West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

A/T Climate Change- Alt Cause- Fossil Fuels/ Deforestation

Fossil fuel and deforestation two biggest internal links to warming—makes the link inevitable

Environmental Defense Fund, environmental organization, October 9, 2013, “How are humans responsible for global warming?”, Accessed May 3, 2014, http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-is-causing-global-warming
Scientists have closed the case: Human activity is causing the Earth to get hotter. How? Primarily by two actions: Burning fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from clear cutting forests, known as deforestation. Greenhouse gases trap heat When we extract and burn fossil fuels such as coal or petroleum, we cause the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 400 ppm. That's 40% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. We also can tell that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique fingerprint. Losing forests makes it worse Clearing forests also releases large amounts of CO2. On top of that, plants and trees use CO2 to grow. Worldwide deforestation means we don't have as many trees to absorb the extra CO2. This means more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, trapping more heat.

A/T Climate Change- Inevitable

Warming is locked in an inevitable now—the changes needed to stop it aren’t going to happen and even if they did they’re happening too slowly

Joe Sanfilippo, writer for the Lakeland Times newspaper, April 17, 2014, “Whatever caused global warming, writer says 'to stop using' is the solution”, Accessed May 1, 2014,

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=11&ArticleID=20595

First I would like to state two things. “We should not be burning fossil fuels at the quantities we are” and “global warming is very real.” When you consider the landscape here in Wisconsin was formed by glaciers and now we have picnics at the beach, there has been some glacier melting going on for a very long time. What melted them? Hot dinosaur breath? Intelligent beings from elsewhere harvesting the stuff for their home planet? I believe the answer is the sun, is the major source of warming. Sort of like a chicken in a rotisserie. So what’s the scam? Getting us to believe we are causing or adding to warming in a significant way. There are so many aspects of our planet’s, land, water, atmosphere, sun relationships that it dwarfs the element the media is shoving in our face. By keeping you focused on our tail pipes and factories you lose sight of the multitude and magnitude of other factors going into warming the planet. Just like in the late 1990s when the Y2K thing started, the media kept you focused on the last two digits in the computer. By doing so you will not see the plethora of solutions to the problem. They succeeded in convincing us that chaos was inevitable. Fear wins again. Planes would crash, elevators would plummet to ground floor, the banks will lose all our money, the electric grid would go off line and we will all suffer. Scam, from day one and our government allowed that to happen. That’s pathetic. A mild form of terrorism if you ask me. And naturally, as in the warming scam, only scientists that entertain the concept are put in the limelight. Scientists that are not backed by governemnt, media, corporations, merchandise manufactures will at least admit that there is no real way to know for sure and many that realize the truth. Hype always wins when intertwined with fear. But evidence shows warming is speeding up. Yes it is. If you are willing to take your view off the tail pipe, step back and look at the earth you will see It is a sphere. There are certain mathematical characteristics of spheres. Take the equation, amount of heat vs. amount of ice, vs. time it takes to melt the ice. So as the glaciers recede the sun strikes the ground so heat naturally goes up and amount ice naturally gets smaller. With more heat and less ice it naturally melts faster and that happens even faster because Earth is a sphere. This is not a matter of philosophical debate. Do the math, numbers don’t lie. Politicians and the media lie. And we buy it. While you’re glancing at the beautiful white and blue sphere you will notice green forests. Forests add essential gasses to our atmosphere, consume CO2, and shade the ground so it stays cool. We are removing forests at an alarming rate, which causes the composition of the atmosphere to change and the surface of the planet to warm. Is our concern the earth is warming? So you really believe we are at fault? What should we do? Certainly not what were attempting now, the rate were succeeding is too slow. It’s the right direction, but insufficient to stop it. The only for sure way is to stop using, just like an alcoholic, slowing down isn’t going to work, we need to stop. Than our influence goes to zero, immediately. We win. Leave the trees there, build your homes out of something else and stop making paper. Live where you can walk or ride a bike to work. I see more communities want to add more ATV trails. That’s backwards my fellow community members. Live in a place you do not have to burn gas and oil to stay warm. Forget the air conditioner, hot tub and refrigerator. You do not stop iron mines by standing in the way of the miners; you stop mining by not building skyscrapers and cars and semi trucks, bridges, wires, towers. Promote human-powered traveling, like bicycles kayaks, not four-wheeler ATVs or jet skis. We would be promoting staying healthy that way, imagine a healthy community and clean air. None of that is going to happen being the energy pigs we are, so the next best choice is to attack the political structure that keeps us dependent on burning. There are very efficient engines out there but not allowed in the US because it does not meet EPA pollution standards. I do not know how something that burns less gas per mile makes more pollution. It doesn’t. The results are skewed to keep gas sales up.

A/T Climate Change- No Extinction

Warming won’t cause extinction—scientific consensus.

Jeremy Hsu, Writer for Live Science, July 19, 2010, “Can Humans Survive?”, Accessed May 1, 2014, http://www.livescience.com/9956-humans-survive.html

His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for humans. Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity, catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the technological tools to begin tackling climate change, if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term, high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental action," Pielke explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive."Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet. "The rise in CO2 isn't going to kill many people, and it's not going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet, melt a lot of ice, acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result remains uncertain."

