important fyi’s

watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTuB88KaIpQ

read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_excluder_device

and this: Damiano, 14 (DEVON LEA DAMIANO†, † Duke University School of Law, J.D./M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy expected 2014; Princeton University, A.B. 2009, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, “LICENSED TO KILL: A DEFENSE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=dlj, jj)

All five species of sea turtles found in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic Ocean are listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered.28 The Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Florida breeding population of green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are all endangered,29 whereas the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the rest of the green sea turtle population are threatened.30

1AC

Inherency

Contention one is inherency:

Initially note – N.O.A.A. rules have required usage of Turtle Exclusion Devices, or TEDs, by fishing companies in federal waters for decades – but the N.O.A.A. has failed to require usage of this technology in state watersMississippi Business Journal, 12 (11/28, “NOAA scraps plan to require turtle excluder devices” http://msbusiness.com/blog/2012/11/28/noaa-scraps-plan-to-require-turtle-excluder-devices/, jj)

GULF OF MEXICO — New regulations that would have forced shrimpers in the bays and marshes of the Gulf of Mexico to install devices on their nets to save endangered sea turtles have been scrapped by federal officials. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said it is withdrawing plans by its fisheries service to require “turtle excluder devices” for small fishing operations that trawl for shrimp in state waters. NOAA said data collected over the summer showed the devices — which are escape hatches for sea turtles on nets — might not keep small turtles from being caught in the shallower waters that would have been subject to the requirement. “The information we now have suggests the conservation benefit does not justify the burden this rule would place on the industry. We need more research looking at different options,” Roy Crabtree, southeast regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries, said in a statement. The rules had been set to take effect by spring. Gulf of Mexico shrimpers had said the requirement could push them out of business. The change would have affected 2,600 fishermen, including an estimated 2,300 vessels in Louisiana. Crabtree said federal officials would continue their research to help prevent turtle deaths. “We’re not abandoning this issue. There’s just more work that needs to be done to get it right,” he said. A spike in turtle deaths in the Gulf since 2010, environmental lawsuits, the BP PLC oil spill and the endangered status of sea turtles have spurred federal officials to look at stronger

protections for vulnerable turtle populations. In the past two years, more than 1,100 dead sea turtles have been found in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama waters. Federal scientists estimate about 28,000 sea turtles are caught each year in nets. The Center for Biological Diversity, a national conservation group

that sought the protections, criticized the decision to shelve the proposed federal rules, saying

further delay will cause unnecessary turtle deaths . “The agency’s failure to protect these species is tragic. Despite its own claim that the Fisheries Service is not abandoning its promise to protect sea turtles, it is in fact maintaining the deadly status quo by failing to move forward with any protective measures,” said Jaclyn Lopez, a lawyer for the center. Turtle excluder devices have been required for larger shrimp vessels that work in federal waters for more than two decades, according to NOAA, but not in state waters, with shallower areas and smaller turtles. Instead of the devices, fisher[persons]men in state waters are supposed to lift their nets out of the water every once in a while to help trapped turtles breathe and get out of nets. NOAA officials said they’ve had trouble with low compliance and difficulties in

enforcement. The proposed rules targeted three common types of nets called skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls and wing net trawls. Other states that would have been included in the rules, according to NOAA spokeswoman Allison Garrett, were Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina and Florida.

This lack of regulation will be disastrous—shrimp trawling is the primary factor driving die-offs of multiple sea turtle populations—extending regulations to state-waters is key to reverse thisDamiano, 14 (DEVON LEA DAMIANO†, † Duke University School of Law, J.D./M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy expected 2014; Princeton University, A.B. 2009, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, “LICENSED TO KILL: A DEFENSE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=dlj, jj)

One of the greatest threats to these species’ survival is fishery bycatch .36 In particular, sea turtles face the risk of being captured in shrimp trawls, which are open-mouth nets that are pulled through the water or dragged along the bottom of the ocean to catch shrimp.37 In 1990, the

