Jump to content
Zuul

Big affs

Recommended Posts

Anyone thinking of writing an Atlantis plan? Something along these lines, "the intertwining dominant structures of modernity prevent any opportunities for transcending the boundaries of thought... society's biopolitical functions co-opt any means for imagination beyond the "reasonable lines" of acceptance that it has constructed... forcing us to become chained and entangled in it..." Thus, (partner) and I advocate that everyone in this room should explore the topic in search of our own "Atlantis's."  

Edited by reflux
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that says nothing

Well yea that's not an impacts file I'm just saying I don't think UNCLOS is a good idea beacasue there are a lot of Ks and Disads against it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some type of anthro aff, icebreaks, wave based energy, krtikal find Atlantis, ocean mapping

 

idk does shipping 

Is the Find Atlantis Kritikal aff going to be like when we find atlantis we will be able to find ourselves type thing????? I feel like it could be that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Find Atlantis Kritikal aff going to be like when we find atlantis we will be able to find ourselves type thing????? I feel like it could be that....

 

from the lit i've found so far, the one i will cut is going to be more of "it's about the journey, not about the destination" a la the space egg from the space topic. even if we don't find atlantis, it's important that we try

 

on the topic: i know d&g talk about mapping in a thousand plateaus, do you think that "map the ocean" affs might be able to use this? not too far into the book so idk

Edited by georgebushsdogpaintings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the marine spatial planning aff I cut for our novices next year. It's just an outline b/c I haven't found other advantages and I've just started it. I think MSP/oceans mapping has good biodiversity impact ground.

Non-military is problematic for some of my aff ideas, but I think South China Sea/Arctic affs look very promising. Deepwater ports in the Arctic are probably non-military but have military applications with strong ground for Arctic cooperation/war scenarios (also, depending on definitions of development, legal frameworks might qualify, in whcih case an Arctic Council aff looks good. I have no idea what T looks like on his topic).

1AC Plan Plan – the United States Federal Government should adopt a comprehensive policy of Marine Spatial Planning. Here’s our solvency advocate:

OPTF 10 – administration Council on environmental quality task force to develop new national policy on oceans, established by Barack Obama (Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, “Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Forceâ€, 7/19/10; <http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf>)//Beddow

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning and management in the United States. Obstacles and Opportunities The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are host to countless commercial, recreational, scientific, energy, and security activities, which often occur in or near areas set aside and managed for conservation and resource protection goals. Overlapping uses and differing views, about what activities should occur and where, can generate conflicts and misunderstandings. Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) that fully incorporates the principles of ecosystem-based management will provide a means to objectively and transparently guide and balance allocation decisions for use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters and resources. It would allow for the reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on marine ecosystems, provide greater certainty for the public and private sector in planning new investments, and reduce conflicts among uses and between using and preserving the environment to sustain critical ecological, economic, recreational, and cultural services for this and future generations. The Plan Should Address: • Implementation and expansion of the Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning as described later in this document.

 

Biodiversity

 

Ocean biodiversity declining now, destroys entire ecosystem – only MSP can solve.

Foley et al 10 – Stanford University Center for Ocean Solutions, Wood Institute for the Environment, University of California Santa Cruz Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Melissa M., “Guiding Ecological Principles for Marine Spatial Planningâ€, 2/4/10; < micheli.stanford.edu/pdf/18-Foleyetal2010MarPol.pdf>)//Beddow

