Plan: The USFG should substantially increase its development of Earth’s oceans by developing Ocean Based Communities.
Plank 1: Affirmative reserves the right to clarify
Plank 2: AOE: USFG
Plank 3:Funding is usual an normal means.
Warming is real – all factors confirmMuller 7-28-2012
[Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic”, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all, HM]
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists,I concluded that global warming was realand that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis bythe Berkeley EarthSurfaceTemperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risenby two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [iPCC], the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach usedsophisticated statistical methodsdeveloped largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, whichallowed us to determine earthland temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), frompoor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions(exponentials, polynomials),to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By farthe best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. Scientific consensus is on our sideLewandowsky and Ashley 2011
[stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Studies at the University of Western Australia, and Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, June 24, 2011, “The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change,”http://goo.gl/u3nOC, HM]
But despite these complexities, some aspects of climate science are thoroughly settled. We know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to humans. We know that this CO2, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an important influence on temperature. We can calculate the effect, and predict what is going to happen to the earth’s climate during our lifetimes, all based on fundamental physics that is as certain as gravity. The consensus opinion of the world’s climate scientists is that climate change isoccurringdue to human CO2emissions. The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small. Scepticism and denialismSome people will be understandably sceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions answered by climate scientists, they come around. These people are true sceptics, and a degree of scepticism is healthy. Other people will disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and will challenge the science on internet blogs and opinion pieces in the media, but no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they will never change their opinions. These people are deniers. The recent articles in The Conversation have put the deniers under the microscope. Some readers have asked us in the comments to address the scientific questions that the deniers bring up. This has been done. Not once. Not twice. Not ten times. Probably more like 100 or a 1000 times. Denier arguments have been dealt with by scientists, again and again and again. But like zombies, the deniers keep coming back with the same long-falsified and nonsensical arguments. The deniers have seemingly endless enthusiasm to post on blogs, write letters to editors, write opinion pieces for newspapers, and even publish books. What they rarely do is write coherent scientific papers on their theories and submit them to scientific journals. The few published papers that have been sceptical about climate change have not withstood the test of time.The phony debate on climate change So if the evidence is this strong, why is there resistance to action on climate change in Australia? At least two reasons can be cited. First, as The Conversation has revealed, there are a handful of individuals and organisationswho, by avoiding peer review, have engineered a phony public debate about the science, when in fact that debate is absent from the one arena where our scientific knowledge is formed. These individuals and organisations have so far largely escaped accountability. But their free ride has come to an end, as the next few weeks on The Conversation will continue to show. The second reason, alas, involves systemic failures by the media. Systemic media failures arise from several presumptions about the way science works, which range from being utterly false to dangerously ill-informed to overtly malicious and mendacious. The false Let’s begin with what is merely false. A tacit presumption of many in the media and the public is that climate science is a brittle house of cards that can be brought down by a single new finding or the discovery of a single error. Nothing could be further from the truth.Climate science is a cumulative enterprise built upon hundreds of years of research. The heat-trapping properties of CO₂ were discovered in the middle of the 19th century, pre-dating even Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria.
Climate Change leads to Biodiversity Loss
(Abigail Cahill November 21st 2012 Biodiversity and Humans http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1750/20121890 Effects of Global Warming)
Anthropogenic climate change is recognized as a major threat to global biodiversity, one that may lead to the extinction of thousands of species over the next 100 years. Climate change may have important interactions with other anthropogenic impacts (e.g. habitat loss). Given this, understanding the responses of species to modern climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing biologists today.
But what do we actually know about how climate change causes extinction? It might seem that limited physiological tolerances to high temperatures should be the major factor that causes climate change to threaten the persistence of populations and species, and many studies have justifiably focused on these tolerances [10–13]. However, there may be many other proximate causes of extinction, even when anthropogenic climate change is the ultimate cause. These proximate factors include negative impacts of heat-avoidance behaviour, the climate-related loss of host and pollinator species and positive impacts of climate change on pathogens and competitors,among others. The relative importance of these factors is unclear and has not, to our knowledge, previously been reviewed, despite increasing interest in mechanisms underlying the impacts of climate change .
