contested waters. The second is that illegal fishing, driven by exploding domestic demand and collapsing supply, will be met with increasingly aggressive enforcement by America or its allies—which could quickly escalate and spill over into actual conflict. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, commonly referred to as UNCLOS, is the foundational document for all maritime territorial claims; more than 150 countries, but not the United States, have already ratified the treaty. According to UNCLOS, a state can exclusively claim any resource, including fish, within 200 nautical miles of the base lines of the habitable landmasses it controls. Such areas are called exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Each state is responsible for managing its own fisheries within its EEZ. But beyond these exclusive zones, regulation of fishing and activity on the high seas is managed by more than 20 international and regional bodies, with widely varied mandates and resources. Enforcement is carried out by a patchwork of agencies and coalitions around the world, ad hoc partnerships, and bilateral agreements among nations. If that arrangement sounds ripe for dispute, it is. There are dozens of contested maritime claims around the world, including one between Canada and the United States over two small islands off the coast of New Brunswick. Currently, the most consequential of these contested waters are the South and East China seas, where China has made outsized claims—accompanied by naval patrols and an island-building campaign. Beijing hopes to legitimate its territorial claims by establishing and expanding its physical presence in these areas. Fishing vessels represent an ideal way to create that presence—without provoking a military response—since they are notionally nongovernmental and thus give their country of origin some plausible deniability. They are also cheap compared with military vessels and are more mobile and scalable than fixed structures such as oil platforms (let alone man-made islands). For years, China has subsidized and provided armed escorts for forays by its fishing fleet into its neighbors’ EEZs and assertively enforced Chinese law on non-Chinese fishermen operating in contested waters. Since the 1990s, China has unilaterally declared large swaths of the South China Sea closed to fishermen for months at a time. This closure is enforced by armed China Coast Guard vessels, which have been involved in a series of violent confrontations with foreign fishermen. This heavy-handed approach would be relatively unremarkable if the closed area was actually recognized Chinese territory. In this case, however, China is acting in international water or in the EEZs of other countries. The situation is roughly analogous to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service using deadly force to stop Canadian deer hunters

from shooting a doe out of season in Vancouver. China Coast Guard and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy vessels also appear to have stepped up escorts of Chinese-flagged fishing fleets as they venture into fishing grounds, particularly those around a set of contested islands in the East China Sea known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China. The Japan Coast Guard has responded by increasing its own presence in the area. Should a China Coast Guard or PLA Navy vessel fire on a Japan Coast Guard ship, supposedly in defense of a Chinese fishing fleet, the Japanese would likely retaliate, and both sides could easily escalate. There are other ways that fish can trigger war. Crackdowns on illegal and unregulated fishing already routinely threaten to spiral into violence. China currently consumes a third of the global fish catch. Officials there have made it clear that they believe that meeting the expectations of their increasingly affluent population is key to preserving political stability—and thus is a core national security interest. But despite participating in the international bodies dedicated to improving fisheries regulation and maritime governance, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace estimates that China has the world’s largest distant-water fishing fleet, with more than 2,500 vessels, and has been accused of industrial-scale IUU fishing in waters as far away as those off the coast of Senegal and Argentina, where China cannot even pretend to have territorial claims. Cases that involve sincerely held fishing rights also risk triggering violent conflicts. Consider a hypothetical—but plausible—example in which Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro trades his country’s fishing rights to China, as other impoverished countries have done, to cover part of Venezuela’s $60 billion in outstanding debts. China would then have legal claim to Venezuelan waters, some of which could be contested given Venezuela’s history of border disputes with Guyana and Colombia. If Beijing continues to expand the practice of escorting its fishing fleet with armed China Coast Guard vessels, the chances for a violent exchange would continue to rise—as would the risk of the United States becoming involved. Future resource scarcity could also trigger a fish-related conflict. If global fish stocks collapse around 2050, as current trends suggest they will, national governments are going to feel intense pressure to ensure a regular food supply for their populations. This pressure could lead more powerful countries to try to grab the resources of smaller or vulnerable neighbors. Russia and the United States might also be tempted to establish claims against one another in the waters that separate Alaska and Siberia. The U.S. Coast Guard has conducted patrols in the Bering Sea since 1867, the year of the Alaska Purchase. (In 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze signed an agreement to establish a maritime boundary line between the USSR and the United States. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement, but neither the leaders of the collapsing Soviet Union nor their Russian successors followed suit.) As pressure on fisheries increases, Russian

leaders may decide that it is time to challenge the de facto border outright. The opening of the Arctic, combined with Russia’s significantly larger Arctic-capable fleet and infrastructure, would enable Moscow to mount a credible challenge to U.S. control of one of its richest fisheries.

War with China escalates and draws in Russia—guarantees nuclear use and extinction.ASI 16 [(Arret Sur Info, newsite founded by independent journalist Silvia Cattori, Swiss journalist specializing in covering Southeast Asian foreign policy) “Any War With China Will Be a Nuclear War,” Arret sur Info, 30 Aug. 2016] TDI

The US intelligence guru David Gompert came to Australia warning “a war between the US and China would be long, destructive and could erupt if regional disputes already underway overheat.” He said both sides “have ample forces, technology, industrial might, and personnel to fight across vast expanses of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. »

“Mr Gompert said the US should make sensible preparations to wage a ‘long and fierce’ war with China but argued it must also develop plans to limit the scope, intensity and duration of such a conflict. He said if such a war broke out today, China’s losses would greatly exceed that of the US.”(2)

IT’S A WAR WITH RUSSIA/CHINA, NOT JUST CHINA

Mr Gompert insists the US should “develop plans to limit the scope, intensity and duration of such a conflict.” But can the US limit the intensity and duration of such a war? Does he realize there is a growing Russian-Chinese alliance? The Chinese are helping the Russians in Syria and it is quite implausible that, during a US war with China, Russia would just sit on its hands. Consider this discussion of what could be going on between Russia and China away from the eyes of Western journalists:

“There are certain to be scores of secret agreements between the Chinese and the Russians we know nothing about: to share intelligence (including for example signals intelligence and data from satellites) and to coordinate foreign policy and for defence cooperation including technology sharing. We know for example that the Russians and the Chinese have representatives at each others’ command headquarters and that recently they carried out in Moscow a joint command exercise involving joint operation of their respective anti-ballistic missile defences, something the US would never do at such a level with any of its allies.”(3)

Furthermore who can imagine all sides will sit on their nuclear weapons for weeks or months of a prolonged and intense conventional conflict? If the war between the US and China started going badly for one side or the other, how long would they wait to move on from the conventional weapons and bring out the heavy artillery? It is more

likely that such a war would be over in a few days as it quickly turned into a full-on nuclear exchange between Russia and China and the US.

chine guerre

SUCH A NUCLEAR WAR IS IMPOSSIBLE! IT WOULD DESTROY BOTH SIDES!

Since nuclear weapons have not been used for the last 70 years people have come to believe that they could never be used again. Why? There are now so many nuclear weapons, if the US and Russia began attacking each other both countries would be destroyed. Starting such a war would destroy your own country. What leader would initiate national suicide?

This is a comforting line of thought, but a careful look at the development of military thinking about nuclear weapons since they were introduced shows it is just a pleasant fairy story.

In the 1960’s a policy was developed in the US by Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn which advocated an “active” nuclear strategy for the US. After WW II the US saw nuclear weapons as a way to stop the USSR from conquering Europe using its much larger conventional forces. The new approach advocated by Kissinger and Kahn was to use nuclear weapons in a surprise attack to destroy the nuclear weapons of the USSR or China before they were used against the US. The plan was to use a “first strike” to limit or remove the enemy’s ability to retaliate. This would mean the US could actually win a nuclear war. Kahn argued that 40 million dead in the US and a 20 years recuperation period could be « acceptable losses » necessary for such a victory. It is no surprise that such thinking inspired Stanley Kubrick to produce Dr Strangelove.

Eventually cooler heads seemed to prevail. The policy known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) became the dominant policy. Some efforts were made to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by the US and the USSR. An article written in 2014 explains that “nuclear war with Russia is still mutually assured destruction. Hopefully, that’s still deterrent enough.”(4)

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THE FIRST STRIKE POLICY

Russia revoked the pledge of the USSR not to be the first to use nuclear weapons in any conflict in 1993.(5) In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit a preemptive nuclear attack. In effect the US has returned to the first-strike policy developed by Kissinger and Kahn in the 1960’s. Then in 2006 the influential US journal Foreign Affairs featured an article by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press entitled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”. The article begins as follows:

“Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to

destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States’ nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia’s arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China’s nuclear forces.”(6)

The US military can plan for a nuclear first strike against Russia or China, and there is a growing belief in official circles that the US is in a position to destroy the ability of its enemies to retaliate with their own nuclear weapons. To implement this policy the US has established anti-ballistic missile bases around Russia. As Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“US anti-ballistic missile (ABM) bases have been established in Poland on Russia’s frontier, and other bases are planned. When completed Russia will be ringed with US missile bases.

“Anti-ballistic missiles, known as ‘star wars’, are weapons designed to intercept and destroy ICBMs. In Washington’s war doctrine, the US hits Russia with a first strike, and whatever retaliatory force Russia might have remaining is prevented from reaching the US by the shield of ABMs.”(7)

The US has also located a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic system in South Korea which can be used to destroy missiles fired by China in retaliation for a US first strike.(8)

Remember there is no point in having an anti-ballistic missile system in place if you really believe any nuclear war is simply mutually assured destruction.

PREEMPTIVE, FIRST STRIKE THINKING MAKES NUCLEAR WAR MORE LIKELY

The US military believes it can launch a nuclear war and survive any attempt by its enemies to destroy it. This makes nuclear war much more likely because the Russians and Chinese both know that the US thinks they can actually make a successful first strike against them. What better reason do they need for making a first strike themselves? Again Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“Washington has created a dangerous situation. As Russia and China are clearly threatened with a first strike, they might decide to strike first themselves. Why should Russia and China sit and await the inevitable while their adversary creates the ability to protect itself by developing its ABM shield? Once Washington completes the shield, Russia and China are certain to be attacked, unless they surrender in advance.”(9)

The military planners on both sides use what is called the counterforce strategy which involves attacking their opponent’s weapons nuclear and the their leadership.

“The requirements for the counterforce mission perpetuate the most dangerous characteristics of nuclear forces, with weapons kept at high levels of alert, ready to

launch upon warning of an enemy attack, and able to preemptively attack enemy forces.”(10)

As Steven Starr explains, counterforce doctrines emphasize the need for preemptive strikes once a war begins. “Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced, especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield.”(11)

We need to realize that the duty of a nations leaders is to protect their country from its opponents. The US has publicly adopted a first-strike policy, based on the assumption that a preemptive strike on Russian and China will neutralize their nuclear weapons by either destroying them before they are used, or shooting them down after they are launched with ABMs. The Russians and Chinese know the US might launch a preemptive strike at any time, and realize that the best way to protect themselves is to launch their own preemptive strike before the US does.

This means that we are now as close to a nuclear war as we were in the worst period of the Cold War in the 1960’s. This is why I disagree with the “long war” theory of David Gompert. Once conventional hostilities begin, each side will be sitting with their fingers on the preemptive strike button hoping they can beat the other to a nuclear first-strike. He says the US would “develop plans to limit the scope, intensity and duration of such a conflict”. And the US will assume the Russians or Chinese have no plans for a first strike themselves? Let’s just have a conventional war and see what happens?

If the US says it can win a nuclear war with China or Russia, once conventional hostilities begin the Russians and Chinese would be mad not to expect a US first-strike. And the only way to protect themselves is to be ready themselves to make a first-strike before the US.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN AN ALL-OUT NUCLEAR WAR?

Nobody know for sure, of course, but it seems the best possible outcome would be just short of the extermination of the human race. The Northern Hemisphere would probably be unfit for human habitation. Both the US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear warheads, which can be launched with only a few minutes warning.(12)

President Obama is has no doubts about which country is the most important and how its dominance should be maintained:

“At his West Point speech on May 28, President Obama said, ‘I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.’ Obama stated his bottom line is that ‘America must always lead on the world stage,’ and ‘the backbone of that leadership always will be the military.’ American exceptionalism based on might, not diplomacy, on

hard power, not soft, is precisely the hubris and arrogance that could lead to the termination of human life.”(13)

What Would Russia Do if Attacked?

We can have some answer to this question from an article by three Russians living in the US. They have warned the citizens of the US that nuclear war with Russia will “wipe the USA off the political map”:

“But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not ‘blink.’ With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called ‘Dead Hand (the ‘Perimetr’ system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. We feel that it is our duty to do all we can to prevent such a catastrophe. »(14)

russie missiles

The Russian Dead Hand or Perimetr System

The Dead Hand or perimetr system guarantees retaliation against the US. Because the Russians don’t trust computers alone to make such decisions, it has a critical human safeguard, bunkered in an incredibly strange underground chamber. The operators and their equipment are located in a hardened underground bunker in the shape of a sphere, very deep and very hardened, probably the most secure place in the Cold War. In this isolated spheroid room, duty officers sit and wait for three conditions to be met: “predelegation,” decapitation, and active nuclear war. When these three conditions are met, the officers can issue launch commands to small missiles that would fly the entire width of the Soviet Union and give commands electronically to all the missile silos below to launch.(15)

Some of the consequences of such a nuclear war are:

Nuclear Winter

In a recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war” begins as follows:

“A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.”(16)

Fire-storms, Falling Temperatures and Destruction of the Ozone Layer

After a nuclear exchange

“nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions that would last 10 years or longer.

“Following a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.”(17)

All Spent Fuel from Nuclear Reactors Released into the Atmosphere

“Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil-off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable.”(18)

1AC – Warming U.S. offshore drilling rising now.Clemente 18 [(Jude, I am Principal at JTC Energy Research Associates, LLC. I hold a B.A. in International Relations from Penn State University, with a minor in Statistical Analysis. I got my M.S. in Homeland Security from San Diego State University, with a focus on Energy Security, and an MBA from St. Francis University, with a focus on Energy Economics. My research specialization includes North American and international trends in liquid fuels, natural gas, coal, renewables, electricity and GHG emissions – and their connection to human development. I have over 400 professional publications in a variety of energy-related media, notably Pipeline & Gas Journal, Carbon Capture Journal, Journal of Energy Security, Power, World Oil, Public Utilities Fortnightly, and the Journal of Energy and Development. I have also been a writer and editor for reports commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, International Energy Agency, and other major energy research organizations) “The Quiet Rise In U.S. Offshore Oil Production,” Forbes, 10 Apr. 2018] TDI

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past 10 years, I’m sure you’ve heard of the incredible boom in onshore U.S. shale production for crude oil. There’s an ongoing revolution out there friends, and it has transformed global energy markets in ways never thought possible.

What’s not so well known, however, is that our offshore crude production has also been steadily increasing in recent years. The sunken price environment since 2014 makes this progress even more impressive.

It’s easy to forget about offshore. It doesn’t seem as important today as it was once. Way before the great shale gale, back in 2000, offshore Gulf of Mexico accounted for 25% of our crude output, but that number stood at 18% ity65n 2017.

Yet, it was only a decade or so ago that the U.S. Energy Information Administration was projecting that ALL NEW crude production in the country would come from offshore – sensible forecasts at the time that were all completely up-ended by shale.

Despite fallen prices, U.S. offshore oil production has continued to rise.

Despite fallen prices, U.S. offshore oil production has continued to rise. DATA SOURCE: EIA

Global offshore oil production has remained steady at ~27 million b/d over the last ten years, but rising supply has dropped its share of total output below 30%. But, the future is very bright for offshore.

The technologies and expertise continue to improve: perhaps the biggest mistake the anti-fossil fuel business continues to make is to underestimate or downright ignore the

ongoing advancements in the coal, oil, and natural gas industries. And as prices increase, the more access we have to our massive offshore resources, and the more desirable they become.

Moreover, as global demand continues to grow (now projected to rise 1.7 million b/d this year), offshore will become even more vital to meet the rising energy needs of a world that absolutely adds (births - deaths) 230,000 people every day.