The declining health of marine ecosystems around the world is evidence that current piecemeal governance is inadequate to successfully support healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems and sustain human uses of the ocean. One proposed solution to this problem is ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP), which is a process that informs the spatial distribution of activities in the ocean so that existing and emerging uses can be maintained, use conflicts reduced, and ecosystem health and services protected and sustained for future generations. Because a key goal of ecosystem-based MSP is to maintain the delivery of ecosystem services that humans want and need, it must be based on ecological principles that articulate the scientifically recognized attributes of healthy, functioning ecosystems. These principles should be incorporated into a decision-making framework with clearly defined targets for these ecological attributes. This paper identifies ecological principles for MSP based on a synthesis of previously suggesed and/or operationalized principles, along with recommendations generated by a group of twenty ecologists and marine scientists with diverse backgrounds and perspectives on MSP. The proposed four main ecological principles to guide MSP—maintaining or restoring: native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity, key species, and connectivity—and two additional guidelines, the need to account for context and uncertainty, must be explicitly taken into account in the planning process. When applied in concert with social, economic, and governance principles, these ecological principles can inform the designation and siting of ocean uses and the management of activities in the ocean to maintain or restore healthy ecosystems, allow delivery of marine ecosystem services, and ensure sustainable economic and social benefits. The health of global marine ecosystems is in serious decline, and multiple stressors, including overfishing, pollution, invasive species, coastal development, and climate change, compromise the ability of ocean and coastal ecosystems to support and sustain the goods and services people want and need [1—4]. Uncoordinated expansion of existing uses of the ocean and the addition of emerging uses, such as renewable energy and large- scale aquaculture, along with a rapidly growing coastal human population, are likely to further exacerbate the decline of marine ecosystem health. Maintaining the well-being of ocean ecosystems, as well as their ability to provide essential ecosystem services for human populations [5,6], will require an alternative strategy to replace the current patchwork of complex, uncoordinated, and often disjointed rules and regulations governing use of coastal and ocean waters around the world [7]. The future of the oceans depends on successful, immediate implementation of a comprehensive governance framework that moves away from a sector-by-sector management approach to one that (1) balances the increasing number, diversity, and intensity of human activities with the ocean’s ability to provide ecosystem services; (2) incorporates appropriate ecological, economic, social, and cultural perspectives; and (3) supports management that is coordinated at the scale of ecosystems as well as political jurisdictions [1,7—9]. Each of these goals demands spatially explicit consideration of multiple human uses and their compat ibility, conflicts, and synergies with each other and with the ecosystem [10—14]. Such comprehensive, integrated management of marine uses and activities can be achieved in part through ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP). Ecosystem-based MSP is an integrated planning framework that informs the spatial distribu tion of activities in and on the ocean in order to support current and future uses of ocean ecosystems and maintain the delivery of valuable ecosystem services for future generations in a way that meets ecological, economic, and social objectives [15]. In addition, this integrated planning process moves away from sectoral management by assessing and managing for the cumulative effects of multiple activities within a specific area [14]. An MSP process also emphasizes the legal, social, economic, and ecological complexities of governance, including the designation of author ity, stakeholder participation, financial support, analysis of current and future uses and ocean condition, enforcement, monitoring, and adaptive management (Fig. 1; [16]). Policy makers in the US have begun to consider MSP a viable strategy for managing human uses in federal waters. In June 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum calling for the development of a National Ocean Policy (NOP) that protects, maintains, and restores coastal, ocean, and Great lakes ecosystems [171. The President’s directive established an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (OPW) to develop recommendations for a national ocean policy and framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. In its Interim Report [17], the OPTE identified ecosystem- based management (EBM) as a key element of the NOP, with MSP as a crucial approach to implementing EBM. The Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (www.whitehouse. gov/oceans) was released on December 14, 2009, and the final report will be issued following a 60-day comment period. The Obama Administration’s efforts are one part of a larger trend toward the implementation of comprehensive marine spatial planning and management in coastal and ocean ecosystems. To date, multiple countries have undertaken MSP initiatives to spatially mange current or emerging human uses, including the United Kingdom’s part of the Irish Sea [181, Belgium’s part of the North Sea [19], the sea areas of China [20], Canada’s Eastern Scotian Shelf [21 ], the high seas [22], Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [23] and, within the USA, the coastal waters of Massachusetts (Draft Ocean Plan 2009, http:J/www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docsjczmjvl -com plete.pdf), Rhode Island (http: //www.crmc.ri.gov/samp_ocean.html), and North Carolina [24]. However, many of these MSP efforts have a relatively limited scope and have not yet developed a comprehen sive planning process that includes all existing uses of the ocean. For example, the Massachusetts Ocean Plan has no authority over fishing or nearshore activities; in California, the Marine life Protection Act Initiative (http:J/www.dfg.ca.gov/m lpa) focuses on marine protected areas and fishing. In contrast others have explicitly addressed multiple sectors, including fishing, oil and gas development, aquaculture and shipping activities (e.g the inte grated management plan of the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea) [251. In addition, although nearly all planning efforts have outlined one goal of MSP as protecting marine ecosystem health, in many cases, ecological goals and objectives were not fully incorporated into the planning process. This paper focuses on articulating ecological ‘principles,’ or guiding concepts, that can be used to meet the goals and objectives of ecosystem-based MSP (Fig. 1). Although the importance of ecosystem health and functioning is implicit in most MSP processes (i.e. if an ecosystem is not functioning well, many services cannot be provided), it is not guaranteed to serve as a foundation of the process. In some cases, ecosystem health may not be the primary goal (e.g., siting multiple industrial uses in the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea); in others, ecosystem goals may not be well defined. In either case, social and economic goals have often been prioritized to the detriment of ecological goals and objectives. Two notable examples of resource management processes that have incorporated ecological principles into a planning process are Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) [231 and Canada’s Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management project (ESSIM) [261. In the mid-1990s, the GBRMPA rezoned the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park through a process that included intense involvement of users, scientists, and the public in order to increase the number and types of species and habitats that were represented in either no-take or habitat protection zones. This rezoning process increased the spatial extent of protected zones, while maintaining a large portion of the park in general-use zones to minimize negative impacts on users. The ESSIM project used a multi-stakeholder approach to assess human uses, ecosystem features, and the interactions between these components to develop planning objectives based on the ecological well-being of the region and sustainable human use [271. The GBRMPA rezoning process and ESSIM project are examples that illustrate how specific ecological objectives can be incorporated into the planning process from the beginning to achieve the goals of ecosystem-based MSP. This paper does not seek to resolve the debate over the relative roles of social, economic, and ecological objectives in developing MSP, but argues that ecological principles should be at the foundation of any ecosystem-based MSP process. Since ecosys tem-based MSP is based on the notion that functioning ecosys tems support multiple ocean uses, such planning processes should include guiding principles to ensure that those eco system functions are in fact provided. These ecological principles should be carefully considered along with social, economic, and govern ance principles that are being developed through parallel and complementary efforts (Fig. 1). The goal of this paper is to present core ecological principles that represent a synthesis of the best current scientific understanding of the attributes of healthy, functioning ecosystems and that can guide ecosystem-based MSP regardless of scale or context. To achieve this goal, previous delineations and applications of ecological principles used for MSP and other ecosystem-based planning frameworks were synthesized and supplemented with input from an expert work shop held in Monterey, California, in March 2009. 