A/T Climate Change- Adaptation Solves

Adaption solves their impacts—humanity can survive climate change

Robert M. Carter, emeritus fellow and science policy advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs and an adjunct professorial research fellow in earth sciences at James Cook University, Queensland, January 25, 2011, “Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://www.climatewiki.org/index.php/Projected_Impacts_and_Damages_from_Global_Warming

In other words, everywhere – even in developing countries – people will be wealthy by today‟s standards, and their adaptive capacity and well-being should be correspondingly higher. Therefore, even if one assumes that there would be no secular technological change – no new or improved technologies, nor would the price of technology drop between the 1990s – and 2100 – developing countries‟ adaptive capacity would on average far exceed that of the United States today. Therefore, although claims that developing countries will be unable to cope with climate change (UNEP 1993) might have been true for the world of 1990 (the base year), they simply would not hold for the world of 2100 under the assumptions built into the IPCC scenarios and the Stern Review‟s own (exaggerated) analysis. The problems of poverty that warming supposedly would exacerbate (such as low agricultural productivity, hunger, malnutrition, malaria, and other vector-borne diseases) would be reduced if not eliminated by 2100, even if one ignores (contrary to the lessons of history captured in Figures 10.2.1 through 10.2.5) any secular technological change that ought to occur in the interim. Tol and Dowlatabadi (2001), for example, show malaria has been functionally eliminated in a society whose annual per-capita income reaches $3,100. Therefore, even under the poorest scenario (A2), the average developing country should be free of malaria well before 2100, even assuming no technological change in the interim. Similarly, if the lower bound of the average net per-capita GDP in 2100 for developing countries is $10,000–$62,000, then their farmers would be able to afford technologies that are unaffordable today (such as precision agriculture) as well as new technologies that should come on line by then (such as drought resistant seeds formulated for specific locations). It may be argued that the high levels of economic development depicted in Figure 10.2.6 are unlikely. But these are the estimates built into the IPCC emission scenarios. If they are overestimates, then so are the estimates of emissions, temperature increases, and impacts and damages of global warming projected by the IPCC.

A/T Coral Reef

Coral reefs are resilient, restoration programs check the impact

Living Green Magazine, environment magazine, January 7, 2014, “Pollution’s Destructive Impact on Coral Reefs— and How It Can Be Reversed”, Accessed April 3, 2014 http://livinggreenmag.com/2014/01/07/mother-nature/pollutions-destructive-impact-coral-reefs-can-reversed/
“We were shocked to see the rapid increase in disease and bleaching from a level of pollution that’s fairly common in areas affected by sewage discharge, or fertilizers from agricultural or urban use,” said Rebecca Vega-Thurber, an assistant professor in the College of Science at Oregon State University. “But what was even more surprising is that corals were able to make a strong recovery within 10 months after the nutrient enrichment was stopped,” Vega-Thurber said. “The problems disappeared. This provides real evidence that not only can nutrient overload cause coral problems, but programs to reduce or eliminate this pollution should help restore coral health. This is actually very good news.” Bleached coral This coral, which was part of a scientific study, is bleached as a result of exposure to elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. (Photo courtesy of Oregon State University) The findings were published in Global Change Biology, and offer a glimmer of hope for addressing at least some of the problems that have crippled coral reefs around the world. In the Caribbean Sea, more than 80 percent of the corals have disappeared in recent decades. These reefs, which host thousands of species of fish and other marine life, are a major component of biodiversity in the tropics.

A/T Coral Reef

Corals are resilient to warming and alt causes to coral reef destruction now

Rob Jordan, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, April 24, 2014, “Some corals adjusting to rising ocean temperatures, Stanford researchers say” Accessed May 1, 2014, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/april/coral-heat-defense-042414.html
To most people, 86-degree Fahrenheit water is pleasant for bathing and swimming. To most sea creatures, however, it's deadly. As climate change heats up ocean temperatures, the future of species such as coral, which provides sustenance and livelihoods to a billion people, is threatened. Through an innovative experiment, Stanford researchers led by biology Professor Steve Palumbi have shown that some corals can – on the fly – adjust their internal functions to tolerate hot water 50 times faster than they would adapt through evolutionary change alone. The findings, published April 24 inScience, open a new realm of possibility for understanding and conserving corals. "The temperature of coral reefs is variable, so it stands to reason that corals should have some capacity to respond to different heat levels," said Palumbi, director of Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. "Our study shows they can, and it may help them in the future as the ocean warms." Coral reefs are crucial sources of fisheries, aquaculture and storm protection. Overfishing and pollution, along with heat and increased acidity brought on by climate change, have wiped out half of the world's reef-building corals during the past 20 years. Even a temporary rise in temperature of a few degrees can kill corals across miles of reef. American Samoa presents a unique case study in how corals might survive a world reshaped by climate change. Water temperatures in some shallow reefs there can reach 95 degrees Fahrenheit, enough to kill most corals. To find out how native corals survive the heat, researchers in Palumbi's lab transplanted colonies from a warm pool to a nearby cool pool and vice versa. The researchers found that, over time, cool-pool corals transplanted to the hot pool became more heat-tolerant. Although these corals were only about half as heat-tolerant as corals that had been living in the hot pool all along, they quickly achieved the same heat tolerance that could be expected from evolution over many generations. Corals, like people, have adaptive genes that can be turned on or off when external conditions change. The corals Palumbi's group studied adjusted themselves by switching on or off certain genes, depending on the local temperature.

