CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
Index
NEG
Environment Disadvantage Negative
Environment Disadvantage Negative ...................................................................... 1
1NC Environment Disadvantage [1/3] .................................................................................... 2
1NC Environment Disadvantage [2/3] .................................................................................... 3
1NC Environment Disadvantage [3/3] .................................................................................... 4
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Aquaculture [1/1].............................................................................. 5
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Offshore Wind [1/1].......................................................................... 6
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Oil Exploration [1/1]..........................................................................7
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Coral Reefs [1/1] ............................................................................... 8
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #1 “Oceans Unhealthy Now” [1/1] ............................................. 9
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 “Plan Helps the Ocean” [1/1] ...............................................10
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #3 “No Oceans Impact” [1/1] .................................................... 11
Plan-Specific Link Block: Aquaculture [1/1] .......................................................................... 12
Plan-Specific Link Block: Offshore Wind [1/2] ...................................................................... 13
Plan-Specific Link Block: Offshore Wind [2/2] ..................................................................... 14
Plan-Specific Link Block: Oil Exploration [1/1] ..................................................................... 15
Plan-Specific Link Block: Coral Reefs [1/1] ............................................................................ 16
Answers follow in the same file.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
1NC Environment Disadvantage [1/3]
A. Uniqueness – oceanic biodiversity is improving
Howard 6-24
[Brian. Oceans Analyst for National Geographic. “Global Ocean Commission Calls for Sweeping International
Reforms” 6/24/14 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140624-global-ocean-commission-reporthigh-seas-fishing-environment/]
An international panel of former heads of state, government ministers, and prominent business leaders is
calling for world leaders to protect the ocean by adopting a sweeping "five-year rescue package."¶ The
report released Tuesday by the Global Ocean Commission recommends that the United Nations and
national governments restrict fishing in international waters, eliminate fishing subsidies, step up the fight
against illegal fishing, reduce pollution, and establish greater international cooperation on marine issues.¶
Nations must "intervene to reduce degradation of the ocean, and it must be forceful," commission cochair Trevor Manuel tells National Geographic.¶ The independent, 17-member commission—launched in
February 2013 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the University of Oxford, Adessium Foundation, and Oceans
5—spent 18 months researching and drafting the report.¶ The commission's conclusions have been widely
anticipated by policymakers at the UN and in many nations, in part due to the political clout of the
commissioners. Members include Carol Browner, the former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; David Miliband, the former foreign secretary of the United Kingdom; and Paul Martin, a former
prime minister of Canada.¶ Without swift action to combat overfishing, pollution, and other problems, the
commission argues, the world's food supply and biodiversity are at great risk. The ocean, the commission
notes, provides half of the planet's oxygen, absorbs half of man-made carbon emissions, and is the
beginning of the food chain.¶ "It's clearly important that nations raise the bar on international
cooperation around the ocean," says Manuel, a veteran politician from South Africa who served as the
country's minister of finance for 13 years.¶ One of the commission's most dramatic recommendations is
for subsidies for fishing in international waters to be capped immediately and eliminated entirely within
five years. The move could essentially end fishing on the so-called high seas because the commission
found that, without the financial assistance provided by ten nations, the practice would not be financially
viable.¶ If such significant steps are not taken within five years, then the high seas should be closed to all
fishing to allow stocks to recover, the report says.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
1NC Environment Disadvantage [2/3]
B. [INSERT PLAN-SPECIFIC LINK]
1NC Shell
NEG
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
1NC Shell
NEG
1NC Environment Disadvantage [3/3]
C. The impact – oceanic biodiversity is critical to prevent extinction
Sielen 2013
[Alan. Senior Fellow for Marine Biodiversity at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “The Devolution of the Seas:
the Consequences of Oceanic Destruction.” Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2013. Available via Lexis-Nexis]
Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable
descent of the world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities
have so altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a
return to the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago.¶ A visitor to the oceans at the
dawn of time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5
billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae
and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time,
these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of
fish, corals, whales, and other sea life one associates with the oceans today.¶ Yet that sea life is now in
peril. Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to
reversing the almost miraculous biological abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction
of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain
their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of slime”: the transformation of
once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems
dominated by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the
seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats.¶ The prospect of vanishing whales, polar bears, bluefin
tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption of entire
ecosystems threatens our very survival, since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that
sustains life on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and
quality of life. It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better
future.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
Plan-Specific Links
NEG
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Aquaculture [1/1]
Aquaculture causes disease spread, overfishing and pollution – those things
collapse marine ecosystems
McCutcheon 2014
[Jody. “Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment” 3/27/14 http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theressomething-fishy-aquaculture/]
And while farmed fish don’t contain high levels of ocean pollutants like many wild fish do—especially
those living in industrial areas like North America’s Great Lakes—they almost always do contain various
antibiotics, hormones and pesticides used in the farming process. Plus, farmed fish are usually crowded
into their pens or ponds, creating fertile breeding grounds for diseases like infectious salmon anemia and
parasites like sea lice—hence the use of antibiotics and pesticides.¶ Food Industry Lies¶ Impassive and
duplicitous, the industrial agricultural that’s raping the planet’s land has now infiltrated our oceans. If
aquaculture’s primary purpose is, as they claim, to relieve pressure on the world’s wild fisheries, then why
are wild stocks being depleted to feed farmed fish?¶ Farmed Atlantic salmon may have an ideal FCR of 1:1
(or thereabouts), but that just means it takes one pound of wild fish to produce one pound of farmed
salmon. Yes, high-protein fishmeal is made of wild, low-on-the-food-chain, pelagic (open-ocean) fish. As
much as 4.5 kilograms of pelagic fish go into a single kilogram of fishmeal. For fish with higher FCR’s, the
whole skewed dynamic of feeding farmed fish with wild represents a constant overdraft on the ocean
bank. This practice steals essential food sources from higher-on-the-food-chain marine life, which further
skews the ecosystem. Overall, about 37% of the global seafood catch is used for feed, up from a mere 7.7%
back in 1948. Under current trends, demand for fishmeal will exceed supply by around 2050.¶ In
addition, although aquaculturalists claim the contamination of their farms is contained within their
ponds, the truth is that industrial scale aquaculture destroys coastal habitats when waste, disease,
antibiotics and pests are flushed out of farming ponds into local waters, where they infiltrate wild
populations. In fact, waste from fish farms can oversaturate coastal waters with nutrients, creating dead
zones that suffocate marine life. A poorly run farm of 200,000 salmon can pollute the coastal
environment with amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus similar to that in the sewage of a town of 20,000.