2. Synthesis 2.1. Previously proposed ecological principles The biophysical characteristics of marine ecosystems and the nature of perturbations to these systems constrain the range, types, and intensities of human activities that can be conducted in a given area without impairing ecosystem function and services [10]. To fulfill the purpose of sustaining valuable ecosystem services, ecosystem-based MSP must be grounded in ecological principles that are based on the best readily available science so that activities can be reconciled with the objective of maintaining or restoring functioning, resilient ecosystems [10]. A variety of ecological attributes and principles have been used to guide the design of existing (e.g., MPA5) and emerging (e.g., MSP) area designation processes (Table 1). Although MPA designation and MSP have different goals (conservation vs. sustainable delivery of ecosystem services and human use, respectively), the goals are at least partially related and there is value in looking at both pro cesses for ecosystem-based principles, goals, and lessons learned. Two ecological attributes—connectivity and native species diversity—have been most commonly identified as essential for maintaining functioning marine ecosystems (Table 1). Connectivity, or the exchange of individuals among geographically separated subpopulations [28], is necessary for a wide range of ecological and evolutionary processes, including population replenishment, recovery from major disturbances, maintenance of genetic diversity, and persistence of species in the face of environmental change. Species diversity—the variety and abun dance of species within an area or ecosystem—tends to be positively correlated with ecosystem health by increasing the functioning of marine ecosystems [29J and the provision of several ecosystem services [30—321. Additional attributes identified in the literature as important to sustaining healthy marine ecosystems include habitat hetero geneity, habitat structure, and land-sea connectivity, which can be considered manifestations of diversity at the larger, landscape scale. These further recognize the fundamental importance of heterogeneity and spatial dynamics in promoting resilient and productive ecosystems (e.g., [10,33,34]). Uniqueness or rarity and vulnerable life stages or habitats were also identified to acknowledge the differential susceptibility of life stages, organ isms, and habitats to human uses and activities (Table 1). These attributes also play fundamental and often irreplaceable ecologi cal roles in maintaining populations and ecosystems [34—36]. Finally, some authors highlight the fundamental importance of biogeochemistry, biogeography, and water quality in recognition of key abiotic factors that structure ocean ecosystems (Table 1). These ecosystem attributes highlight the necessary overlap between conservation and MSP goals—many species and ecosys tem processes are essential for providing the services desired from the oceans. For ecosystem-based MSP to be effective, it must ensure that this suite of species is abundant and sustainable and important biotic and abiotic processes are maintained. In the MSP process, however, these ecosystem attributes will necessarily be incorporated into a larger framework that also involves main taining existing and future uses of the ocean. 2.2. Ecological principles for marine spatial planning To augment the review of proposed ecological principles for MSP (Table 1), a group of academic, government, and NGO scientists was convened for a 2-day workshop with the goal of producing a synthetic list of ecological principles for ecosystem- based MSP and operational guidelines for implementation. Based on this input and synthesis of information from the literature, four basic ecosystem principles are proposed to guide ecosystem- based MSP (Table 2)—maintain or restore (1) native species diversity, (2) habitat diversity and heterogeneity, (3) key species, and (4) connectivity. These four points are expanded below and highlight current scientific evidence that suggests maintaining or restoring these attributes is necessary for healthy marine ecosystems and the provision of services from those ecosystems. Although these principles are allied with conservation goals, they do not require conservation beyond the fundamental goal of maintaining those species and ecosystems that are necessary to support the activities that people pursue on and in the oceans. Two overarching guidelines are also outlined, the need to consider (1) context and (2) uncertainty, that should be addressed along with the four ecological principles in each planning and management area to ensure that temporal and spatial variability and non-linearities that characterize all ecosystems are adequately addressed. Although the four ecological principles and two overarching guidelines have been discussed before in different combinations and contexts, they are presented here in a unified synthesis and should (1) form the scientific foundation of any ecosystem-based MSP process; (2) inform the goals of the planning process; and (3) be incorporated into the operational decisions of MSP (Fig. 1). One potential application of these principles is presented for coastal California that, once integrated with socioeconomic and governance principles, could provide a framework for the implementation of MSP in California and other marine regions. 2.2.1. Maintain native species diversity Maintaining or restoring species diversity, composition and functional redundancy (e.g, the degree to which multiple species perform similar ecological functions) is essential for sustaining productive and resilient ecosystems 130—321. Species diversity, from local to global scales, can affect multiple ecosystem functions including maintenance of productivity [3137], resistance to and recovery from perturbations 138,391, capacity maintain functional redundancies within an ecosystem [40,41], and stable food web dynamics [42,43]. Although most experi mental work linking biodiversity to ecosystem functioning has not distinguished between native and exotic species, and in some cases exotic species perform essential functional roles and ecosystem functions formerly performed by native species [44,451, the focus here is on maintaining native species specifi cally in recognition of the unpredictable and highly deleterious impacts of some introduced alien species. Measurements of biodiversity can range from local (alpha diversity) to global (gamma diversity) scales [46] and can span multiple levels of biological organization from species richness and composition, to genetic diversity, to diversity of functional groups. Each biodiversity metric conveys different information about the structural and functional attributes of a particular ecosystem, and collectively they provide important information at different spatial scales. Despite the numerous scales and definitions of diversity, it is clear that, on average, more diverse assemblages support greater ecosystem function [47] and in turn, also provide more ecosystem services 130]. Species richness and composition are critical aspects of an ecosystem’s structure. These metrics are also the most commonly measured in ecological surveys allowing them to be compared across multiple temporal and/or spatial scales to reveal functional attributes of biological communities. Genetic diversity tends to be measured within populations on smaller spatial scales 148]. but there are a growing number of studies that measure genetic diversity and heterogeneity across latitudinal gradients. These large-scale measures of genetic diversity can help identify boundaries of biogeographic regions 1491. dispersal patterns of larvae [50], and differential responses changing climate conditions [51]. Although genetic diversity is important for ecological functioning 152], landscape-scale genetic data are rare, making it difficult to include this kind of diversity in ecosystem-based MSP. Functional diversity measures the variety of types of organ isms that serve different functional roles within a community irrespective of their taxonomic grouping [53,541. Functional diversity focuses on the guilds of species that are responsible for biological processes within ecosystems [55]. Species redundancy within functional groups can be low in marine communities suggesting that the loss of a single species could result in the loss of an entire functional group 156—58 ]. even in diverse ecosystems 159,60]. The strong positive correlation between species diversity and functional diversity suggests that functional diversity will be maintained if species diversity is maintained 156]. The loss of biodiversity, altered species composition, and subsequent loss of ecosystem functioning have been documented in marine habitats across the globe [61-65 1. Together with the documented examples of damage caused by some introduced non-native species 1661, these examples highlights the impor tance of maintaining high native species diversity as an ecological principle that underpins all other management goals and extends beyond traditional conservation goals [30]. Loss or reduction of native species diversity, coupled with changing environmental conditions, can push ecosystems beyond critical thresholds and drastically alter community structure, ecological functioning, and provisioning of services as has been seen in coral reef 1671, kelp forest 168,69], and coastal soft-bottom ecosystems [43]. In all of these examples, the type of ecosystem services that could be provided was altered by dramatic changes in species diversity and composition. 2.2.2. Maintain habitat diversity and heterogeneity Just as maintaining a variety of species can better sustain functioning ecosystems, maintaining habitat diversity—the num ber of different habitat types within a given area—is a crucially important component of healthy marine ecosystems. Diverse habitats promote species diversity by acting as refuge from competition and predation [70,71], providing multiple sources of prey [72] and settlement substrates [73], supporting species with specialized requirements, and ameliorating environmental stres sors [74]. Maintaining habitat heterogeneity—the spatial arrangement and relationships among habitat patches across the seascape—is also critical to ecosystem functioning. Habitat heterogeneity influences connectivity among habitats and facil itates the successful movement of individuals among multiple habitats throughout their lifetime 175.76]. Habitat diversity and heterogeneity are also important for supporting the exchange of organisms and materials among habitats [77—79]. Nevertheless, all habitats are not created equal, nor are they static. For example, upwelling circulation along the eastern margins of the world’s ocean basins brings nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean to nearshore surface waters, fueling high levels of primary production that form the base of species-rich and productive nearshore food webs [80,81]. Many animals visit these regions seasonally and form feeding, breeding, and aggregation habitats that only exist for a limited time each year. The development and persistence of these upwelling fronts are essential to the functioning of nearshore marine communities 182.83 1 and changes to these important habitat-forming features can have significant effects on the survival of adults and successful rearing of young [84,85]. In most ecosystems, increased species diversity is positively correlated with increased habitat diversity 134,861. Thus, main taining high habitat diversity and heterogeneity is an important and useful proxy for maintaining species diversity at multiple spatial scales [411. Because habitat data (e.g., mapping) are relatively easier to collect than species-level data, habitat diversity is often used as a proxy for species diversity 1871 for management and conservation planning purposes (e.g., 179]). To maintain the relationship between habitat and species diversity, however, it is necessary to protect habitats of sufficient size, proximity, and numbers so the habitat mix is viable and resilient, allows for individuals to move between habitats (e.g., habitat corridors), and increases the likelihood that all habitats of a given type will not be destroyed during catastrophic events 188,891. In addition, it is likely that the provision of multiple ecosystem services will be maintained with the protection of multiple habitat types 190]. 