A/T Coral Reef

Corals are adaptive- special genes allow them to adjust to increased ocean temps

GABRIEL WAHYU TITIYOGA, writer for Science Daily, April 27, 2014, “Coral Reefs Show Tolerance to Temperature Rise of Ocean”, Accessed May 1, 2014, http://en.tempo.co/read/news/2014/04/27/206573642/Coral-Reefs-Show-Tolerance-to-Temperature-Rise-of-Ocean
The warmth of summer beach may be people's favorite to swim comfortably. But it does not apply for corals and reefs as they are forced to adjust with temperature rise due to climate changes. A study by Professor Steve Palumbi, the Director of Hopkins Marine Stations at Stanford has found that several kinds of sea corals are able to adjust their internal functions in anticipating the warming water 50 times faster than what they normally do in their evolution adaptation. Palumbi said widely varying temperature of corals indicate that they are able to adjust to different heat levels. "Our study shows they can, and it may help them in the future as the ocean warms," Palumbi said as written on Stanford University official website, Friday. The coral reefs - the crucial sources of fisheries, aquaculture and storm protection - has been known as very sensitive to environmental changes. A slight rise in ocean temperature could kill almost two-kilometer long coral structures. The researchers found that, over time, cool-pool corals transplanted to the hot pool became more heat-tolerant. Although these corals were only about half as heat-tolerant as corals that had been living in the hot pool all along, they quickly achieved the same heat tolerance that could be expected from evolution over many generations.

A/T Species Loss/ Overfishing

It’s not that we’re polluting fish populations to death—we’re eating them. Overfishing triggers all the ocean collapse impacts

EC4, online analysis and advocacy group, Accessed May 4, 2014, “Destruction of the Oceans”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://ecpresentation.com/oceans/
For a long time we believed that the ocean was too big for us to harm. However, we are discovering that this is not true. Currently, the ocean is in a critical state of health. One of the biggest threats to the health of our oceans is overfishing. Over 70% of the world’s fish species are in danger. Another issue threatening the ocean is pollution, it’s amazing how much of our trash finds its way into the ocean. Animals become easily entangled and trapped in our garbage, and it can destroy delicate sea life like coral and sponges. There are also other problems like climate change and the problem of invasive species that are causing very big problems in oceans around the world. If we do not do something to fix this problem soon we could damage the oceans beyond repair. So what are the most serious causes of damage to the oceans? The biggest cause of destruction in the oceans is overfishing. Fishing is a very important industry and the ocean is the number one source of protein for more than one billion people on our planet. However, we are killing the fish faster than they can reproduce. In fact, 75% of all fish stocks are either fully over-exploited or depleted and 90% of the big predator fish, like tuna, are gone. Another serious cause of damage to the oceans is pollution, especially from plastics. There are tons and tons of plastic in the ocean. It breaks down into smaller pieces, but never goes away. Marine animals eat it and become sick or die. It also entangles and injures them, making it difficult to swim or fly. In fact scientists believe that up to 100,000 animals die each year from eating or becoming entangled in plastic in the ocean. The oceans are also threatened by climate change. Marine species affected by climate change include plankton – which forms the basis of marine food chains – corals, fish, polar bears, walruses, seals, sea lions, penguins, and seabirds. Climate change could therefore well be the knock-out punch for many species which are already under stress from overfishing and habitat loss.

A/T Species Loss/ Overfishing

Most species are useless, key ones are protected

Donald S. Maier, environmental philosopher at the University of St. Francis—paper presented at 6th Annual Joint International Society for Environmental Philosophy/ISEE Conference, 2009, “What’s So Good About Biodiversity?”, Accessed May 1, 2014 http://www.environmentalphilosophy.org/ISEEIAEPpapers/2009/Maier.pdf
Once again, there is suspicion of confusion. Some particular species are good for people to eat. Because people need to eat in order to survive, those species might qualify as critically important. Other species have been found to have value for their production of chemicals of pharmacological value. Particular species have yielded these benefits, not biodiversity, not species diversity. Let us overlook this confusion and presume that the position involves something more like the claim that a great diversity of organisms increases the odds that at least some few of them are or will be around that are good to eat, that some few others of them do or will provide good medicines, and that some few others do or will provide good building materials. There remains an apparent assumption that the resource-providing creatures are a random sample of all creatures. This is almost certainly untrue and we return to this matter of fact just below. But putting this objection aside (and alongside the previously noted confusion), this is still a singularly unconvincing defense of the value of species diversity. The fact is that an extraordinarily tiny minority of creatures has benefited humanity as resource, now or previously. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that this circumstance will change in the future. These facts combine with the other that any economic resource competes with other economic demands. As a consequence, from an economic point of view (which includes both resource and "service" value, the topic of Section 5.3 on "Biodiversity as service provider"), there is scarcely ever justification for not letting a species go extinct – even if the effort required is minimal. Certainly, many, if not most of the symbolic creatures – such as Ursus maritimus (polar bear) and Eubalaena spp. (right whales) – fall into this category. When, as in the case of both these creatures, there is, in fact, a significant economic cost to saving them – for polar bears, reversing climate warming, 124 for right whales, slowing down the ships that traverse their thoroughfares – then the mere possibility of a future benefit from their incremental contribution to species diversity is an essentially nil "expected net present value" (to use the standard economic jargon) by comparison. Faith is one among a group of conservation biologists who fails to understand this when pressing for the "option value" of biodiversity as a resource. 125 There is another objection to the resource rationale. Insofar as conserving biodiversity preserves the likelihood of conserving one or more valuable resources in the future, it also preserves the likelihood of conserving creatures that are destructive of resources or otherwise harmful. Disease organisms, "pests", and parasites contribute to biodiversity or at least species diversity at least as much (and possibly much more) than (for example) the trees that provide good building materials. In fact, because parasitism might be the predominant "lifestyle" on the planet (by some estimates, outnumbering free-living species by a factor of four), conserving biodiversity is far more likely to ensure that parasitic creatures continue to be in good supply. 126 Parasites even come with a diversity bonus – namely, the species on which they are parasitic (their hosts). Polyphagous parasites deliver multiple bonuses. 127 Finally, contrary to the random sample assumption, food for people – the most essential of resources for humans – is actually supplied by organisms in a set that is vanishingly small in the total (species) diversity picture, and that for the most part are carefully maintained and managed by humans on farms. The best recent estimates are that there are around 7,000 cultivated crop species of plants. 128 That is only about 2% of the estimated 320,000 kinds of plants on earth. 129 But that percentage is enormous in comparison to the number of livestock species. There are an estimated 7,600 breeds (in the 2006 Global Databank for Farm Animal Genetic Resources of the FAO – the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) of perhaps 40 species. 130 That is a barely noticeable diversity in the context of over 9 million other animal species. This news should relieve those who worry about the loss of resources from the loss of biodiversity. Apparently, great diversity of species, at least, is not of any great benefit, considered as either actual or potential resource.