National Research Council declared that shrimp trawling was the primary source of

anthropogenic mortality for sea turtles in U.S. waters .38 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the lead federal agency “responsible for the management, conservation and protection of living

marine resources” in the United States,39 has stated that “[s]outheast[ern] U.S. shrimp fisheries have historically been the largest fishery threat” to sea turtles, and these fisheries “continue to interact with and kill large numbers of turtles each year.”40 Shrimp trawls indiscriminately sweep up any creature that falls into the net and is too large to escape through the mesh.41 Sea turtles caught in trawls may be injured or killed by forced submergence. Although a marine species, sea turtles lack gills and must breathe oxygen, so they drown when forced underwater for significant periods of time.42 During forced submergence, sea turtles’ acid-base balance is disturbed and their oxygen stores deplete more rapidly than when they voluntarily submerge; consequently, they cannot survive underwater for as long as normal.43TEDs can be installed in shrimp trawls to provide a life-saving escape hatch for captured

turtles .44 For many years, sea turtle interactions with shrimp trawls were declining due to TED regulations and a reduction in the amount of shrimp trawling occurring in the Gulf of Mexico,45 but in 2010 and 2011 there was a large spike in the number of dead or injured sea turtles discovered and reported by government observers and private individuals.46 Necropsy results suggested that many of the mortalities resulted from drowning, which is characteristic of fishery interactions47 and led NMFS to conclude that “sea turtles may be affected by shrimp trawling to an extent not previously considered.”48 NMFS estimates that there are 494,272 interactions each year between sea turtles and the most common type of shrimp trawl—the “otter trawl”—used in offshore waters.49 Of these, roughly 51,605 are fatal.50 Because nearly half of all shrimp landings are in Louisiana, a

large portion of sea turtle mortalities most likely occur in Louisiana waters .51

Multiple sea turtle species are on the brink of extinction now—current regulations are ineffectiveZuardo, 10 (Tara Zuardo*, Bachelors degree with High Honors from the University of California, Berkeley, and will obtain a J.D. and a certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law with an emphasis in Animal Law from Lewis & Clark Law School in May 2010, Animal Law, 16 Animal L. 317, “COMMENT: HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION” Lexis, jj)

Sea turtles - one of the world's most ancient still-surviving aquatic species n1 - are facing extinction despite hundreds of domestic

and international agreements currently aimed at stopping the decrease in sea turtle populations. The Endangered

Species Act (ESA) lists six of the seven species of sea turtles as "endangered" or "threatened." n2 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) lists all seven as species that are "threatened with extinction and are or may be affected by trade." n3 The Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) also lists various species of sea turtles as endangered species. n4 Although there

are more than 650 international agreements n5 focused on restoring sea turtle populations, the data show a continued and steady

population decline . n6 These agreements do not provide adequate protection because they fail to account for the fact that sea turtles are migratory

animals. n7 Adequate consideration for sea turtle [*319] migration patterns requires cooperation with neighboring nation-states, enforcement of conservation laws by local governments, and a means of addressing the full range of threats facing sea turtles.

Contention 2 – Ocean Ecosystems

Contention two is ocean ecosystems

Scenario one is biodiversity

Sea turtles solve a litany of internal links to extinction

A) Turtles are a keystone species – die-offs spill over to cause extinction – the brink is now.

Todd Steiner, xx-xx-2010, Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Executive Director at Turtle Island Restoration Network, San Francisco Bay Area, “Are Sea Turtles Worth Saving?” http://www.bonaireturtles.org/explore/are-sea-turtles-worth-saving/