223. Maintain key species Although weak interactions among a large suite of species can have important stabilizing effects on community structure and functioning [91,921, the dynamics of marine ecosystems are often driven by a few key species that have disproportionately strong effects on community structure and function 1931. These key species are essential to marine ecosystem functioning, and fluctuations in their populations can drive high levels of variability in community structure and functioning. Maintaining populations of key species—such as keystone species, foundation species, basal prey species, and top predators—is especially important because there is typically limited functional redun dancy of their roles in the community. Such cascading trophic interactions are common in a wide variety of marine ecosystems 1941. Keystone species have community-level effects that are often disproportionate to their biomass 195,96]. For example, in temperate intertidal communities, the seas tar Pisaster achracecus maintains high levels of species diversity by consuming the dominant space competitor Mytilus californianos, thereby allowing competitively inferior species to persist 197,98]. Predators can also function as keystone species by driving community changes through trophic cascades [99,100]. Sea otters, for instance, promote the presence and persistence of kelp forest habitats around the Aleutian archipelago by consuming herbivorous sea urchins and releasing kelp from intense grazing pressure [69]. Foundation groups or species provide the template from which most additional species interactions and dynamics emerge by creating habitat and refuge for large numbers of other species 1101]. Foundation groups or species are dominant structure- forming organisms that create productive and complex habitats, and include mangroves, seagrass beds, salt marshes, oyster beds, and kelp forests, and enhance biodiversity through their facil itative effects 1102]. Particularly at the land—sea interface, these foundation species provide such services as coastal protection, erosion control, water catchment, and nutrient retention 1103]. Populations of many foundation species have seen massive declines over the last decade [63,104,105], 50 it is imperative both to recognize the importance of foundation species and the role they play in creating habitat, increasing species diversity, and structuring marine communities around the world 1106—108]. Additional key species can be found at either end of the food chain. Basal prey species, such as microbes, certain phytoplank ton, macroscopic algae, krill, and small pelagic ‘forage’ fishes such as anchovies and sardines, form important prey for higher consumers in the food chain and influence the structure and stability of food web dynamics 184,109]. These basal species can have limited redundancy and one species often dominates an entire trophic level 11101. Temporal and spatial variation in primary productivity can alter the type and species composition of basal species, which can have significant negative effects on higher trophic levels 1821. As noted above, top predators also tend to have strong effects on food web dynamics because they often drive trophic cascades in marine ecosystems 199,1111. However, the ecological role of top predators is diminished in many parts of todays ocean because of historical depletion of predator popula tions (e.g. [64,112J). Top predators may also play an important functional role in connecting distant ecosystems [1131 due to their mobility and tendency to move between specific areas 1114]. It will be important to continue to document the movement of these species through tagging and tracking programs, such as Tagging of Pacific Pelagics (TOPP, www.topp.org) and Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking project ( POST, http:ffwww.postcoml.orgf), so that migration corridors, feeding grounds, and aggregation and breeding areas are accounted for in both the spatial planning process and in ongoing management. These four types of key species—keystone species, foundation species, basal prey, and top predators—should receive special consideration throughout the MSP process. These species are important drivers of community structure and functioning, and decline of their populations below functional thresholds will result in significant losses of ecosystem services. Because of their disproportionate importance in maintaining ecosystem functions and services, ecosystem-based MSP should aim at maintaining and, where necessary, restoring populations of key species. 224. Connectivity Connectivity among habitats and populations in marine ecosystems is critical for population and species persistence. Connectivity can occur through the movement of individuals (larvae or adults), nutrients, or materials (e.g., nutrient and detritus) across permeable habitat boundaries. The complex life cycle of most marine organisms involves a pelagic phase (i.e., open populations) in which the movement of individuals is controlled by oceanic currents and eddies and the swimming capability of larvae [115—117 ]. Across different life histories, dispersal distance may range from less than a meter to hundreds of kilometers 1118—1201. Most planlctonic larvae have been considered to have long-distance dispersal potential over evolu tionary and ecological time scales, but recent evidence for limited movement in coral reef fish and sharp genetic breaks (e.g. [121]) suggest that dispersal can be much shorter than expected [28,122,123]. These recent estimates of short dispersal range suggest that there are effective local retention mechanisms that may provide increased resilience of local populations through increased local reproduction. Recently, for example, a comparison of regional ocean model system (ROMS) modeling of ocean currents in central California and the strength of genetic gradients suggested that local larval retention may be 10—50 times higher in coastal populations than suggested by current models (Galindo et al., in review). The details of large and small-scale dispersal dynamics throughout a species’ life history are critical for maintaining metapopulation and metacommunity dynamics [124]. Individual populations are connected to one another across heterogeneous landscapes by the movement of individuals from one location to another. Due to population and ocean circulation dynamics, some sites may act as larval source populations, while others may be larval sinks that depend entirely on recruitment and migration from other sites for population persistence (see 1125] for examples). Successful recruitment and migration across the landscape is also tightly linked to the quality and suitability of available habitat. Reductions in cohort abundance may be as high as 100% in areas where suitable habitat is unavailable even though larval connectivity is high 173]. In addition, many large marine seas capes—over which spatial planning may be important—span environmental gradients that may exert strong natural selection on populations of larvae that settle in particular areas 1126]. Depending on whether populations have strong local retention or, conversely, if they are replaced each generation from a large larval pool, the populations may be locally adapted. The ability of local populations to recover from local perturbations may be limited if locally adapted species become extinct The flow of nutrients and other materials between species and habitats is another important aspect of connectivity that con tributes important subsidies to distant food webs 1127]. The delivery of allochthonous subsidies can increase primary and secondary productivity [109,128], alter predator—prey relation ships 1129], and change nutrient cycling dynamics [130] in the receiving habitat. Understanding the movement of organisms, nutrients, and materials throughout the marine landscape is necessary to determine the appropriate size, spacing, and location of use areas 1131 J and requires an understanding of the biology (i.e., larval duration) and physical transport properties of different water masses over time 128]. Recent studies also highlight the importance of connectivity in maintaining the structure and functioning of some ecosystems [132]. 23. Overarching guídelines—accounting for context and uncertainty While the preceding principles describe structural components that are essential for healthy, functioning marine ecosystems, there are also general, overarching guidelines—the consideration of the influence of context and the pervasiveness of uncertainty— that must also be accounted for in operational decisions of MSP (e.g., use location and distribution; Fig. 1). These guidelines are especially important to address across biogeographic regions and in the face of uncertainties regarding future changes induced by climate and human uses of the marine environment. 23. L Context Contextual factors, such as geomorphology and biogeography, as well as the type, distribution, frequency, and intensity of existing and contemplated ocean uses must be considered when applying the above ecological principles to be able to achieve the operational goals of ecosystem-based MSP (Fig. 1). Ecosystem structure can be visualized as a nested hierarchy, with processes occurring over a range of spatial scales from larger to smaller. For instance, each ocean basin can be subdivided into ecoregions based on oceanographic currents and latitudinal variation in temperature; these ecoregions can be further divided into biogeographic regions that are broadly categorized by different species assemblages and habitat types; and each biogeographic region is made up of multiple types of habitats that contain their own assemblages of species [1331. What is ‘natural’ for a particular location depends on where it sits within these different hierarchies. For example, the MLPA process in California spans several biogeographic regions, with the result that predicting natural levels of species and habitat diversity at any given location requires knowing which region it is in. Targets and reference points for the creation and assessment of area-based plans will necessarily vary across bioregions. To account for these nested hierarchies and processes, MSP efforts should explicitly address them from small to large scales. Moreover, management plans should be updated on a periodic basis to assess and address possible changes in native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity, key species or groups, and demographic connectivity, as discussed above, as well as changes associated with climate change and emerging ocean uses. 232. Uncertainty All ecosystems and ecosystem processes are characterized by complex interactions and non-linear dynamics that are not fully understood, resulting in uncertainty regarding future responses to perturbations and management interventions. Uncertainty about ecosystem dynamics and responses to current and emerging uses is inherent and should be reduced but is unlikely to ever be eliminated. Ecosystem uncertainty is compounded in important but largely unknown ways as a consequence of interactive effects of multiple stressors in marine ecosystems 11341 and by differential vulnerability of diverse habitat types to similar threats [1351. Moreover, future conditions are uncertain, both because of natural environmental variability and because of uncertainty surrounding the consequences of human activities. In particular, the precise effects of climate change on ocean circulation, temperature, wave energy, and acidification are still uncertain and scientists know little about the feedback loops that could enhance or ameliorate these impacts. Variability and uncertainty in ocean ecosystems make it imperative to take a precautionary approach within the planning and governance structure 11361, such that the absence of information on the effect of an activity is not interpreted as the absence of impact or harm to the ecosystem 11371. In the face of uncertainty, it is also critical to build redundancies (especially among key species, groups, and drivers of ecosystem structure) and buffer areas into the MSP framework that are akin to creating an insurance policy for environmental changes 1341 so that ecosystem functioning and services will be protected (Fig. 1)1101. Furthermore, uncertainty demands that monitoring of changing climate, ecosystem state, and key ecosystem characteristics be a central component of MSP so that adaptive management can be practiced [1381. 