Biodiversity collapse will cause extinction. Coyne 7
There have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. This new one is much worse. This one results from the work of a single species, Humans. Unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recoverWorldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. Healthy ecosystems the world over, provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production.Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yieldsThey provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine.The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, prevents clots. Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. There are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. It is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction.We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. We must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction.
Underwater communities solve for Biodiversity
(Vincent Guru, Feburary 10, 2014, http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56680633/the-reasons-why-oceanic-business-is-the-next-big-thing-to-co/, Equilibrium on the Planet)
The quest for space is closely related with the "need of global equilibrium" it is clear that our society as it is today is taking too much from the biosphere causing climate change and mass extinctions. The problem anybody is talking about CO2 and fossil fuels producing global warming can be solved quite easily by developing new technology like solar. The real problem - that is not easy to solve is the development of the human world population and its exploding need for space goods and services. It has been suggested to "cut back human population" with the Chinese model (one child per couple and heavy state control). But this is not feasible in a "free world" it requires a world of George Orwell’s 1985 .So the question is where can we "make space" for the "expanding needs of humanity" reducing at the same time impact over the Amazon jungle, European alpine valleys, and similar delicate biotopes. The only feasible answer is "in outer space" and "inner space" - until we are capable to reach outer space - the planets liquid mantle contains 99% of the space volume available to humanity. Fortunately the open ocean is a "biological quite empty" volume which is REALLY big. Placing big structures there, that carter to human needs, is not harming an existing eco system - on contrary it is creating a surface for a reef community to prosper.
Colonies would greatly mitigate CO2 Emissions.
[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, HM]
The ocean colony would have no power derived from fossil fuels, with electricity from only natural energy sources, including OTEC, wind, waves, and solar. CO2 emissions will be reduced dramatically or even recycled. Recalling the natural “lay-out” of the Biosphere 2 that mimics the earth’s various eco-systems, the colony infrastructure will have grasslands (for dairy farms), rainforest (oxygen release), and a tower of seed plants and vegetables, irrigated by water from desalination plants (powered by solar/OTEC, of course).
Advantage 2: Overpopulation
Overpopulation leads to resource shortage
(Holly Moeller, October 6, 2014, Human Overpopulation: When no news is bad news, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/10/06/human-overpopulation-when-no-news-is-bad-news/)
But how many is too many? Experts struggle to quantify the maximum sustainable human population size (called the “carrying capacity”) of the planet. Their calculations are limited both by uncertainty about Earth’s capacity to maintain its human life support systems (e.g., freshwater, breathable air and so on) and by the lifestyle each person chooses to maintain. For example, Americans have relatively high-impact habits that consume more natural resources than sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Ethically, we can agree that every human deserves a certain standard of living. But the higher that that standard rises in terms of energy and other resource consumption, the fewer people Earth can support indefinitely.
Meanwhile, our global population continues to swell, as do our environmental impacts. Each individual requires sustaining resources including food, housing and energy. No matter how small the average person’s resource demands are, each additional person adds to the human burden on the Earth. In the past 40 years, the human population has increased by 40 percent, while, as a consequence, the world’s wildlife population has been cut in half.
Overpopulation Leads to CO2 Emmision
(Holly Moeller, October 6, 2014, Human Overpopulation: When no news is bad news, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/10/06/human
Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that population growth and economic development are the two most important drivers of increasing carbon dioxide emissions. In the United States, every child born increases a mother’s carbon legacy more than sixfold. Worse, present day population growth is occurring in impoverished areas where large families, though themselves contributing relatively little per person to global emissions and climate change, are more likely to be vulnerable to its impacts as well as the usual suite of natural disasters.
Overpopulation leads to food shortages must go to the ocean.
(Jake Ellmer September 28th 2014, http://www.seasteading.org/forum-list/topic/marine-business-will-lead-to-seasteading/,Marine Business will lead to sea steading)
We might have reached the planetary maximum of sustainability 2 decades ago when the global population was half as it is now. We are at almost 7 billion and the continents may only be able to bare with 4 billion humans sustained with normal agriculture as we know it. The overwork of agriculture land is pointing to a disminuishing food production (damage of fertilizer, plages by monoculture) rather than to a growth in food production to expect.