Even more alarming, the antibiotics being released are creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens that wreak
havoc on farmed and wild fishery stocks alike.¶ Another concern is the potential escape into local waters
of exotic, possibly genetically modified species that may eventually replace indigenous species.
Massachussetts-based company AquaBounty, for example, is bioengineering fish to grow faster, an
advantage that would help them outcompete fellow fish. But according to Time magazine, it is very easy
and common for farmed fish to escape into the wild, thus just one GMO fish could do irreparable damage
to a species.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
Plan-Specific Links
NEG
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Offshore Wind [1/1]
Offshore wind energy development creates habitats for invasive species – that
harms overall marine biodiversity
Langhamer 2012
[Olivia Langhamer, December 2012. Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Høgskoleringen. “Artificial Reef Effect in relation to Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion: State of the Art,” The
Scientific World Journal, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/386713/]
One mitigating effect of offshore renewable energy on the local biodiversity may occur due to colonization
by invasive species. Ever since international shipping started, marine organisms have been distributed all
over the world by ballast water or as fouling on boat hulls. This introduction of alien species has dramatic
ecological effects, since it can be a threat to global biodiversity [52, 53] and lead to local extinctions and
fishery collapses [53]. Artificial hard substrates offer habitats for a large number of invasive species
normally attached to rocky reefs [54]. In general, artificial structures do not host exactly the same species
as a natural hard substrate [55, 56]. The installation of offshore renewable energy parks may not only
introduce hard substrata in otherwise sandy-dominated bottoms, but can also provide new habitats for
invasive species. Different hydrodynamics, such as more shelter due to new structures may lead to
colonization of organisms very different to those on nearby hard substrates and thereby establish and
spread nonindigenous species [57]. On wind turbine constructions in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea
the presence of alien species has been recorded [58–60] and may provide stepping-stones for spread,
which could facilitate the establishment of the new taxa in the recipient region.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
Plan-Specific Links
NEG
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Oil Exploration [1/1]
Drilling in the outer-continental shelf is an environmental disaster
NRDC 2009
[The National Defense Research Council. “Protecting our Ocean and Coastal Economics: Avoid Unnecessary Risks
from Offshore Drilling” 2009, http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/offshore/files/offshore.pdf
Offshore Drilling Poses Serious ¶ Environmental Risks¶ Expanded offshore drilling poses the risk of oil ¶
spills ruining our beaches from Florida to Maine ¶ and along the Pacific Coast, bringing harm to ¶ those
who live, work, and vacation along the ¶ coasts, as well as harming habitats critical to ¶ plants and
animals. ¶ Oil spills can quickly traverse vast distances. ¶ For example, when powered by the Gulf of ¶ Mexico’s Loop
Current, an oil spill in the eastern ¶ Gulf of Mexico could affect Florida’s Panhandle ¶ beaches and even travel around the Florida
Keys ¶ to wreak havoc on estuaries and beaches from the ¶ Everglades to Cape Canaveral.1¶ Contamination ¶ from the massive 1989
Exxon Valdez oil spill ¶ reached shorelines nearly 600 miles away; if the ¶ spill had occurred on the East Coast, it would have ¶
extended from Massachusetts to North Carolina.2¶ In September 2008, Hurricane Ike destroyed ¶ oil platforms, tanks, and
pipelines throughout the ¶ Gulf of Mexico, releasing at least a half-million ¶ gallons of crude oil.3¶ During Hurricanes Katrina ¶ and
Rita there were 125 spills from platforms, rigs, ¶ and pipelines on the ocean’s Outer Continental ¶ Shelf, releasing almost 685,000
gallons of ¶ petroleum products.4¶ Worse yet, if you include the ¶ land-based infrastructure that supports offshore ¶ drilling, the
damage from these two hurricanes ¶ includes 595 spills releasing millions of gallons of ¶ oil.5¶ Oil Spills Inflict Devastating
Economic ¶ Losses Upon Coastal Communities¶ Oil spills exact a serious toll on coastal economies, ¶ including our approximately
$35 billion ¶ commercial fishing and $60 billion ocean and ¶ coastal tourism and recreation industries.6¶ The ¶ damage and clean
up costs following the Exxon ¶ Valdez spill were so extensive that Exxon paid ¶ out more than one billion dollars to the federal ¶ and
state governments for damages and clean up ¶ costs—and still owes fishermen, Alaska Natives, ¶ business owners, and others a
billion dollars to ¶ redress the spill’s harm.7¶ ¶ In another example of economic and ¶ environmental damage, a July 2008 accident ¶
between a chemical tanker and an oil barge ¶ discharged more than 270,000 gallons of fuel ¶ oil, closing a huge swath of the Lower
Mississippi ¶ River to vessel traffic for several days. The Port ¶ of New Orleans, located at the center of the ¶ world’s busiest port
complex, was shut down and ¶ residents were asked to conserve water when water ¶ intakes were closed to prevent contamination of
¶ drinking water.¶ Oil Spills Have Lasting ¶ Ecological Impacts ¶ According to the National Academy of Sciences, ¶ current
cleanup methods can only remove a small ¶ fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean, leaving ¶ the
remaining oil to continue affecting ocean ¶ ecosystems over time.9¶ Scientists investigating ¶ the longterm impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill ¶ estimate that nearly 20,000 gallons of oil from that ¶ spill remain
in Prince William Sound, continuing ¶ to harm threatened and endangered species and ¶ undermine their
recovery.10 Marine mammals, sea ¶ birds, fish, shellfish, and other sea life are extremely ¶ vulnerable to
oil pollution and the long-term ¶ toxic effects can impair reproductive success for ¶ generations. Studies
have shown that tiny amounts ¶ of oil—as little as one part per billion—can harm ¶ pink salmon and cause
their eggs to fail.11 ¶ Spills Aside, Drilling Operations ¶ are a Major Source of Pollution¶ In addition to
environmental damage from oil ¶ spills, the routine operations associated with ¶ offshore drilling produce
many toxic wastes ¶ and other forms of pollution. For example, ¶ each drill well generates tens of
thousands of ¶ gallons of waste drilling muds (materials used ¶ to lubricate drill bits and maintain
pressure) ¶ and cuttings.12 Drilling muds contain toxic ¶ metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium that
¶ may bioaccumulate and biomagnify in marine ¶ organisms, including in our seafood supply.13 ¶ The water
that is brought up from a ¶ given well along with oil and gas, referred to ¶ as “produced water,” contains its own toxic ¶ brew of benzene, arsenic, lead,
toluene, and ¶ varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. ¶ Each oil platform can discharge hundreds of ¶ thousands of gallons of this produced water
daily, ¶ contaminating both local waters and those down ¶ current from the discharge.14 An average oil and ¶ gas exploration well spews roughly 50
tons of ¶ nitrogen oxides, 13 tons of carbon monoxide, ¶ 6 tons of sulfur oxides, and 5 tons of volatile ¶ organic chemicals.15 ¶ Drilling Exploration
Activities ¶ Harm Marine Life¶ Seismic surveys designed to estimate the size ¶ of an oil and gas reserve generate their own ¶ environmental problems.