3. Application 3. Operationalizing ecological principles and overarching guidelines The ecological principles discussed above can be used as a foundation for ecosystem-based MSP to promote a healthy ocean, the delivery of ecosystem services, and sustainable human use of the ocean. These principles can also be used to identify manage ment strategies and build multi-objective solutions to achieve healthy ecological, social, and economic systems (Fig. 1). To create effective management objectives, it will be important to identify the role(s) of these ecological principles in sus mining ecosystem health and human well-being in each management region. Regional differences in ecological systems and ecosystem service values may result in trade-offs among the ecological principles, as well as among ecological, social, and economic principles to meet management objectives. However, defining objectives for each set of principles and examining them together will help to assess where trade-offs are appropriate and how the goals of the planning process can be met. How each ecological principle is used in the planning process may differ between regions based on the types of data that are available, the spatial resolution of those data, and the ecosystem processes of interest In all cases, however, the best readily available science should be used for translating ecological principles into operational decisions [139]. Where scientific information is not readily available, managers may rely on data that serve as proxies for the ecological attribute of concern (e.g., assessing connectivity using oceanographic circulation patterns when larval dispersal data are not available) or expert opinion that is supported by the weight of evidence, but should also invest in meaningful monitoring and manage adaptively as new information is gathered. 32. Using ecological principles to guide the development of a marine spatial plan There are multiple possible approaches to implement the ecological principles and modifying guidelines presented above. In a spatially explicit planning approach, the first steps should involve identifying existing and future conditions by assessing the vulnerability of species and habitats to activities, the cumulative impacts of multiple activities, local context and uncertainty, and areas where conflicts exist between users and the ecosystem and between multiple users (Fig. 1). Assessments can identify areas where ecosystem health and human well-being may be compro mised by the amount or type of activities. Within the planning area, spatial delineations of management measures, where appropriate, should be based on: (1) explicitly identified ecosys tem and socioeconomic goals; (2) an assessment of the ranges, types, and intensities of human uses that are compatible with those goals; and (3) use rules that favor compatible uses. The spatial distribution of management measures within each plan ning region would constitute a marine spatial plan with accompanying management goals and objectives. The ecological principles identified here can be used in an ecosystem-based MSP implementation framework by guiding the ecological goals and objectives of the process as well as making initial spatial delineations using the following information: (1) populations of native and/or key species, habitats, or connections that must be maintained within a region; (2) the amount of replication that is necessary to maintain populations of native and/or key species and habitat diversity and heterogeneity; (3) the spatial arrangement of areas that would ensure connectivity among populations of native and/or key species, habitats, or subsidies; and (4) adjacent areas are as complementary as possible (e.g., no industrial uses next to protected areas; Fig. 1). These areas would then be compared with social and economic goals to determine the spatial arrangement of human activities. This kind of comprehensive planning and implementation process, which is based on ecological and socioeconomic principles and objectives, is preferable over a sector-by-sector or activity-by-activity approach for two reasons. First, it addresses the challenge of integrating the many individual spatial planning processes needed for each activity by providing a comprehensive framework within which individual activities can be addressed. Second, it accounts for possible future uses and needs by specifying goals against which new activities can be evaluated. This system could yield explicit criteria and management objectives for identifying the types and combinations of human uses that can occur within different areas based on known or expected compatibility and impacts of different activities on each other and on key ecosystem attributes. It could also focus monitoring efforts, including the design of monitoring protocols and choice of ecological metrics, so that the effectiveness of spatial planning and management schemes can be evaluated over time and adjusted to better achieve management and policy goals (Fig. 1). 4. Discussion MSP has emerged as a framework for implementing an ecosystem-based, coordinated governance structure in the world’s oceans. Maintaining marine ecosystem health and human well-being requires a comprehensive assessment of the vulner ability of marine ecosystems to human activities and how the impacts of those activities can be best partitioned in ocean space. The ultimate goal of ecosystem-based MSP is to distribute human uses in the ocean in a way that allows for existing and emerging cultural, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses, while supporting healthy ecosystems and sustaining the provision of ecosystem services for current and future generations. Several planning processes and tools already exist to aid planning and implementing ecosystem-based MSP. Feasibility analyses can identify the best spatial placement of activities (e.g., determining possible locations for renewable wind projects; see Massachusetts Ocean Plan, www.mass.gov/ and Coastal Wind Energy for North Carolina’s Future, http :/fwww.climate.unc.edu/coastal-wind). Vul nerability analyses integrate spatial data on the distribution of marine habitats using expert assessments of the level of vulner ability of each habitat type to the suite of human activities that occur there [3,135]. Cumulative impact studies quantify the number, map the spatial extent, and assess the frequency of multiple human activities at multiple spatial scales 11401. The combination of vulnerability and cumulative impact maps can inform regional MSP by identifying areas where ecosystem vulnerability and cumulative impact levels meet the objective of maintaining healthy ecosystems or where they are mismatched. Existing and developing decision support tools, such as MARXAN 11411 arid MarineMap (http:f/www.marinemap.orgf), can be used to visualize how different configurations of use areas can reduce (1) the level of cumulative impacts in any one area, (2) the number of conflicts between users and between users and the ecosystem, and (3) the number of trade-offs that are necessary for each use sector. MarineMap, in particular, can build the ecological goals of a spatial planning project into the program so that it is easy to evaluate whether or not a particular planning scheme meets the ecological goals of the process. Dynamic models will need to be developed that use real-lime data ID forecast future ecosystem health conditions under diffèrent management strategies. To be effective, ecosystem-based MSP must also satisfy several other objectives. First, it must involve stakeholder participation and cooperation throughout the process. Given the comprehensive nature of ecosystem-based MSP, this goal will be challenging as the number of slakeholder groups could become very large. Second, MSP must also be implemented within a governance framework that: (1) ensures real public accountability, independent decision making, adaptive management, dependable funding, meaningful public and stakeholder participation, and public transparency; (2) conforms to clear decision-making rules and objectives 11391; and (3) has clearly articulated goals and a means of evaluating whether they are being met for EBM and MSP. Third, a thorough under standing and appreciation of the existing ocean policy, governance, and management structure are also impormnt for ecosystem-based MSP to be successful 1111. In some cases, MSP will fitwell into a pre existing legal, policy, and agency structure; in other cases, adjust ments to governance will need to be made (e.g., see [139] for a detailed analysis of California’s existing ocean policy, governance, and management framework for implementing ecosystem-based MSP in California and 11421 for multiscale governance using examples from the Gulf of Maine). In addition, all ecological and social systems are dynamic such that specific management decisions and tools that emerge from these guiding principles should be modified using an adaptive management process [143,144] that allows for the lessons learned and best available science to be incorporated into operational and governance frameworks in a timely manner 11391. The ecological principles and modifying guidelines proposed here for ecosystem-based MSP combine a number of ecosystem attributes recognized by other area-based planning processes (Table 1), address ecosystem attributes that are most likely to be affected by current and future human uses, and should guide siting and management of human uses. In addition, these principles directly pertain to two of the fundamental goals of MSP—maintenance of healthy ecosystems and continuedf restored delivery of ecosystem services. By identifying ecological attributes that are necessary to maintain ecosystem health, and putting them at the forefront, they advance the MSP process by providing a strong scientific foundation that can be coupled with socioeconomic and governance principles to achieve healthy, sustainable ecosystems and human communities.

