West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Noise Pollution- Sonar

Noise pollution in the form of sonar or seismic surveying harms ocean species in a variety of ways. Some impacts like mass death are obvious but other more subtle harmful effects emerge too

Linda S. Weilgart, Ph.D. Department of Biology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, 2008, “The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Marine Biodiversity”, Accessed May 5, 2014,

http://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/legacy-uploads/documents/Weilgart_Biodiversity_2008-1238105851-10133.pdf

The only study I am aware of which related species diversity to ocean noise suggested a decline in cetacean (whale and dolphin) species diversity with an increase in the intensity of seismic survey activity (Parente et al. 2007). There was no significant change in oceanographic conditions measured, and survey effort for cetaceans was constant during this period, supporting the conclusion that the decline in diversity was due to noise. Moreover, there was an increase in the number of species found in nearby areas not exposed to intense seismic noise. It seemed as if transient species of dolphins moved out, accounting for the decreased species diversity. Noise in the form of naval sonar or seismic surveys can be deadly to cetaceans in at least some cases. Whales have been found to die within hours, by stranding or deaths at sea, from even a transient and relatively brief exposure to moderate levels of mid-frequency military sonar (Fernández et al. 2005; NOAA and U.S. Department of the Navy 2001). Since 1960, when more powerful sonars emerged, more than 40 mass strandings of Cuvier’s beaked whale have been reported world-wide. About 28 of these occurred together with naval maneuvers involving sonar or near naval bases, or with seismic surveys. In contrast, from 1914 to 1960, there was only one mass stranding reported of this species. Whales appear to die from hemorrhaging in their brain and heart, perhaps as a result of decompression sickness from an altered dive pattern induced by a panic response to the noise. This family of whales known as the beaked whales seems particularly sensitive to noise. Beaked whales are also found in small, resident populations that appear to be genetically isolated (Dalebout et al. 2005). In one well-studied beaked whale population, there was a noticeable decline in numbers for years after a sonar-induced stranding, implying that much or most of the local population was either displaced or killed (Claridge 2006). Especially if local populations of beaked whales are indeed genetically isolated as is thought, such effects would cause a decline in MGR. Even giant squid have apparently mass stranded due to seismic air guns (Guerra et al. 2004). A total of 9 stranded in 2001 and 2003. All suffered internal injuries, some severe, with internal organs damaged. Other invertebrates have exhibited good hearing ability. Prawn are as sensitive to sound as many fish, requiring that invertebrates be considered when evaluating the potential impacts of ocean noise on the marine ecosystem (Lovell et al. 2005). Brown shrimp reared in tanks had a higher metabolic rate under noise conditions, leading to a reduction in growth and reproduction over three months (Lagardère 1982). Snow crabs exhibited bruised organs and abnormal ovaries, smaller larvae, delayed development, soiled gills, and signs of stress in response to seismic noise (Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2004). There were indications that lobster showed increased food consumption and histochemical changes for weeks to months after low-level exposure to seismic noise. Codfish also showed increased food consumption for more than a month following seismic noise exposure, as well as an alteration of gene expression in the brains of the exposed cod. Other sub-lethal effects have also been documented. These may be as serious as lethal impacts because they may affect more animals yet be harder to detect. Seismic air guns have been shown to extensively damage fish ears at distances of 500 m to several kilometers (McCauley et al. 2003). Reduced catch rates of 40-80% and fewer fish near seismic surveys have been reported for cod, haddock, rockfish, herring, sand eel, and blue whiting (e.g. Engås et al. 1996; Skalski et al. 1992, Slotte et al. 2004). Only moderate levels of noise have been enough to cause temporary hearing damage in some species of fish, with fish occasionally requiring weeks to recover their hearing (Scholik and Yan 2002; Amoser and Ladich 2003). Noise has also been shown to produce a stress response in some fish. Wysocki et al. (2006) found that all three fish species studied secreted stress hormones in the presence of shipping noise, regardless of the species’ hearing sensitivity (whether it was a hearing specialist or not). Fish can also react to noise by dropping to deeper depths, becoming motionless, becoming more active, or forming more compact schools. Ship noise interfered with the ability of toadfish to detect sound in a river estuary, which could affect communication necessary for reproduction (Vasconcelos et al. 2007). Bluefin tuna showed a disruption in their schooling structure and swimming behavior with boat noise, as well as an increase in aggressive behavior (Sarà et al. 2007). As coordinated schooling helps tuna to home more accurately to spawning and feeding grounds, their migrations could be impacted. Reef fish, at the critical settlement stage, need to be able to hear aspects of reef noise to select suitable habitat (Simpson et al. 2008). Anthropogenic noise that interferes with their “soundscape” could impact their natural behavior.