To carry out such ¶ surveys, ships tow multiple airgun arrays that ¶ emit thousands of high-decibel explosive impulses ¶ to map the seafloor.16 The
auditory assault from ¶ seismic surveys has been found to damage or kill ¶ fish eggs and larvae and to impair the hearing ¶ and health of fish, making
them vulnerable to ¶ predators and leaving them unable to locate prey ¶ or mates or communicate with each other. These ¶ disturbances disrupt and
displace important ¶ migratory patterns, pushing marine life away ¶ from suitable habitats like nurseries and foraging, ¶ mating, spawning, and
migratory corridors.17 In ¶ addition, seismic surveys have been implicated in ¶ whale beaching and stranding incidents.18¶ Offshore Drilling Results in
¶ Onshore Damage¶ Offshore drilling requires the construction of ¶ significant onshore infrastructure such as new ¶ roads, pipelines, and processing
¶ Thanks in part to drilling operations, Louisiana is ¶ losing
roughly 24 square miles of coastal wetlands ¶ each year, eating away at natural storm barriers and ¶
increasing the risks of storm damage, including ¶ damage from oil spills.19
facilities, which ¶ are often built on formerly pristine beaches.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
Plan-Specific Links
NEG
Plan-Specific 1NC Link: Coral Reefs [1/1]
Focus on a singular element of marine life, like coral reefs, masks the underlying
causes of oceanic destruction – this makes environmental calamity inevitable.
Swyngedouw 2006
[Erik, Department of Geography @ Manchester, Urban and Landscape Perspectives 9, 2, p.185-205, September]
The inability to take ‘natures’ seriously is dramatically illustrated by the controversy over the degree to
which disturbing environmental change is actually taking place and the risks or dangers associated with it.
Lomborg’s The Sceptical Environmentalist captures one side of this controversy in all its
phantasmagorical perversity (Lomborg, 1998), while climate change doomsday pundits represent the
other. Both sides of the debate argue from an imaginary position of the presumed existence of a dynamic
balance and equilibrium, the point of ‘good’ nature, but one side claims that the world is veering off the
correct path, while the other side (Lomborg and other sceptics) argues that we are still pretty much on
nature’s course. With our gaze firmly fixed on capturing an imaginary ‘idealised’ Nature, the controversy
further solidifies our conviction of the possibility of a harmonious, balanced, and fundamentally benign
ONE Nature if we would just get our interaction with it right, an argument blindly (and stubbornly) fixed
on the question of where Nature’s rightful point of benign existence resides. This futile debate, circling
around an assumedly centred, known, and singular Nature, certainly permits -- in fact invites -imagining ecological catastrophe at some distant point (global burning (or freezing) through climate
change, resource depletion, death by overpopulation). Indeed, imagining catastrophe and fantasising
about the final ecological Armageddon seems considerably easier for most environmentalists than
envisaging relatively small changes in the socio-political and cultural-economic organisation of local and
global life here and now. Or put differently, the world’s premature ending in a climatic Armageddon
seems easier to imagine (and sell to the public) than a transformation of (or end to) the neo-liberal
capitalist order that keeps on practicing expanding energy use and widening and deepening its ecological
footprint.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #1 “Oceans Unhealthy Now” [1/1]
1. Ocean biodiversity is improving in the status quo. An international panel of
experts have created a rescue package for marine ecosystems which will be
effective in returning health to the oceans – that’s our 1NC Howard evidence.
2. The ocean’s getting healthier in the status quo because of increasing global
attention toward it.
Maxwell 6-22
[Ghislaine Maxwell is president and founder of The TerraMar Project, a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to
protecting the oceans by creating and empowering a global community of ocean citizens. “Ocean Conservation: is the
Tide Finally Turning?” 6/22/14 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/13/ocean-conservation-is-thetide-finally-turning/]
Fish don’t vote; is that perhaps why the ocean and its problems are a low priority for governments and few
politicians see a need to have a public opinion on ocean related issues? The ocean and its myriad of
problems generally elicit a collective shrug from the general public. You are more likely to see a story
detailing the best celebrity beach bodies than something newsworthy concerning the seas.¶ The tide is
turning. The ocean is becoming topical. Climate change is becoming a national security issue and focus.