Again, non-stop economic and population expansion ensures that we will need all sources of energy in the decades to come (recent troubles at Tesla exemplify, once again, just how difficult it is to displace even a small fraction of our oil usage).

Remember that offshore deposits are usually larger than those found onshore, so the interest level in developing them is naturally very high, despite the obvious engineering challenges such a costly and complex endeavor brings.

Upticks in oil prices encourage more offshore oil development. And a significant price increase might not be as far off as it now appears.

For example, given sunken prices, there’s been well over $1 trillion in new projects canceled, leading to an underinvestment in new supply that could ultimately mean a price spike in the early-2020s.

But thanks to the recent higher prices stemming from the November 2016 agreement between OPEC and partners to cut 1.8 million b/d in production, we could see $1.6 to $1.8 trillion in offshore CAPEX by 2022.

In particular for us, the U.S. push for more offshore will help us feed a growing oil export business that is buffering the over-influence of OPEC and Russia around the world. The awesome upsurge in U.S. crude exports is one of the biggest stories in the energy business over the past year.

Under the Trump administration's new plan, the U.S. Department of the Interior would open 25 of 26 regions of the outer continental shelf to drilling. We know that we have an offshore oil and gas treasure trove just waiting to be developed.

Offshore drilling causes warming and no alt causes. The plan spurs renewables investment and international modeling to meet emissions reduction requirementsDonaghy 16 [(Tim, Senior Research Specialist with Greenpeace USA) "How Ending Offshore Oil Drilling Would Help Fight Climate Change," Greenpeace USA, 5-17-2016] TDI

President Obama must act today to cement his legacy as a climate leader by ending offshore oil and gas leasing in the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)’s draft Five-Year Program, put forth a couple of months ago, creates a new round of lease sales starting in 2017 and continuing into 2022.

The plan proposes to expand oil and gas production in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, a region that’s been called a “sacrifice zone” due to the effects of decades of pollution on local communities and the environment. Just last week, the Gulf was hit again with a spill of nearly 90,000 gallons of oil from a pipeline owned by Shell.

A recent study by the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) found that the United States can significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Specifically, if the president were to remove the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico from the Five-Year Program and reject all renewals of existing offshore leases, he could reduce global emissions by 26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2030 alone.

That’s equivalent to taking 5.5 million cars off the road for one year.

Because offshore oil production has very long lead times and high upfront costs, decisions made by President Obama today will resonate for decades to come. Phasing out offshore oil leasing will lead to even larger emissions reductions after 2030, but a decision to expand drilling will “lock in” oil and gas infrastructure and make it harder for the world to transition away from fossil fuels.

Asking the Wrong Questions

The connection between increased oil drilling and higher greenhouse gas emissions may seem obvious, but BOEM has fought for years to avoid fully measuring emissions that result from its policies. All federal agencies are required to conduct Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to assess the potential environmental harms of their decisions, and climate change is routinely considered in these reviews. However, BOEM only estimates the emissions arising directly from oil production activities themselves. It has consistently refused to quantify “downstream” emissions that arise from actually burning the oil and gas extracted from the offshore region.

BOEM’s economic analysis attempts to show that if we do not drill offshore, then that oil and gas would be substituted by oil and gas extracted from somewhere else. Oddly, despite conducting this market analysis, BOEM refuses to take the next step and calculate the emissions from these substitutes. The agency argues both that a full

emissions analysis would be “highly uncertain” and that downstream emissions are “assumed to be roughly equivalent” no matter if offshore oil drilling is expanded or halted.

Phasing out federal oil production will lead to a net reduction of 31 Mt CO2 in 2030, of which 85% comes from offshore. Any reduction in federal oil production is partially, but not fully, replaced by other oil sources, natural gas, electricity and biofuels, leaving a net reduction in emissions (yellow bar). (Source: Stockholm Environmental Institute)

Thankfully, the SEI analysis provides answers to the questions that BOEM doesn’t want to ask. The figure above illustrates what would happen if we left federal oil in the ground. Yes, some of the oil would be replaced by oil imported from other regions, some would be replaced by biofuels, natural gas, or electric vehicles. However those substitutions would not make up all of the gap and the difference would translate into reduced overall emissions (that’s the yellow bar).

What’s more, BOEM seems to have left out a major factor from its analysis. In a separate blog post, SEI notes that BOEM’s economic report only looks at the domestic costs and benefits of offshore oil. But oil is a globally traded commodity, and ending U.S. offshore drilling will also cause emissions reductions around the world. Factoring in these global effects shows that the full emissions reduction is about ten times larger than the domestic reduction alone.

BOEM officials seem to see the writing on the wall. BOEM’s chief environmental officer recently told reporters that the agency is “seriously discussing” whether to analyze downstream emissions. BOEM’s plan may only last for five years, but the carbon emissions that result from this decision will stay in the atmosphere for up to a century, and we will be paying for the costs of those emissions for years to come.

Obama’s Last Chance to Reduce Emissions

The report from SEI shows that there is still more that Obama can do before he leaves office — and still much more to be done.

For each barrel of federal oil that Obama leaves in the ground, he can lower global greenhouse emissions and make it easier for the U.S. to meet and surpass the climate goals agreed to in Paris. Taken together, a moratorium on federal coal and oil extraction would lead to emissions reductions that are similar in size to policies President Obama has already adopted.

U.S. domestic fossil fuel production assuming implementation of the Clean Power Plan from 1990 to 2040. Red curves show the U.S. share of a global 2 degree C carbon budget. Dark grey region shows the portion of U.S. production from federal lands and waters. (Source: Stockholm Environmental Institute)

However, even taken together, the Clean Power Plan and a federal leasing moratorium would not be enough to put us on a pathway consistent with 2 degrees Celsius — much less the more ambitious target of 1.5 degrees Celsius that scientists are now realizing we need to hit. More ambitious policies are needed and the window for putting them in place is short.

Before he leaves office, President Obama should end federal offshore leasing and begin a formal review of onshore oil and gas drilling to determine whether those policies are consistent with our climate commitments (hint: they’re not). Bold leadership on keeping fossil fuels in the ground would likely make it easier for other countries to adopt similar policies and would add momentum to the climate movement. Similarly, such moves would make Wall Street take notice that investing in risky fossil fuel infrastructure is a bad play.

All this means that your activism to keep fossil fuels in the ground is more crucial now than ever. Across the country, people like you have put the pressure on the Obama administration to stop exploiting our public lands and waters for fossil fuels — and you’ve gotten results.

Renewables are feasible and solve warmingBurns 18 [(Sean, a visiting assistant professor at The College of William and Mary,) "All the selfish reasons we need an anti-oil foreign policy. It's not just about climate.," USA TODAY 11-29-2018] TDI

As a new U.S. government report shows, climate change will have massive negative effects on our economy and cause significant displacement of Americans. Republicans responded by questioning the science of climate change, or like Sens. Mike Lee and Ben Sasse, claiming that a switch to renewable energy sources would hurt the nation.

In fact, a transition to renewable energy is quite feasible. And, separate from its effects on the environment, it would advance long-term U.S. foreign policy interests by undermining the international influence of oil.

Climate change is the global challenge of our time. Limiting its effects will require the rapid replacement of carbon-producing fossil fuels with battery-powered vehicles and renewable energy sources.

But moving away from carbon-based fuels should not be thought of as a cost that America must pay to help the world. It is, rather, an opportunity to advance U.S. domestic and foreign policy goals. America should pursue an aggressive strategy of rapid decarbonization of the world economy for its own selfish interests.

We can't fix climate alone, but others will follow

Climate change is a worldwide problem that requires a worldwide solution. Sasse and other Republicans, when they accept climate change exists, argue that the United States cutting emissions won’t help because other countries will not follow suit. It is a dubious claim, but it reflects a real concern.

In the terms of economic and political theory, climate change is a collective action problem. Everyone will benefit from a reduction in fossil fuel use, but everyone hopes someone else will pay the bulk of the cost.

It is easiest to solve a collective action problem when one player is big enough to solve the problem alone and will uniquely benefit from its solution. America is still the world’s only superpower. Ending the world’s reliance on fossil fuels is in its power and would provide us with unique and individual benefits.

America cannot solve climate change alone, but it can unilaterally drive down renewable energy prices so much that it makes sense for most of the world to switch away from hydrocarbons, and it should do so to advance its own interests.

Oil and natural gas prop up authoritarian states and create security challenges for our country. Hydrocarbon rentier states — nations such as Saudi Arabia that depend on fossil fuel exports for large portions of their revenue — are less democratic, more corrupt and more wasteful than similar states without oil. Oil creates conflict, which often requires U.S. intervention. And much of the U.S. foreign policy exposure, particularly in the Persian Gulf, is a result of the U.S. desire to protect world oil supplies.

Most important, however, is that oil and gas wealth props up and empowers U.S. enemies and force the United States to enable and depend on dubious allies. Fossil fuel wealth and control empower Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Iran's government gets most of its revenue from oil exports. And U.S. relationships with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have long represented a trade-off between long-term interests in democratization and short-term interests in keeping the oil flowing.

America has the power to cripple the oil states while building on its own technological superiority. Renewable energy technology is becoming cheaper at a rapid rate and, as David Roberts at Vox has shown, it can be purposefully sped up.

The industrial learning curve measures the price drop that comes with every doubling of production. It is separate from economies of scale and represents learning how to do things better. We have not reached the bottom of the learning curve for solar or wind, and we are not near the bottom for batteries. So no major technological discoveries are required, just practice.

Renewable energy will kill fossil fuels soon

It costs less in some places to create wind or solar farms than to keep running coal or natural gas plants. We are on the cusp of making electric cars the standard, and they are ultimately cheaper to own than internal combustion vehicles. Buying more of this technology will make the technology even cheaper, leading to a death spiral for fossil fuel prices.

The United States should make large investments in buying and deploying renewable energy technology, both at home and abroad, as a means of disempowering oil states and reducing U.S. defensive exposure abroad. It should do so at home by cutting fossil fuel subsidies, creating a much needed next-generation national power grid, and buying electric cars for its vehicle fleets. Abroad it should provide subsidies for developing countries to buy U.S. renewable energy technology. Eventually, a carbon tax on both domestic and imported goods would be beneficial.

Most important, the United States should be clear about what it is doing. America should announce that it plans to make oil and natural gas all but obsolete in the international economy within 20 years. This will have immediate impact on the foreign and domestic affairs of the oil states and reduce potential conflicts over new sources, particularly in the Arctic, Mediterranean and South China Sea.

The Montreal Protocol against ozone layer depletion is often cited as a model for climate change mitigation, but it probably would not have happened if the largest producer of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, DuPont, did not have a replacement product ready or if America had not pushed for the treaty. A U.S. company had the technology and the United States led the change. We need that boldness again.

America should lead a world push toward renewable energy, not only to slow climate change but to also disempower its rivals, break free from dubious allies, reduce the number of conflict flashpoints, and increase U.S. technology dominance.

It can do so simply by doing what is already in its domestic interests: rapidly scaling up the use of renewable and battery technology, and subsidizing the spread of American technology to the developing world.

Warming causes extinction – any reduction should be prioritized above any other impactRamanathan et al. 17 [Veerabhadran Ramanathan is Victor Alderson Professor of Applied Ocean Sciences and director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Dr. William Collins is an internationally recognized expert in climate modeling and climate change science. He is the Director of the Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division (CESD) for the Earth and Environmental Sciences Area (EESA) at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Prof. Dr Mark Lawrence, Ph.D. is scientific director at the Institute for

Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, Örjan Gustafsson is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Analytic Chemistry at Stockholm University, Shichang Kang is Professor, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS); CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, and Molina, M.J., Zaelke, D., Borgford-Parnell, N., Xu, Y., Alex, K., Auffhammer, M., Bledsoe, P., Croes, B., Forman, F., Haines, A., Harnish, R., Jacobson, M.Z., Lawrence, M., Leloup, D., Lenton, T., Morehouse, T., Munk, W., Picolotti, R., Prather, K., Raga, G., Rignot, E., Shindell, D., Singh, A.K., Steiner, A., Thiemens, M., Titley, D.W., Tucker, M.E., Tripathi, S., & Victor, D., authors come from the following 9 countries - US, Switzerland, Sweden, UK, China, Germany, Australia, Mexico, India, “Well Under 2 Degrees Celsius: Fast Action Policies to Protect People and the Planet from Extreme Climate Change,” Report of the Committee to Prevent Extreme Climate Change, September 2017, http://www.igsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Well-Under-2-Degrees-Celsius-Report-2017.pdf] TDI

Climate change is becoming an existential threat with warming in excess of 2°C within the next three decades and 4°C to 6°C within the next several decades. Warming of such magnitudes will expose as many as 75% of the world’s population to deadly heat stress in addition to disrupting the climate and weather worldwide. Climate change is an urgent problem requiring urgent solutions. This paper lays out urgent and practical solutions that are ready for implementation now, will deliver benefits in the next few critical decades, and places the world on a path to achieving the longterm targets of the Paris Agreement and near-term sustainable development goals. The approach consists of four building blocks and 3 levers to implement ten scalable solutions described in this report by a team of climate scientists, policy makers, social and behavioral scientists, political scientists, legal experts, diplomats, and military experts from around the world. These solutions will enable society to decarbonize the global energy system by 2050 through efficiency and renewables, drastically reduce short-lived climate pollutants, and stabilize the climate well below 2°C both in the near term (before 2050) and in the long term (post 2050). It will also reduce premature mortalities by tens of millions by 2050. As an insurance against policy lapses, mitigation delays and faster than projected climate changes, the solutions include an Atmospheric Carbon Extraction lever to remove CO2 from the air. The amount of CO2 that must be removed ranges from negligible, if the emissions of CO2 from the energy system and SLCPs start to decrease by 2020 and carbon neutrality is achieved by 2050, to a staggering one trillion tons if the carbon lever is not pulled and emissions of climate pollutants continue to increase until 2030.

There are numerous living laboratories including 53 cities, many universities around the world, the state of California, and the nation of Sweden, who have embarked on a carbon neutral pathway. These laboratories have already created 8 million jobs in the clean energy industry; they have also shown that emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants can be decoupled from economic growth. Another favorable sign is that growth rates of worldwide carbon emissions have reduced from 2.9% per year during the first decade of this century to 1.3% from 2011 to 2014 and near zero growth rates during the last few years. The carbon emission curve is bending, but we have a long way to go and very little time for achieving carbon neutrality. We need institutions and enterprises that can accelerate this bending by scaling-up the solutions that are being proven in the living laboratories. We have less than a decade to put these solutions in place around the world to preserve nature and our quality of life for generations to come. The time is now.

The Paris Agreement is an historic achievement. For the first time, effectively all nations have committed to limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and taking other actions to limit global temperature change. Specifically, 197 nations agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” and achieve carbon neutrality in the second half of this century.

The climate has already warmed by 1°C. The problem is running ahead of us, and under current trends we will likely reach 1.5°C in the next fifteen years and surpass the 2°C guardrail by mid-century with a 50% probability of reaching 4°C by end of century. Warming in excess of 3°C is likely to be a global catastrophe for three major reasons:

• Warming in the range of 3°C to 5°C is suggested as the threshold for several tipping points in the physical and geochemical systems; a warming of about 3°C has a probability of over 40% to cross over multiple tipping points, while a warming close to 5°C increases it to nearly 90%, compared with a baseline warming of less than 1.5°C, which has only just over a 10% probability of exceeding any tipping point.

• Health effects of such warming are emerging as a major if not dominant source of concern. Warming of 4°C or more will expose more than 70% of the population, i.e. about 7 billion by the end of the century, to deadly heat stress and expose about 2.4 billion to vector borne diseases such as Dengue, Chikengunya, and Zika virus among others. Ecologists and paleontologists have proposed that warming in excess of 3°C, accompanied by increased acidity of the oceans by the buildup of CO2 , can become a major causal factor for exposing more than 50% of all species to extinction. 20% of species are in danger of extinction now due to population, habitat destruction, and climate change.