Oil Production Kills Environment

Oil spills devastate marine ecosystems

Michael Sutton, Vice President Center for the Future of the Oceans, Montgomery Bay Aquarium, February 21, 2012, “Business: Blue and Green” https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/bsr-insight-article/business-blue-and-green
Pollution represents another major threat. Plastic trash, when ingested, frequently kills albatross and sea turtles. Oil spills devastate coastal communities and pose a significant and immediate threat to ocean ecosystems. It goes without saying that spills also are bad for business: Fishing, tourism, and other ocean-related industries in the Gulf of Mexico were devastated by the Deepwater Horizon spill. And BP has already lost hundreds of millions of dollars and may have to pay an additional US$25 billion to settle related litigation.

Oil Production Kills Environment

Drilling will result in an oil shock and destroys the environment

Chrystia Freeland, writer for Reuters, August 9, 2012, “The Coming Oil Boom”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/us/10iht-letter10.html?_r=2
NEW YORK — Forget America’s fiscal cliff, Europe’s currency troubles or the emerging-markets slowdown. The most important story in the global economy today may well be some good news that isn’t yet making as many headlines — the coming surge in oil production around the world. Until very recently, our collective assumption was that oil was running out. That was partly a matter of what seemed like geological common sense. It took millions of years for the earth to crush plankton into fossil fuels; it is logical to think that it would take millions of years to create more. The rise of the emerging markets, with their energy-hungry billions, was a further reason it seemed obvious we would have less oil and gas in 2020 than we do today. Obvious — but wrong. Thanks in part to technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, we are entering a new age of abundant oil. As the energy expert Leonardo Maugeri contends in a recent report published by the Belfer Center at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, “contrary to what most people believe, oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption.” Mr. Maugeri, a research fellow at the Belfer Center and a former oil industry executive, bases that assertion on a field-by-field analysis of most of the major oil exploration and development projects in the world. He concludes that “by 2020, the world’s oil production capacity could be more than 110 million barrels per day, an increase of almost 20 percent.” Four countries will lead the coming oil boom: Iraq, the United States, Canada and Brazil. Much of the “new” oil is coming on-stream thanks to a technology revolution that has put hard-to-extract deposits within reach: Canada’s oil sands, the United States’ shale oil, Brazil’s presalt oil. “The extraction technologies are not new,” Mr. Maugeri explains in the report, “but the combination of technologies used to exploit shale and tight oils has evolved. The technology can also be used to reopen and recover more oil from conventional, established oilfields.” Mr. Maugeri thinks the tipping point will be 2015. Until then, the oil market will be “highly volatile” and “prone to extreme movements in opposite directions.” But after 2015, Mr. Maugeri predicts a “glut of oil,” which could lead to a fall, or even a “collapse,” in prices. At a time when the global meme is of America’s inevitable economic decline, the surge in oil supply capacity is an important contrarian indicator. Mr. Maugeri calculates that the United States “could conceivably produce up to 65 percent of its oil consumption needs domestically.” That national energy boom is already providing a powerful economic stimulus in some parts of the country — just look at North Dakota. Crucially, at a time when one of the biggest social and political problems in the United States is the disappearance of well-paid blue-collar work, particularly for men, oil patch jobs fill that void. What Mr. Maugeri dubs the next oil revolution also has tremendous geopolitical implications. One way to understand the battlegrounds of our young century is through the pipelines that flow beneath them. The coming surge in oil production, particularly from North America, will transform that geopolitical equation. Equally significant is the impact of oil on the most important human problem of our times: protecting the environment. The sources of oil that will fuel the coming boom are harder to reach than the supplies of the 20th century, and the technologies required to extract them are more invasive. That will be one fault line in what is sure to be the escalating battle between environmentalists and the oil industry.

Oil Production= Runaway Climate Change

Oil responsible for increasing greenhouse gas emissions which will cause runaway warming

Wayne Parry, senior writer for LiveScience, July 20, 2012, “Greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb in 2011”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57476887/greenhouse-gas-emissions-continue-to-climb-in-2011/
In 2011, the burning of fossil fuels, as well as other activities such as cement and oil production, produced 3 percent more carbon dioxide in 2011, bringing this segment of emissions to an all-time 37.5 billion-ton (34 billion-metric tons) high that year, a European analysis reports. Top emitters The past decade has seen a 2.7 percent annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions. China, the United States, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation and Japan rank as the top five emitters, from highest to lowest. Last year's increase was driven by China and India, which saw their carbon dioxide emissions jump by 9 and 6 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, emissions from the European Union, the United States and Japan all decreased, according to the report, Trends in Global CO2 Emissions."Although all developing countries together increased their emissions on average by 6 percent, the increases in China and India caused by far the largest increase in global emissions," the report notes. The report, by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the E.U.'s Joint Research Centre, does not include carbon dioxide emitted by deforestation, forest fires and other land-use related activities. These sources could potentially add between 10 and 20 percent to the carbon dioxide emission figures, the authors write. The authors also note that renewable energy technology, such as solar, wind and biofuels, accounts for a small share of energy sources; however they found its use is accelerating. Carbon countdown If global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase at their current rate, within two decades they will exceed the amount necessary to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), the target established in international negotiations, the authors of the report write.