President Obama said in his address at West Point: “Next year, I intend to make sure America is out front
in a global framework to preserve our planet.” Obama also just issued a presidential proclamation
designating the month of June as National Ocean Month.¶ This month Secretary Kerry will host a
conference, taking a look at sustainable fisheries, marine pollution, and ocean acidification. Several weeks
later, the Global Ocean Commission will release its report and recommendations looking at key threats,
challenges, and changes to the ocean in the 21st century incorporating economic analysis by McKinsey.
Debates are raging daily in the UN as to whether the ocean should be included in the Sustainable
Development Goals.¶ Clearly the political and environmental issues around the ocean are becoming
impossible to ignore and more central to the debate on climate and security issues.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 “Plan Helps the Ocean” [1/1]
[INSERT PLAN-SPECIFIC LINK BLOCK]
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #3 “No Oceans Impact” [1/1]
1. Ocean biodiversity is critical to human survival. The health of marine
ecosystems is necessary to access to food, health, jobs, quality of life, and a bunch
of other factors that sustain life – that’s our 1NC Sielen evidence.
2. The health of the oceans is key to human survival. Oceans provide the
foundation of life-sustaining systems like marine life, climate stability, and
biological productivity.
Sielen 2008
[Alan. Senior Executive at the EPA. “An Oceans Manifesto: The Present Global Crisis” 2008
http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/People/Faculty_and_Researchers/sielen/Sielen.pdf]
A generation ago, French explorer and oceanographer Jacques Cousteau warned that the oceans were sick
and getting worse every year. Embraced by the public for bringing people on every continent closer to the
wonders of nature and for his unvarnished assessment of the state of the oceans, Cousteau was ridiculed
by many government officials and scientists as an environmental alarmist. Fortunately, the oceans are not
dead; in fact, some areas are teeming with life. Cousteau’s concerns, however, were prophetic: serious
degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems worldwide continues, driven by global climate change,
pollution, overfishing, and the destruction of coastal habitats. Once thought to possess an endless
abundance of resources and an unlimited capacity to safely assimilate wastes, the oceans are now forcing
us to reconsider many of our previous assumptions.¶ The oceans are indispensable in sustaining life on
earth. They possess a rich diversity of marine life and support systems that affect the entire planet, such as
climate, weather, fisheries, and biological productivity. The importance of the oceans cannot be separated
from the larger global environment that encompasses the air, land, and freshwater. Nor will solutions to
the problems facing them be distinct from broader questions concerning human development and the
quality of life on earth.¶ Around the world, the daily existence of growing numbers of people is directly
affected by the use and management of the oceans and their resources. The fishing industry is a source of
protein for a large part of the world’s population and a livelihood, directly and indirectly, for hundreds of
millions of people. Travel, tourism, and recreation in coastal areas have an even greater effect on national
and global economies. Offshore areas account for as much as one third of the world’s energy supplies.
Maritime transportation and port operations are of paramount importance for world trade. The many
ways that the oceans can refresh and enrich the human spirit are as legendary as their awesome terrors,
such as the devastating Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
Plan-Specific Link Block: Aquaculture [1/1]
1. Aquaculture is an environmental disaster. Enclosed fish farms cause disease
spread, toxic waste discharge, overfishing, and the escape of invasive species into
larger habitats. That’s our 1NC McCutcheon evidence.
2. Aquaculture is an environmental disaster – regulating it isn’t enough to solve
Sielen 2013
[Alan. Senior Fellow for Intl Environmental Policy at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “The Devolution of the
Seas: The Consequences of Oceanic Destruction” Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2013. Available via Lexis-Nexis]
As the oceans decline and the demand for their products rises, marine and freshwater aquaculture may
look like a tempting solution. After all, since we raise livestock on land for food, why not farm fish at sea?
Fish farming is growing faster than any other form of food production, and today, the majority of
commercially sold fish in the world and half of U.S. seafood imports come from aquaculture. Done right,
fish farming can be environmentally acceptable. But the impact of aquaculture varies widely depending on
the species raised, methods used, and location, and several factors make healthy and sustainable
production difficult. Many farmed fish rely heavily on processed wild fish for food, which eliminates the
fish-conservation benefits of aquaculture. Farmed fish can also escape into rivers and oceans and
endanger wild populations by transmitting diseases or parasites or by competing with native species for
feeding and spawning grounds. Open-net pens also pollute, sending fish waste, pesticides, antibiotics,
uneaten food, diseases, and parasites flowing directly into the surrounding waters.
3. The link only goes our direction. The plan cannot improve the environment but
carries a high risk of making it worse.
Klinger and Naylor 2012
[Dane and Rosamond. PhD Student in Environmental Resources at Stanford. And Professor of Earth System Science
at Stanford. “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course” 2012
http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aquaculture.pdf]
Offshore systems fail to fully resolve many of the environmental concerns associated with conventional
coastal systems, including the risk of escaped fish interbreeding or competing for resources with wild fish,
aggregation of other animals around offshore structures, and disease and parasite transmission to wild
fish (reviewed in References 122 and 128). These problems, and the effects of releasing even diluted
quantities of uneaten feed, wastes, and therapeutants, are likely to be reduced when farms move away
from the coast and into oligotrophic environments, but to an uncertain degree (128). Although offshore
seaweed and shellfish operations do not require feed (7, 123), resource efficiency remains an issue with
offshore finfish operations because the high cost of building and operating offshore currently favors
production of high-value carnivorous fish (11, 128). The high cost of production is also likely to rely on
economies of scale for profitability, and thus favor large-scale operations or suites of operations that have
not been evaluated for their impacts on marine ecosystems. Moving offshore increases the distances that
support vessels must travel to reach aquaculture farms and therefore increases the fuel use and carbon
intensity of production. Finally, the cost of labor may increase as managing offshore vessels and
equipment requires skilled employees.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
Plan-Specific Link Block: Offshore Wind [1/2]
1. Offshore wind energy is dangerous for the environment. The platforms and
turbines that the plan would create become habitats for invasive species, which
disturb fragile coastal ecosystems. That’s our 1NC Langhamer evidence.