Sea turtles demonstrate the ultimate lesson of ecology – that everything is connected. Sea turtles are part of two vital

ecosystems , beaches and marine systems. If sea turtles become extinct, both the marine and beach ecosystems will weaken. And since humans use the ocean as an important source for food and use beaches for many kinds of activities, weakness in these ecosystems would have harmful effects on humans. Though sea turtles have been living and thriving in the world’s oceans

for 150 million years, they are now in danger of extinction largely because of changes brought about by humans. If we alter the

oceans and beaches enough to wipe out sea turtles, will those changes make it difficult for us to survive ? And if we

choose to do what’s necessary to save sea turtles , might we save our own future ? Beaches and dune systems do not

get very many nutrients during the year, so very little vegetation grows on the dunes and no vegetation grows on the beach itself. This is because sand does not hold nutrients very well. Sea turtles use beaches and the lower dunes to nest and lay their eggs. Sea turtles lay around 100 eggs in a nest and lay between 3 and 7 nests during the summer nesting season. Not every nest will hatch, not every egg in a nest will hatch, and not all of the hatchlings in a nest will make it out of the nest. All the unhatched nests, eggs and trapped hatchlings are very good sources of nutrients for the dune vegetation. Even the left-over egg shells from hatched eggs provide nutrients. Dune plants use the nutrients from turtle eggs to grow and become stronger. As the dune vegetation grows stronger and healthier, the health of the entire beach/dune ecosystem becomes better. Healthy vegetation and strong root systems hold the sand in the dunes and protect the beach from erosion. As the number of turtles declines, fewer eggs

are laid in the beaches, providing less nutrients. If sea turtles went extinct, dune vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would not be healthy or strong enough to maintain the dunes, allowing beaches to wash away. Sea turtles eat jellyfish, preventing the large “blooms” of jellyfish – including stinging jellyfish – that are

increasingly wreaking havoc on fisheries, recreation and other maritime activities throughout the oceans. Research has shown that sea turtles often act as keystone species . Sea grass beds grazed by green sea turtles are more productive than those that

aren’t. Hawksbill turtles eat sponges, preventing them from out-competing slow-growing corals. Both of these grazing activities maintain species diversity and the natural balance of fragile marine ecosystems. If sea turtles go extinct, it will cause declines in all the species whose survival depends on healthy seagrass beds and coral reefs. That

means that many marine species that humans harvest would be lost. Sea turtles, and many species that are affected by their

presence or absence, are an important attraction for marine tourism, a major source of income for many countries. These are some of the

roles that we know sea turtles play in the essential health of ecosystems . Who knows what other roles we

will discover as science reveals more about sea turtles? While humans have the ability to tinker with the “clockwork” of life, we don’t have the

ability to know when it’s okay to lose a few of the working parts. If you disagree, try to take apart a clock and just throw away one of the pieces that doesn’t look that important. Put the clock back together and see if it still works.

B) Preservation of sea turtles is key to further ocean exploration and medicinal research—that’s key to long-term survival—use the precautionary principle

Yaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE

REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj) *gender modified

Sea turtles have inhabited the earth for more than 100 million years. n1 However, despite their long history, sea turtles now face unprecedented threats to their survival. In fact, all but one of the seven species of sea turtles are listed in the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened. n2 The greatest threat to these animals is probably their

incidental catch in shrimp nets . As recently as 1990, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study concluded that drowning in shrimp trawls "kills more sea turtles than all other human activities combined." n3 The chances of sea turtle survival have been enhanced by the development of a shrimp net insert called a turtle excluder device (TED), a contraption similar to a box-shaped cage with a trap door, thought to be effective at releasing captured sea turtles. The shrimp industry, however, has fought fiercely to prevent the imposition of any regulations requiring TED use. This article traces the history of the TED regulations, from the enactment of the ESA under which they were issued, through the stormy controversy with the shrimp industry, to recent legislation that would extend TED regulations

beyond United States waters. The use of other laws as a means of protecting sea turtles in those areas is also examined. One might wonder why it

matters whether the earth has one sea turtle more or less . The truth is that the effects of losing any species are so complex as to be incomprehensible. But an excerpt from Aldo [*257] Leopold's famous collection of essays, A Sand County Almanac, helps to illustrate the consequences: The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part of it is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not

understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of

intelligent tinkering . n4 Protecting and preserving threatened and endangered species is saving the "cogs" and "wheels" of a biological system which is not completely comprehensible. The consequences of removing a "cog" are uncertain. There is yet a more practical reason for preserving threatened and endangered species: their potential for increasing man's knowledge in the fields of science and medicine. For example, some scientists are studying the amazing ability of some species of sea turtles, air-breathing reptiles, to swim to great depths in the oceans and remain submerged for long periods of time. Results of such research may some day make man's own exploration of the ocean depths easier. Other scientists are investigating the ability of sea turtles to navigate. Sea turtle hatchlings, for example, quickly set a course away from land and into the sea, maintaining their bearings day and night. n5 Years later the juveniles that have survived navigate back, usually to the same nesting beach each season. n6 Information from these and other sea turtle studies may help man in his own quest for survival. By endangering other species, man endangers himself,

for *[hu]mankind's interests are intricately interconnected with those of the rest of nature.

C) Coral Reefs – turtles are key to their preserve themWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

Equipped with beak-like mouths, hawksbill sea turtles forage on a variety of marine sponges. By doing this, they change the species composition and distribution of sponges in coral reef ecosystems. 17 Sponges compete aggressively for space with reef-building corals. By removing sponges from

reefs, hawksbills allow other species, such as coral, to colonize and grow . 18,19 Without

hawksbills, sponges are likely to dominate reef communities, further limiting the growth of corals

and modifying the very structure of coral reef ecosystems . 20The physical and chemical defenses of sponges prevent most fish and marine mammals from eating them. 21 As hawksbills rip sponges apart during feeding, they expose food to marine species typically unable to penetrate the sponge’s exterior, making sponges more vulnerable to predators.22, 23 Through their selective foraging behavior, hawksbills impact the overall diversity of reef communities.24

Coral reef decline causes ecosystem collapseBryan Walsh, 7/11/08, Time Magazine, “Coral Reefs Face Extinction” http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1826263,00.html

You don't have to be a marine biologist to understand the importance of corals — just ask any diver. The tiny underwater creatures are the architects of the beautiful, electric-colored coral reefs that lie in shallow tropical waters around the world.

Divers swarm to them not merely for their intrinsic beauty, but because the reefs play host to a wealth of biodiversity unlike anywhere else in the underwater world. Coral reefs are home to more than 25% of total marine

species . Take out the corals, and there are no reefs — remove the reefs, and entire ecosystems

collapse.

The impact is extinction—oceans are unique—existential riskCoyne and Hoekstra 7—*professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at University of Chicago, AND **Hoekstra, John L. Loeb Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology @at Harvard,( Jerry Coyne, and Hopi E, 9/24 “The Greatest Dying”)

Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in

many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And,

unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover , since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to

stay.     To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that

doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded,

since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably.     But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild.     And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction.     Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility.     But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and runoff, as

well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster.     In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators , while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with

the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer

coastlines against erosion.

No risk of impact defense—sea turtles are key to human survivalSea Turtle Conservancy, 14http://www.conserveturtles.org/sea-turtle-information.php?page=whycareaboutseaturtlesMuch can be learned about the condition of the planet's environment by looking at sea turtles. They have existed for over 100 million years, and they travel throughout the world's oceans. Suddenly, however, they are struggling to survive -- largely because of things

people are doing to the planet's oceans and beaches. But what does this mean for the human species? It is possible that a world in which sea turtles can not survive may soon become a world in which humans struggle to survive. If, however, we learn from our mistakes and begin changing our behavior, there is still time to save sea turtles from extinction. In the process, we will be saving one of the earth's most mysterious and time-honored creatures. We might just be saving ourselves too.