Oil Production Kills Environment

Offshore drilling kills marine ecosystems

Nicholas Cunningham, Policy Analyst at the American Security Project, February 17, 2012, “Offshore Oil Drilling in the U.S. Arctic, Part Three: Concerns and Recommendations”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/07/offshore-oil-drilling-in-us-arctic-part_19.html
Oil drilling in the marine environment has been shown to have deleterious effects on the marine environment. Evidence suggests that noise from seismic surveys conducted during oil exploration damage acoustic animals such as whales, which can ultimately lead to fatalities if within close proximity.[ii] While whales can generally alter migration patterns to avoid such dangers, an increase in industrial activity may push whales further away from preferred habitats, potentially damaging feeding or spawning patterns. Increased tanker traffic associated with higher oil exploration and production will worsen noise pollution in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Additionally, the impacts of hydrocarbon releases in the marine environment have been shown to cause detrimental impacts on reproductive health, immunological and neurological functioning, as well as higher incidences of mortality for marine wildlife.[iii] Contaminants from oil and gas drilling are also believed to travel higher up on the food chain, ultimately having cascading effects for marine ecosystems. Shell’s 2012 exploration plans include drilling exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, where bowhead whales migrate to during the spring months.[iv]

Ocean Acidification= Species Loss

Ocean acidification makes the habitat unlivable for various keystone species

NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, April 30, 2014, “NOAA-led researchers discover ocean acidity is dissolving shells of tiny snails off the U.S. West Coast”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140430_oceanacidification.html
“Our findings are the first evidence that a large fraction of the West Coast pteropod population is being affected by ocean acidification,” said Nina Bednarsek, Ph.D., of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, the lead author of the paper. “Dissolving coastal pteropod shells point to the need to study how acidification may be affecting the larger marine ecosystem. These nearshore waters provide essential habitat to a great diversity of marine species, including many economically important fish that support coastal economies and provide us with food." The term “ocean acidification” describes the process of ocean water becoming corrosive as a result of absorbing nearly a third of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from human sources. This change in ocean chemistry is affecting marine life, particularly organisms with calcium carbonate skeletons or shells, such as corals, oysters, mussels, and small creatures in the early stages of the food chain such as pteropods. The pteropod is a free-swimming snail found in oceans around the world that grows to a size of about one-eighth to one-half inch. The research team, which also included scientists from NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Oregon State University, found that the highest percentage of sampled pteropods with dissolving shells were along a stretch of the continental shelf from northern Washington to central California, where 53 percent of pteropods sampled using a fine mesh net had severely dissolved shells. The ocean’s absorption of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions is also increasing the level of corrosive waters near the ocean’s surface where pteropods live. “We did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this extent in our coastal region for several decades,” said William Peterson, Ph.D., an oceanographer at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and one of the paper’s co-authors. “This study will help us as we compare these results with future observations to analyze how the chemical and physical processes of ocean acidification are affecting marine organisms.” Richard Feely, senior scientist from NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Lab and co-author of the research article, said that more research is needed to study how corrosive waters may be affecting other species in the ecosystem. "We do know that organisms like oyster larvae and pteropods are affected by water enriched with carbon dioxide. The impacts on other species, such as other shellfish and larval or juvenile fish that have economic significance, are not yet fully understood." “Acidification of our oceans may impact marine ecosystems in a way that threatens the sustainability of the marine resources we depend on,” said Libby Jewett, Director of the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program. “Research on the progression and impacts of ocean acidification is vital to understanding the consequences of our burning of fossil fuels.”

Ocean Acidification= Species Loss

Ocean acidification destroys a litany of environmental factors essential to human survival