2. Offshore wind turbines also kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year
Moore 2012
[”Nature Report: Threatening Turbines Raise Concerns” by Richard Moore Posted: 03.26.2012 at 5:40 AM Richard
Moore hosts "The Nature Report" every Monday and Wednesday.]
An environmental impact statement or EIS has been ordered by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers to assess the potential impact of a massive wind turbine industrial complex proposed by
Baryonyx Corporation just offshore from South Padre Island in 41,000 acres of Gulf of Mexico waters
leased from the state of Texas. Thus far, no offshore wind farms have been built in the United States and
many citizens believe that offshore from South Padre is the worst place in the country to erect hundreds of
huge turbines fearing they will kill birds and cause extensive damage to the marine environment.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, poorly sited wind turbines kill approximately
440,000 birds each year, and this is undoubtedly a gross underestimate as the industry is largely selfregulated. Recent radar studies of bird migration along the lower Texas coast reveals it to be perhaps the
most important migratory corridor in the world, and many of these birds fly directly across the Gulf of
Mexico. In addition to threatening the 300 million dollar a year nature tourism industry in the Rio
Grande Valley, the proposed offshore turbines also have recreational fishermen and shrimp boat owners
alarmed. Walt Kittelberger, the president of the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation said, "Offshore it will
have up to 25 square miles of area, and what is important for all the fishermen, whether they are
commercial fishermen, shrimpers or just people who like to go out on their boats is that these things
create what are called exclusion zones, where you cannot travel thru them." Carlton Reyes, the president
of the Brownsville Port Isabel Shrimp Producers Association said, "Our concerns have to do with hazards
to navigation and the potential loss of fishing area." If you would like to attend a public hearing and voice
your concerns or support for the proposed offshore wind turbine project a meeting is set for Wednesday
March 28th beginning at 6 pm at the Holiday Inn on North Expressway in Brownsville.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
Plan-Specific Link Block: Offshore Wind [2/2]
3. The plan also disturbs the seabed, which hurts all species.
Mann and Teilmann 2013
[J. Department of Wind Energy, Technical University of Denmark. And J. Department of Bioscience, Aarhus
University. “Environmental Impact of Wind Energy” May 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/8/3/035001/article]
Harbor porpoises have been given special attention in European waters due to their strict protection
under EU Habitats Directive (EU 1992, Annex IV) and their unknown status caused by bycatch in gillnet
fishery and other anthropogenic threats. The most disturbing effect may be the ramming of wind
monopile foundations into the seabed. This creates some of the loudest sounds emitted and may be heard
by these animals hundreds of kilometers away in deeper waters and are strong enough to cause physical
damage at short ranges. A study on the first German offshore wind farm showed that fewer animals were
detected up to 25 km from the ramming site and that the displacement period (up to 6 days) was
positively correlated to the duration of the ramming (Dahne¨ et al 2013). This is somewhat consistent
with the only two similar studies by Tougaard et al ( 2009) and Brandt et al ( 2011) studying the effect of
ramming in the two Danish wind farms in the North Sea. Both Scheidat et al ( 2011) and Teilmann and
Carstensen ( 2012) have studied the effect on harbor porpoises over several years in two of the first large
scale offshore wind farms in the world. Both studies did observations both before and after the
installation of the turbines using acoustic data loggers placed on the sea bottom inside and outside the
wind farm. Scheidat et al ( 2011) found a significant increase of 160% in the presence of porpoises 1–2
years after the wind farm was in normal operation, compared to the baseline period (the construction
period was not studied). It was suggested that this could be caused by less ship traffic and more food due
to the ban of fishery inside the wind farm. Teilmann and Carstensen ( 2012) studied the Nysted Offshore
Wind Farm before, during and after the construction of the 72 gravity foundation wind turbines. A
significant negative effect was found with 89% fewer porpoises inside the wind farm during construction
and 71% fewer 10 years later compared to the baseline values. Although there are indications of a slight
recovery, this is in clear contrast to the results from the Netherlands indicating that other factors interact
with the farms and the ecosystems in highly unpredictable ways. Whether it is the longer construction
time of the gravity foundations, differences in underwater noise levels, or difference in motivation to be in
the area despite disturbing effects from the wind farm, that cause this difference is still to be studied.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
Plan-Specific Link Block: Oil Exploration [1/1]
1. Drilling for oil along the OCS is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. In
addition to the empirically high risk of an oil spill, the plan causes systemic harm
to ecosystem populations because drilling produces toxic waste, lubrication muds,
and cuttings. That’s our 1NC NRDC evidence.
2. There is a financial incentive for oil exploration efforts to employ
environmentally-unsafe practices.
Flournoy 2011
[Alyson. Professor of Environmental Issues and Land Use at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. “Three
Meta-Lessons Government and Industry Should Learn from the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster and Why They will
Not” The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2011. Available via Lexis-Nexis]
Looked at as a whole, the current energy policy strongly encourages all-out exploitation of remaining
domestic fossil fuel resources, and deepwater oil reserves in particular. If the public and elected officials
believe that the risks that produced the Macondo Well blowout are unacceptable, an energy policy that
will move us towards a clean energy path is a logical response. This could include increased government
support for lower carbon, lower-risk energy paths. Despite the clear political opportunity provided by the
Deepwater Horizon disaster for the President and Congress to focus attention on a broad clean energy
policy, there have been few signs of any significant movement in that direction. n124 The CLEAR Act
included provisions that would eliminate some of the royalty relief for deepwater drilling, eliminate the
disastrous royalty-in-kind program, and require BOEMRE to study global royalty payments to inform
U.S. royalty policy. n125 These are very positive steps that would reduce the mindless incentives for
deepwater drilling and the unintended windfalls to oil companies. However, that Act has languished in
the Senate. Moreover, even those proposed changes fail to address the broader question of whether policy
should create incentives towards a cleaner energy path. In the wake of the November 2010 election, it
seems highly unlikely that the Administration or Congress will have interest in this topic. n126
CONCLUSION There is much that can be learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Unfortunately, even learning the most specific lessons has proved a contentious and uncertain process.