Sea turtles solve alt causes to decline of ocean health—they restore ecosystems and lock in redundancy—and, their resiliency arguments assume healthy sea turtle populationsWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

Sea turtles have played vital roles in maintaining the health of the world’s oceans for more than

100 million years . These roles range from main taining productive coral reef ecosystems to transporting essential nutrients from the oceans to beaches and coastal dunes. Major changes have occurred in the oceans because sea turtles have been virtually eliminated from many areas of the globe. Commercial fishing, loss of nesting habitat and

climate change are among the human-caused threats pushing sea turtles towards extinction. As sea turtle populations decline, so

does their ability to fulfill vital functions in ocean ecosystems . Our oceans are unhealthy and under significant threat

from overfishing, pollution and climate change. I t is time for us to protect sea turtles and rebuild their populations to healthy levels as a vital step in ensuring healthy and resilient oceans for the future.

Every turtle is keyYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

The TED regulations are valuable, therefore, because they are effective. The devices nearly eliminate the incidental catch of sea turtles in shrimp nets, what the NAS has called the greatest human threat to these threatened and endangered species. Preventing the loss of sea turtles in this way is important because of the nature of the sea turtle's life cycle. "Sea turtles are very long-lived animals which probably do not reproduce until twenty to thirty years of age. Therefore their populations are vulnerable to losses ... of [both] juveniles and adults." n275 Similarly, sea turtles are slow to recover from such losses; n276 that is why every turtle a TED saves is important.

Loss of biodiversity outweighs all other impactsTobin, ’00 (Richard, professor of political science at SUNY-Buffalo, The Expendable Future, p. 22

Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of

human-caused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war . As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that

they can “be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.

Scenario two is acidification

Sea turtles are key to the health and productivity of sea-grassWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

Green sea turtles , one of the few large species of herbivores that eat seagrass, help to maintain healthy seagrass beds. When green sea turtles graze, they increase the productivity and nutrient content of seagrass blades. 7,8 Without constant grazing, seagrass beds become overgrown and obstruct currents, shade the bottom, begin to decompose and provide suitable habitat for the growth of slime molds. 9,10Older portions of seagrass beds tend to be overgrown with microorganisms, algae, invertebrates and fungi. 11Sea turtles forage on seagrass just a few centimeters from the bottom of the blades, allowing older, upper portions of the blades to float away. 12,13 As the turtles crop and re-crop the same plot, seagrass blades are removed from the area rather than accumulating on the bottom. This results in a 15-fold decrease in the supply of nitrogen to seagrass roots, which impacts plant species, nutrient cycling, animal densities and predator-prey relations. 14 As seen in the Caribbean, the decline of green sea

turtles can result in a loss of productivity in the food web – including commercially exploited reef

fish – decreasing the amount of protein-rich food available for people . 15Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico are two excellent examples of the importance of green sea turtles on the health of seagrass beds. The die-off of seagrass in these areas during the 1980s has been directly linked to the ecological extinction of greens . 16

Healthy sea grass buffers the oceans from acidification—it’s a key natural feedbackOcean Doctor, 12 (6/30, “Seagrass Protects Coral Reefs from Ocean Acidification” http://oceandoctor.org/seagrass-protects-coral-reefs-from-ocean-acidification/, jj)

Dr. Richard Unsworth of Swansea University, along with a team of scientists from Oxford University and James Cook University in Australia, found several types of seagrass which may reduce the acidity of water around reefs, protecting them from erosion from acidifying seas . The survival of these corals has been threatened by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 40 years, as it has raised the acidity of the oceans, rotting the reefs in the same way as fruit and

fizzy drinks can erode tooth enamel. But now Dr Unsworth believes he has found varieties of seagrass which can photosynthesise carbon dioxide so quickly and efficiently that they actually turn the surrounding water more alkaline. “Highly productive tropical seagrasses often live adjacent to or among coral reefs and photosynthesise at such rates you can see the oxygen they produce practically bubbling away,” he said. “We wanted to understand whether this could be a major local influence on seawater and the problems of ocean acidification.” Read the full story

at BBC Seagrasses actually pack a double-punch against the effects of carbon dioxide . Research in Nature

Geoscience finds that coastal seagrass has the potential to be vital carbon sinks and therefore part of the solution to climate change. Blue Climate Solutions, a project of The Ocean Foundation, is working to promote a concept

recently termed ‘Blue Carbon.’ They seek to mitigate climate change by advancing policies that promote the roles coastal and ocean ecosystems play as natural carbon sinks, including the conservation of ecosystems such as seagrass meadows, mangrove swamps, and salt marshes.