Climate Interpreter, Organization building awareness about oceanic environmental issues, December 18, 2013, “Ocean Acidification - Effects on Humans”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://climateinterpreter.org/content/ocean-acidification-effects-humans
Ocean acidification will have drastic effects on shelled organisms and on coral reefs, but what about its effects on humans? Many people mistakenly believe that the oceans may be turning to acid, and that it will no longer be safe for humans enter the water. This is not true, even in the most extreme scenarios for the next century. An ocean pH of 7.8 is in not directly harmful to humans, in fact many swimming pool maintenance guides suggest that people keep their pool pH between 7.2 and 7.8. So, why would ocean acidification be detrimental to human health? The previous two lessons were focused on the marine food chain and on the coral reef ecosystem. Humans are inextricably linked to the health of the ocean. We have always relied on the ocean's resources for food, recreation, transportation and medicines. From an interpretive standpoint, the important thing is to help people realize how they are personally connected to the ocean, and then to be able to explain to them how that connection is being jeopardized by ocean acidification. One of the most obvious connections people have with the ocean is seafood. Most of the shellfish we eat are going to be negatively impacted by ocean acidification due to the fact that they will be unable to build sturdy shells. Some oyster hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest have already been impacted, and have seen declines in larval settlement and survival rates. Pteropods may seem insignificant to many people, but since they are a major food source for fish, their survival is very important to us. Most people recognize the aesthetic qualities of coral reefs, but it is important that people realize the vital role reefs play in our daily lives. There is a good chance that people are already connected to at least one of these roles, and NOAA's coral reef website http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/ breaks it down in a user-friendly manner by dividing the value of coral reefs into five categories: Biodiversity http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/biodiversity/ Coastal Protection http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/coastalprotection/ Fisheries http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/fisheries/ Medicine http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/medicine/ Tourism and Recreation http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/tourismrecreation/ The virtual seafood buffet website listed below is a fun and visual way to make direct connections between people and ocean acidification. You can click on food items, the fish in the tank, or even on the person to find out how ocean acidification will affect it! Lesson Take Away: Ocean acidification will affect humans too! It will affect the food we eat since most of our shellfish requires calcium carbonate to form or to fortify their shells. Many of the fish we eat are also dependent on shelled animals for their food source, so the entire food chain is in jeopardy! The uncertain future of coral reefs due to ocean acidification is also a major concern. The presence of healthy coral reefs is imperative to our survival because we rely on them for food, coastal protection, medicines and tourism dollars.

Sea Level Rise

Ice caps susceptible to melting—increased warming will cause sea levels to rise 188 feet

Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent, May 5, 2014, “Antarctic Ice Shelf On Brink Of Unstoppable Melt That Could Raise Sea Levels For 10,000 Years”, Accessed May 5, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/antarctic-ice-melt_n_5263660.html
OSLO, May 4 (Reuters) - Part of East Antarctica is more vulnerable than expected to a thaw that could trigger an unstoppable slide of ice into the ocean and raise world sea levels for thousands of years, a study showed on Sunday. The Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, stretching more than 1,000 km (600 miles) inland, has enough ice to raise sea levels by 3 to 4 metres (10-13 feet) if it were to melt as an effect of global warming, the report said. The Wilkes is vulnerable because it is held in place by a small rim of ice, resting on bedrock below sea level by the coast of the frozen continent. That "ice plug" might melt away in coming centuries if ocean waters warm up. "East Antarctica's Wilkes Basin is like a bottle on a slant. Once uncorked, it empties out," Matthias Mengel of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Climate Change, said in a statement. Co-author Anders Levermann, also at Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters the main finding was that the ice flow would be irreversible, if set in motion. He said there was still time to limit warming to levels to keep the ice plug in place. Almost 200 governments have promised to work out a U.N. deal by the end of 2015 to curb increasing emissions of man-made greenhouse gases that a U.N. panel says will cause more droughts, heatwaves, downpours and rising sea levels. Worries about rising seas that could swamp low-lying areas from Shanghai to Florida focus most on ice in Greenland and West Antarctica, as well as far smaller amounts of ice in mountain ranges from the Himalayas to the Andes. Sunday's study is among the first to gauge risks in East Antarctica, the biggest wedge of the continent and usually considered stable. "I would not be surprised if this (basin) is more vulnerable than West Antarctica," Levermann said. BIG THAW Antarctica, the size of the United States and Mexico combined, holds enough ice to raise sea levels by some 57 metres (188 feet) if it ever all melted.

Sea Level Rise

Skeptics are wrong, warming is real and sea level rise isn’t over exaggerated

John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland and founder of Skeptical Science, 2014, “How much is sea level rising?”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-basic.htm
Climate Myth... Sea level rise is exaggerated "We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. ... Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not agree - there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands. Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years." (Vincent Gray). Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise? Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places. Because the behavior of sea level is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you cancreate almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations. Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained viatide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations. Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend. Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In point of fact, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations. As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed. Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ).

Oceans Prevent Human Extinction/ Turns Economy

Ocean ecosystem decline destroys the world economy and kills the human race

Peter Seligmann, chairman and CEO of Conservation International, April 2014, “Ocean Health Is Human Health”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://blog.conservation.org/2014/04/ocean-health-is-human-health/