This Article suggests first that both industry and government must fundamentally rethink their
approaches to safety and develop a culture that encourages and facilitates learning from mistakes. Second,
it identifies the phenomenon of [*303] hollow government, characterized by government lacking the
resources and authority to protect the public interest and a policy process dominated by powerful
economic interests, as a root cause of the BP disaster and a contributing factor to other recent national
disasters, including the financial crisis. Hollow government also makes it unlikely that we will learn the
third meta-lesson and address the longstanding need for a coherent energy policy. These lessons could
help to avert future disasters and better enable government to protect public health, safety, and the
environment. However, absent changes to address the underlying obstacles to learning, there seems little
likelihood that the lessons will be learned.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2NC / 1NR Extensions
NEG
Plan-Specific Link Block: Coral Reefs [1/1]
1. The plan further environmental damage. The goal of the 1AC might be to save the
coral reefs, but they do so by pulsing low-voltage electricity through the ocean.
This ensures environmental damage for two reasons:
A. They ask the wrong question: the 1AC’s fundamental aim is to sweep
environmental damage under the rug instead of asking why coral reefs are
disappearing in the first place.
B. Technology carries inherent environmental risks associated with accidents,
misuse, and overuse – that’s our 1NC Swyngedouw evidence.
2. Scientific investigation and technological manipulation are the cause of
environmental destruction; not the solution to it. Even if marine accretion
technology is effective, their overarching approach toward the environment is
dangerous.
Story 2011
[David. Masters of Environmental Ethics from Fordham. “Nature, Nihilism, and Life in Heidegger and Nietzsche:
Naturalistic Metaphysical Foundations for Environmental Ethics” 2011. Available via Proquest]
In The Embers and the Stars (1984), Erazim Kohak sought to rehabilitate the ¶ “moral sense of nature” by
drawing on Husserl’s and Heidegger’s phenomenologies in ¶ order to deconstruct the dissociations of
nature/culture and fact/value. For Kohak, ¶ “Prima philosophia cannot start with speculation. It must
first see clearly and articulate faithfully the sense evidently given in experience.”61 By cultivating or
perhaps ¶ rekindling a breadth and depth of vision that allows natural beings to show themselves in ¶
their fullness, rather than just as objects for investigation by science or manipulation by ¶ technology,
Kohak thinks we can prepare the ground for an environmental ethic. ¶ Moreover, the poverty of our vision
of nature is cause and consequence of the ¶ anthropocentric preoccupation with history. As he explains, ¶
The vital order of nature and the moral order of humanity remain constant, but they grow overlaid with
forgetting. We come to think of a mechanistic construct, ordering a world of artifacts, as ‘nature,’ losing
sight of the living nature of our primordial experience in which boulders, trees, and the beasts of field and
forest can be our kin, not objects and biomechanisms. Losing sight of the moral significance of nature, we
then seek that significance in ‘History’—only to become trapped in the paradox of a ‘progress’ which
sacrifices the fullness of the present to an ever receding future. 62 ¶
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
Index
AFF
Environment Disadvantage Affirmative
Environment Disadvantage Affirmative ................................................................ 17
2AC Frontline: Environment DA [1/3] ...................................................................................18
2AC Frontline: Environment DA [2/3] .................................................................................. 19
2AC Frontline: Environment DA [3/3] ................................................................................. 20
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Aquaculture [1/1] ....................................................................... 21
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Offshore Wind [1/1] .................................................................. 22
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Oil Exploration [1/1] ................................................................. 23
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Coral Reefs [1/1]........................................................................ 24
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2AC Frontline
AFF
2AC Frontline: Environment DA [1/3]
1. Non-unique –ocean pollution’s expanding in the status quo
Nayan 6-26
[K. Staff Writer. “Oceans At Risk From Overfishing And Pollution, Experts Advise Setting Deadlines” 6/26/14
www.counselheal.com/articles/10238/20140626/oceans-risk-overfishing-pollution-experts-advise-settingdeadlines.htm]
Oceans are on the brink of collapse, according to a new report by the Global Ocean Commission. ¶
According to the report, apart from overfishing, oceans are also suffering from increased pollution. ¶ The
expert commission advised government to set a five-year deadline to crack down on over-fishing and
pollution. ¶ "The oceans are a failed state," David Miliband, a former British foreign secretary and a cochair of the Global Ocean Commission, told Reuters in a telephone interview. "A previously virgin area
has been turned into a plundered part of the planet."¶ The report added that many fish stocks in the high
seas were under pressure from illegal and unregulated catches. ¶ About 10 million tonnes of fish worth
$16 billion, from tuna to molluscs, are caught every year in the high seas out of a global fish catch of 80
million tonnes, the commission said, according to Reuters.