 

 

 

Triggers extinction, their defense doesn’t apply – adaptation fails, tipping points take out resiliency, and current efforts are ineffective.

Howard 11 – Rural Sociologist, Political Ecologist, Ethnobotonist and Research Professor at Wageningen University, affiliate with University of Kent, article published by the Royal Society (Patricia, “Tipping Points and Biodiversity Change:Consequences for Human Wellbeing andChallenges for Science and Policyâ€, 3/13-15/11; < http://www.academia.edu/537857/Tipping_Points_and_Biodiversity_Change_Consequences_for_Human_Wellbeing_and_Challenges_for_Science_and_Policy>)//Beddow

Biodiversity, in its broadest sense, is life on Earth. It has been characterised at one and the same time as ‘a concept, a measurable entity, and a social or political construct’ (Jax 2010) where the latter, at least, are charged with great religious, aesthetic, moral, and economic meaning that varies according to the human ob-server. For ecologists, the broad definition includes genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity, whereas a common narrower definition is the diversity of species (on Earth, in biomes, in ecosystems).Its relevance for biologists and ecologists is usually cast in evolutionary terms or in terms of ecosystem functioning, which some ecologists refer to as ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are also defined by economists and others as the benefits that humans derive from ecosystem functions or processes, and thus the relationship between biodiversity change, ecosystem functioning, and ecosystem services has become central to contemporary scientific understanding of biodiversity and human wellbeing, as well as to a multitude of policies that seek to assess and address human wellbeing, environmental degradation, and global environ-mental change. There is great debate and uncertainty about the relations between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and about the significance of change in biodiversity for ecosystem functioning, and for evolution; this necessarily creates great uncertainty about the nature of the relationship between biodiversity and human wellbeing. In spite of such uncertainty, which affects all assessments of the actual and potential threats to human wellbeing from biodiversity change, there is much consensus that the implications of cur-rent and projected levels biodiversity change for human wellbeing are, in most instances, major and possibly dire, at local, regional, and global scales. In the 20 th century, we became aware that the fate of biodiversity and the fate of humans are intimately interconnected. Before this, only some religions (and a few philosophers) predicted the end of life on Earth or human extinction through different versions of Armageddon, which was generally caused by thedivine consequences of wayward human behaviour. Darwin’s theory of evolution provided the means to un-derstand continual species extinctions, and scientists began to unearth the evidence of previous mass extinc-tions. However, the idea that extinction might extend to the human species was not taken up until the 20 th century, when it was argued that all species invariably become extinct (Raup 1991). Scientists came to understand that the human species could disappear through catastrophic natural events, much as the dinosaurs disappeared, as a result of bolide impacts or large-scale volcanism. A secular concept of self-annihilation emerged less than 50 years ago with the spectre of global nuclear holocaust, which would also render much other life on Earth unviable (see e.g. Robock et al. 2007), and where the life that remained would be distinctly antithetical to humans. Many now argue that there are other catastrophic threats to the human species, some of which threaten life on Earth more generally (Rees 2003, Posner 2004, Bostrom & Cirkovic 2008,Al-Rodhan 2009). We can only speculate whether the sixth mass extinction of species that appears to be underway has implications for the continued evolution of the human species, but we do know that it is the synergies and feedbacks between global environmental change and biodiversity change, combined with maladaptive human responses to that change (e.g. global nuclear conflict; unintended effects of technological responses), that leads to the most catastrophic scenarios. Critical questions that arise when considering biodiversity change, the threats that it poses to human wellbeing, and the challenges that it presents for mitigation and human adaptation, are whether there are critical thresholds or ‘tipping points’ related to biodiversity change, and whether such tipping points can lead or contribute, directly or indirectly to global tipping points or whether they ‘only’ have implications at local or regional scales. If there are such tipping points, what types of implications do they have for human wellbeing? For whom, where, and when? Further, can such tipping points be avoided, and are we prepared to dealwith (adapt to) them if they cannot? With biodiversity change, there are a number of vulnerabilities to which the majority of the globe’s human population are exposed not only because they are impacted by this change at local level, but also because even local changes can have global repercussions due to global interdependencies. One is the rapid emergence and transmission of new infectious diseases and pests that both threaten plants and animals (andthus the humans that depend upon them), as well as humans directly (e.g. Chivian & Bernstein 2008, Pong-siri et al. 2009, Keesing et al. 2010, Sharma 2010). A second is invasive species, where species disperse be-yond their ‘normal’ range, invade many different regions on different continents, affecting the invaded eco-systems in highly unpredictable ways (e.g. GISP n.d., Walther et al. 2009, Perrings et al. 2010). Both maycontribute strongly to a third such vulnerability, which is addressed here, presented by tipping points thatmay emerge at regional scale, such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest or the collapse of coral reefs, thatcan have extra-regional or even global repercussions not only due to the loss of species and ecosystems, butas well due to the loss of some of the ecosystem services that these provide e.g. as CO 2 sinks, which creates 2synergies with phenomena such as climate change and ocean acidification. Finally, the fourth vulnerability is posed by human maladaptation to any of these dynamics, where maladaptation can exacerbate biodiversity change and can lead to other negative effects for human welfare and ecosystems. Conflict over dwindling biological resources and ecosystem services is likely to become pervasive, and conflict over the understanding of the causes and effects of such change are likely to be just as serious. The global security implications of climate change are of great concern and are being assessed (e.g. GACGC 2007) but, to our knowledge, nosuch assessment exists for biodiversity change. Many of the global, regional, and national institutions that in the past have evolved to manage human-biodiversity relations have so far been shown to be relatively ineffective in stemming biodiversity loss (see e.g. CBD 2010) and thus they are likely to be even more ineffective in dealing with surprises or with the large-scale repercussions of the loss of benefits, e.g. of food, and new institutions will have to emerge if such threats are not to translate into local, regional, and even global catastrophe. I argue that to successfully adapt to tipping points requires major changes in values, priorities, and institutions, particularly economic institutions: some of this change may be forthcoming but much is unlikely to change quickly or profoundly enough to avoid such tipping points. A first step is to recognise the implications of biodiversity change and potential tipping points for human wellbeing, which is currently impeded by cultural, cognitive and political barriers. A second is to prepare for such change, and a third is to prepare potential responses. II. Biodiversity Change and Tipping Points A. Types, magnitudes and drivers of biodiversity change Aside from numerous potential sources of global catastrophe that could have such implications for life on Earth, we also find ourselves in a period when rates of species extinctions are estimated at 50-500 times background, which is the highest rate in the past 65 million years. The effects of ongoing rapid decline of biomes and homogenisation of biotas have been summarised as changes in species geographic ranges, genetic risks of extinction, genetic assimilation, natural selection, mutation rates, the shortening of food chains, the increase in nutrient-enriched niches permitting the ascendancy of microbes, and the differential survival of ecological general-ists. Rates of evolutionary processes will change in different groups, and speciation in the larger vertebrates is essentially over…Whether the biota will continue to provide the dependa- ble ecological services humans take for granted is less clear…Our inability to make clearer predictions about the future of evolution has serious consequences for both biodiversity andhumanity (Woodruff 2001: 5471).The consequences for biodiversity and humanity depend in part on the timescale in reference. Some scientists argue that the Earth’s sixth extinction has already arrived, where an estimated loss of over 75% of spe-cies can be expected, possibly within 250 to 500 years (Barnosky et al. 2011), although others highlight thefact that projections of species extinction rates are controversial (Pereira et al. 2010). A mass extinction hard-ly bodes well for humans given the changes in the biosphere, in biomes and ecosystems, the associated pestand disease outbreaks, etc. that are associated with the different drivers of biodiversity change and the possi- ble critical thresholds or tipping points discussed below and in other papers presented here. Thus, the implications of what is laid out below are magnified many fold and their effects become increasingly synergisticover time – 500 years is a very short period when we consider that Homininae appeared 8 million years ago, Homo sapiens 500,000 years ago, and modern humans 200,000 years ago – effectively, it constitutes only.25% of modern human history. Were humans to have a council of elders to deliberate the impact of our ac-tivities on future generations, it would certainly be extraordinarily alarmed and calling for radical transfor-mations as, indeed, are many scientists today.What is extraordinary about this possible 6 th extinction of species is that, since it is human-induced,it is not inevitable and depends, for example, on rates of climate and land-use change (Pereira et al. 2010).For the first time in the Earth’s history, a species is actually in a position to change the course of evolutionwrit large (Western 2001). This is reflected in the range of projected changes in biodiversity, which is very broad both because ‘there are major opportunities to intervene through better policies, but also because of large uncertainties in projections’ (Pereira et al. 2010: 1496). The possibilities and constraints to doing so arediscussed below and in other papers. Many scientists consider that the probability that we will change thecourse that evolution is currently on is low or very low without radical and immediate transformations invalues, knowledge, behaviour, markets, and governance.