The good news is that there may still be time to avert such catastrophic changes. The Paris Agreement and supporting climate policies must be strengthened substantially

within the next five years to bend the emissions curve down faster, stabilize climate, and prevent catastrophic warming. To the extent those efforts fall short, societies and ecosystems will be forced to contend with substantial needs for adaptation—a burden that will fall disproportionately on the poorest three billion who are least responsible for causing the climate change problem.

Here we propose a policy roadmap with a realistic and reasonable chance of limiting global temperature to safe levels and preventing unmanageable climate change—an outline of specific science-based policy pathways that serve as the building blocks for a three-lever strategy that could limit warming to well under 2°C. The projections and the emission pathways proposed in this summary are based on a combination of published recommendations and new model simulations conducted by the authors of this study (see Figure 2). We have framed the plan in terms of four building blocks and three levers, which are implemented through 10 solutions. The first building block would be fully implementing the nationally determined mitigation pledges under the Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In addition, several sister agreements that provide targeted and efficient mitigation must be strengthened. Sister agreements include the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs, efforts to address aviation emissions through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), maritime black carbon emissions through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the commitment by the eight countries of the Arctic Council to reduce black carbon emissions by up to 33%. There are many other complementary processes that have drawn attention to specific actions on climate change, such as the Group of 20 (G20), which has emphasized reform of fossil fuel subsidies, and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). HFC measures, for example, can avoid as much as 0.5°C of warming by 2100 through the mandatory global phasedown of HFC refrigerants within the next few decades, and substantially more through parallel efforts to improve energy efficiency of air conditioners and other cooling equipment potentially doubling this climate benefit.

For the second building block, numerous subnational and city scale climate action plans have to be scaled up. One prominent example is California’s Under 2 Coalition signed by over 177 jurisdictions from 37 countries in six continents covering a third of world economy. The goal of this Memorandum of Understanding is to catalyze efforts in many jurisdictions that are comparable with California’s target of 40% reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030 and 80% reductions by 2050—emission cuts that, if achieved globally, would be consistent with stopping warming at about 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Another prominent example is the climate action plans by over 52 cities and 65 businesses around the world aiming to cut emissions by 30% by 2030 and 80% to 100% by 2050. There are concerns that the carbon neutral goal will hinder economic progress; however, real world examples from California and Sweden since 2005 offer evidence that economic growth can be decoupled from carbon emissions and the data for CO2 emissions and GDP reveal that growth in fact prospers with a green economy.

The third building block consists of two levers that we need to pull as hard as we can: one for drastically reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) beginning now and completing by 2030, and the other for decarbonizing the global energy system by 2050 through efficiency and renewables. Pulling both levers simultaneously can keep global temperature rise below 2°C through the end of the century. If we bend the CO2 emissions curve through decarbonization of the energy system such that global emissions peak in 2020 and decrease steadily thereafter until reaching zero in 2050, there is less than a 20% probability of exceeding 2°C. This call for bending the CO2 curve by 2020 is one key way in which this report’s proposal differs from the Paris Agreement and it is perhaps the most difficult task of all those envisioned here. Many cities and jurisdictions are already on this pathway, thus demonstrating its scalability. Achieving carbon neutrality and reducing emissions of SLCPs would also drastically reduce air pollution globally, including all major cities, thus saving millions of lives and over 100 million tons of crops lost to air pollution each year. In addition, these steps would provide clean energy access to the world’s poorest three billion who are still forced to resort to 18th century technologies to meet basic needs such as cooking. For the fourth and the final building block, we are adding a third lever, ACE (Atmospheric Carbon Extraction, also known as Carbon Dioxide Removal, or “CDR”). This lever is added as an insurance against surprises (due to policy lapses, mitigation delays, or non-linear climate changes) and would require development of scalable measures for removing the CO2 already in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 that must be removed will range from negligible, if the emissions of CO2 from the energy system and SLCPs start to decrease by 2020 and carbon neutrality is achieved by 2050, to a staggering one trillion tons, if CO2 emissions continue to increase until 2030, and the carbon lever is not pulled until after 2030. This issue is raised because the NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) accompanying the Paris Agreement would allow CO2 emissions to increase until 2030. We call on economists and experts in political and administrative systems to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of reducing carbon and SLCPs emissions beginning in 2020 compared with delaying it by ten years and then being forced to pull the third lever to extract one trillion tons of CO2

The fast mitigation plan of requiring emissions reductions to begin by 2020, which means that many countries need to cut now, is urgently needed to limit the warming to well under 2°C. Climate change is not a linear problem. Instead, we are facing non-linear climate tipping points that can lead to self-reinforcing and cascading climate change impacts. Tipping points and selfreinforcing feedbacks are wild cards that are more likely with increased temperatures, and many of the potential abrupt climate shifts could happen as warming goes from 1.5°C in 15 years to 2°C by 2050, with the potential to push us well beyond the Paris Agreement goals.

Where Do We Go from Here?

A massive effort will be needed to stop warming at 2°C, and time is of the essence. With unchecked business-as-usual emissions, global warming has a 50% likelihood of exceeding 4ºC and a 5% probability of exceeding 6ºC in this century, raising existential

questions for most, but especially the poorest three billion people. A 4ºC warming is likely to expose as many as 75% of the global population to deadly heat. Dangerous to catastrophic impacts on the health of people including generations yet to be born, on the health of ecosystems, and on species extinction have emerged as major justifications for mitigating climate change well below 2ºC, although we must recognize that the uncertainties intrinsic in climate and social systems make it hard to pin down exactly the level of warming that will trigger possibly catastrophic impacts. To avoid these consequences, we must act now, and we must act fast and effectively. This report sets out a specific plan for reducing climate change in both the near- and long-term. With aggressive urgent actions, we can protect ourselves. Acting quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change by decarbonization will save millions of lives, trillions of dollars in economic costs, and massive suffering and dislocation to people around the world. This is a global security imperative, as it can avoid the migration and destabilization of entire societies and countries and reduce the likelihood of environmentally driven civil wars and other conflicts.

Staying well under 2°C will require a concerted global effort. We must address everything from our energy systems to our personal choices to reduce emissions to the greatest extent possible. We must redouble our efforts to invent, test, and perfect systems of governance so that the large measure of international cooperation needed to achieve these goals can be realized in practice. The health of people for generations to come and the health of ecosystems crucially depend on an energy revolution beginning now that will take us away from fossil fuels and toward the clean renewable energy sources of the future. It will be nearly impossible to obtain other critical social goals, including for example the UN agenda 2030 with the Sustainable Development Goals, if we do not make immediate and profound progress stabilizing climate, as we are outlining here.

1. The Building Blocks Approach The 2015 Paris Agreement, which went into effect November 2016, is a remarkable, historic achievement. For the frst time, essentially all nations have committed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions and take other actions to limit global temperature and adapt to unavoidable climate change. Nations agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” and “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century” (UNFCCC, 2015). Nevertheless, the initial Paris Agreement has to be strengthened substantially within fve years if we are to prevent catastrophic warming; current pledges place the world on track for up to 3.4°C by 2100 (UNEP, 2016b). Until now, no specifc policy

roadmap exists that provides a realistic and reasonable chance of limiting global temperatures to safe levels and preventing unmanageable climate change. This report is our attempt to provide such a plan— an outline of specifc solutions that serve as the building blocks for a comprehensive strategy for limiting the warming to well under 2°C and avoiding dangerous climate change (Figure 1). The frst building block is the full implementation of the nationally determined mitigation pledges under the Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and strengthening global sister agreements, such as the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs, which can provide additional targeted, fast action mitigation at scale. For the second building block, numerous sub-national and city scale climate action plans have to be scaled up such as California’s Under 2 Coalition signed by 177 jurisdictions from 37 countries on six continents. The third building block is targeted measures to reduce emissions of shortlived climate pollutants (SLCPs), beginning now and fully implemented by 2030, along with major measures to fully decarbonize the global economy, causing the overall emissions growth rate to stop in 2020-2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Such a deep decarbonization would require an energy revolution similar to the Industrial Revolution that was based on fossil fuels. The fnal building block includes scalable and reversible carbon dioxide (CO2 ) removal measures, which can begin removing CO2 already emitted into the atmosphere. Such a plan is urgently needed. Climate change is not a linear problem. Instead, climate tipping points can lead to self-reinforcing, cascading climate change impacts (Lenton et al., 2008). Tipping points are more likely with increased temperatures, and many of the potential abrupt climate shifts could happen as warming goes from 1.5°C to 2°C, with the potential to push us well beyond the Paris Agreement goals (Drijfhout et al., 2015). In order to avoid dangerous climate change, we must address these concerns. We must act now, and we must act fast. Reduction of SLCPs will result in fast, near-term reductions in warming, while present-day reductions of CO2 will result in long-term climate benefts. This two-lever approach—aggressively cutting both SLCPs and CO2 –-will slow warming in the coming decades when it is most crucial to avoid impacts from climate change as well as maintain a safe climate many decades from now. To achieve the nearterm goals, we have outlined solutions to be implemented immediately. These solutions to bend down the rising emissions curve and thus bend the warming trajectory curve follow a 2015 assessment by the University of California under its Carbon Neutrality Initiative (Ramanathan et al., 2016). The solutions are clustered into categories of social transformation, governance improvement, market- and regulation-based solutions, technological innovation and transformation, and natural and ecosystem management. Additionally, we need to intensely investigate and pursue a third lever—ACE (Atmospheric Carbon Extraction). While many potential technologies

exist, we do not know the extent to which they could be scaled up to remove the requisite amount of carbon from the atmosphere in order to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, and any delay in mitigation will demand increasing reliance on these technologies. Yet, there is still hope. Humanity can come together, as we have done in the past, to collaborate towards a common goal. We have no choice but to tackle the challenge of climate change. We only have the choice of when and how: either now, through the ambitious plan outlined here, or later, through radical adaptation and societal transformations in response to an ever-deteriorating climate system that will unleash devastating impacts—some of which may be beyond our capacity to fully adapt to or reverse for thousands of years.

2. Major Climate Disruptions: How Soon and How Fast? “Without adequate mitigation and adaptation, climate change poses unacceptable risks to global public health.” (WHO, 2016)

The planet has already witnessed nearly 1°C of warming, and another 0.6°C of additional warming is currently stored in the ocean to be released over the next two to four decades, if climate warming emissions are not radically reduced during that time (IPCC, 2013). The impacts of this warming on extreme weather, droughts, and foods are being felt by society worldwide to the extent that many think of this no longer as climate change but as climate disruption. Consider the business as usual scenario:

15 years from now: In 15 years, planetary warming will reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial global mean temperature (Ramanathan and Xu, 2010; Shindell et al., 2012). This exceeds the 0.5°C to 1°C of warming during the Eemian period, 115,000– 130,000 years ago, when sea-levels reached 6-9 meters (20-30 feet) higher than today (Hansen et al., 2016b). The impacts of this warming will affect us all yet will disproportionately affect the Earth’s poorest three billion people, who are primarily subsistence farmers that still rely on 18th century technologies and have the least capacity to adapt (IPCC, 2014a; Dasgupta et al., 2015). They thus may be forced to resort to mass migration into city slums and push across international borders (U.S. DOD, 2015). The existential fate of lowlying small islands and coastal communities will also need to be addressed, as they are primarily vulnerable to sea-level rise, diminishing freshwater resources, and more intense storms. In addition, many depend on fsheries for protein, and these are likely to be affected by ocean acidifcation and climate change. Climate injustice could start causing visible regional and international conficts. All of this will be exacerbated as the risk of passing tipping points increases (Lenton et al., 2008).

30 years from now: By mid-century, warming is expected to exceed 2°C, which would be unprecedented with respect to historical records of at least the last one million years

(IPCC, 2014c). Such a warming through this century could result in sea-level rise of as much as 2 meters by 2100, with greater sea-level rise to follow. A group of tipping points are clustered between 1.5°C and 2°C (Figure 2) (Drijfhout et al., 2015). The melting of most mountain glaciers, including those in the Tibetan-Himalayas, combined with mega-droughts, heat waves, storms, and foods, would adversely affect nearly everyone on the planet.

80 years from now: In 80 years, warming is expected to exceed 4°C, increasing the likelihood of irreversible and catastrophic change (World Bank, 2013b). 4ºC warming is likely to expose as much as 75% of the global population to deadly heat (Mora et al., 2017). The 2°C and 4°C values quoted above and in other reports, however, are merely the central values with a 50% probability of occurrence (Ramanathan and Feng, 2008). There is a 5% probability the warming could be as high as 6°C due to uncertainties in the magnitude of amplifying feedbacks (see Section 4). This in turn could lead to major disruptions to natural and social systems, threatening food security, water security, and national security and fundamentally affecting the great majority of the projected 11.2 billion inhabitants of the planet in 2100 (UN DESA, 2015).

3. What Are the Wild Cards for Climate Disruption? Increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases radiative forcing (the difference between the amount of energy entering the atmosphere and leaving) and thus increases the global temperature (IPCC, 2013). However, climate wild cards exist that can alter the linear connection with warming and anthropogenic emissions by triggering abrupt changes in the climate (Lenton et al., 2008). Some of these wild cards have not been thoroughly captured by the models that policymakers rely on the most. These abrupt shifts are irreversible on a human time scale (<100 years) and will create a notable disruption to the climate system, condemning the world to warming beyond that which we have previously projected. These climate disruptions would divert resources from needed mitigation and upset mitigation strategies that we have already put in place.

1. Unmasking Aerosol Cooling: The frst such wild card is the unmasking of an estimated 0.7°C (with an uncertainty range of 0.3°C to 1.2°C) of the warming in addition to mitigating other aerosol effects such as disrupting rainfall patterns, by reducing emissions of aerosols such as sulfates and nitrates as part of air pollution regulations (Wigley, 1991; Ramanathan and Feng, 2008). Aerosol air pollution is a major health hazard with massive costs to public health and society, including contributing to about 7 million deaths (from household and ambient exposure) each year (WHO, 2014). While some aerosols, such as black carbon and brown carbon, strongly absorb sunlight and warm the climate, others refect sunlight back into space, which cools the climate (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). The net impact of all manmade aerosols is

negative, meaning that about 30% of the warming from greenhouse gases is being masked by co-emitted air pollution particles (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). As we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement policies to eliminate air pollution, we are also reducing the concentration of aerosols in the air. Aerosols last in the atmosphere for about a week, so if we eliminate air pollution without reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases, the unmasking alone would lead to an estimated 0.7°C of warming within a matter of decades (Ramanathan and Feng, 2008). We must eliminate all aerosol emissions due to their health effects, but we must simultaneously mitigate emissions of CO2 , other greenhouse gases, and black carbon and co-pollutants to avoid an abrupt and very large jump in the near-term warming beyond 2°C (Brasseur and Roeckner, 2005).

2. Tipping Points: It is likely that as we cross the 1.5°C to 2°C thresholds we will trigger so called “tipping points” for abrupt and nonlinear changes in the climate system with catastrophic consequences for humanity and the environment (Lenton, 2008; Drijfhout et al., 2015). Once the tipping points are passed, the resulting impacts will range in timescales from: disruption of monsoon systems (transition in a year), loss of sea ice (approximately a decade for transition), dieback of major forests (nearly half a century for transition), reorganization of ocean circulation (approximately a century for transition), to loss of ice sheets and subsequent sea-level rise (transition over hundreds of years) (Lenton et al., 2008). Regardless of timescale, once underway many of these changes would be irreversible (Lontzek et al., 2015). There is also a likelihood of crossing over multiple tipping points simultaneously. Warming of close to 3°C would subject the system to a 46% probability of crossing multiple tipping points, while warming of close to 5°C would increase the risk to 87% (Cai et al., 2016). Recent modeling work shows a “cluster” of these tipping points could be triggered between 1.5°C and 2°C warming (Figure 2), including melting of land and sea ice and changes in highlatitude ocean circulation (deep convection) (Drijfhout et al., 2015). This is consistent with existing observations and understanding that the polar regions are particularly sensitive to global warming and have several potentially imminent tipping points. The Arctic is warming nearly twice as quickly as the global average, which makes the abrupt changes in the Arctic more likely at a lower level of global warming (IPCC, 2013). Similarly, the Himalayas are warming at roughly the same rate as the Arctic and are thus also more susceptible to incremental changes in temperature (UNEP-WMO, 2011). This gives further justifcation for limiting warming to no more than 1.5°C.