2. [INSERT PLAN-SPECIFIC LINK ANSWER]
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2AC Frontline
AFF
2AC Frontline: Environment DA [2/3]
3. Tons of alternative causalities to ocean pollution
GOC 2014
[Global Ocean Commission “Declining ocean health threatens food security”, March 16, 2014,
http://www.globaloceancommission.org/news/press-releases/declining-ocean-health-threatens-food-security/]
With 3 billion people dependent on fish to provide at least 20% of their animal protein, protecting the
health of the global ocean is critical to global food security. Overfishing is widespread and systemic,
primarily affecting the poorest, for many of whom fish is an irreplaceable food source. The loss of reliable
sources of fish would deprive 500 million people of their primary source of protein and cause severe
health problems. “Healthy high seas are fundamental to overall ocean productivity and resilience, yet we
are pushing the ocean system to the point of collapse and putting long-term food security at risk,” said
Trevor Manuel, co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission. “If we want future food security, we need to act
now to restore a healthy ocean.” Key threats include overfishing, adverse fishing subsidies and climate
change. With Asia Pacific alone accounting for more than 70% of the world fleet and over half the annual
global harvest, the impact of overfishing is likely to be significant in this region. The ocean is also facing
mounting pressure from climate change. Rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases are
increasing water temperatures, causing acidification, and reducing oxygen content and overall ocean
resilience. Rising water temperatures are already pushing many fish stocks towards higher, cooler
latitudes, which is threatening food security in tropical regions reliant on fish. “Ocean acidification and
warming temperatures are hugely complex, long-term problems but overfishing is something that we can
tackle right now, with tools already at our disposal”, said José María Figueres, Global Ocean Commission
co-chair. “Building on successes such as the Coral Triangle Initiative is vital in strengthening the regional
collaboration required.” The Global Ocean Commission believes it’s important to support countries in
building their capabilities in the management of our shared global resources. This week in Hong Kong the
Commissioners agreed a detailed package of proposals for ocean restoration and governance reform that
will be made public and presented to the United Nations in June this year. Priorities requiring action
include overfishing; illegal fishing; fishing subsidies; ocean acidification; oil and gas; plastic pollution;
and ocean governance and protection.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Environment Disadvantage
2AC Frontline
AFF
2AC Frontline: Environment DA [3/3]
3. Their impact is overblown
Campbell 2011
[Hank Campbell is the creator of Science 2.0, a community of research professors, post-docs, science book authors
and Nobel laureates collaborating over scientific projects. "I Wouldn't Worry About The Latest Mass Extinction
Scare," Science 2.0, March 8,
http://www.science20.com/science_20/i_wouldnt_worry_about_latest_mass_extinction_scare-76989]
You've seen it everywhere by now - Earth's sixth mass extinction: Is it almost here? and other articles
discussing an article in Nature (471, 51–57 doi:10.1038/nature09678) claiming the end of the world is
nigh. ¶ Hey, I like to live in important times. So do most people. And something so important it has only
happened 5 times in 540 million years, well that is really special. But is it real? ¶ Anthony Barnosky,
integrative biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and first author of the paper, claims that if
currently threatened species, those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable,
actually went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive in 3-22
centuries. ¶ Wait, what?? That's a lot of helping verbs confusing what should be a fairly clear issue, if it
were clear. ¶ If you know anything about species and extinction, you have already read one paragraph of
my overview and seen the flaws in their model. Taking a few extinct mammal species that we know about
and then extrapolating that out to be extinction hysteria right now if we don't do something about global
warming is not good science. Worse, an integrative biologist is saying evolution does not happen. Polar
bears did not exist forever, they came into existence 150,000 years ago - because of the Ice Age. ¶
Greenpeace co-founder and ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore told a global warming skepticism site, “I quit my
life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article
in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme” and "The fact that the
study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer review process has become corrupted.” ¶
Well, how did it make it through peer review? Read this bizarre justification of their methodology; "If you
look only at the critically endangered mammals--those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent
within three of their generations--and assume that their time will run out and they will be extinct in 1,000
years, that puts us clearly outside any range of normal and tells us that we are moving into the mass
extinction realm." ¶ Well, greater extinctions occurred when Europeans visited the Americas and in a
much shorter time. And since we don't know how many species there are now, or have ever been, if
someone makes a model and claims tens of thousands of species are going extinct today, that sets off
cultural alarms. It's not science, though. ¶ If only 1% of species have gone extinct in the groups we really
know much about, that is hardly a time for panic, especially if some 99 percent of all species that have
ever existed we don't know anything about because they...went extinct. And we did not. ¶ It won't keep
some researchers, and the mass media, from pushing the panic button. Co-author Charles Marshall, also
an integrative biologist at UC-Berkeley wants to keep the panic button fully engaged by emphasizing that
the small number of recorded extinctions to date does not mean we are not in a crisis. "Just because the
magnitude is low compared to the biggest mass extinctions we've seen in half a billion years doesn't mean
they aren't significant." ¶ It's a double negative, bad logic and questionable science, though.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Aquaculture [1/1]
1. The plan does not harm the environment. Their evidence describes status quo
aquaculture, which the plan corrects by establishing more stringent regulations.
Our first harms scenario claims that the way we do aquaculture now is
unsustainable, but the plan corrects the problems. That’s our 1AC Smith and Johns
evidence.
2. The alternative to the plan is an increase in other countries’ aquaculture
industries, which are more dangerous for the environment by comparison.
Madin 2011
[Kate. “Where will we Get our Seafood? Unlike the Rest of the World, the US has not Embraced Aquaculture” 9/21/11
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood]
By 2030 or 2040, most seafood bought by Americans will be raised on a farm, not caught by fishermen.
And, unless policies governing aquaculture in the United States change, the vast majority of seafood eaten
by Americans will be farm-raised in another country, possibly one with less stringent health and
environmental regulations.¶ With wild fisheries in decline, the world has turned to aquaculture to provide
protein to feed Earth’s rapidly growing human population. But not the United States. While aquaculture
already produces half of the world’s seafood, U.S. aquaculture production has been declining since 2003
and today, the U.S. produces only 10 percent of its seafood by aquaculture, said Hauke Kite-Powell, an
aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). One consequence of this
is that the U.S. imports 80 percent of the seafood it consumes, creating a seafood trade deficit.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Offshore Wind [1/1]
1. The thesis of our climate change harms scenario answers this disadvantage. The
planet’s temperature is rising at an unsustainable rate, causing habitat
destruction, violent weather patterns, and rising sea levels. These things are
destroying the environment in the status quo at a rate much greater than what the
plan would cause. That’s our 1AC Schiffman and Roberts evidence.
2. The plan is on-balance better for the environment. Offshore wind installations
create de-facto reefs and serve as marine protected areas.