Ocean acidification causes extinctionKristof 6 (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, “Scandal Below the Surface”, Oct 31, 2006, http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/opinion/31kristof.html?_r=1)If you think of the earth’s surface as a great beaker, then it’s filled mostly with ocean water. It is slightly alkaline, and that’s what creates a hospitable home for fish, coral reefs and plankton — and indirectly, higher up the food chain, for us. But scientists have discovered that the

carbon dioxide (CO2) we’re spewing into the air doesn’t just heat up the atmosphere and lead to rising seas. Much of that carbon is

absorbed by the oceans, and there it produces carbonic acid — the same stuff found in soda pop. That makes oceans a bit more acidic, impairing the ability of certain shellfish to produce shells, which, like coral reefs, are made of calcium carbonate. A recent article in Scientific American explained the indignity of being a dissolving mollusk in an acidic ocean: “Drop a piece of chalk (calcium carbonate) into a glass of vinegar (a mild acid) if you need a demonstration of the general worry: the chalk will begin dissolving immediately.” The more acidic waters may spell the end, at least in higher latitudes, of some of the tiniest variations of shellfish — certain plankton and tiny snails called

pteropods. This would disrupt the food chain , possibly killing off many whales and fish, and rippling up all the way to humans. We stand, so to speak, on the shoulders of plankton. “There have been a couple of very big events in geological history where the carbon cycle changed dramatically,” said Scott Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. One

was an abrupt warming that took place 55 million years ago in conjunction with acidification of the oceans and mass extinctions . Most

scientists don’t believe we’re headed toward a man-made variant on that episode — not yet , at any rate. But many worry that we’re hurtling into unknown dangers. “Whether in 20 years or 100 years, I think marine ecosystems are going to be dramatically different by the end of this century, and that’ll lead to extinction events ,” Mr. Doney added. “This is the

only habitable planet we have,” he said. “The damage we do is going to be felt by all the generations to come.” So that should be one of the great political issues for this century — the vandalism we’re committing to our planet because of our refusal to curb greenhouse gases. Yet the subject is barely debated in this campaign. Changes in ocean chemistry are only one among many damaging consequences of carbon emissions. Evidence is also growing about the more familiar dangers: melting glaciers, changing rainfall patterns, rising seas and more powerful hurricanes. Last year, the World Health Organization released a study indicating that climate change results in an extra 150,000 deaths and five million sicknesses each year, by causing the spread of malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition and other ailments. A report prepared for the British government and published yesterday, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned that inaction “could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th

century.” If emissions are not curbed, climate change will cut 5 percent to 20 percent of global G.D.P. each year, declared the mammoth report. “In contrast,” it said, “the costs of action — reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change — can be limited to around 1 percent of global G.D.P. each year.” Some analysts put the costs of action higher, but most agree that it makes sense to invest far more in alternative energy sources, both to wean ourselves of oil and to reduce the strain on our planet. We know what is needed: a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, a post-Kyoto accord on emissions cutbacks, and major research on alternative energy sources. But as The Times’s Andrew Revkin noted yesterday, spending on energy research and development has fallen by more than half, after inflation, since 1979.