A/T Species Loss/ Overfishing

No spillover – most species are useless, their assessments are overblown

Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and the Center for Food Safety, 2002, “The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture”, Accessed April 29, 2014, The Fatal Harvest Reader p. 83-4
There is a second practical problem with assigning value to biological diversity. In a chapter called “The Conservation Dileema” in my book The Arrogance of Humanism, I discuss the problem of what I call nonresources. The sad fact that few conservationists care to face is that many species, perhaps most, probably do not have any conventional value at all, even hidden conventional value. True, we cannot be sure which particular species fall into this category, but it is hard to deny that a great many of them do. And unfortunately, the species whose members are the fewest in number, the rarest, the most narrowly distributed – in short, the ones most likely to become extinct – are obviously the ones least likely to be missed by the biosphere. Many of these species were never common or ecologically influential; by no stretch of the imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine. If the California condor disappears forever from the California hills, it will be a tragedy. But don’t expect the chaparral to die, the redwoods to wither, the San Andreas Fault to open up, or even the California tourist industry to suffer – they won’t. So it is with plants. We do not know how many species are needed to keep the planet green and healthy, but it seems very unlikely to be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now. And if we turn to the invertebrates, the source of nearly all biological diversity, what biologist is willing to find a value – conventional or ecological – for all 600,000-plus species of beetles?

A/T Noise Pollution (General)

Lots of inevitable causes—outside of the plan—for ocean noise pollution

Margaret Cooney, leads the International Fund for Animal Welfare’s U.S. Shipping Campaign, April 8, 2014, “Cacophony of ocean noise is not music to a whale’s ear”, Accessed April 27, http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/cacophony-ocean-noise-not-music-whale%E2%80%99s-ear
Whales face more challenges than ever before; commercial whaling, ship strikes, and entanglement, are the common culprits, and as our oceans become increasingly crowded, and therefore increasingly noisier, ocean noise pollution is joining those ranks. Ocean noise pollution in its three main forms of ship noise, oil and gas exploration and military sonar, has been known to drive whales and other marine mammals from their breeding and feeding grounds, and to deafen or even kill. Also on IFAW.org: A birth, a death, and the joys of being an elephant calf in Amboseli For people, even relatively low level noise can cause psychological and physical stress, adversely affecting blood pressure, heart rate and cardiac output. But people can usually move away from noise - for marine mammals escape is often impossible. In recent years there has been a great deal of research on the harmful impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals. However, there is still a huge amount of uncertainty. New research continues to reveal effects even from noise sources that had not been considered harmful in the past. Like people, animals may suffer a great deal due to noise but without showing any immediate effects. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recently been reviewing all the research on the impacts of noise on marine mammal hearing in order to try and specify levels at which harmful effects are likely to occur. This is an important process because it will guide regulators who have to make decisions on whether to allow loud sounds to be generated underwater, such as military sonar for navy testing and training activities or seismic surveys for oil and gas exploration. IFAW, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a number of other environmental groups, recently submitted comments on the draft criteria proposed by NOAA. Setting such criteria is a complex, technical process that has to take into account the considerable uncertainty and lack of information. Our recommendations list a number of technical issues that we believe need to be accounted for in order to make the criteria adequately precautionary to protect animals from direct injuries caused by underwater noise. NRDC, IFAW and the aforementioned coalition of NGOs worked together with members of Congress, to highlight the importance of using the precautionary principle when NOAA is drafting its final guidelines. The technical complexity and difficulties in determining which sounds at what levels will cause serious harm are not an excuse to inadequately address the problem. The solution is actually very simple and achievable – make less noise. IFAW’s efforts have been focused on reducing noise at the source through our work with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on shipping noise, through our collaborations with others in the NGO community and with industry on mitigating the sound effects of offshore energy development, and through working with champions in the government to make sure strong regulations are in place for keeping the volume down on ocean noise activities, such as military sonar. We will be closely monitoring NOAA’s progress as they continue to draft these acoustic guidelines, helping to make sure that they use the best available science, and when there is none available, to err on the side of precaution. With the right technology and will power we can make our oceans quieter, thereby relieving whales and other marine life from the cacophony of sounds that pervade their environment.

A/T Whales- Alt Causes

Plan’s not the biggest threat to whale populations

Government of Canada, government of the country of Canada, April 25, 2014, “Aquatic Species at Risk - Humpback Whale (North Pacific Population)”, Accessed April 26, 2014, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/humpbackwhaleNP-rorqualabossePN-eng.htm
Threats Why it’s at risk Threats to the species include entanglement in various types of fishing gear, and potential toxic spills that can negatively impact Humpback Whales as well as their prey species. Vessel strikes are the most significant threat to Humpback Whales. In B.C. waters, Humpback Whales are the most commonly reported whale species involved in incidents with vessels. These interactions can cause injuries ranging from scarring to the mortality of individuals. Many shipping lanes cross migration and feeding areas, making the risk of collision more likely. Reductions in the density and availability of prey species are also a potential threat to the species. Additionally, noise pollution from activities such as commercial shipping may displace or disturb the whales.