Lindeboom 2011
[HJ. Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Wageningen. “Short-term Ecological Effects of an
Offshore Wind Farm in the Dutch Coastal Zone; a Compilation” Environmental Research Letters, 2011.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/035101]
The number of offshore wind farms is increasing rapidly, leading to questions about the environmental
impact of such farms. In the Netherlands, an extensive monitoring programme is being executed at the
first offshore wind farm (Offshore Windfarm Egmond aan Zee, OWEZ). This letter compiles the shortterm (two years) results on a large number of faunal groups obtained so far. Impacts were expected from
the new hard substratum, the moving rotor blades, possible underwater noise and the exclusion of
fisheries. The results indicate no short-term effects on the benthos in the sandy area between the
generators, while the new hard substratum of the monopiles and the scouring protection led to the
establishment of new species and new fauna communities. Bivalve recruitment was not impacted by the
OWEZ wind farm. Species composition of recruits in OWEZ and the surrounding reference areas is
correlated with mud content of the sediment and water depth irrespective the presence of OWEZ. Recruit
abundances in OWEZ were correlated with mud content, most likely to be attributed not to the presence
of the farm but to the absence of fisheries. The fish community was highly dynamic both in time and
space. So far, only minor effects upon fish assemblages especially near the monopiles have been observed.
Some fish species, such as cod, seem to find shelter inside the farm. More porpoise clicks were recorded
inside the farm than in the reference areas outside the farm. Several bird species seem to avoid the park
while others are indifferent or are even attracted. The effects of the wind farm on a highly variable
ecosystem are described. Overall, the OWEZ wind farm acts as a new type of habitat with a higher
biodiversity of benthic organisms, a possibly increased use of the area by the benthos, fish, marine
mammals and some bird species and a decreased use by several other bird species.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Oil Exploration [1/1]
1. There’s no uniqueness to their disadvantage. There’s oil drilling in the status
quo, and if the environmental risks from the practice risk extinction, then the 2011
Deepwater Horizon oil spill should have caused the impact.
2. Safety measures prevent environmental damage and oil rigs provide ecological
benefits
Zaw 2010
[Htun, Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) Mandalay Technological University, Master of Engineering
(Professional) in Offshore Technology and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, “Offshore Oil and Gas Field
Development Planning,” 2010 http://www.set.ait.ac.th/otm/thesis2010/11.pdf]
The reuse for abandoned platforms can be utilized in some purpose. Dokken, 1993; Gardner, Wiebe, 1993
studied about an analysis of scientific potential of research stations permanently based on abandoned oil
platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The regulation of the marine populations and coral reproduction, making
underwater observations, monitoring the sea level, and collecting oceanographic and meteorological
information within the framework of international projects were studied. Rowe (1993) mention that
transformation of abandoned platforms into places for power generation using wind/wave and thermal
energy should be considered. Side (1992) suggested that platforms could be utilized as bases for search
and rescue operations or centers for waste processing and disposal. From the point of view of fisheries,
the project has aim to convert the marine structures into artificial reefs. Artificial reefs were widely and
effectively used on the shelves of many countries to provide additional habitats for marine life. The
offshore structures can attract many species. In particular, observations in the Gulf of Mexico discovered
a strong positive correlation between the amount of oil platforms and commercial fish catches in the
region. Positive impact of offshore oil and gas developments on the fish populations and stock are
occurred.
CDL Core Files 2014/2015
Topicality
AFF
2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs Affirmative
AFF
Plan-Specific Link Answer: Coral Reefs [1/1]
1. There is no uniqueness in the context of our affirmative. Coral reefs are dying off
at an unsustainable rate in the status quo, primarily as a result of unsafe human
interaction with the ocean. The plan cannot make this problem worse, only better.
2. The plan incurs no environmental harm. Biorock technology is safe, effective,
and time-tested. All of their link arguments are far too general to be taken
seriously. It may be true that technological fixes usually carry an environmental
risk, but they have not proven that to be true in the case of the affirmative plan.
That’s our 1AC Goreau evidence.
3. The affirmative’s broader approach to the environment solves the disadvantage.
Status quo anthropogenic approaches to the environment are dangerous and make
large-scale environmental damage unavoidable. The affirmative shifts our
approach to coral reefs to be in line with biocentric ideals and creates real-world
awareness about the dangers of ocean acidification. That’s our 1AC Needham and
Shipley evidence.
4. Marine accretion makes reefs resilient to any minor environmental damage the
plan might cause.
Goreau 2014
[Thomas J. Goreau is a biogeochemist and marine biologist. He earned degrees in planetary physics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in planetary astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, and in
biogeochemistry at Harvard University (Ph.D.). He is currently President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance.
“BIOROCK® TECHNOLOGY: Cost-effective solutions to major marine resource management problems including
construction and repair, shore protection, ecological restoration, sustainable aquaculture, and climate change
adaptation” January 2014. http://www.globalcoral.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Biorock_Benefits.pdf]
BIOROCK® provides the ideal breakwater material because it grows stronger with age and repairs itself
if damaged by heavy waves. BIOROCK® structures can be powered by wave energy generators that
produce the most energy and fastest growth precisely when wave erosion is highest. BIOROCK® shore
protection structures are designed and engineered in a site-specific way to withstand maximum wave
energies. They are faster and cheaper to build than concrete or rock structures of the same size.
BIOROCK® breakwaters are designed and constructed as open frameworks that allow waves to pass
through them, slowing them by friction. They operate under completely different physical principles
than conventional breakwaters, using refraction instead of reflection. Waves passing through the
structures reach the shore with less energy, so they deposit sand on beaches instead of eroding them.
BIOROCK® breakwaters avoid increased scour and erosion caused by solid breakwaters, which washes
away all the sand in front, and then underneath them, accelerating undermining, cracking, settlement,
and collapse. Rock and concrete module breakwaters can be armored over and cemented together with
limestone, forming massive units that prevent rocks and concrete modules moving apart in heavy
storms, and having to be reset with cranes at great cost. BIOROCK® breakwaters gain strength with age,
becoming more effective over time as surface area increases and corals, oysters, and mussels proliferate.
BIOROCK® structures in shallow water, sitting unattached on sand, un-welded and held together only
with binding wire, withstood some of the strongest hurricanes ever recorded in the Caribbean with only
minor damage because waves were able to pass through them, while massive structures were overturned
or ripped apart.