 

 

Impact Calculus No war – great powers are responsible, nukes deter, and conflicts remain local.

Kennedy 13 - Dilworth Professor of History and director of International Security Studies at Yale University (Paul, “The Great Powers, Then and Nowâ€, 8/13/13; < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/global/the-great-powers-then-and-now.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>)//Beddow

All of these Great Powers are egoistic, more or less blinkered, with governments chiefly bent upon surviving a few more years. But none of them are troublemakers; nor are they, in any really significant sense, a source of trouble. Would they but realize it, they all have a substantial interest in preserving the international status quo, since they do not know what negative consequences would follow a changed world order. The troublemakers, and the sources of trouble, lie elsewhere: in the unpredictable, overmilitarized lunatic asylum that is North Korea; in an Iran that sometimes seems to be daring an Israeli air strike; in a brutal and autistic Syrian regime; in a Yemen that both houses terrorists and pretends to be killing them off; and, far less purposefully, in the conflict-torn, crumbling polities of Central Africa, Egypt and Afghanistan, and many nations in between. Here are the world’s problem cases. If there are neurotic Kaiser Wilhelms or bullying Mussolinis or murderous Stalins around today, they are not — thank heavens — to be found in Beijing, Moscow or New Delhi. If this thesis is correct, and the Great Powers, while sometimes complaining about one another’s actions, generally act in a restrained manner, then perhaps we may look forward to a long period without a major war, rather like the unprecedented peace among the Great Powers that existed after 1815 under the Concert of Europe. Many wars would still take place, but they would be local conflicts, not cause enough, despite their atrocities and inhumanity, to drag a major actor directly into the fighting. The Great Powers, in turn, would set aside their own differences to keep the bloodshed local, putting pressure upon their own client states if necessary to stop them from upsetting the international apple cart. In no way would this be a “democratic peace.†Rather, it would continue to be an Old Boys’ club, even if it has new members like India and Brazil. The myth of the equality of all nation-states would indeed remain a myth. Such is the price that liberal internationalists would have to pay to ensure the avoidance of a Third World War. The price the Great Powers have to pay is self-restraint, year after year, decade after decade. If this is forgotten, then another 1914-like crisis could occur. At that time, it will be remembered, Russia failed to rein in its “trouble-making†satellite, Serbia. Austria-Hungary recklessly sent Belgrade an impossible-to-accept ultimatum. Berlin, forgetting Bismarck’s cautions, foolishly supported Vienna. A weak czar lost control of his country’s military plans. The Prussian army struck westwards, occupying Belgium, and bringing in the British Empire. Are we sure some equivalent follies will never happen again, even though nuclear weapons surely help keep governments from going over the brink? When you say your prayers, spare one for the leaders of the Great Powers. They may not be attractive individuals — some are nasty, blinkered and devious. But so long as they realize their responsibilities to prevent any actions that might lead to a world war, we should all be happy. Their job is simply to hold firm the iron frame that keeps the international system secure. It is our job, not theirs, to work within that frame, to advance the dignity and prosperity of humanity. But that will never be achieved without the Great Powers acting reasonably well.

 

 

 

No nuke war impacts – isolation, de-escalation, and no winter.

Martin 90 – Professor at the Department of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Wollongong (Brian, “Politics after a Nuclear Crisisâ€, Fall 1990; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_4.pdf)//Beddow

Especially in the past several years, an enormous amount of attention has been given to the physical consequences of nuclear war, much of it emphasizing the possibility of global annihilation. The impression given is that once any sort of nuclear war occurs, there is really nothing further to consider. My argument here is simple. Whatever the likelihood that a major nuclear confrontation will result in total annihilation of the earth’s population, a significant possibility remains that nuclear crisis or war will leave major portions of the world’s population alive and, for the most part, unaffected physically. If this is the case, then it is worth considering post-crisis and post-war politics. Three types of scenarios are worth noting: nuclear crisis, limited nuclear war, and global nuclear war. First, nuclear crisis: It is possible to imagine the development of a major nuclear confrontation short of nuclear war. This might be an extended nuclear emergency, like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, yet more serious and prolonged. It could lead to declarations of martial law and changes in political structures as described below, that might well persist beyond the nuclear crisis itself. Second, limited nuclear war: A nuclear war does not have to be global in extent. Such a war might be limited geographically – for example, to the Middle East – or restricted to the exchange of a few tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. Many analysts argue that it would be difficult to keep a nuclear exchange limited, but these arguments remain to be tested: There is no evidence of actual nuclear wars to prove or disprove them. It is worth remembering that expert predictions concerning wars (for example, that World War I would be over quickly) have often been quite wrong. It is also possible to imagine a “successful†first strike, for example, using a few high-altitude explosions over a country to disable electronics through electromagnetic pulse, thereby putting the enemy’s command and control systems out of commission. However unlikely the success of such a tactic, it cannot be ruled out a priori. Third, global nuclear war: If a nuclear war does escalate to major exchanges, does that mean that near or actual human extinction is certain? The available evidence is by no means conclusive. Although since the 1950s many people have believed that nuclear war will inevitably lead to the death of most or all the people on earth, the scientific evidence to support this belief has been skimpy and uncertain. The only mechanism currently considered to create the potential threat to the survival of the human species I the global climatic effects of smoke and dust from nuclear explosions, commonly called nuclear winter. Even here, some scientists believe the effects will be much more moderate than initially proclaimed. My assessment is that global nuclear war, which containing the potential for exterminating much of the world’s population, might kill “only†some hundreds of millions of people – an unprecedented disaster to be sure, but far short of global annihilation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No nuke war impacts – isolation, de-escalation, and no winter.