Plan

The United States federal government should mandate and enforce the usage of Turtle Excluder Devices by all shrimp fishing vessels in oceans under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Solvency

Contention 3 is solvency:

The plan prevents thousands of turtle deaths each year—it ensures use of TEDs in both federal and state watersKeledijian, 3/28/14 (Amanda Keledjian is a marine scientist at Oceana, the largest international advocacy group working solely to protect the world's oceans, Mar 28, 2014, Mother Nature Network, “A lawsuit may be the only way to save sea turtles” http://www.mnn.com/home-blog/guest-columnist/blogs/a-lawsuit-may-be-the-only-way-to-save-sea-turtles, jj)

These nets pose a significant danger to the sea turtles, a vulnerable population. Sadly, all five sea-turtle species are considered threatened or endangered with extinction in the United States. This is why, last month, Oceana and three other groups filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. federal government, urging it to accurately analyze the

impacts of shrimp trawls on sea turtles. In 2012, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed a regulation that would require all trawl nets to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), which create an opening to allow turtles to escape once they have been captured. Unfortunately, NMFS withdrew the proposal after the

fishing industry mounted fierce opposition, leaving the regulations to default back to the status quo . This action meant bad news for sea turtles, since fishermen do not comply with existing rules to limit the amount of time the nets are towed through the water. Shorter tow-time requirements are designed so that any captured sea turtles can be safely released before they drown. But these rules are difficult to enforce, and studies have shown that a large percentage of fishermen do not comply with them. Better environmental analysis

and stricter enforcement by NMFS could easily save thousands of sea turtles every year . The U.S. government is currently failing in its duty to ensure that federally authorized activities (including fishing) do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species, as required by

law under the Endangered Species Act. Sea turtles are vital for healthy marine and coastal ecosystems, helping to maintain productive coral reef ecosystems and transporting essential nutrients from the ocean to beaches and coastal dunes. Turtle nesting in Florida will continue into October, possibly stretching further into the fall. To ensure that these animals safely reach their nesting beaches, NMFS must assess the harmful impacts of shrimp

trawls, set limits on the number of sea turtles injured and killed, and require steps to ensure that those limits are not exceeded. Those measures could include mandating TEDs or instituting closed areas

when sea turtles are present. Without accurate and unbiased analysis of the effects of these and other fishing activities, the recovery and continued existence of these majestic marine animals will be at risk into the future.

U.S. action is key to sea turtle protection—it spurs international efforts against harmful fishing practicesKibel, ’97 (Paul Stanton Kibel *, * Adjunct Professor, Golden Gate University School of Law (San Francisco). J.D., Willamette; B.A., Colgate, UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 1996 / 1997, 15 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 57, “ARTICLE: Justice For the Sea Turtle: Marine Conservation and the Court of International Trade” Lexis, jj)

In terms of industrial fishing, there are two fish harvesting practices that have had particularly harsh impacts on sea turtles. The first is the use of large-scale pelagic nets. The second is the use of mechanized shrimp trawlers. The United States has played a leadership role in enacting domestic

laws to reduce the destructive impact of these industrial fishing practices on sea turtles . n19 Large-scale pelagic driftnets are giant nets, sometimes extending for thirty miles and reaching forty feet in depth, that entrap everything that swims or drifts into their path. n20 "One of the most deadly fishing methods ever developed," n21 driftnets, sometimes called "curtains of death," are now the subject of several pieces of U.S. legislation. n22 First, the U.S. has banned all U.S. fishing vessels (ships officially registered with the U.S.) from using driftnets, whether the vessels operate in U.S., international, or foreign waters. n23 The U.S. has also adopted two laws that provide for import bans, as well as other

sanctions, against the fish products of countries that permit the use of driftnets. n24 These laws, the Marine Mammal Protection Act n25 and the High Seas [*61] Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, n26 have proven effective in encouraging other nations and the international community to better respond to the environmental threats of driftnet fishing. More specifically, U.S. leadership helped induce the United Nations General Assembly to adopt resolutions in 1989 and 1991 calling for a global moratorium on large-scale use of driftnets on the high seas. n27 The lesson of the purse-seine net issue is that, in the field of international environmental diplomacy, the progressive policies of

individual countries can serve as a catalyst to global awareness and consensus . As Hilary French,