The largest place on the planet is in trouble. Oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface, and ocean ecosystems generate at least US$ 21 trillion in economic benefits each year. But a perfect storm of massive challenges, from collapsing fisheries to plastic pollution to ocean acidification, is threatening the integrity of marine ecosystems. These threats put at risk the essential benefits people receive from healthy oceans: sustainable fisheries, coastal protection, carbon sequestration, coastal economies and livelihoods, tourism and recreation and many others. This week, I was one of 700 leaders from governments, business, civil society and communities attending the Global Oceans Action Summit in The Hague, Netherlands. I am encouraged by the fact that many countries and businesses attending the summit have moved beyond the point of talking about problems to taking immediate action for ocean health and begin the transition toward a more sustainable society. More than 27 years ago, I founded the organization Conservation International (CI) to take on the most urgent and important issues of our time. Today, I believe ocean health is one of those issues. We simply cannot survive — let alone prosper — if we do not reverse the destruction of the ocean’s natural capital. Ocean health is a complex challenge. In order to achieve sustainable solutions, all sectors of society must come together and contribute their unique skills and perspectives. Governments and financial institutions need to accelerate efforts to bring stakeholders together to develop shared vision, goals and measures of ocean health and provide the financing necessary to deliver on these ambitious plans. It is also essential that this is done rapidly in effective and practical ways. We need to be impatient. We cannot wait for everybody around the world to sign on to one consensus plan. Instead, we must partner with those who are committed to immediate action to improve ocean health. Here’s some good news: Some of the groundwork is already done. Tools like the Ocean Health Index are already allowing scientists to define the baseline for ocean health against which to evaluate the success of future actions and interventions. We need to recognize that our measures are only as good as the accuracy and resolution of the data they are based upon. Therefore, countries need to adopt the Ocean Health Index and compile the necessary data to guide the identification of priorities and tracking of progress. While the initial cost (in time and money) of creating tools like the Ocean Health Index and the required data may seem high, they should not be viewed as “costs” per se; in fact, they represent sound investments. The true cost would be if we continued to mismanage our most valuable global resources. For example, the World Bank estimates the losses from poor fisheries management to total US$50 billion worldwide. We cannot afford to ignore the management of our oceans. The well-being of our society — indeed, our very survival — depends on their health. This is particularly true for the 40% of countries that have larger ocean areas than land, and even more so for the 18% of nations that have 10 times more ocean than land. Clearly, the path for the development aspirations of these countries goes through ocean health. From the Global Oceans Action Summit, it is clear to me that businesses are increasingly aware of their supply chains’ dependence on healthy oceans. Companies present at the summit emphasized their commitment to innovation and best practices, including finding ways to reduce the need for feed in aquaculture and to eliminate illegally caught fish from their supply chains. Throughout the last couple of years, I have seen a growing number of businesses begin to measure their carbon and freshwater footprints and to use the information to improve their performance. Next, we need companies to report on their impacts on ocean health — positive and negative — and demonstrate that performance can improve and will ensure continued return on investments, both economically and ecologically. Non-governmental organizations, including CI, play a key role in innovating and developing new ocean sustainability tools and solutions. These organizations can often take greater risks to develop new innovations than what governments and businesses are willing to accept, thereby accelerating new approaches and action. The most immediate opportunity for action and results that I saw at the summit is the importance of rewarding the governments, companies and organizations who are already leading the way to improve marine health. All sectors of society need to stand behind leaders who have demonstrated political will and courage by embracing ambitious ocean initiatives and targets. A perfect example is the Pacific Oceanscape, an initiative led by 15 nations in the Western and Central Pacific who aim to accelerate collaboration for ocean health. At the summit, Prime Minister Henry Puna of the Cook Islands spoke of his country’s contribution to the Pacific Oceanscape by creating the Cook Islands Marine Park, the largest marine managed area in the world extending a staggering 1.1 million square kilometers (about 425,000 square miles — an area almost as large as Ethiopia). The rest of the world should support these nations — technically, financially and politically — to deliver on their bold vision and aspirations for a healthy ocean that can continue to benefit people economically, nutritionally, socially and environmentally. I invite the international community to work with us in partnering with these nations to demonstrate to the world that action and progress are possible, and that ocean health really is human health.

Oceans Prevent Human Extinction/ Turns Economy

Ocean collapse kills global economy and kills off humanity

Dr. Graham J. Edgar, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, 2013, “About the Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES)”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://globaloceanrefuge.org/about/
The fate of humankind could hinge on our capacity to recover life in our world’s largest life support system ― the oceans. To ensure our future, we need a robust solution that will allow oceans and the life within them to flourish despite existing and future threats. Using the latest science, powerful new technologies and novel ways of influencing governance, the Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES, pronounced glôr-ees) will facilitate enduring ocean stewardship on a global scale. The world needs an effective global system of strongly protected areas to recover marine life so people regain the benefits of healthy oceans including fresh seafood, clean beaches, abundant well-paid jobs and major tax revenues to governments. GLORES can make this happen. Living oceans are essential to human survival and prosperity, but are in deep trouble worldwide.[i] The growing human population is demanding more while reducing the oceans’ capacity to sustain us. We now risk mass extinction and severe reductions in crucial ecosystem services.[ii] Global institutions recognize the issue and the World Bank states that “without action to turn around the declining health of the oceans, the consequences for economies, communities and ecosystems will be irreversible.”[iv] At the urging of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments and international governmental organizations have strategically secured essential food crops in facilities such as the Global Seed Vault in Svalbard. But the vast majority of marine species cannot yet be maintained outside their habitats; the only way to conserve them is in their habitats. Humankind needs a comprehensive, science-based and cost-effective system to safeguard life in the sea.