A/T Whales- No Link

Military sonar, not the plan, is the main cause of noise pollution impact whales—either there’s no link or the Navy makes the link inevitable

Brenda Petersen, writer for the Huffington Post, April 13, 2014, “UNDERWATER NOISE FROM U.S. NAVY ACOUSTIC WAR- GREATEST THREAT TO GRAY WHALES”, Accessed May 3, 2014, http://californiagraywhalecoalition.org/underwater-noise-from-u-s-navy-acoustic-war-greatest-threat-to-gray-whales/
Close your eyes. Your world is now only sound — the rain, the traffic, that far-off siren. In this acoustic world, how you navigate, find food, your children, or mate, all depends upon how well you hear. Imagine that as you search in the darkness for a crying child, a horrifying drone, loud as a rocket, suddenly blasts sound pulses like shockwaves through your home. There are no noise-cancelling headphones to stop the U.S. Navy’s 235-decibel pressure waves of unbearable pinging and metallic shrieking. At 200 Db, the vibrations can rupture your lungs, and above 210 Db, the lethal noise can bore straight through your brain until it hemorrhages that delicate tissue. If you’re not deaf after this devastating sonar blast, you’re dead. This is the real life of marine mammals destroyed by the U.S. Navy’s all-out acoustic war on the world’s oceans. The collateral damage of this high-intensity military sonar is shocking. But because all these millions of dying whales or dolphins are too often out of human sight, they’re also out of mind. Only when cetaceans strand on land do we witness what orca researcher, Ken Balcomb, calls, this “acoustic holocaust.” Military sonar so panics cetaceans that as they try to escape the sonic violence, they rise too quickly to the surface and die of “the bends.” Ken Balcomb has researched multi-generations of the resident orca pods in the Pacific Northwest. In March, 2000, Balcomb documented a mass stranding of predominantly deep-diving beaked whales off the Bahamas that the Navy later finally admitted was a result of their LFA (Low-frequency Active sonar) tests. Balcomb told the Los Angeles Times, “sonar waves at certain frequencies might have resonated around the whale’s ears, causing tissues to tear much as a wineglass will shatter at a particular pitch.” Scientific American calls military sonar, “rolling walls of noise.” For the dolphins, whom researchers have documented as “self-aware,” noting that they “call each other by name,” this is a brutal and inhumane death sentence. For whales, such as the great blue, who can communicate over thousands of miles, such sonic stress affects reproduction and communication so much that some whales simply stop vocalizing. What happens to our oceans when the whales stop singing?

A/T Whales- Populations Increasing/ Resilient

Threats to whales are high now and their populations are trending up—disproves the internal link

Emily Chung, writer for CBC news Canada, April 22, 2014, “Humpback whale losing 'threatened' status amid Northern Gateway concerns”, Accessed April 29, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/humpback-whale-losing-threatened-status-amid-northern-gateway-concerns-1.2617633
The Canadian government is downgrading the protection of humpback whales off the coast of B.C. under the Species at Risk Act, following a recommendation from biologists in 2011. CBC readers react to downgrading of whales' status But environmental groups are concerned that the move is being made as the government readies for a decision on the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would feed oil onto a tanker shipping route that overlaps with what they describe as "critical habitat" for the whale. Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, with advice from Fisheries Minister Gail Shea, is recommending that the Northern Pacific population of humpback whales be downgraded from "threatened" to "species of special concern." The recommendation for the change to the Species at Risk Act was published in the Canada Gazette Saturday. The government is accepting responses to the recommendation for 30 days following publication. After that, the change would go into effect immediately once approved by the Governor-in-Council. "The species population is trending up...and we're changing the law to reflect that," Trevor Swerdfager, an assistant deputy minister with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, told CBC News. Read the full recommendation in the Canada Gazette PHOTOS: Humpback whale to lose 'threatened' status in B.C. The change in the whale's status would mean: There would no longer be a requirement to protect the whale's critical habitat. Other "general prohibitions" under the act would no longer apply. That means that the downgrade "could result in small benefits to industry in the form of cost savings," said a statement supporting the government recommendation. The government noted that the whale population has increased "significantly" since it was first listed as threatened in 2005. It added that a 2011 assessment by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) showed the whale's population growth rates have also increased to the point where it can be reclassified as a species of special concern. COSEWIC is an independent scientific body designated to determine the level of threat to a species and its classification under the Species at Risk Act.

A/T Oil Spills- Low Impact- History

Oil spills are rare and empirically don’t have a large impact—effect diminish over time

Matt Ridley, Ph.D. in Zoology from Oxford, journalist, May 2, 2010, “Oil Spills”, Accessed May 2, 2010, http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/oil-spills
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a horror, for people and for wildlife. It will surely cause huge damage. It is a reminder that for all the talk of global impacts, the worst environmental crises are still local ones.But it is worth pausing to reflect how rare such terrible oil spills have now become. Here is the data on world tanker spills over the past 40 years:

This despite a steady increase in the amount of oil transported by sea.It is notable that 1979 saw not only the worst ever tanker spill -- the collision oif the Atlantic Empress with the Aegean Captain off Trinidad -- but also the worst ever rig spill: the IXTOC1 platform off Mexico, which spilled 138 million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico before it was capped. The current spill is thought to be leaking 200,000 gallons a day. The environmental effects of the IXTOC disaster were severe, but have not proved permanent. Not that this will be of great comfort to the people of Louisiana and neighbouring states.