While all climate tipping points have the potential to rapidly destabilize climate, social, and economic systems, some are also self-amplifying feedbacks that once set in motion increase warming in such a way that they perpetuate yet even more warming. Declining

Arctic sea ice, thawing permafrost, and the poleward migration of cloud systems are all examples of self-amplifying feedback mechanisms, where initial warming feeds upon itself to cause still more warming acting as a force multiplier (Schuur et al., 2015).

1AC – Solvency The United States federal government should grant legal personhood to natural oceanic ecosystems by designating them as Marine Protected Areas.Bender ’17 [Michelle Bender (Ocean Rights Manager, Earth Law Center Executive Committee, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature), “THE EARTH LAW FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ADOPTING A HOLISTIC, SYSTEMS, AND RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO OCEAN GOVERNANCE” Earth Law Center, 2017] TDI

Earth Law Framework for Marine Protected Areas

Marine Protected Areas play an important role in protecting and restoring ocean health. Earth Law can ensure that these vital ecosystems receive the designation and management required to protect and restore them.

The Earth Law framework goes beyond the traditional methods of “resource management” to provide a clear legal mandate for administering protected areas as part of a holistic system of which humans are a part.

What does the framework mean?

The Framework recognizes that marine ecosystems:

- own themselves and have intrinsic value apart from human uses ;- have the right to perform all of their natural functions ; and- have the right to have a voice in decisions that may affect their health,

including the right to legally defend themselves for damage caused (through human representation)

This framework allows ocean protection to continue to evolve, to address the worsening health of ocean ecosystems by outlining guidelines for implementation as well as case studies and criteria for balancing rights conflict resolution. Practically, that means decisions which involve or may affect the marine ecosystem recognize its inherent rights, balancing the needs of the ecosystem with that of humans on a level playing field .

MPAs dramatically boost net biodiversity through preservation of threatened keystone species and allow for spillover into other effected habitatsCooney et al 19 [(Margaret Cooney, Miriam Goldstein, and Emma Shapiro; Margaret Cooney is the campaign manager for Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress. Miriam Goldstein is the managing director for Energy and Environment and the director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Emma Shapiro is a former intern for Public Lands and Ocean Policy at the Center) "How Marine Protected Areas Help Fisheries and Ocean Ecosystems," Center for American Progress,

(https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/06/03/470585/marine-protected-areas-help-fisheries-ocean-ecosystems/), 6-3-2019] TDI

The 123 million people who live near the U.S. coasts and the 3 million Americans who depend on the ocean for their livelihood are front-row witnesses to dire and unprecedented change.1 As a result of climate change, unusually warm waters are killing kelp along the West Coast as well as coral off of Hawaii, fueling toxic algae blooms in Florida and California, and threatening the nation’s $212 billion commercial and recreational fishing industries.2 Wastewater and agricultural runoff, along with plastic pollution, are also major dangers; in 2017, scientists measured the ocean’s largest dead zone ever—an area the size of New Jersey—in the Gulf of Mexico,3 and plastic pollution is so prevalent that it has been found in the most remote areas of the deep sea.4

While the United States currently has a strong fisheries management system, the legacy of past overfishing, combined with climate change and habitat destruction, has severely threatened some of the nation’s most iconic fisheries. For example, rapidly warming waters in the Gulf of Maine have impeded efforts to rebuild the New England cod fishery.5 In other fisheries, such as that of the Alaskan red king crab, climate-related changes have led to overfishing concerns as target species cluster in the few cold areas that remain.6 And in Florida, toxic algae linked to coastal pollution and climate change killed so many snook and redfish in 2018 that officials banned their harvest.7

One of the most powerful and effective methods for protecting fisheries resources and ocean life is the marine protected area (MPA)—a clearly defined geographic space managed for long-term conservation.8 While some Pacific island nations have historically closed areas to manage their coastal fisheries,9 in the 20th century, European and American nations relied on inaccessibility, remoteness, rocky terrain, or the deepness of areas to serve as de facto MPAs.10 As technology improved and these areas became more accessible to fisheries, the need to protect specific areas and habitats in order to protect fish populations became apparent.

Fisheries management cannot provide all the conservation benefits of highly and fully protected MPAs In the United States, there has been considerable debate over the usefulness of highly and fully protected MPAs for fisheries management.302.0.CO;2.] Essentially, the question has been whether MPAs are necessary given the United States’ existing fisheries management system.31 This current system has been successful in implementing fishery management plans and rebuilding previously depleted fishery stocks, and these plans play a significant role in ensuring that commercially important species are harvested at sustainable levels.32

However, the science is clear: Even the best fisheries management cannot provide all the benefits of a highly or fully protected MPA.33 As ocean conservation scientist Ellen

Pikitch summarized in a 2016 report, highly and fully protected MPAs serve a fundamentally different, and complementary, purpose than fisheries management:

MPAs conserve biodiversity, enhance resilience, enhance fisheries, and act as an insurance policy if other types of fisheries management do not work. They protect and restore endangered species and ecosystems. They are sites for education and research. They can attract tourists and provide alternative livelihoods for communities. The reserves are capable of bringing back life and restoring key processes like water purification and carbon capture . In addition, they play a significant role in protecting and bringing back the large old fish that have always been the engines of reproduction and population replenishment . Animals that live longer are capable of producing more progeny. Reserves can bring them back; conventional fisheries management will not. The more larval and adult offspring there are, the farther afield they will travel, promoting fisheries and building resilience over large areas.34

A healthy ocean with robust, economically viable fisheries requires all the available management tools. Just as MPAs cannot replace fisheries management, fisheries management cannot replace MPAs. Both systems must be used in concert to achieve sustainable and economically viable ocean protections.

How highly to fully protected MPAs benefit fisheries

By providing a refuge for targeted species, a highly to fully protected MPA gives animals inside its boundaries time to grow larger than their counterparts outside of the area. For example, larger fish generally produce more offspring, and this surplus of fish will exit the MPA and help to stock fisheries.35 This effect is termed “spillover” and can be thought of in similar terms to interest on a savings account: The highly or fully protected MPA protects the “principal,” and the fish exiting the MPA are the “interest.” One study of spillover from more than a dozen highly and fully protected MPAs found that , in almost all cases, the fisheries outside the MPAs were likely unsustainable without the spillover from populations inside highly or fully protected MPAs.36

The beneficial effects of MPAs to fisheries can be best quantified by measuring biomass, numerical density, and organism size.37

Biomass

Biomass is the total mass of living biological organisms in a given area at a given time. Abundant evidence has shown that highly and fully protected MPAs promote large, rapid, and sustained buildup of biomass of commercially important species within their boundaries.38 One meta-analysis of scientific studies showed that biomass of whole fish groups in highly and fully protected MPAs is, on average, six to seven times greater than in adjacent unprotected areas and three to four times greater than in lightly protected MPAs.39

Numerical density

Numerical density refers to the number of individuals of a targeted species in a given area. As the number of individuals increases, more and more will exit the protected area and be available to fisheries. One study showed that the density of organisms within highly or fully protected MPAs is more than 1 1/2 times greater than the density in unprotected areas nearby.40 In Tsitsikamma National Park in South Africa, one of the oldest fully protected MPAs in the world, the density of commercially important fish is around 42 times higher than in the nearby fishing grounds.41 And on Georges Bank in the Gulf of Maine, after just five years of protection, the densities of legal-sized scallops reached nine to 14 times those of scallops in fished areas.42

Another commonly used measure of density is the catch per unit effort (CPUE), which is the total catch divided by the total amount of effort used to harvest the catch.43 This is considered to be an indirect measure of fisheries stock abundance. For example, if CPUE is decreasing, fishermen are spending more time catching fewer fish, indicating that stocks are declining. If CPUE is increasing, fishermen are catching more fish in less time, indicating a recovering or healthy stock. One large global study found that fished areas near highly to fully protected MPAs experienced a fourfold increase in CPUE.44 Another study found that the CPUE of fish traps outside a network of fully protected MPAs in waters off the island nation of St. Lucia increased between 46 and 90 percent within five years of designation.45

Organism size

Highly and fully protected MPAs increase average organism size by 28 percent.46 Organism size is important to fisheries sustainability, since in many commercially important species, larger females release eggs that are larger, more numerous, and higher quality than those of smaller females.47 This result does not scale with mass, meaning that one large female reproduces more than two smaller females with the same total body mass. For example, in the commercially important Atlantic cod fishery, a single, large 30-kilogram (kg) female produces more eggs than 28 small 2-kg females combined. Moreover, the batch of eggs of the large 30-kg female has 37 times more energy content, which increases the survival of the newly hatched fish.48

In another example, the New Zealand snapper fishery saw the benefit of 14 times more fish in fully protected MPAs than in fished areas, making egg production an estimated 18 times higher than outside of the protected area.49 Similarly, in Edmonds Underwater Park, a fully protected area in the state of Washington, lingcod produced 20 times more eggs and copper rockfish produced 100 times more eggs than their species counterparts outside of the marine park boundary.50

For commercially important species, the benefits of a highly to fully protected MPA can mean the difference between a collapsed local fishery and a rapidly recovered one. In

Baja California, the local economy is primarily supported by fishing for pink abalone. However, when warming waters and reduced oxygen killed most of the species in 2010, the larger, highly reproductive abalone that survived in the nearby fully protected MPA replenished the abalone stocks for the entire region.51

To sum up, highly to fully protected areas provide significant biological benefits, fostering an environment that allows for the growth of larger females that produce more offspring. In turn, these offspring grow up into larger fish, some of which will move away from home and replenish the supply of fish in the surrounding waters. The fish in these replenished waters will attract fishermen who will catch them, thus reaping the benefits of a sustainable supply of larger fish. It is a beneficial circle that starts with a highly or fully protected MPA.

Highly to fully protected MPAs increase biodiversity, which fosters resilience

Highly to fully protected MPAs have been shown to foster greater biodiversity , which is helpful to overall ecosystem health and productivity. In a meta-analysis looking at the role of biodivcersity loss on ecosystem services, the data showed that post-designation, levels of biodiversity of fully protected MPAs increased by an average of 23 percent. At the same time, areas adjacent to the MPAs were associated with large increases in fisheries productivity.52

Biodiversity has also been shown to enhance the ability of ecosystems to withstand a stress event and recover relatively quickly afterwards.53 In one example, a fully protected area in New Zealand was able to go from a sea urchin barren—an ecosystem destroyed by overgrazing from an unchecked and exploding population of sea urchins—back to its original kelp forest ecosystem within 12 years of its designation.54 The shelter offered by the fully protected MPA allowed for an increase in the abundance of sea urchin-eating fish, resulting in an overall increase in local biodiversity.

US ocean policy leads international conservation efforts and clarifies jurisdiction Cohen 3/1 [(Johnathan Cohen - Serves as Acting Ambassador, leading the United States delegation to the United Nations and representing the United States at the Security Council and General Assembly. Focused primarily on Iran, Syria, Israel, and Middle East peace. He has been a strong advocate for U.S. engagement at the United Nations, saying he believes the multilateral organization can, “strengthen U.S. security prosperity and international effectiveness and be an even more effective vehicle for international peace and security.”) “United States’ Contribution to the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations regarding Ocean Science and the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development”] TDI

Seabed mapping and exploration initiatives directly support Objective 1 of the Decade, “To generate knowledge of the ocean system, its role in the earth and climate system, including the human component, its biodiversity and the seabed, to support sustainable management” and Research and Development Priority Area 1, “Comprehensive map (digital atlas) of the ocean”. The United States is a global leader in seabed mapping and deep-sea exploration through both national programs and engagements in international campaigns such as the Nippon Foundation GEBCO Seabed 2030 Project (Seabed 2030), the Atlantic Seabed Mapping International Working Group of the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (ASMIWG), and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) works with international partners to map and explore the ocean to make discoveries of scientific, economic, and cultural value; supports innovations in exploration tools and capabilities; and encourages the next generation of ocean explorers, scientists, and engineers to pursue careers in ocean exploration and related fields. The data and information collected during expeditions are publicly available, giving resource managers, the academic community, and the private sector the information they need to identify, understand, and manage ocean resources. U.S. mapping initiatives benefit both the citizens of the United States and global partners. From 2014 - 2017, NOAA conducted a three-year Pacific Ocean exploration and research program, CAPSTONE, that provided Samoa, the Republic of Kiribati, Tokelau and Cook Islands with maps of key areas of their exclusive economic zones. In May 2017, NOAA mapped 4000 km within and conducted two telepresence-enabled dives on features north of Cook Islands’ Marae Moana marine park, which revealed a large scale, high-density coral community. The United States is also an active partner and current Chair of the Atlantic Seabed Mapping International Working Group, which is part of the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance launched by the Galway Statement on Atlantic Ocean Cooperation, a trilateral partnership between the United States, Canada, and the European Union. This partnership is focused on the sustainability of our shared sea, the North Atlantic Ocean, and has already resulted in a trilateral, 24-day exploratory mapping expedition of a high priority, biologically rich, sensitive marine area from Norfolk, VA to St. Georges, Bermuda. Significant progress has also been made on the International Hydrographic Organization Data Centre for Digital Bathymetry’s (IHO DCDB) infrastructure and data viewer, which is hosted by NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). This infrastructure allows for the contribution of various bathymetric data (e.g., multibeam, crowdsourced bathymetry, and bathymetric products) collected worldwide, while the data viewer allows for the discovery and access of those data using a single web portal. Such regional, multilateral seabed mapping approaches to achieve a common goal for the benefit of all align well with the Decade, and could serve as models to build upon or replicate. In addition to seabed mapping efforts, space-based observations will be critical to the Decade’s success. Basic research funded by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) addresses the goal of further

understanding the ocean system and its relationship to the earth’s climate. For example, the NASA EXPORTS (Export Processes in the Ocean from Remote Sensing) project seeks to develop a predictive understanding of the export and fate of global ocean primary production from remote sensing and its implications for the Earth’s carbon cycle in the present and future. Additionally, a joint NASA/NOAA investment called the Marine Biodiversity Observation network (MBON) seeks to establish a process for sustained, standardized, and operational measurements of biodiversity around the ocean in order to understand how biodiversity is changing and to develop better management policies relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. Basic research programs like these can help advance multiple Decade Objectives. Proper stewardship of the world’s oceans is critical to sustaining ecosystem services, including food from global fisheries, agricultural feed, industrial compounds, medicines, coastal tourism and protection, and the associated jobs such industries provide. The goal is to maintain ecosystems in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition so they can provide the services humans around the world want and need. The United States is a leader in using adaptive resource management (ARM) and ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), which balance short-term gains and long-term objectives. Instead of managing species in isolation, these strategies utilize multiple sources of information, such as linkages between species, relationships between the physical environment and biological responses, socio-economic data, and stakeholder knowledge. For example, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses these strategies to manage living marine resources across 11 large marine ecosystems, including approximately 450 regulated fishery stocks/stock complexes, 150 threatened or endangered species, and 100 marine mammal species. The demand for integrated marine assessment drives a global need for efficient and economical monitoring methods, and molecular biological approaches are being used to meet that demand. For example, scientists in the United States and abroad are pursuing the integration of environmental DNA (eDNA) into ecosystem observing programs and fisheries management. By using genetic material obtained directly from habitat samples such as seawater and sediment, eDNA provides a non-invasive alternative to net and biopsy sampling. NOAA scientists and partners are exploring eDNA as a way to quickly and cost-effectively assess biodiversity, and to track invasive species, harmful algal blooms, aquaculture pathogens, migratory species, larval dispersal, and endangered populations. The issue of marine litter and microplastics has risen to the forefront of global ocean conservation in recent years. To adequately address this serious and growing problem, sound science, data, and monitoring are required to better understand the pathways, distribution, and fate of litter and microplastics in the marine environment, as well as the resulting ecological and human health impacts. NOAA’s Marine Debris Program is providing critical resources to researching this topic as well as funding efforts aimed at prevention of litter from entering watercourses and the marine environment as well as removal of litter from coastal areas. Ecosystem and fisheries management tools like these support Objective 2