Oceans Prevent Human Extinction

Ocean health is directly linked to human survival—humanity won’t make it without a robust ocean ecosystem

Dr. Sylvia A. Earle, National Geographic Society Explorer-in-Residence, November 1, 2013, “Indispensable Ocean: Aligning Ocean Health and Human Well-Being”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/01/indispensable-ocean-aligning-ocean-health-and-human-well-being/
In a presentation at the World Bank headquarters in 2009, I began by showing the classic image of Earth from space and commented: “There it is—The World Bank. Throughout the history of humankind, we have been drawing down the assets, living on the capital without accounting properly for the losses.” This is especially true of the ocean, where impacts are less obvious than for terrestrial systems. Current policies and mind-sets globally were formed decades ago when it seemed the ocean was “too big to fail.” But failing it is, with about half the coral reefs, kelp forests, mangroves, sea grass meadows and coastal marshes globally gone or in serious decline, hundreds of coastal dead zones, steep reduction in numerous commercially exploited species of sharks, swordfish, tunas, cod, salmon and many others. At the same time, the role of the ocean in governing climate, weather, production of oxygen, the carbon cycle, water cycle and overall planetary chemistry has come into clear focus. Now we know: If the ocean is in trouble, so are we. It is time to take care of the ocean as if our lives depend on it —because they do. I admit to being skeptical at The Economist’s World Ocean Summit in Singapore early in 2012 when World Bank President, Robert Zoellick announced the formation of the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) and the intent to commit funding aimed at alleviating the decline of critical ocean systems that in turn are affecting the economy, health, security, and very existence of people, especially those who are least well-off. Zoellick spoke of addressing perverse subsidies that have fostered over-sized industrial fishing fleets that have laid waste to vast regions of the sea with social and economic consequences to people everywhere, especially those in coastal areas who rely directly on the ocean for sustenance. He noted the costly neglect of ocean research, concerns about global warming, ocean acidification, sea level rise and the connections of ocean health to human survival and well-being.

Oceans Prevent Human Extinction

Ocean health is key to human survival—not past the tipping point yet

Marine Conservation Institute, marine scientists and environmental-policy advocates dedicated to saving ocean life for us and future generations, December 18, 2013, “MARINE CONSERVATION INSTITUTE ANNOUNCES “14 THINGS HUMANS CAN DO TO MAKE THE OCEANS MORE ABUNDANT IN 2014””, Accessed april 4, 2014, http://www.marine-conservation.org/news/releases/2013/14-things-for-the-ocean-in-2014/
In honor of the start of another year of trying to motivate humankind to work together to save our oceans, Marine Conservation Institute today announced its list of “14 Things Humans Can Do to Make the Oceans More Abundant in 2014.” The world’s oceans are vital to human survival, yet they face growing challenges. The list from Marine Conservation Institute contains specific ocean issues, and geographic areas representative of those issues, that need continued attention in 2014 and beyond. 1. Establish marine protected areas (Ross Sea, Antarctica). The creation of marine protected areas is one of the best tools available for ocean protection. The waters around Antarctica are still relatively untouched by human activity and home to almost 10,000 unique species. Although talks surrounding the creation of a protected zone in the Ross Sea broke down this year, international partners have vowed to return to the table in 2014 and continue working to protect this ocean area. 2. Reduce introductions of alien species (Arctic Ocean). As the planet warms, and sea ice melts, ships are now able to transit this once impenetrable region, bringing unwelcome visitors along with them. The Arctic Ocean has long been protected against invasive species by its ice cover and cold temperatures, but new shipping lanes are carrying new creatures to waters around the North Pole. Scientists are studying these changes, and renewed commitments to curb the transport and introduction of alien species are required to ensure that the Arctic Ocean isn’t overrun as shipping expands in this fragile region.

Oceans Prevent Human Extinction

Healthy oceans are key to all life- food, medicine, climate, jobs

NRDC, National Resources Defense Council is the nation's most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals, October 4, 2011, “Reviving Our Oceans” Accessed May 5, 2014 http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/policy.asp
The oceans are the planet's life support system. We depend on oceans to moderate our climate and filter pollution. We rely on the rich diversity of ocean life to supply us with food and medicines. Our oceans give us a place to play, to work, to rest and to discover. In recent years, however, two major independent commissions reported that our oceans are in serious trouble -- in a state, according to the Pew Oceans Commission, of "silent collapse," threatening jobs, cultures, coastal ecosystems and marine life. Urgent Ocean Threats Oceans are not, as once imagined, inexhaustible resources, so vast that human activity can barely make a dent. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite. Major threats to ocean health include the following:

Oceans Prevent Human Extinction

Collapse of Marine ecosystems causes extinction

Thair Shaikh, staff reporter for CNN, June 21, 2011, “Marine life facing mass extinction, report says”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-21/world/ocean.extinction.global.warming_1_mass-extinction-coral-reefs-marine-life?_s=PM:WORLD
Marine life is under severe threat from global warming, pollution and habitat loss, with a high risk of "major extinctions" according to a panel of experts. These are the conclusions of a distinguished group of marine scientists who met at Oxford University, England, in April to discuss the impact of human activity on the world's oceans. The meeting, led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), examined the combined effects of pollution, acidification, ocean warming, over-fishing and depleting levels of oxygen in the water. The panel found that oceanic conditions are similar to those of "previous major extinctions of species in Earth's history," and that we face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation. The interim report, produced in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), was presented to the U.N. on Tuesday. The study also said that the speed of decline of marine ecosystems is faster than predicted. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said: "The oceans are a common heritage of mankind. The extinction threat we believe is real." Rogers, professor of Conservation Biology at the Department Of Zoology, University of Oxford, told CNN: "The rate of change we are seeing in the quantities of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere and then being absorbed into the oceans is so great that it is difficult to compare what is happening now with what has happened in the past but we do know that past disturbances in the carbon cycle have been a feature of mass extinction events." According to the panel -- which consisted of 27 marine experts from 18 organizations -- most if not all the five "global mass extinctions" in Earth's history were probably caused by the "deadly trio" of global warming, ocean acidification and lack of water oxygen or hypoxia. It states that these three factors are present in the ocean today and gives examples of marine ecosystems suffering severe disturbance, such as the mass "coral bleaching" in 1998 that killed 16% of all the world's tropical coral reefs. According to the report, over-fishing has reduced some commercial fish stocks and populations of by-catch species by more than 90%. Dan Laffoley, senior advisor on Marine Science and Conservation for IUCN, and co-author of the report, said: "The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent." Marine scientists often describe oceans as the earth's circulatory system, performing numerous vital functions which make the planet habitable, such as creating more than half our oxygen, driving weather systems while modulating the atmosphere, as well as providing us with vital resources.

Disad O/W Exploration

Any risk of the disad o/w the case—exploration doesn’t achieve anything

Ryan Carlyle, Subsea hydraulics engineer, January 31, 2013, “Why Don't We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space Exploration?”, Accessed April 25, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/
I’m one hundred and twenty miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico right now, working on installing seafloor equipment for an oil project. No one spends more time exploring the deepest oceans than the oil industry. In the last twenty years, there has been a veritable explosion of deepwater exploration, with extensive subsea surveys for pipelines and anchors and oil well infrastructure. We have fantastic subsea robots that let us see and work down to 10,000 ft depth — as well as a host of seismic imaging systems to see below the seafloor, sonar, Doppler current sensors, monitoring buoys, and so forth. The equipment to explore the oceans exists today and is in routine use for energy exploration. For example: Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs): So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I can tell you that the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot: Despite the difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a pretty good public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’s a blog entry from that team where they talk about how boring the sea floor is: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life. You see some crazy animals that are often not well-known to science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what the hell was that?” and no one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but occasionally we find giant* isopods: *This is a moderately small specimen. They have been recorded at 2.5 ft long. Or giant alien squid monsters: Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface. Their bodies are acclimated to the high pressures (hundreds of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals is very limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is through a few food chain connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths. We’re fundamentally quite disconnected from deep ocean life. Also, there is no hope of ever establishing human habitation more than about 1000 ft deep. The pressures are too great, and no engineering or materials conceivable today would allow us to build livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor. The two times humans have reached the deepest part of the ocean, it required a foot-thick flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a habitable moon base would be vastly easier to engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space Station: Given the actual space station ISS, would it be cheaper to build the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why? To recap: we don’t spend more time/money exploring the ocean because it’s expensive, difficult, and uninspiring. We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go down there.

Climate Change= Human Extinction

Climate change will cause human extinction—disease, food shortages, and ecosystem collapse

Deborah Snow, writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, March 31, 2014, “Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert”, Accessed May 5, 2014 , http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html
The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today. ''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our extinction eventually.'' Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael, of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on Monday. The three warn that the adverse effects on population health and social stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change. ''Human-driven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, health and perhaps even to human survival,'' they write. They predict that the greatest challenges will come from under nutrition and impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of infectious diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs.