A/T Oil Spills- Low Impact- Natural Seeps Prove

Oceans are resilient to spills

Al Fin, blogger—writes about energy, technology, news and politics, August 13, 2010, “Why Oceans are So Resilient to Oil Spills”, Accessed April 29, 2014, http://oilprice.com/Environment/Oil-Spills/Why-Oceans-Are-So-Resilient-To-Oil-Spills.html
A 2003 research paper by Kvenvolden and Cooper in Geo-Marine Letters estimated that natural seeps dump 140,000 metric tons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico each year – over one million barrels of crude per year. In fact, the authors estimate that 47% of all the petroleum found in the sea is from natural seeps – the largest single source, ahead of airborne pollution, ground runoff and drilling/shipping accidents. _EnergyTribune Mother nature has had billions of years (approx.) to learn to deal with oil seeps. And mother nature has not wasted her time, either. Micro- and macro-organisms have developed a wide assortment of tools -- enzymes -- which efficiently break down hydrocarbons and many other potentially toxic chemicals in very short order. The remainder of the natural oil not evaporated each year is broken down by oil-eating bacteria (which did not instantly evolve in the hours following the Deepwater Horizon explosion – more proof that oil is constantly entering the seas) or it is buried in sediments along with other hydrocarbon-rich detritus – both equally scalable processes.

Oceans Resilient- Species

Natural marine fluctuations are inevitable—ocean species are highly resilient

Nicholas Dulvy, marine ecologist at School of Marine Science and Tech. University of Newcastle, March 2003, “Extinction vulnerability in marine populations”, Accessed May 2, 2014, Fish and Fisheries Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 25–64, March 2003
Marine fish populations are more variable and resilient than terrestrial populations Great natural variability in population size is sometimes invoked to argue that IUCN Red List criteria, as one example, are too conservative for marine fishes (Hudson and Mace 1996; Matsuda et al. 1997; Musick 1999; Powles et al. 2000; Hutchings 2001a). For the (1996) IUCN list, a decline of 20% within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) triggered a classification of 'vulnerable', while declines of 50 and 80% led to classifications of 'endangered' and 'critically endangered', respectively. These criteria were designed to be applied to all animal and plant taxa, but many marine resource biologists feel that for marine fishes 'one size does not fit all' (see Hutchings 2001a). They argue that percent decline criteria are too conservative compared to the high natural variability of fish populations. Powles et al. (2000) cite the six-fold variation of the Pacific sardine population (Sardinops sagax, Clupeidae) and a nine-fold variation in northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax, Clupeidae) over the past two millennia to suggest that rapid declines and increases of up to 10-fold are relatively common in exploited fish stocks. It should, however, be borne in mind that the variation of exploited populations must be higher than unexploited populations because recruitment fluctuations increasingly drive population fluctuations when there are few adults (Pauly et al. 2002).

Oceans Resilient- Microbes

Oceans resilient–can’t kill off the microbes key to ecosystem functions

Robert Kunzig– Award Winning Scientific Journalist Specializing in Oceans, June 13 2007, “Sweeping The Ocean Floor”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/sweeping-the-ocean-floor/
But most of the ocean's diversity probably isn't hiding; it is teeming everywhere, undiscovered simply because it is so small. That is why Mitchell Sogin of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole is directing the Census of Marine Microbes. The old way to search for microbial life in the ocean, he explains, was to isolate individual species by growing them in laboratory cultures. Biologists have identified around 5,000 species that way. But over the past 15 years or so, researchers have begun to realize that those 5,000 are just the hardy few that happen to be easy to keep alive in the lab. A newer, far less selective way of plumbing the ocean's microscopic diversity is to isolate individual genes, not individual microbes. Researchers use a small piece of the gene for ribosomal RNA, or rRNA — a gene that is distinct in every species — to grab all the rRNA genes that are present in a liter of seawater. Then they determine the sequence of as many of those genes as their grant money will, allow — typically around a thousand, coming from a thousand bacterial cells — and use that information to estimate how many different kinds of bacteria are present in the sample. Sogin is now supercharging this approach. By using faster sequencing machines and targeting only one highly variable part of the rRNA gene, he and his team can sequence 200,000 pieces of DNA from a single liter. As a result, the amount of diversity they find has soared. In one sample from the deep North Atlantic Ocean, they have found more than 60,000 kinds of bacteria. One intriguing discovery, Sogin says, is that in each sample he has studied so far there are always a few dominant kinds of microbes but also thousands more that are rare. Moreover, at each station — or even at different depths at the same station — there is a different suite of rare microbes. The large number of rare microbial species suggests that they have an important role in the oceanic ecosystem. Sogin suggests these rare species might function as a genetic archive, a fail-safe against environmental disaster. Over many millions of years, he explains, Earth has undergone repeated environmental cataclysms. "Global warming, asteroid impact, or whatever it is — those events threaten the survival of the microorganisms. This might be a way for them to cope," Sogin says. If there are tens of thousands of rare microbes floating in the water, all with different genes and correspondingly different abilities, there will always be a few that are adapted to the new environment. The dominant might become rare, the rare might become dominant, but the kingdom as a whole persists, albeit with an altered mix of species, which in turn alters the elemental cycles that determine the basic life chemistry of the sea.