Martin 90 – Professor at the Department of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Wollongong (Brian, “Politics after a Nuclear Crisisâ€, Fall 1990; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_4.pdf)//Beddow

Especially in the past several years, an enormous amount of attention has been given to the physical consequences of nuclear war, much of it emphasizing the possibility of global annihilation. The impression given is that once any sort of nuclear war occurs, there is really nothing further to consider. My argument here is simple. Whatever the likelihood that a major nuclear confrontation will result in total annihilation of the earth’s population, a significant possibility remains that nuclear crisis or war will leave major portions of the world’s population alive and, for the most part, unaffected physically. If this is the case, then it is worth considering post-crisis and post-war politics. Three types of scenarios are worth noting: nuclear crisis, limited nuclear war, and global nuclear war. First, nuclear crisis: It is possible to imagine the development of a major nuclear confrontation short of nuclear war. This might be an extended nuclear emergency, like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, yet more serious and prolonged. It could lead to declarations of martial law and changes in political structures as described below, that might well persist beyond the nuclear crisis itself. Second, limited nuclear war: A nuclear war does not have to be global in extent. Such a war might be limited geographically – for example, to the Middle East – or restricted to the exchange of a few tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. Many analysts argue that it would be difficult to keep a nuclear exchange limited, but these arguments remain to be tested: There is no evidence of actual nuclear wars to prove or disprove them. It is worth remembering that expert predictions concerning wars (for example, that World War I would be over quickly) have often been quite wrong. It is also possible to imagine a “successful†first strike, for example, using a few high-altitude explosions over a country to disable electronics through electromagnetic pulse, thereby putting the enemy’s command and control systems out of commission. However unlikely the success of such a tactic, it cannot be ruled out a priori. Third, global nuclear war: If a nuclear war does escalate to major exchanges, does that mean that near or actual human extinction is certain? The available evidence is by no means conclusive. Although since the 1950s many people have believed that nuclear war will inevitably lead to the death of most or all the people on earth, the scientific evidence to support this belief has been skimpy and uncertain. The only mechanism currently considered to create the potential threat to the survival of the human species I the global climatic effects of smoke and dust from nuclear explosions, commonly called nuclear winter. Even here, some scientists believe the effects will be much more moderate than initially proclaimed. My assessment is that global nuclear war, which containing the potential for exterminating much of the world’s population, might kill “only†some hundreds of millions of people – an unprecedented disaster to be sure, but far short of global annihilation.

 

 

You'll probably want a newer card than this. Given that Martin's answer to nuclear winter is "the available evidence is by no means conclusive," it would be pretty easy to read a card from this millennium and say that studies have improved.

Edited by jgorman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone on this forum who debated on the old oceans topic? I'd like to see what was good then

 

 

Old Oceans was 2003 IIRC, did this site even exist back then? Earliest posts I've seen are from 2006.

 

My coach still has the briefs though, back from when briefs were on paper. I could flip through them if you want but they're too long to post.

 

 

Site did exist.  There was a purge a while ago, everything pre-2004 got deleted.

 

Do you mind just posting the plan text/a quick summary of advantages of one or two of them?

 

 

Anyone who's really super-interested in the 2003 files (should give up on that and just cut new ev that isn't a decade out of date, but failing that, you) can check them out on the camp backfiles page:

 

 

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/28326-camp-backfiles/

 

Some of the links are still active/working

 

 

 

Here's a short list of Affs I remember from 2003:

 

Algae (Iron fertilization to solve CO2)

Aquaculture (similar to Agriculture)

Ballast Water Dumping Regulations (Ballast H2O = invasive species = kills BioD)

Ban Whaling

Ban Sharkfinning

Ban Dolphin Hunting

Ban Fishing in the Bering Sea

Bioprospecting (ban the patenting of organisms found in deep sea vents)

Carriers (Decrease the number of Aircraft carriers in the US Navy)

Coast Guard (increase funding for marine protection missions)

Coral Reefs (Create new artificial ones)

Cruise Ships (regulate them more)

Deep Sea Mining

Double Hull Oil Tankers

Dredging

Genetically Modified Fish (Ban them in Fisheries)

Various International Law Affs (Law of the Sea, etc)

Ratify the Kyoto Protocol

Marine Reserves

Offshore Drilling

Overfishing

Piracy

Sustainable Fisheries

Toxic Waste

 

and possibly my favorite:

War Dolphins (that's right, apparently the Navy uses Dolphins to accomplish certain military goals, and the plan would put an end to that)

 

 

 

 

 

Supposing you still want to look at those old files, have fun looking at a bunch of non-OCR-ed PDFs with cards that just never seem to be level with the page. Old-school files have a kind of intrinsic beauty as they were produced the hard way -- with scissors, tape, and a lot of printers/copiers...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Port dredging, anyone? Best aff on the TI topic in my opinion. Could make a comeback.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resolution mandates non-military. There is literally no counterinterpretation.

 

NON-MILITARY ICEBREAKERS 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH 

 

BETTER PULL OUT THAT CASE NEG FROM LAST YEAR BECAUSE UR GUNNA NEED IT WHEN THOSE HEG ADVANTAGES COME OUT AND THEY SPIKE OUT OF T 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers#New_York_Power_Authority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Port dredging, anyone? Best aff on the TI topic in my opinion. Could make a comeback.

So many affs getting recycled, lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Cold Fusion Reactors have a huge solvency deficit (while the deuterium needed for them can easily come from "development" of the oceans), anyone have something similar? Looking for ideas that would link into warming. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icebreakers? I haven't looked through all the previous posts to see if anyone has already posted it, but it seems like a solid and topical Aff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno about you guys but there is no way I am not writing a Deleuzian Piracy aff

Ra Ra Fight the Power

What exactly would that entail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icebreakers? I haven't looked through all the previous posts to see if anyone has already posted it, but it seems like a solid and topical Aff.

 

Having run icebreakers on the TI topic, it doesn't meet t military. Icebreakers are owned and operated by the USCG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well does military mean who operates/facilitates the development and/or exploration or the ends. For example, the Army Corps was the solvency advocate for the inland waterways affirmative and I doubt that many people lost to T=/= military during the TI topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...