of the Decade, “To develop and provide access to a comprehensive evidence base and capacities for ecosystembased management that will improve ocean health and support a blue economy”, and Research and Development Priority Area 3, “A quantitative understanding of ocean ecosystems and their functioning as the basis for their management and adaptation”. The Decade also aims to save lives and reduce risks through enhancing integrated multi-hazard warning systems. Tsunamis are extremely fast onset events. Coastal communities can be better prepared through planning, education, awareness and enhancing local emergency action capabilities. The United States Tsunami Program is part of a cooperative effort to save lives and protect property through hazard assessment, warning guidance, mitigation, research capabilities, and international coordination. This program includes a coordinated U.S. national effort to mitigate the impact of tsunamis through public education, community response planning, hazard assessment, and warning coordination. Additionally, the United States National Science Foundation’s ongoing PREEVENTS initiative focuses research on understanding hazards such as tsunamis and cyclones, and NASA’s Disasters Program promotes the use of Earth observations to improve prediction of, preparation for, response to, and recovery from natural and technological disasters. Under the IOC, Tsunami Ready (TR) is an international performance-based community recognition pilot program modeled after the U.S. TsunamiReady® Program. To date, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at the United States Agency for International Development has provided US$ 1 Million for the Tsunami Evacuation Mapping and Planning Project (TEMPP) and TR pilots in Belize, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Integrated multi-hazard warning systems like these will be critical to the Decade’s success. The United States is working to improve tsunami warning systems both nationally and internationally in direct support of Objective 3 and Research and Development Priority Areas 5 and 7 on integrated multihazard warning systems and capacity building, respectively. The United States is the leading contributor to the development of the knowledge, tools, and capabilities to observe the global ocean. The United States provides its global ocean data to all, free of charge, and works with partners through various national, regional, and global programs, including the IOC Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). Real-time data from ocean observing activities such as the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) Array, the Argo Program, and the global drifter network enable skillful weather and climate forecasts. Other observation programs targeting carbon, ocean acidification, and nutrients provide actionable information on the ocean environment and inform policy and management decisions. Multiple geostationary and polar orbiting satellite systems provide routine nearly-global coverage of critical ocean characteristics for global forecasting and warning systems. The Decade will provide an opportunity to expand and mature these existing ocean observing efforts to address emerging needs in remote locations (e.g., deep ocean and polar seas), new knowledge gaps (e.g.,oxygen, nutrients and ecosystem health), and improve our foundational capabilities in the critical regions.

In addition to the scientific research programs outlined above, ocean literacy and capacity development are key for all nations to benefit from developments in research and technology and are a major focus of the Decade’s Objectives and emerging priorities. The transfer of knowledge and information through capacity building is not only an essential pursuit for the benefits that it brings to the constituency, but also important for connecting those that commit resources to, for example, ocean observing systems to local decision makers. The United States is the global leader in ocean literacy with efforts beginning over 30 years ago, supported by government agencies, academia, business and industry, NGOs, and professional education and scientific societies. Close collaboration among Member States who are leaders in ocean literacy is integral in the early planning phases of the Decade. Recent U.S. capacity development efforts throughout the Indo-Pacific have focused on training the next generation of researchers and technicians to promote the sustainability of regional observing systems and the local utilization of available data for their social and economic benefits. To date, the United States has held approximately twenty such capacity development workshops under the auspices of the Indian Ocean Observing System (IndOOS). Another example of an established capacity development program to which NOAA contributes is the Partnerships for New GEOSS Applications (PANGEA). PANGEA provides for in-country practical applications training of ocean data to large and diverse groups of regional participants and fosters resourcesharing partnerships between developed and developing countries to realize the social-economic benefits of ocean observing systems. Efforts like these will be critical to the success of the Decade. The United States encourages members to begin coordinating at a national level, and looks forward to working with all UN members during the preparatory process to explore how all of the Decade’s Objectives and priorities can be met.

US marine policy spurs international actionJoint Initiative 17 [(Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (Joint Initiative) is a bipartisan, collaborative group of senior leaders who come together to call for concerted ocean policy action at the local, state, regional, and national level. Among groups working on ocean and coastal policy issues, the Joint Initiative is unique in its ability to provide high level, credible, bipartisan leadership and engagement. Since 2005, the Joint Initiative has served as a trusted advisor to Republican and Democratic administrations and members of Congress, brought together all sectors of the ocean community to identify urgent priorities, communicated recommended actions to decision makers, and educated and cultivated ocean champions. Over its tenure, it has established itself as a preeminent American voice for thoughtful ocean policy reform. The Joint Initiative is guided by a 23-member Leadership Council that is co-chaired by the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Commerce, and the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, former U.S. EPA Administrator and Governor of New Jersey. The Leadership

Council includes former members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2000-2004) and the Pew Oceans Commission (2000-2003) and additional leaders with experience in industry and commerce, government, academia, civil society, and scientific research at the local, state, regional, and national levels) “Ocean Action Agenda supporting Regional Ocean Economies and Ecosystems”, No Publication, March 2017 (https://oceanactionagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OceanActionAgenda.pdf)] TDI

The problems facing America’s oceans are global in their severity and scope and, thus, require global solutions. The United States has the world’s largest Exclusive Economic Zone, one that touches the Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean; the world’s largest navy; and the strongest marine science enterprise. As a result, the United States is uniquely positioned to lead the world on ocean issues , thereby strengthening our economy and national security. The United States has been a global leader on oceans, for example, by serving as Chair of the Arctic Council , promoting innovative solutions to international fishing issues, and convening the first Our Ocean Conference in 2014, as well as the third conference in 2016, which brought unprecedented attention to ocean issues and increased global commitments to responsible ocean management . Yet, there remain opportunities for improvement. For example, U.S. diplomats have not included ocean and marine issues in international climate discussions and negotiations despite their fundamental role in the global climate system. Nor has the U.S. Senate ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, an essential treaty on global ocean governance. As we confront a changing ocean, increased international coordination and collaboration is vital to the U.S. national interest.

In recent years, the nations of the world made significant progress on marine debris, ocean conservation, and sustainable fisheries, in large part due to U.S. leadership . The Our Ocean Conference was first convened by the United States in 2014, by Chile in 2015, and by the United States again in 2016. The European Union, Indonesia, and Norway have committed to hosting the next three conferences, respectively. These conferences bring together senior leaders of governments, the private sector, NGOs, and philanthropic organizations to commit to action on pressing ocean and coastal issues. The previous three conferences have resulted in almost $10 billion in financial commitments to address ocean issues, including support for international actions to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and protect ecologically significant areas. This is an important arena where U.S. leadership is spurring other countries to invest in the future of the world’s oceans . For this reason, the United States should continue to support, participate in, and host international dialogues regarding actions

that benefit the nation and result in measurable progress on our most pressing global ocean issues.

Our planet’s climate is undergoing massive changes that are impacting people around the world. The ocean, which covers 71 percent of the planet’s surface, is experiencing rapid and potentially devastating change. It has absorbed half of all fossil-based carbon released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The consequences of this include ocean acidification, sea level rise, species migration, and other measurable impacts. For this reason, the United States should prioritize inclusion of ocean issues in future international climate discussions.

The oceans play a huge role in regulating climate, and the failure to properly include them in international climate discussions is troubling. The oceans mitigate many of the impacts of climate change and are being negatively impacted in ways that most people don’t observe or understand.

The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a comprehensive international accord to which 155 nations and the European Union belong. It establishes common sense rules about the world’s oceans and resources, including the Arctic. As the only industrialized nation not party to the Convention, the United States remains sidelined in ongoing dialogues about access to and management of Arctic resources, and limited in its ability to address escalating tensions in the South China Sea. By participating in the Convention, the United States would secure sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, promote international commerce, protect America’s national security interests, and further the conservation of ocean resources. A broad, diverse, and bipartisan range of interests overwhelmingly supports U.S. accession to the Convention. All major U.S. ocean industries, including offshore energy, maritime transportation and commerce, fishing, and shipbuilding, support accession, as does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Environmental, research, and faith-based organizations also strongly support the Convention. The U.S. Senate should ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea as soon as possible in the new Congress.

Absent defendant’s property gives the United States jurisdiction over polluting in the high seasGutoff 17 [(Jonathan M, Professor Jonathan Gutoff is one of the nation’s top experts on piracy and maritime law issues. In addition to his popular courses on Administrative Law, Admiralty, Civil Procedure, and Remedies, Gutoff is a former acting director (and present faculty member) of RWU Law’s Marine Affairs Institute. His articles have appeared in top legal publications such as the Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce (“The Law of Piracy in Popular Culture”), the Tulane Law Review and the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. He has addressed regional, national and international conferences on marine and environmental law issues, and he is regularly sought out for

his expert commentary by media outlets as diverse as the National Law Journal and National Public Radio.) "Attaching Domestic Assets to Remedy High Seas Pollution: Rule B and Marine Debris," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 22 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. 2017] TDI

Given the state of the law of personal jurisdiction, it would seem impossible to bring suit against many parties responsible for marine debris that affect U.S. citizens, either on the high seas or in U.S. waters. Many of those parties will have no presence in the United States. They will

have neither incorporation nor a principle place of business in a state. Even if the damage the debris causes is felt within U.S. waters, it is doubtful that any parties causing it will have directed their actions toward the United States. While many foreign actors may have assets in the United States, in the form of bank accounts, securities, or accounts payable, under Shaffer, unless the actors themselves are present in the United States or have directed their actions there, that property could not be used to drag them into a U.S. court.30

Under federal maritime law, however, the property of a foreign corporation could be used to do just that. Whatever the correct interpretation of Shaffer, or indeed, whether it is still good law aside, both long

before and long after Shaffer, federal admiralty practice has allowed plaintiffs to assert jurisdiction over absent defendants on the basis of presence of the absent defendant’s property.31 The requirements for asserting jurisdiction based on the presence of a defendant’s property are currently set out in Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

Because Rule B has survived Shaffer, and because it provides a basis for asserting jurisdiction over maritime claims, it may serve as a tool in asserting U.S. jurisdiction over some foreign parties responsible for marine debris.

1AR

1AR – AT No renewables Smil is wrong – transition is EZDiesendorf 18 [Mark Diesendorf, 6-29-2018, "How rapidly can we transition to 100% renewable electricity?," Energy Post, https://energypost.eu/how-rapidly-can-we-transition-to-100-renewable-electricity/, accessed 7-10-2019] TDI

One of Smil’s key arguments is that beliefs in the possibility of a rapid transition are inadequate because they are based on transitioning electricity alone.

Smil appears to be unaware that most scenarios for 100% renewable energy involve transitioning almost all transport and non-electrical heat to renewable electricity.

The main exceptions are long-distance rural road and air transport, which will need renewable fuels.

Putting the cart before the horse

Smil seems to be under the incorrect impression that we must focus on changing the fossil fuel primary energy inputs – coal, oil and gas – to renewable energy, presumably because the traditional energy flow diagram (see figure) starts with primary energy on the left, then flows through transformation processes (e.g. combustion in a power station) in the middle of the diagram – to provide on the right-hand-side, after substantial energy losses, the end-use energy and hence the energy services we demand: a warm home in winter, hot showers and cold beer.

This puts the cart before the horse.

However, if we start by considering what energy services we really need, we can integrate energy efficiency and conservation with renewable electricity, thus reducing the demand for end-use energy, which will be used mostly as electricity.

Then, when we reduce electricity use by a certain amount, we substitute for approximately three times that amount of energy in primary fossil fuels used for electricity generation.

This is because of the low efficiency of conversion of fossil fuels into electricity, as illustrated. A strategy that moves from right to left is much easier than the opposite.

Smil also asserts that the successful transition of a few countries is irrelevant to a global transition. Presumably he thinks that the rapid ongoing transition of Denmark, with 44% of its electricity in 2017 coming from variable RElec (wind), and Germany with 26%, are special cases.

To achieve 100% renewable electricity, wind and solar power must be scaled up

However, we can also consider the north German states of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (100% net, mostly wind), South Australia (45%, wind + solar PV), Scotland (44% of consumption and over 60% of generation, mostly wind) and several states of the USA (each with 25-30%).

These successful examples are relevant as the pathfinders for other regions, demonstrating how reliability, security, affordability and environmental sustainability

can be achieved with high and increasing contributions from variable renewable electricity.

They also continue to drive down the costs of renewable technologies for the rest of the world, which then experiences an easier transition than the pathfinders. Germany’s success in driving the market for solar PV, and so bringing down its costs, brought China into manufacturing PV, resulting in further reductions in costs.

Thus the successful examples are relevant both as symbols and in practice.

To achieve 100% renewable electricity, wind and solar power must be scaled up. Smil assumes incorrectly that this can only be done by increasing the size of wind turbines and their efficiency of conversion to impossible levels.

Supply chains are key

This overlooks the fact that wind and solar technologies (and batteries) are mass-produced in factories and so the principal increase in capacity and reduction in cost comes from rapidly producing more wind turbines and solar modules to meet the demand of an expanding market, and from improving supply chains.

Bigger, more efficient wind turbines and solar modules play a role in the scale-up, but it’s a minor one.

Because Smil’s assumptions are questionable to say the least, his argument that the transition to renewable electricity will take longer than historical energy transitions, is poorly based.

On the other hand, the facts that wind turbines, solar PV, CST, batteries and energy efficiency technologies can be mass produced rapidly and are less expensive per unit of electricity generated or saved than new fossil fueled and nuclear power stations, gives confidence that a rapid transition is technically and economically possible.

1AR – AT Can’t be enforcedMPAs work now and effectiveness will increase over timeO’Leary PhD et al 18 [Bethan C. O’leary, PhD on high seas MPAs and ocean governance in 2012. During her PhD she was a member of the scientific research team that developed the scientific case underpinning the world’s first network of high seas MPAs in the North Atlantic under the OSPAR Convention. Natalie C. Ban, Miriam Fernandez, Alan M. Friedlander, Pablo García-borboroglu, Yimnang Golbuu, Paolo Guidetti, Jean M. Harris, Julie P. Hawkins, Tim Langlois, Douglas J. Mccauley, Ellen K. Pikitch, Robert H. Richmond, And Callum M. Roberts] May 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 5 • BioScience TDI

Criticism: LSMPAs do not solve an obvious conservation problem and therefore absorb limited resources that could be used more effectively or urgently elsewhere (e.g., Devillers et al. 2015). There are several obvious conservation problems that LSMPAs are well placed to address, particularly where they are strongly or fully protected. Because overfishing and the associated collateral damage to habitat and ecosystem structure and function are pressing problems in most of the ocean, LSMPAs can help address these concerns and offer many advantages that fishery measures such as bycatch mitigation and single-species quotas do not confer (Graham N et al. 2007). Precautionary protection against emerging activities also offers proactive rather than reactive management, particularly for habitats such as the deep-sea or oligotrophic ecosystems (e.g., oceanic) that will likely take decades to millennia to recover from disturbance (e.g., Jones DOB et al. 2017). LSMPAs have been criticized for being designated in remote waters “residual” to commercial interests and distant from the most serious threats, leading some to suggest that protection of these areas is not required and may divert attention from areas in more urgent need (e.g., Devillers et al. 2015, Agardy et al. 2016). A related criticism is that LSMPAs protect regions of low conservation value given their large component of less diverse pelagic and deep seafloor habitat compared with more diverse and productive coastal habitats. However, although some LSMPAs may currently experience limited direct human impacts (supplemental figure S2), threats remain (Friedlander et al. 2014, Davies et al. 2017), and history shows that with increasing human population and resource demand, no unused area can be presumed to remain undisturbed in perpetuity (Halpern et al. 2015). Proactive protection of ocean “wilderness” areas against future exploitation could offer large long-term benefits to marine biodiversity and ecosystem services (Graham NAJ and McClanahan 2013, D’agata et al. 2016, Roberts et al. 2017). On land, almost one-tenth of wilderness areas have been lost over the past two decades, greatly exceeding the rate at which new terrestrial protected areas have been created (Watson et al. 2016). In the sea, LSMPAs therefore offer a time-limited opportunity to protect sites before they experience increased commercial interest and impacts; that is, there is a

premium on early designation. Small MPAs can offer important local benefits (Di Franco et al. 2016, Giakoumi et al. 2017); however, given the wide spatial scale of interconnected marine ecosystems, with characteristically indistinct boundaries, effective management needs to be large scale and encompass the water column used by pelagic species. This way, it can better accommodate ecological processes and benefit highly mobile taxa such as whales, sharks, turtles, seabirds, and straddling fish stocks well known for their vulnerability to human pressures (e.g., Sumaila et al. 2015). Marine spatial planning goes some way toward achieving this in places where LSMPAs are not appropriate; however, the larger areas protected by LSMPAs not only better reflect the ranges of such species but also can serve as protected corridors of connectivity among habitats in ways not afforded by smaller MPAs. Although smaller MPAs can benefit species that move across their boundaries (e.g., Claudet et al. 2010), protection through LSMPAs could strengthen these outcomes (Edgar et al. 2014, Sumaila et al. 2015). Although even the largest LSMPAs will not offer complete protection to the oceans’ most mobile species, emerging evidence suggests these species may benefit from spatial protection nonetheless (Mee et al. 2017, White et al. 2017). Complementary management in areas surrounding LSMPAs will, however, remain essential for sustainable ocean management. Resources for environmental protection are limited and must be invested wisely. Larger MPAs offer economies of scale being less expensive to manage per unit area than smaller MPAs (Balmford et al. 2004). Protecting areas before degradation occurs also helps insure against needing costly restoration measures. With simple management schemes (e.g., strongly or fully protected), LSMPAs may also be proportionally cheaper to implement and manage than multiple small networked MPAs or MPAs with complex zoning (Balmford et al. 2004, Ban et al. 2011, McCrea-Strub et al. 2011). Although designating LSMPAs will require large capital investment and incur ongoing costs, this is also true of smaller MPAs (Gill et al. 2017).