Oceans Resilient- Radiation Proves

Oceans are resilient, they can survive massive amounts of radiation with little effect

Carl Safina, writer for CNN, April 7, 2011, “In Japan, will sea dilute radiation pollution?”, Accessed May 2, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/07/safina.radiation.water.leak.japan/
Radiation that may seem alarmingly high in water coming from the plant (definition of alarming: reports of more than 7.5 million times the legal limit of radioactivity, at its peak, according to The Telegraph) dissipates to much lower levels as it gets diluted in the massive amount of ocean water it enters. Fish, like tuna that migrate thousands of miles, would get fleeting exposure as they moved past the coast. Shellfish in the seabed locally would be more exposed. What this means for the sea life itself is hard to judge, and legal limits mean little, because duration -- how long sea life is exposed -- means a lot. Dilution makes a big difference for sea life, compared with land animals. According to Andrew Maidment, a professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, wild boars within a 30-kilometer radius registered 470,000 becquerels per kilogram of cesium-137, (becquerels are units representing the number of nuclear disintegrations per second), while freshwater perch showed concentrations of 4,000 becquerels per kilogram. Eight years later, the levels were reduced to 5,000 becquerels per kilogram for the boars, and 200 becquerels per kilogram for the perch, Maidment said. Take-home: Both water and time reduce wildlife's radioactivity exposure. However, some birds around Chernobyl still show increased mutations and reduced survival. Could Japan's sea life also suffer genetic damage? Yes, but chances of that seem low at present. Because of the vast volume of the Pacific Ocean, radioactive material is rapidly and effectively diluted, and what I've seen reported is consistent with the Food and Drug Administration's pronouncement that "fish and seafood are likely to be unaffected." Steam carrying radioactive contamination disperses in the air; where it lands depends on winds, and if it lands in the ocean, currents and diffusion can reduce its concentration to low levels.

Oceans Resilient- Radiation Proves

Oceans organisms have been resilient even through nuclear testing

NY Times, news organization, April 15, 2008, “Fish and coral thriving at site of U.S. atomic test on Bikini Atoll in 1954”, Accessed April 29, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/world/asia/15iht-bikini.1.11998906.html?_r=0
Coral is again flourishing in the crater left by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States, 54 years after the blast on Bikini Atoll, marine scientists said Tuesday. A team of research divers visited Bravo crater, ground zero for the test of a thermonuclear weapon in the Marshall Islands on March 1, 1954, and found large numbers of fish and coral growing, although some species appeared to be locally extinct. "I didn't know what to expect, some kind of moonscape perhaps, but it was incredible," Zoe Richards, from Australia's James Cook University, said about the team's trip to the atoll in the South Pacific. "We saw communities not too far from any coral reef, with plenty of fish, corals and action going on, some really striking individual colonies," she said.

No Human Extinction- Technology Checks

Technology has always insulated us from ecological damage—we can use it to check a hostile environment

John Stossel, political analyst and writer for Real Clear Politics, April 25, 2007, “Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards”, Accessed May 2, 2014, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html
Watching the media coverage, you'd think that the earth was in imminent danger -- that human life itself was on the verge of extinction. Technology is fingered as the perp. Nothing could be further from the truth. John Semmens of Arizona's Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become -- thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. ... That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback." (Carbon dioxide excepted, if it is really a pollutant.) Semmens describes his visit to historic Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, an area "lush with trees and greenery." It wasn't always that way. In 1775, the land was cleared so it could be farmed. Today, technology makes farmers so efficient that only a fraction of the land is needed to produce much more food. As a result, "Massachusetts farmland has been allowed to revert back to forest." Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?

No Human Extinction- Adaptability

Humans adapt to environment destruction

Michael Rose, Professor Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine, 2004, “Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man”, Accessed April 24, 2014, Book review in The Historian journal, Vol.66
He may well be right about our immediate extinction, but this book does not amount to a lawyer's brief for his conclusion. One would have to accept his Spenglerian sense of inevitability to be affrighted by his reasoning. It is important to realize that his morbid inference applies with equal force to every ungulate, great ape, and bear on the planet. Boulter's interpretation of the fossil data is that all large mammals are about to go extinct, including humans. He does not address the substantial difference between humans and other large mammals with respect to adaptability. He hardly considers the alternative view that the human species is an ineradicable scourge for the planet, given our ability to live in a wide diversity of habitats while feeding on a broad spectrum of species, from vegetables to vertebrates. Boulter repeatedly fails to address obvious arguments against his thesis. This is a pity because there is no more important issue than the continued survival of our species.

Alt Causes- Pollution Now/ Human Overpopulation

Ocean ecosystems have already been impacted and the plan is not the largest internal link to the impact- lots of alt causes