Fisheries are in free fall due to the extinction of all species of wildstock.
The only resource left to tap into for supply of more humans is the vast space of the ocean and its giant housing squaremeter and food production capability if we domesticate oceanic food production
We are dealing with 2 exponential functions sitting on top of each other – “population growth per capita” AND “expansion of human needs and wish for a better life” even if population growth would stabilize (i doubt that) Chineese people stepping out of mao suit, wanting a car, and indian population stepping out of slum conditions will STILL create a exponential growth of “human needs for production and consumption”.
Ocean Key to solve overpopulation
(Elizabeth Sargent, November 14th 2011, is currently a PhD student at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton studying nitrogen fixation and its role in fluxes of carbon and nitrogen to the deep sea, http://wordsinmocean.com/2011/11/14/living-at-sea-a-clever-solution-to-overpopulation-or-an-unrealistic-fantasy/ A clever solution to overpopulation)
After last month’s population milestone caused a lot of chatter about the consequences of continual unchecked population growth, there is no better time than now to begin considering where we’re meant to house people when space gets tight. Admittedly the problem is more about consumption and waste production than it is about physical space, but ideas for branching out and inhabiting new areas should be explored With additional concerns over sea level rise eventually eliminating coastal cities why not explore the possibility of expansion into life at (on?) sea. I am impressed by the idea and am pleased to see concern for environmental friendliness as is highlighted in the description:
“It is self sufficient as it generates its own power through wave, wind, current, solar, bio etc. and it generates its own food through farming, aquaculture, hydroponics etc. It carries with its own small forest on top its back and supports places for users to live and works in its depths. Its bioluminescent tentacles provide sea fauna a place to live and congregate while collecting energy through its kinetic movements.”
Underwater technology is available and feasible
(Ashley Nuwer 30 September 2013 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130930-can-we-build-underwater-cities)
The technology already exists to create underwater colonies 3le the few bunker-like habitats in operation today providing a blueprint. “There are no technological hurdles with safety being paramount, operators assure underwater habitats are running smoothly by monitoring life support systems air composition, temperature and humidity from the surfacemaking larger habitats with multiple modules made of steel, glass and special cement used With safety being paramount, operators assure underwater habitats are running smoothly by monitoring life support systems – air composition, temperature and humidity – from the surface. Above the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Aquarius Reef Base, the third of the three existing facilities (which accommodates up to six aquanauts at a time), a bright yellow circular disc tethered to the undersea lab 60ft (18m) below collects data from a variety of sensors and sends it to shore via a special wireless internet connection. Future habitats could use satellites to communicate this important information. For now, energy independence is still a challenge. Sustainable future options might include harnessing wave action or placing solar panels on the surface.
Making larger habitats with multiple modules made of steel, glass and special cement used underwater would be simpler than trying to create one giant bubble. These smaller structures could be added or taken away to create living space for as many people as desired. Most likely, we wouldn’t want to build any deeper than 1,000ft (300m), because the pressures at such depths would require very thick walls and excessive periods of decompression for those returning to the surface. Koblick and his colleagues did not experience any ill effects from living below the surface for around 60 days, and he thinks stints up to six months would be feasible.
Communities are ready to be built
Seasteading Institute ‘14
(Seasteading Institute,September 21st 2014, http://www.seasteading.org/floating-city-project/#anchor )
The city is composed of modular platforms – either 50 x 50 meter squares, or pentagons with 50 meter sides. Squares and pentagons can be connected and arranged in numerous branch like structures. Squares are estimated to cost approximately $15 million each. This is equivalent $393 per square foot of gross space. But since 20% of each platform is reserved for open/green space, the report projects issuable space to cost $504 per square foot ($5425/square meter). Reinforced concrete was chosen as the construction material of choice for its price and durability. Concrete structures would be molded into sturdy hollow boxes, or “caissons”. Modules would support three story buildings. The design takes into account apartments, terraced housing, office space, and hotels. This concept is based on 11 modules, which could host 225-300 full-time residents when combined, with an additional 50 hotel beds. The total projected cost would therefore be approximately $167 million.