MPAs are easily enforceable due to new technologyO’Leary PhD et al 18 [Bethan C. O’leary, PhD on high seas MPAs and ocean governance in 2012. During her PhD she was a member of the scientific research team that developed the scientific case underpinning the world’s first network of high seas MPAs in the North Atlantic under the OSPAR Convention. Natalie C. Ban, Miriam Fernandez, Alan M. Friedlander, Pablo García-borboroglu, Yimnang Golbuu, Paolo Guidetti, Jean M. Harris, Julie P. Hawkins, Tim Langlois, Douglas J. Mccauley, Ellen K. Pikitch, Robert H. Richmond, And Callum M. Roberts] May 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 5 • BioScience TDI

Criticism: LSMPAs are difficult to monitor and enforce (e.g., De Santo 2013). Because LSMPAs are mainly remote and in sparsely populated or uninhabited areas (figure 2), they present limited opportunities for comanagement and therefore require innovative

mechanisms to ensure compliance and monitor responses to protection. Numerous rapidly emerging technologies (e.g., drone, radar, and satellite observation) and their decreasing costs offer opportunities for cost-effective monitoring of marine life and human activities. For example, advances in satellite tracking of vessels have enabled remote monitoring and detection of illegal fishing (McCauley et al. 2016) and near-real-time surveillance of fishing activities (e.g., see Global Fishing Watch, http://globalfishingwatch.org). This information can be used to provide evidence of illegal activity and direct enforcement vessels to those suspected of engaging in illegal activities, streamlining patrol activities. For instance, in 2015, it assisted with the interdiction of a boat suspected of illegally fishing within Kiribati’s Phoenix Islands Protected Area (McCauley et al. 2016). Improvements in satellite imaging, remote sensing, and drone technologies, together with greater cooperation promoted by the FAO’s Port State Measures Agreement (www.fao.org/fishery/psm/agreement/ en), which came into effect in 2016, will make LSMPA monitoring and enforcement increasingly effective and affordable, although by their nature, enforcement actions will remain costlier than monitoring. Although enforcement of LSMPAs remains challenging, this does not invalidate LSMPA designation. Moreover, continued involvement and partnerships with stakeholders will also improve compliance, which is always preferable and more cost-effective than enforcement actions alone. This criticism assumes that monitoring and enforcing MPAs in more populated areas is easier. However, places with severe pressures on resources require costly and intensive monitoring and enforcement. MPAs in such settings have regularly been criticized for inadequacy in this respect, and ensuring adequate levels of protection, as well as staff and budget capacity for management, is essential for effective protection (Edgar et al. 2014, Gill et al. 2017). Recognizing this, financial commitments for protection are increasingly being made by nonprofit organizations and national governments. For example, at the 2016 Our Ocean conference, nonprofit organizations pledged US$48 million to the Wildlife Conservation Society MPA Fund that aims to expand and improve MPA effectiveness. Concurrently, the UK government committed approximately US$21 million over 4 years to support the implementation, management, surveillance, and enforcement of LSMPAs in its overseas territories.

1AR – AT Ulterior MotivesThe plan’s guardian mechanism solves for ulterior motives.Bender 17 [Michelle Bender is an environmental law and policy specialist with expertise in ocean and wildlife law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. She serves on the Executive Committee for the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and is a member of the IUCN's World Commission on Environmental Law. Michelle graduated Summa Cum Laude from Vermont Law School, where she earned a Master’s in Environmental Law and Policy and holds a B.S. in Biology with a Marine Emphasis from Western Washington University 2017, “THE EARTH LAW FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS: ADOPTING A HOLISTIC, SYSTEMS, AND RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO OCEAN GOVERNANCE” Earth Law Center, Accessed 7-5-19] TDI

C. THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS TO REPRESENT THE MARINE PROTECTED AREA’S INTERESTS, I.E. “OFFICE OF THE MPA”

A statutorily designated managing body comprised of government, local community

and interest groups, not only brings together stakeholders, but ensures a better mutual understanding of different user values. Involving relevant stakeholders in governing the MPA ensures compliance and effective regulations by taking into account the expected effects of decisions on all users and the measures needed to mitigate those effects. The Earth Law Framework takes the representation notion one step further, by requiring the MPA itself to have a voice in decisions, carried forth by “guardians” or “trustees.” (The concept of trustees for the environment is not new, see Appendix G, Part B).

A marine protected area office for management could consist of local and indigenous

peoples, government officials, scientists, and the various users of the area. Most importantly,

the office would consist of guardians of the marine ecosystem and represent its interests. Per the precedent set by New Zealand law (see Appendix G, Part A), guardians have a legal responsibility to protect and act on behalf of the marine ecosystem. It is the duty of the management body to protect the integrity and diversity of the marine ecosystem, and to defend the area from activities that may harm the ecosystem and its inhabitants. Specifically, guardians may use their standing to bring legal action upon parties involved with activities directly affecting the health and wellbeing of the marine protected area.

Guardians for the ocean can participate in any legal process affecting the ecosystem (particularly “appearing before national legislative and rule-making bodies to help clarify ocean impacts of proposed actions”), develop or review any relevant guidelines, monitor the health of the ocean, monitor compliance with applicable laws and treaties, and represent the ecosystem in disputes. The guardians have “standing” on behalf of the MPA.117

1AR – Humanism K Permutation do both – the aff is holistic and values nature as interconnected.Bender 17 [Michelle Bender is an environmental law and policy specialist with expertise in ocean and wildlife law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. She serves on the Executive Committee for the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and is a member of the IUCN's World Commission on Environmental Law. Michelle graduated Summa Cum Laude from Vermont Law School, where she earned a Master’s in Environmental Law and Policy and holds a B.S. in Biology with a Marine Emphasis from Western Washington University 2017, “THE EARTH LAW FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS: ADOPTING A HOLISTIC, SYSTEMS, AND RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO OCEAN GOVERNANCE” Earth Law Center, Accessed 7-5-19] TDI

We can ensure effective management and protection of marine areas by evolving the framework we choose to deploy. This ultimately requires us to change our worldview and values, because our values shape the framework, and in turn determine the level of human activity regulation. The current framework largely values the ocean as a resource, and considers humans as separate from the system. Anthropocentric rules result, and we manage our activities by what benefits humans, rather than what benefits the ocean and Earth as a whole (see Appendix C, Part A).

Earth Law provides a legal framework and an overarching governance principle with a holistic and Earth-centered approach. Earth Law recognizes the interconnectedness of

all life and it values nature for its intrinsic worth. Consequently, law and policies created within the Earth Law Framework focus on preserving the integrity of all Earth’s systems and processes, to ensure all species and ecosystems thrive, including humans.

This global movement for Rights of Nature (see Appendix D) offers a new approach to protecting and restoring ocean health. By recognizing legal rights for MPAs, we move beyond the traditional model of perpetual economic growth and development, linear progress, and a mechanistic worldview consisting of separate parts.

The Earth Law Framework manages our activities at a level that respects the basic rights and needs of all species, and ecosystems, including humans. Legal rights for MPAs would mean:

• humans create a sustainable relationship with the ecosystem and the species within it;

• protection and restoration is a legal responsibility;

• management boards, or “guardians,” ensure that activities do not violate the oceans’ rights.

This perspective is holistic, risk-averse, and adaptive, and questions key assumptions, no matter how basic. 95 Earth Law represents the next step in the continuing evolution of MPA governance.

The plan isn’t stewardship – guardians create no-take zones that allow for nature to repair itself.Bender 17 [Michelle Bender is an environmental law and policy specialist with expertise in ocean and wildlife law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. She serves on the Executive Committee for the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and is a member of the IUCN's World Commission on Environmental Law. Michelle graduated Summa Cum Laude from Vermont Law School, where she earned a Master’s in Environmental Law and Policy and holds a B.S. in Biology with a Marine Emphasis from Western Washington University 2017, “THE EARTH LAW FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS: ADOPTING A HOLISTIC, SYSTEMS, AND RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO OCEAN GOVERNANCE” Earth Law Center, Accessed 7-5-19] TDI

Central to employing the Earth Law and precautionary approaches is the existence of “no-take” zones, areas where extractive activities are generally not allowed. 122 These areas allow the ocean and its cycles and systems to function without human

disturbance. Fully protected areas help to restore fish populations (biomass) and biodiversity. In fact, the disappearance of human disturbances results in rapid rebound of fish populations. These positive outcomes also reach beyond the designated boundaries of the no-take zone. This is referred to as the “spillover effect.”123 Studies show that no-take zones also produce costbenefit ratios where benefits far exceed the costs.124 No-take MPAs also provide direct and indirect human benefits, such as those for jobs, research and cultural values125.

However, “no-take” zone definitions vary across MPAs and only apply to specific target species. Their employment has been hindered in large part by the absence of the explicit requirement for MPAs to include such components.126

1AR – Offshore drilling Off Shore drilling is economically inefficient.Schaefer 12 [Keith Schaefer, 3-14-2012, "Investing in Offshore Drilling; Deepwater Exploration," No Publication, https://oilandgas-investments.com/2012/investing/offshore-drilling-exploration-investing/, accessed 7-10-2019] TDIOffshore drilling is the most complex and expensive way of accessing oil and gas reserves, particularly when it comes to deep water and ultra-deep water exploration activities.

While presenting the industry with its biggest challenges, deep water exploration and development yields the greatest potential rewards and healthy profit margins to the oil service companies involved.

The rising complexity and costs of such endeavours demands huge capital investments, long term commitments, higher efficiencies and a growing reliance on technology in order to reduce uncertainties.

The market fundamentals for oil service companies remain solid, oil prices are stubbornly holding their ground above $100 per barrel in a tough macroeconomic environment. The resiliency of high oil prices is fuelling increasing exploration and production spending by operators as the industry pushes further offshore into ever-deeper water. By 2020, offshore oil production is expected to account for 34% of the global output up from 25% in 1990.

Offshore drilling companies are seeing a significant increase in tenders and requests from customers, particularly for the ultra-deep water rigs which are commanding higher daily rates for its units. The brightening outlook mirrored by record backlog orders and rising rates encouraged the industry to focus on adding new equipment in all market segments in a bid to provide the most versatile fleets of mobile offshore drilling units.

Jack-up rigs are mobile, self-elevating drilling platforms that are towed by tugboats to the drill site with water depth of up to 400 feet. Jack-Ups are equipped with tubular structure legs that are lowered to the sea floor where jacking elevates the hull above the water surface before drilling operations begin.

Semi-submersible rigs operate in a semi-submerged position with the lower hull ballasted down below the waterline. The rig consists of a deck which contains working areas, equipment and living quarters that is able to carry drilling operations in deep and ultra-deep waters of up to 10,000 feet in water depth.

Drill Ships are self-propelled ships equipped for drilling in water depths in which jack-up rigs are incapable of working. They can drill in deep and ultra-deep waters in up to 12,000 feet of water depth.

Rising oil prices have also spurred a construction boom in drilling rigs; the cost for a drilling ship easily surpasses $600M per unit where it is leased at $500k/day or more on 2 or 3 year contracts. The Jack-up market is seeing increased demand in Mexico, the North Sea, the Middle East and Asia while the floaters market which includes ultra-deep water rigs has been improving markedly in Brazil, Africa and the Gulf of Mexico.

1AR – Property Rights/Free Markets The plan doesn’t violate property rights – citizens only have jurisdiction over a part of their beachWills 16 [Matthew Wills, 8-4-2016, "Can Anyone Own the Beach?," JSTOR Daily, https://daily.jstor.org/can-anyone-own-the-beach/, accessed 7-10-2019] TDI

As Jennifer A. Sullivan defines it, the problem on this sand-water frontier is two-fold: “the right of the public to use the beach and the right of private landowner to exclude.” The way we have traditionally reconciled these inevitable conflicts (“Get off my beach!” “Hey, I’m just walking here!”) in the U.S. is to say that private property extends to the “mean high tide” line. Below that to the water is public land, sometimes a lot of it at low tide. In theory, therefore, you could beachcomb the entire coastline, as long as you were walking in wet or damp sand.

1AR – Ag DAOverfishing is a giant threat to food security – species spillover.FOC 12 [Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 6-8-2012, "Overfishing and Food Security," No Publication, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_food-eng.htm, accessed 7-10-2019] TDI

The impact of global overfishing is typically measured in environmental and economic terms, but often overlooked is the threat depleted fish stocks pose to the millions of people around the world who depend on fish for food.

According to the World Resources Institute, about 1 billion people – largely in developing countries – rely on fish as their primary animal protein source. Fish is highly nutritious, and it serves as a valuable supplement in diets lacking essential vitamins and minerals.

During much of the last half-century, the growth in demand for animal protein was satisfied in part by the rising output of oceanic fisheries. Between 1950 and 1990, the oceanic fish catch increased roughly fivefold, from 19 million to 85 million tonnes. During this period, seafood consumption per person nearly doubled, climbing from 8 to 15 kilograms.Footnote1

Unfortunately, the human appetite for seafood is outgrowing the sustainable yield of oceanic fisheries. Today, more than 70 per cent of the world's fisheries are either fully exploited or depleted. Production levels in many fishing nations have fallen to historically low levels, confirming that some fish stocks are in a fragile state.

Global investments In aquaculture are seen as one way to help bridge the growing demand for fish and seafood. While this may also help contribute to food security, it is only part of the solution. Action is still needed to create sustainable fish stocks in the high seas.

One of the major factors contributing to the current predicament of global fisheries is illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Illegal fishing undermines efforts to conserve and manage fish stocks. This situation leads to the loss of both short and long-term social and economic opportunities, and to negative effects on food security.