Climate Change= Real/ Human Caused/ Extinction

Climate change is real, human caused, and kills off the human race

Lesley Docksey, writer for Global Research, July 14, 2013, “Climate Change and its Disastrous Impacts on Earth and Humanity”, Accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-and-its-disastrous-impacts-on-earth-and-humanity/5342677
Climate change along with the disastrous effects it will have on the earth and humanity is being ignored by much of society. I differentiate between the earth and humanity because many people only relate to the problems that humans might suffer, not fully understanding that what damages the earth also damages us. During the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio, media headlines were screaming “We’ve only got 20 years to save the earth!” An environmentalist dryly pointed out, “No. The earth will survive. We have 20 years to save humanity.” But we cannot even begin to contemplate our own extinction. So those twenty years passed and no meaningful actions were taken. We have compromised our survival. Twenty vital years, during which we could have learnt to change our behaviour, control carbon emissions and put in place a better, cleaner way of living. Governments and corporations blocked any real changes. We must not stand in the way of ‘progress’, they said. And by and large, the public remained totally unengaged. A few years ago some British historians recognised that part of the problem was a failure of education, and started to demand that historians and all other academics, whatever their speciality, should include climate change in their thinking and in their teaching. A similar demand of universities was being made in the United States. Just over 12 years ago a new concept entered the conversation, the word for which is ‘anthropocene’. Some earth scientists say we are now in a new geological age – the anthropocene – because of the changes visited upon the earth by man. There are those who challenge the argument as a scientific conceit. But they surely cannot deny that the whole basis of life on earth, from the smallest microbes to the largest trees and mammals, is now hugely affected by the activities of man, and we need some way of describing this. A seminar in Chicago earlier this year also addressed the problem, saying that “most of the relevant research on climate change has focussed on how it will affect the material conditions of life on this planet.” Yet this threat to the earth, caused by human activity, will affect every area of human life; not just the physical. Our emotional, spiritual and intellectual lives will be in turmoil. It is time that those of us who care about what the coming changes might do to the future of humanity started to engage our fellows on things other than the physical disasters, floods and droughts, mass migrations, food shortages and all the conflicts that could arise out of the struggle to survive. For most of our history human activity has harmed the earth that sustains us. We are so proud of our intellectual achievements, our history of creating civilisations, yet almost all civilisations have depended on some form of energy use – the more advanced the civilisation, the more dependent it becomes on energy. And civilisations have almost always included militarization, weapons and war. But – imagine a future of no future, of no schools or universities, no musical instruments or theatres, no art, no writing, no research, no science. All that will disappear if humanity is overwhelmed by climate change. Then who will be left to mourn the silencing of Beethoven and Brahms? This isn’t just a problem for academicians. It concerns all of us and our sense of history is a good place to start seeking an answer. The thing about history is that it simply doesn’t exist if there is no one there to witness it, to record it, to remember what happened and, just as important, why. And even with a record, if there is no one there to read it and understand it, no one to whom the knowledge can be passed, no children who can sit and listen to their elders tell the lore of their tribe, then history is dead. Climate change may take away our future and without a future there is no past.

***Random Section***

A/T “Protected Zones Check Impact”

Wrong—conservation and protection areas in the squo won’t check the impact

Dr. Graham J. Edgar, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, 2013, “About the Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES)”, Accessed May 4, 2014, http://globaloceanrefuge.org/about/
Protecting marine life in their ecosystems is the best way to maintain biological diversity, abundance and resilience. There are now thousands of marine protected areas, totaling 3% of the oceans,[v] but weak protection offers little or no conservation benefit[vi]. Only strongly protected areas demonstrably increase diversity and abundance of marine life.[vii] Most existing marine protected areas are “paper parks” offering little protection. Moreover, geographic coverage is very uneven, and in many regions, key ecosystems have no protection. Only 1% of the entire ocean is strongly protected – free from fishing and other extractive uses[viii] – and this is just 1/20th-1/30th the area marine biologists are urging the world to protect. Strong, effective protected areas are being created too slowly (Figure 1) to avert profound changes in global systems and ocean ecosystems, jeopardizing great numbers of humans. So far, governments, international governmental organizations and NGOs have not been doing an adequate job of protecting marine life. The world needs a much more effective, faster solution that aligns the interests of the public and private sectors, now and in the future.

Offshore Drilling- Spills Inevitable

Offshore drilling spills are inevitable

Steven Mufson, writer for the Washington Post, April 19, 2012, “Two years after BP oil spill, offshore drilling still poses risks”, Accessed May 4, 2014,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/two-years-after-bp-oil-spill-offshore-drilling-still-poses-risks/2012/04/19/gIQAHOkDUT_story_1.html

But three recent incidents in other parts of the world show just how risky and sensitive offshore drilling remains. In the North Sea, French oil giant Total is still battling to regain control of a natural gas well that has been leaking for nearly four weeks. Meanwhile, Brazil has confiscated the passports of 11 Chevron employees and five employees of drilling contractor Transocean as they await trial on criminal charges related to an offshore oil spill there. And in December, about 40,000 barrels of crude oil leaked out of a five-year-old loading line between a floating storage vessel and an oil tanker in a Royal Dutch Shell field off the coast of Nigeria. Many experts say that even with tougher regulations here in the United States, such incidents are inevitable. “I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it [offshore drilling], but we ought to go at it with our eyes open,” said Roger Rufe, a retired Coast Guard vice admiral. “We can’t do it with a human-designed system and not expect that there will be occasional problems with it.” Shell is one company particularly anxious to avoid the slightest whiff of trouble. It is on the verge of getting the final two permits needed to drill this summer in the Chukchi Sea, off Alaska’s Arctic Coast, a plan that has aroused opposition from a broad array of enviro