Catherine Wilson, writer for the Asia Times, June 10, 2013,“Pacific Ocean's survival at tipping point”, accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-100613.html
Without it, livelihoods and economies would collapse, hunger and ill-health would become endemic and human survival would be threatened. But as populations rapidly escalate, the sustainable future of this vast ecosystem hangs in the balance, while the pressing need for economic development in a region of Small Island Developing States competes with the urgency of combating climate change and stemming environmental loss. In a message to the global community on Saturday, designated by the United Nations as World Ocean Day, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon urged nation states to "reverse the degradation of the marine environment due to pollution, overexploitation and acidification". Nowhere is this triple threat more evident than in the waters of the Pacific. The largest ocean in the world, it covers one third of the Earth's surface and an area more expansive than the total of all its landmasses, while its natural processes determine the global climate. The ocean's health is crucial to the food security of the region's population of 10 million, whose annual fish consumption is three to four times the world average. For the rural majority, 60% to 90% of sea harvests are used for sustenance, while 47% of households depend on fishing as a main source of income. At the regional level, the commercial fisheries sector - dominated by the tuna industry - contributes to approximately 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) and 80% of all exports in one quarter of Pacific Island states. However these coastal fisheries are now recognized as the most threatened by over-exploitation, pollution and climate change. In Melanesian countries like the Solomon Islands - an archipelago nation of more than 900 forest-covered islands, lying just east of Papua New Guinea - population growth, which is 2.7% per year, is putting major pressure on resources. It is estimated that about 55% of Pacific Island nations have over-exploited coral reef fisheries. Concerns about marine pollution have been exemplified by the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", also known as the world's largest landfill, a massive swirling gyre of 3.5 million tonnes of waste in the North Pacific Ocean. Joeli Veitayaki, head of the School of Marine Studies at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, believes that "waste management is the biggest issue". "In some of the main population centers, there is no waste collection or treatment systems, while in others inappropriate methods are used. Communities and civil authorities are treating non-biodegradable and highly toxic waste as they have treated biodegradable waste," he told IPS, adding, "Waste oil from some commercial operators is being disposed of in environmentally damaging ways that cause irreparable damage." The main sources of marine pollution are sewage, urban, agricultural and industrial run-off and plastic waste. In populated coastal island areas, plastic bags, containers and bottles are highly visible, suffocating marine habitats. Studies have revealed that fish in the North Pacific region are ingesting between 12,000 to 24,000 tonnes of plastic per year. With UNICEF reporting that the average improved sanitation coverage in Oceanic countries is less than 50%, sewage remains a significant threat to the health of human and marine life. Up to 25% of rural communities practice open defecation and piped untreated sewerage from many urban centers is discharged directly into the sea. Future challenges to the ocean will come from climate change as increasing sea temperatures and ocean acidity are expected to drive alterations in fish populations and lead to the breakdown of coral reef systems that are important harbors of marine biodiversity. Marine life has already been impacted by factors ranging from destructive fishing to pollution. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Threatened Species, Papua New Guinea has incurred the highest losses in the region, with a total of 196 endangered marine species, including 157 species of coral, 20 species of sharks and four species of turtles. This year the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) launched a regional marine species conservation program to improve protection of dugongs, marine turtles, whales and dolphins. Pacific Islanders who have maintained a close cultural, social and economic relationship with the sea for thousands of years acknowledge the imperative of preserving the ocean for future generations. In 2010, recognizing that "no single country in the Pacific can by itself protect its own slice of oceanic environment", the Pacific Islands Forum launched the regional Pacific Oceanscape initiative, a strategic framework to improve ocean governance. "So far no [Pacific Island] country has formulated a national ocean policy to guide the action and activities in its maritime zones," Veitayaki pointed out. But action at the national level has included the acclaimed development of Marine Managed Areas (MMAs) that incorporate customary traditions of resource access and governance. There are approximately 1,232 active MMAs in the Pacific region covering 17,000 square kilometers, with 10% being designated as "no-take zones". Significant Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) include the Phoenix Islands Protected Area established by the government of Kiribati - a low-lying nation in the Central Pacific Ocean comprising a coral reef and 32 atolls - and the one-million-square-kilometer Cook Islands Marine Park, currently the world's largest. The century ahead will witness increasing human stresses on the Pacific Ocean as islanders with limited land areas and resources turn to the sea in search of ways to boost economic development.

Alt Causes- Pollution Now/ Human Overpopulation

Human overpopulation is the biggest internal link into all environmental crisis- makes every disad impact inevitable

Frosty Wooldridge, author, speaking, and environmentalist, May 5, 2014, “Houston, Planet Earth's Got A Big Problem: Human Overpopulation”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.rense.com/general96/houston.html
Sunday night, May 4, 2014, NBC’s anchor Lester Holt introduced Anne Curry for a report on Climate Change causing horrific wildfires, tornadoes, Category 5 hurricanes, rising seas, temperature changes, heat waves and worse for the future. Anne Curry reported on climate change, but no mention of human overpopulation driving it. Nothing like ignoring the elephant in the kitchen as it stomps everything to smithereens: http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/climate-change-report-offers-sobering-forecast-246539843865 She announced a special committee working to solve the Climate Change problem, but none of them mentioned that the human race adds 1,000,000 (million) of its kind every 4 days that equals to 80,000,000 (million) more of its (our) species annually, decade in and decade out with no end in sight. Curry failed to whisper a second sentence about human overpopulation driving our environmental calamities. Reality check: The overriding, driving, undeniable force for Climate Change, titanic species extinction, accelerating destruction of the Natural World and dozens of other consequences facing all life on this planet—human overpopulation. Why does the Main Stream Media, Scott Pelley, Matt Lauer, Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, Charlie Rose, everyone at NPR, the president, Congress, all 50 governors, all 100 US Senators, 435 Congressional critters and 319 million American citizens choose to live in denial while their world degrades around them. What more does it take? Hurricane Katrina; Hurricane Sandy; Typhoon Haiyan; Sixth Extinction Session accelerating against millions of species going extinct; California wildfires; drought, desertification accelerating worldwide, polluted air over our cities; polluted rivers; nuclear waste; melting glaciers; carbon parts per million exceeded 400 ppm last year for the first in 10 million years; 18 million humans starving to death annually; massive human pile-ups in traffic and congestion in cities. What in the devil does it take anyone with an IQ over room temperature to start screaming over the rooftops and into the cameras that, “Houston, we’ve got a problem!” How can the leaders, media and citizens of a free society choose to be so inept, so obtuse, so in denial and so out of touch with reality?

No UQ- Oceans Collapsing Now

Earth’s oceans are going to collapse now- plan can’t make it worse

David Rockefeller Jr.: Founder and chair, Sailors for the Sea, April 14, 2014, “Global warming's 'evil twin': acid oceans”, Accessed April 28, 2014, http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/14/daily-circuit-ocean-conservation
Ocean scientists have been warning for years that the increase of carbon dioxide emissions is causing profound changes in not only the atmosphere but the earth's oceans as well. "Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal — or perhaps even greater threat — to the biology of our planet than global warming," wrote Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland in a report quoted by Science Daily in 2010. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warns that "by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven't experienced for more than 20 million years."