IUU fishing is especially problematic for developing nations. These States can lose tens of millions of dollars to illegal fishing, and may not have the governance structures in place to ensure proper fisheries management. Footnote2

The world's oceans, lakes and rivers are harvested largely by artisanal fishers. Their catches provide essential nourishment for poor communities, not only in Africa and Asia, but also in many parts of Latin America and islands in the Pacific and Indian

Oceans. Of the 30 countries most dependent on fish as a protein source, all but four are in the developing world.Footnote3

The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products, in combination with shrinking supply, is leading to significant increases in fish prices. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments. This is to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. Developing countries are also taking a growing share of the international trade in fish and fishery products. This may have both benefits and drawbacks. While the exports provide valuable foreign exchange, the diversion of fish and fish products from local communities and developing regions can deprive needy people of a traditionally cheap, but highly nutritious food.Footnote4

The Government of Canada recognizes the threat that both overfishing and IUU fishing pose to global food security . These issues were specifically addressed in the Ministerial Declaration of the St. John's Conference on the Governance of High

Seas Fisheries and the United Nations Fish Agreement and the Bali Plan of Action. In these international commitments, concrete measures were outlined to: strengthen regional fisheries management organizations to help ensure sustainable fisheries; and assist developing nations in implementing relevant agreements, instruments and tools for the conservation and management of fish stocks.

Sustainable fish stocks are needed as a significant and renewable source of healthy food for large parts of the world's population. Continued sustainable use provides for increased food security on a global basis.

1AR – Disease ImpactThe ocean is good for humans – link turns disease.Bender 17 [Michelle Bender is an environmental law and policy specialist with expertise in ocean and wildlife law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. She serves on the Executive Committee for the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and is a member of the IUCN's World Commission on Environmental Law. Michelle graduated Summa Cum Laude from Vermont Law School, where she earned a Master’s in Environmental Law and Policy and holds a B.S. in Biology with a Marine Emphasis from Western Washington University, " Frequently Asked Questions about Rights for the Ocean ," Earth Law Center, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/5a2f0137e4966ba9754e3975/1513029943691/Ocean+Rights+Rebuttal+Doc.pdf, accessed 7-9-2019] TDI

- This card is in the context of an FAQ – it’s only phrased as anthropocentric because the question asked is anthropocentric

How will this help with what I care about? [ human rights, future generations, plastic pollution, etc.]

If you care about human rights, then you care about the ocean:

● The ocean produces half of the world’s oxygen , absorbs and sequesters one-third of the carbon dioxide human activities emit, provides protection from extreme weather events, and provides a source of food and livelihoods .

● 20 percent of the human population depends on the ocean for their primary source

of protein, and over seven percent rely on the ocean for jobs and income . 4

● Additionally, the ocean provides key medicinal components and treatments , such as the anticancer drug, Ara-C and an enzyme to treat asthma. Being near and on the ocean is proven to boost human mental and physical health. In short, human life and well-being depend on the ocean (UNEP, 2011).8

Neg

1NC – BiodiversityReject their impact evidence—it’s all hype which turns conservation effortsCressey 15 [(Daniel, Reporter) "Ocean 'calamities' oversold, say researchers," Nature 1-14-2015] TDI

The state of the world's seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper. The team writes that scientists, journals and the media have fallen into a mode of groupthink that can damage the credibility of the ocean sciences. The controversial study exposes fault lines in the marine-science community.

Carlos Duarte, a marine biologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and his colleagues say that gloomy media reports about ocean issues such as invasive species and coral die-offs are not always based on actual observations. It is not just journalists who are to blame, they maintain: the marine research community “may not have remained sufficiently sceptical” on the topic.

“There are a lot of conversations around meetings about the excess doom and gloom in our reporting of ocean health, but perhaps this is the first paper to bring these concerns out of the privacy of peer conversations,” says Duarte. “This is a silent movement, as there is a lot of peer pressure against voicing those concerns openly, so my co-authors and I expect significant heat upon us to be derived from our paper.”

In their review, published on 31 December in BioScience1, Duarte and his colleagues look at purported catastrophes, including overfishing, jellyfish blooms, invasive species and the impact of ocean acidification on organisms such as corals. In some cases, they say, there is strong evidence for global-scale problems bringing severe disruption — overfishing is a prime example. But for other topics that have excited scientific and media attention, the evidence is equivocal or weak. In these categories, Duarte places global blooms of jellyfish and the problems caused by invasive species.

Duarte's team reviews a number of news reports and scientific papers. It contrasts these with other papers that would seem to undermine the catastrophe narrative.

Among the "excessive media headlines" cited are the CNN's 'Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the brink of catastrophic collapse'. Duarte also told Nature that its own news story 'Coastal havoc boosts jellies' fell into the 'doom and gloom' trap.

Another example is the decline of species that build calciferous shells, attributed to ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide dissolving in the seas. In 2013, The Seattle Times said that this issue "is helping push the seas toward a great unraveling that threatens to scramble marine life on a scale almost too big to fathom".

But the authors of the BioScience paper say that there are significant uncertainties in this. Many experiments are based on “worst-case scenarios”, they say, and claims that calciferous organisms are already declining may relate not to carbon emissions, but to other oceanic processes.

And although it is sometimes claimed that jellyfish blooms are increasing around the world, Duarte's paper says there were no global attempts to quantify the increase until 2012, so such claims are extrapolated from a small number of cases.

Overselling such claims is dangerous, says the group, because the public may become inured to them and give up trying to save an ocean that it believes is already beyond redemption.

Duarte is now looking to bring together a group of like-minded researchers to ‘audit’ claims of ocean disasters by critically assessing the evidence. This would weed out claims based on poor evidence, he says, and bring society some hope that the oceans can be saved.

As well as pointing the finger at scientists and journalists, Duarte’s group places some of the blame for the hype at the door of some journals, including Nature. “The appetite of the media for particular headlines can influence the contents of top scientific journals,” they write. (Note: Nature’s news and comment team is editorially independent of its research editorial team.)

Philip Campbell, Nature's editor-in-chief, disagrees. “We select research for publication in Nature on the basis of scientific significance,” he says. “That in turn may lead to citation impact and media coverage, but Nature editors aren't driven by those considerations, and couldn’t predict them even if they wished to do so.”

No impact to marine dumpingHenry and Catarino 18 [(Ted, Professor of Environmental Toxicology in the Centre for Marine Biodiversity and Biotechnology; Ann, PhD ocean acidification) "Why evidence on the harm of marine plastic pollution is surprisingly weak," Independent, 3-28-2018] TDI

This may indeed harm marine life and their ecosystems, but when you look closely at the evidence, it turns out that we are far less sure than it might appear.

There are important gaps in our understanding about plastics. It’s not unreasonable for people to fill these with speculation to some extent – funding for research is limited and we cannot wait for scientific research to provide complete answers before taking action. On the other hand, unsupported speculation can lead to scarce resources being misdirected when they could be better spent on other environmental issues.

Certainly we produce large amounts of plastics each year. They continually end up as waste in the environment, and the polymers they comprise decompose extremely slowly. Large particles fragment into smaller pieces known as microplastics – technically 5mm in diameter or less. These are now recognised as one of the most prevalent human-made pollutants in marine environments across the world.

Microplastics could be accumulating in some places to levels that somehow compromise ecosystems. Deep-sea regions are a probable candidate, for example, though they are also the areas where we have the least information about quantities and effects. We need to do more work to say with confidence whether this is a serious problem.

On the question of how much damage microplastics cause to marine life, we certainly know these particles are readily transported throughout our seas and oceans and there is considerable evidence that organisms ingest them. However, the polymers that make up plastics are of minimal toxicity to marine life.

The question is whether they may cause harm in other ways. It could be that organisms absorb these particles and they accumulate in internal tissues, though it’s not clear whether or not that might be harmful to them. Microplastics may also accumulate in the gut and potentially interfere with processes like nutrient uptake or the passage of waste – or they may just be expelled without any negative effects.

A few studies have shown microplastics being absorbed by marine life in very small amounts, but other studies have found the opposite. We don’t even know whether very small nanoplastics with diameters of less than 1,000 nanometres can be absorbed. The studies that do exist on nanoparticles suggest that such absorption is minimal. In short, the jury is still out on absorption.

If microplastics are not appreciably absorbed, their potential to accumulate in tissues and cause problems is very low. It would also mean they can’t be passed on in any significant way to a predator who eats that organism. If so, it puts microplastics in a different category to toxic substances that end up in the food chain after accumulating in the internal tissues of fish – mercury, say.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that plastic particles are readily released from the gut of organisms without negative effects – and note that researchers have tended to test for concentrations in considerably higher amounts than are found in the environment.

Certainly, questions do remain. Perhaps of greatest importance is whether specific shapes of microplastics – fibres, for example – present particular difficulties for waste moving through the guts of some organisms.

Another concern is around toxic substances like DDT or hexachlorobenzene sticking to microplastics and potentially ending up in places they wouldn’t otherwise reach.

Scientists have already found considerable evidence of this. Some people are alarmed that these substances could end up being ingested by marine organisms and harming them as a result.

In one study, the levels of toxic substances in the tissues of marine birds were actually lower when they had ingested plastics (Shutterstock)

Yet most studies have shown that toxicants associated with plastics are either at concentrations too low to be toxic – or that the substances stick too strongly to the plastics to be released into organisms and cause problems.

In one study, the levels of toxic substances in the tissues of marine birds were actually lower when they had ingested plastics. The investigators suggested the toxic substances already present within the bird tissues were sticking to the plastics and being removed. If so, toxic substances attached to plastics might be less of a concern for toxicity to marine organisms than is feared.

Then there are microplastics and the human food chain. We were intrigued by this possibility and conducted an experiment to check. While we cooked in our kitchens, we left open petri dishes with sticky tape to collect dust fallout in the surrounding air.

We compared the amounts of plastic fibres in this dust with the quantities we found in mussels collected around the Scottish coast. The results suggest that while a regular UK consumer might ingest 100 plastic particles a year from eating mussels, their average exposure to plastic particles during meals from household dust is well over 10,000 per year.

In sum, the evidence about the dangers of plastics and microplastics in the marine environment is far from conclusive. There are important gaps in scientists’ knowledge that need to be filled, particularly where plastic particles are likely to accumulate in large amounts over long periods and how this potentially affects ecosystems.

We must avoid undue speculating and overstating risks, and instead engage with the actual evidence. Otherwise it will detract from our ability to manage plastic pollution in the most effective way and have a clear sense of the right priorities.

1NC – WarmingOther countries have an economic incentive to not to model American drilling regulations. New tech and measures can make drilling safer – avoids prosecution.Webb & Nicholson ’18 [Jim Webb & Jim Nicholson (Jim Webb is Former Secretary of the Navy and former Democratic Virginia Senator. Jim Nicholson is Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. They are National Chairs of Explore Offshore.), 6-20-2018, "Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development Drives US Energy and National Security," Real Clear Energy, https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/06/20/offshore_oil_and_natural_gas_development_drives_us_energy_and_national_security.html] TDI

Offshore oil production is growing around the world, accounting for 25 percent of the world’s crude supply of around 99 million barrels a day. Just in recent years, major offshore discoveries have occurred in Brazil, Guyana, the North Sea, Cyprus, and Mexico. At the same time, due to environmental concerns in the past, our national policies have failed to adjust to the significant advances in exploration, drilling technology, and safety measures that would allow us to conduct research and safely explore and develop all of our existing domestic oil and natural gas resources — including those that lie offshore.

As an example, 94 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United States is currently off-limits to offshore exploration and development. The last time a lease auction was held in the U.S. areas of the Atlantic Ocean was 1984. Just imagine the gains in exploration techniques, drilling technology, and overall safety that have been made since then. It has been more than three decades since we have had the opportunity even to explore and analyze what resources lie in these areas.

The administration’s recent announcement of a National Offshore Leasing Plan to explore and develop the OCS gives us an opportunity to debate and decide how offshore drilling can contribute to our energy future. This is why we have come together to co-chair a newly launched bipartisan coalition — Explore Offshore — dedicated to advancing the responsible exploration and development of offshore oil and natural gas resources through always advancing technologies.

This diverse coalition is made up of community organizations, associations, businesses, and local leaders in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida who support increased access to American oil and natural gas.

Currently, the United States is one of the only countries along the Atlantic that is not actively exploring for energy in those waters. Nations both near and far, many with

fewer resources and far less stringent environmental regulations , are adopting policies that allow them to proceed with offshore development. But the United States remains at a standstill.

This has very serious implications. As the Washington Post opined earlier this year, “As long as the economy requires oil, it must come from somewhere, and better the United States than a country with much weaker environmental oversight.” In fact, because of current U.S. policy, major energy investments are moving to countries like Mexico , where regulations could lag even farther behind ours. Over the last four years, as we have debated whether to open up carefully selected new areas for exploration on our side of the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico has leased over 20 million new acres on its side. The country's total acreage leased in the Gulf is now over 30 million acres, double that of the U.S.’s 14.7 million.

As our demand for reliable and affordable energy continues to grow, the long-term question is, whether we will have the national foresight and courage to attain our energy independence. Oil and gas production requires years of research, negotiations, and planning. In the United States, our strict environmental and safety policies have improved significantly even in just the past few years, with the industry incorporating the most advanced safety systems, including infrared gas detection sensors, fiber optics, remote monitoring, and drones to ensure safety around the clock. This cannot be said for other countries with far less regard for such concerns and procedures.

1NC -- OverfishingFish wars inevitableKaufman 18 [(Alexander, ) "Climate Change Is Already Sparking A New Era Of Fishing Wars, Study Finds," HuffPost, 6-14-2018] TDI

Unless greenhouse gas emissions decrease rapidly, 70 countries are projected to contain one or more new fishery stocks in their exclusive offshore economic zones by the end of the century, according to a study published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Science. Making the findings more dire, there are no international organizations with the existing power to broker new deals to share the fish, raising the risk of overfishing and destructive tension between neighboring countries.

“It’s like two kids facing off after the last piece of cake,” said Malin Pinsky, the study’s lead author and an ecologist at Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “If they both race for it, it’s likely they’re going to get frosting and cake smeared all over the table, and not as much cake for everyone ― as opposed to cutting the cake neatly and sharing it.”

The fishing wars have already begun. In the mid-1990s, increased warming in the Pacific Ocean pushed salmon south from British Columbia into United States waters, causing the so-called “salmon war” to erupt between Canada and the U.S. For years, Canadian fishermen tried to maximize their catch by targeting salmon heading south, leading to overfishing. By 1997, the conflict became physical as angry Canadian fishermen blockaded an Alaskan ferry and the British Columbia provincial government sued the U.S. The two countries only settled on new sharing agreements after the suit was dropped in 2000.

In 2007, Iceland and the Faroe Islands dramatically increased their annual quotas for mackerel as the striped, silvery fish’s massive schools shifted northward into the Nordic nations’ cooler waters. Scotland, backed by the European Union, fiercely protested the moves, and Scottish fishermen who depend on mackerel catches blockaded a Faroese ship, preventing it from unloading its haul. One Scottish politician accused Iceland and the Faroe Islands of “acting just like their Viking ancestors” by “plundering” fish stocks. The conflict lasted years, and ultimately derailed Iceland’s plans to join the European Union.

A chart from the study shows exclusive national fishing areas where species of commercially-important fish are expected to migrate in the coming decades. The areas shaded darker red indicate a higher number of newly arrived species.

Even now, there is conflict between U.S. states. New Jersey has fought a years-long battle to convince federal regulators to increase its quotas for summer flounders, newly

abundant in its waters since migrating north from North Carolina, where fishers traditionally depended on large hauls of the flatfish.

“These conflicts often don’t stay in fisheries. They spill over,” Pinsky said. “This isn’t a future problem.”

Yet it’s an issue with no current solution at the global level. The current legal framework for international regulation of fisheries does not account for fluctuating or changing distributions. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea serves as the primary foundation for international fishing rules and obliges states to cooperate to establish conservation and management measures. But the convention does not cover the sudden influx of additional species into new fisheries, creating “a loophole that often allows newly-fished stocks to be heavily exploited before meaningful standards are developed,” Pinsky wrote in the paper.

Regional fishery management organizations, which are subject to the U.N. convention, would be “the most reasonable venue” for new sharing agreements between countries, Pinsky said. But there is no ongoing effort to convince regional fishery management groups to put stronger legal mechanisms in place to oversee species moving from one jurisdiction to another or increase information sharing between countries to better track how climate change is affecting the populations.

The Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources could be a model for these groups going forward. The group forged agreements with neighboring regional fishery management organizations to monitor the movement of stocks across regulatory frontiers and worked with regulators to put precautionary rules in place over new fisheries, including no-take zones.

“They actually do have quite farsighted rules and mechanisms in place,” Pinsky said.

There are other potential solutions. The U.S., as part of its agreement to end the salmon war with Canada, agreed to pay into a salmon conservation fund to help balance out the losses from the population shift. That policy is known as a “side payment.” Another approach proposes allowing fishers to trade permits across national boundaries, so they can be compensated for losses by selling access to other fishers.

Pinsky worked with a team of five other researchers and social scientists to review historical examples of shifting species between countries and organizations. He partnered with Richard Caddell, a fishery policy scholar at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, to analyze current rules on sharing fish stocks around the world. He then compared fish stock movements for 892 different commercially-important fish and invertebrates to two different scenarios run through three separate global climate models ― one based on the current projections for increasing greenhouse gas

emissions, and another more based on meeting the moderate Paris Agreement goal of only 2.6 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels.

The projections showed grave warnings. Even under the lower temperature scenarios, between 40 and 50 countries would be at risk of fishing conflicts as one or more stocks appeared in their exclusive zones. With aquatic animals migrating on average 10 times faster than land creatures as a result of climate change, time for proactive policy planning is running out.

“Marine species are on the front lines of experiencing this,” Pinsky said. “Avoiding fisheries conflict ultimately provides more fish, more food and more jobs for everyone. There are really good reasons for addressing this now.”

Fish wars won’t escalate, overfishing reduces the likelihood of conflict, and there are too many external factors that influence their scenarioGlaser 17 [(Sarah, expert in marine ecology; leads an NSF-funded study of Lake Victoria. Sarah earned her PhD from Scripps Institution of Oceanography) "Fish Wars: How Fishing Can Start and Stop Conflict," Secure Fisheries 3-14-2017] TDI

On February 18, the US sent naval ships to the South China Seas, an area of armed tension over rich but dwindling fishing grounds (among other things). The following day, a newspaper headline proclaimed the risk of “global fish wars” sparked by climate change and rising nationalism.

Is the world on the brink of interstate fish wars? Probably not: a large-scale military dispute is not likely to erupt over tuna, and conflict over fish affected by climate change could occur over a long time horizon. But as fish become more difficult to find, understanding the links between fisheries and violent armed conflict is increasingly important.

THE FISHERIES-FOOD SECURITY-CONFLICT NEXUS

Human communities and their physical environments do not exist in isolation. The behavior of fishers (e.g., effort spent fishing, the species targeted) cannot be separated from the abundance of fish. Likewise, the abundance of fish is significantly affected by how, when, and where fishers fish.

Fisheries and Violence

The links between fisheries and armed conflict contain such feedbacks, depicted here as a coupled human and natural system. The human system on the left contains conflict, livelihoods, and food security. If unemployment increases and people cannot afford nutritious food like fish, food insecurity and the likelihood of conflict increase. During

conflict, people may lose their homes and jobs. Food becomes more scarce and expensive, which increases how much effort people put into fishing.

On the right of the diagram, the natural system contains fish and the small plants and animals that feed them. If top predators like tuna or sharks decline, the abundance of other fish and their prey will change in response. Complicated food webs and fishing pressure ultimately affect the abundance and therefore catch of fish. Good fish catch supports food and income, while poor catch reduces it, feeding back into the conditions that start or stop conflict.

Ultimately, what does this mean? It’s complicated, yes, but whether fishing causes or prevents conflict is subject to a tangled web of factors and timing.

FISHERIES CAN CAUSE ARMED CONFLICT

Armed conflict can occur over fisheries themselves. The infamous 20th century Cod Wars between Iceland and the UK showed nations were willing to defend coveted fishing grounds with military force. In Lake Victoria, the Ugandan army has confronted Kenyan fishers over an island on their shared border. Off the coast of Somalia, disputes between foreign and domestic fishing vessels have been implicated in the rise of piracy and hostage taking. Such conflicts are about boats and fishers being in the same place at the same time. This reflects access rights to the fish, not necessarily concern over a decline in fish abundance. These conflicts are likely opportunistic, discrete occurrences that can be mitigated by territorial integrity (e.g., clearly delineated and enforced borders) by nations and comprehensive co-management in fishing villages.

When overfishing or habitat damage cause fish populations to decline, the resulting conflict will be systemic and long-term. Fish stocks may crash suddenly and unpredictably, or their decline may be gradual and predictable. In the first case, the shock to livelihoods and food security will be quick. In the second case, fishers will expend more and more effort to catch fewer and fewer fish. Either way, conflict will occur directly over the shrinking state of the resource and indirectly as unemployment and food security worsen. Conflict over a declining resource base can be mitigated two ways: 1) sound conservation and management to preserve sustainability, and 2) livelihood diversification to provide alternative sources of income during fishing downturns.

FISHERIES CAN PREVENT CONFLICT

Fisheries provide food and livelihood security for many of the world’s poorest communities. Fish contains high-quality protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and essential micronutrients – calcium, iron, zinc – that support brain growth and nutrition. Over 56 million people were employed in the fishing sector in 2014, 20% of which were women. Income from fisheries, especially in the hands of women, translates to education for

children. All of these factors ensure community stability and thus reduce the root causes of armed conflict. More directly, when men (and sometimes youth) are productively employed, they are less likely to join militia groups.

Fisheries management also provides avenues for cooperation between nations that share fish stocks. The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization unites the governments and the fishers of Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania to manage shared fisheries resources. The model of co-management used around Lake Victoria has promoted cooperation, not competition, between fishers and fishing villages. And transboundary fishery collaboration is one productive way to reduce conflict over resources that cross national borders.

CONFLICT CAN HARM FISHERIES

Conflict can increase pressure on fisheries through movement of people or through rising food prices that encourage people to fish. When conflicts are far from fishing grounds, fisheries provide attractive employment opportunities for those fleeing fighting. Fishers in northern Sierra Leone fled their civil war into neighboring Guinea and resumed fishing, increasing the pressure on fisheries in Guinean waters. In Uganda, civil war in the north of the country was followed by an increase in the number of fishers around Lake Victoria.

Additionally, during conflict there is greater likelihood of illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing, especially by foreign vessels. IUU fishing can rapidly and dramatically reduce fish stocks, especially when nations in conflict cannot enforce their maritime borders.

Measuring the effect of conflict on fisheries is a tricky affair: data collection is disrupted during conflicts. It is difficult to draw a direct line between fighting and declines in fish abundance, especially given complicated food web dynamics. However, the effect of conflict on catch is observable, and my own research shows that fish catch declines 16% on average following the outbreak of civil conflict. Reduced catch translates directly to reduced incomes and food security in affected regions.

CONFLICT CAN ALLOW FISHERIES TO REBOUND

Conflict can also relieve fishing pressure when it occurs near fishing grounds. During the World Wars, commercial fishing all but ended in the Northeast Atlantic because of the presence of hostile navies. Afterwards, fish stocks that had been in decline saw increases in fish size and catch. Indirectly, fishers may leave the fishing sector if they are recruited into guerilla groups, as happened in Sri Lanka by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. This is most likely to happen in places where rebel groups offer higher salaries than that earned from fishing. Naval blockades can also stifle fishing activity, as witnessed right now in Yemen, and the Somali region.

What is temporarily good for the fish is not usually temporarily good for people. The reduction in fishing can reduce food and job security. However, some research suggests fish catch quickly rebounds after conflict begins, so the negative effects on fishers might be short-term. But stalled fisheries ultimately will fuel the conditions that cause conflict or, at a minimum, exacerbate the negative effects of conflict on societies.

CONCLUSION ABOUT FISH WARS

The complicated links between fisheries and conflict means impacts can go either way: fisheries can make conflict worse or better, and conflict can make fisheries worse or better. The result depends on other conditions on the ground, timing, and location of the conflict. But the result is not pre-ordained. Governance mechanisms to promote sustainable fisheries, to create cooperative management mechanisms, and to support alternative livelihood programs are essential for preventing conflict and mitigating the impacts on fishing communities when conflicts erupt.

1NC – SolvencyMPA’s can’t solve biodiversity – 5 warrantsBacher 11 [Dan Bacher, 7-28-2011, "UN study says biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone : Indybay," Indybay, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php, accessed 7-10-2019] TDI

The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations. The first of these limitations is that " protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats ." "Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species ," according to the study. "Yet protected areas are useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors ." This conclusion by the scientists echoes one of the key criticisms of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative - the "marine protected areas" created by this widely-contested process don't comprehensively protect the ocean from the main threats to the ocean and marine life in California. These threats include massive water diversions out of the Bay-Delta Estuary, water pollution, oil spills and drilling, wave and wind energy projects, military testing, habitat destruction and all other human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering. Ironically, even before the imposition of these largely redundant ocean closures that are now being contested by coalition of fishing organizations in court, California marine and anadromous fisheries had the strictest recreational and commercial fishing regulations on the entire planet. MLPA advocates refuse to acknowledge the existence of one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, the Rockfish Conservation Area, that encompass the entire continental shelf of California from the Oregon border to the Mexican border! A second limitation cited in the study is "underfunding ." "Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management," the assessment notes. " Effectively managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated,"

according to the report. Again, the assessment echoes the criticism by fishermen and grassroots environmentalists that there is not sufficient funding for enforcement of new marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The game wardens refer to these new MPAs as "marine poaching areas," since they will only spread a force of wardens already unable to effectively monitor existing reserves even thinner. In fact, Jerry Karnow, the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, has repeatedly asked the California Fish and Game Commission to not create new marine protected areas unless sufficient funding is provided to hire new wardens. The three other limitations pinpointed by the scientists are: • the expected growth in protected area coverage is too slow • the size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate • conflicts with human development.

The aff is insufficient—new research concludes 30 percent of the ocean must be protectedKleffer 16, [(Matt) "New research suggests 30 percent of the ocean must be protected," 3-24-2016] TDI

In 2010 the United Nations set a goal to preserve 10 percent of the ocean by 2020. Research has shown that when waters are protected, fish supply and biodiversity greatly improve. This leads to more sustainable fisheries.

Yet a recent study questions whether a 10 percent target is ambitious enough – and by extension, even effective.

Published in the journal Conservation Letters, lead authors Bethan O’Leary and Callum Roberts analyzed 144 studies that looked at the most effective coverage of marine protected areas (MPA’s). They found that a majority of studies concluded that a far larger portion of the ocean – at least 30 percent – should be the new target.

Marine reserves are widely acknowledged as essential for protecting fish stocks and preserving biodiversity. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity states: “Well governed and effectively managed protected areas are a proven method for safeguarding both habitats and populations of species, and for delivering important ecosystem services.”

Approximately four percent of the ocean is currently protected.

But why would 30 percent coverage be more effective than 10 percent? The study looked at several objectives that are crucial for MPA’s to work best, from protecting biodiversity, to minimising the risk of population collapse, to satisfying many stakeholders.

When the 144 studies were combined, O’Leary and Roberts found that 37 percent was the optimal MPA coverage to meet the previous objectives. Moreover, when ocean protection was less than 10 percent, only three percent of the objectives were met.

“While achieving 10 percent coverage by 2020 is extremely ambitious politically, our research strongly indicates that 10 percent is only a waypoint towards effective ocean protection,” writes the authors.

MPAs alone can’t solveO’Leary PhD et al 18 [Bethan C. O’leary, PhD on high seas MPAs and ocean governance in 2012. During her PhD she was a member of the scientific research team that developed the scientific case underpinning the world’s first network of high seas MPAs in the North Atlantic under the OSPAR Convention. Natalie C. Ban, Miriam Fernandez, Alan M. Friedlander, Pablo García-borboroglu, Yimnang Golbuu, Paolo Guidetti, Jean M. Harris, Julie P. Hawkins, Tim Langlois, Douglas J. Mccauley, Ellen K. Pikitch, Robert H. Richmond, And Callum M. Roberts] May 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 5 • BioScience TDI

Conclusions Human activities have expanded across the oceans, and although intensity varies, few areas remain untouched (Halpern et al. 2015). With emerging activities such as deep-sea mining and marine biotechnology fast becoming reality, history suggests that exploitation pressures on the ocean will continue to increase and affected areas expand, rendering timely and increased protection vital (McCauley et al. 2015). Although LSMPAs are assets that already meet many immediate ecological and socioeconomic goals, their value will increase as the human footprint expands across the oceans. To achieve their full potential, however, MPAs of any size require effective implementation and management backed with strong protection (Edgar et al. 2014), and so it is essential that management ambition and protection level matches stated MPA objectives. Clearly, no single strategy can protect marine biodiversity and resources. Polarized debates about the superiority of LSMPAs versus fishery or other management can divide a scientific and management community that shares the common goal of intelligently governing the future of the oceans for the benefit of humanity and all life within. Combining LSMPAs with effective management of all ocean uses, including fisheries, and other MPAs, such as smaller networked sites or dynamic MPAs, will establish a diversified management portfolio that tempers potential losses, insures against inherent ecological and management uncertainty, and ultimately enhances the probability of successfully achieving sustainably managed oceans.

No modeling—failure to ratify UNCLOSRufe 03 [(Roger, President of the Ocean Conservancy) Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations October 21, 2003] TDI

There is general agreement in the environmental community that the Convention serves the environmental interests of the United States in providing a stable legal framework,2 and as the foundation of public order in the oceans.3 The primary environmental reason for encouraging U.S. accession to UNCLOS at this time is to give the United States the credibility and full rights accorded to a signatory, ensuring that the United States is in the best position to negotiate and lead future applications of this constitution for the oceans. The Committee has heard from many witnesses that our failure to ratify this global treaty has hurt us to some extent economically, diplomatically and environmentally. These witnesses have rightly noted that our failure to ratify the Convention has hurt not only our international credibility, but also our ability to effect future changes in the terms and agreements upon which international law is based. The United States is a world leader in marine conservation, and our accession to UNCLOS will greatly help us advance international standards and practices. While the United States is a world superpower, we must fully engage our fellow nations and secure the cooperation of the international community if we are to be successful in protecting our oceans and their resources. For example, currently the United States adheres to the fisheries conservation measures in the Law of the Sea and subsequent Straddling Stocks Agreement, and we treat them as customary international law. However, unless we become a signatory to the treaty, we are without recourse to enforce this Agreement’s terms with regard to other states which do not. We are also unable to fully represent U.S. interests in negotiating future changes or terms to both of these agreements. Both the Pew and the Federal Oceans Commission have recently recommended accession for this purpose: to secure a positive environmental framework for U.S. ocean management. In sum, it is impossible to be a world leader relative to the health of the oceans without full participation in the international rule of law that applies to them.

MPAs are ineffectiveMilman 14 [(Oliver, environment reporter for Guardian US) "Most protected marine areas fail to properly guard aquatic life: study," Guardian, 2-5-2014] TDI

Most of the world’s protected marine areas are failing to properly protect aquatic life, with many showing few differences from neighbouring areas that are openly fished, an Australian-led study has found.

University of Tasmania research of 87 marine protected areas in 40 countries showed the best marine parks had on average eight times more large fish and 14 times more sharks than fished areas.

But the research, published in Nature, found that 59% of the marine parks studied were “not ecologically distinguishable from fished sites”.

Researchers identified five key traits of a well-managed marine park – no fish take, well enforced, established for longer than 10 years, larger than 100 square km and isolated by deep water or sand.

Only marine parks with four or all five of these criteria were effectively boosting conservation values, the study found. Among the 26 marine areas studied in Australia, the only place with all five key traits was Middle Reef, near Lord Howe Island.

The six-year study, which utilised scientists and divers from 19 countries, concluded that while the number of marine protected areas was increasing rapidly, the benefits generated were “difficult to predict and under debate”.