Senior Researcher at the WorldWatch Institute, has observed, "it is most often a unilat- eral action by

one country , sometimes backed by trade measures against others, that eventually spurs the

international community to act collectively ." n28 These points were echoed by the Cana- dian Environmental Law Association's Steven Shrybman: "environmental progress in one jurisdiction has often created a " follow-the-leader' dynamic in which other jurisdictions are pressured to conform to the higher standard." n29

The plan closes the loophole which allows corporations to avoid using T.E.D.’s—the technology is effective and ensures recovery of turtle populationsFrederickson, 12 (Ivy is a Staff Attorney based in Portland, Oregon, 6/19/12, Ocean Conservancy, “A Sea Turtle Escape Plan” http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2012/06/19/a-sea-turtle-escape-plan/ , jj)

Sea turtles need help. All sea turtles in U.S. waters are on the Endangered Species List as either threatened or endangered. They are often bycatch—unwanted animals caught in nets and other fishing gear. This is one of the most serious threats to the recovery and conservation of sea turtle populations. But, an escape plan has been hatched . Turtle excluder devices, or TEDs, prevent turtles from becoming entangled and drowning in shrimp fishermen’s nets. TEDs are a set of bars fitted into the neck of a net with an escape hatch. When a sea turtle is caught in a net with a TED, it is stopped against the bars and escapes through the hatch. Shrimp and other critters fishermen want to catch pass through the bars and are collected at the end of the net. TEDs have been used successfully in U.S.

shrimp fisheries since the late 1970s, but unfortunately not everyone uses TEDs . Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed a new rule to protect sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico by closing a TED loophole. In the Gulf of Mexico, certain shrimp fishing vessels that operate in coastal waters in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have been historically exempt from the requirements to use TEDs on their nets if they limit the time a net is underwater. Unfortunately, new information shows that tow time restrictions are not an effective measure for protecting sea turtles. Furthermore, the tow time rule is difficult to enforce and is largely self-policed. The new rule would require all inshore shrimp fishing boats use TEDs in their nets. This should reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles and aid in their recovery . Providing sea turtles with an escape plan will reduce the number of deaths from accidental drowning in trawls, helping populations recover.

Turtle Excluder Devices are a key conservation measure and work with 97 percent effectivenessZuardo, 10 (Tara Zuardo*, Bachelors degree with High Honors from the University of California, Berkeley, and will obtain a J.D. and a certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law with an emphasis in Animal Law from Lewis & Clark Law School in May 2010, Animal Law, 16 Animal L. 317, “COMMENT: HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION” Lexis, jj)As part of its principle of sustainable use of fisheries' resources, the IAC uniquely requires shrimp trawler vessels to use turtle excluder devices

(TEDs) on their nets. TEDs were designed to address incidental captures and mortality rates of sea turtles

during shrimping. n175 A TED is composed of a grid of bars that has an opening near the top or bottom of the trawl net. n176 As sea turtles are captured in the trawl, they strike these grid bars and are guided towards the opening, while shrimp pass through to the net. n177

They were developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Department of

State, n178 and there are currently comparable programs in approximately fifteen countries. n179 Relative to all fishing efforts,

TEDs are effective conservation measures and have the potential to reduce sea turtle mortality by

97% by addressing the threats posed by shrimp trawling . n180

No War

Contention 4 – environmental impacts come first.

No great power war – organizations, alliances, diplomacyRobb 12—Lieutenant, US Navy (Doug, Why the Age of Great Power War is Over, www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/now-hear-why-age-great-power-war-over)Whereas in years past, when nations allied with their neighbors in ephemeral bonds of convenience, today’s global politics are tempered by permanent i nternational o rganizations, regional military alliances, and formal economic partnerships. Thanks in

large part to the prevalence of liberal democracies, these groups are able to moderate international disputes and provide forums for nations

to air grievances, assuage security concerns, and negotiate settlements —thereby making war a distant

(and distasteful) option . As a result, China (and any other global power) has much to lose by flouting international opinion, as evidenced by

its advocacy of the recent Syrian uprising, which has drawn widespread condemnation.¶ In addition to geopolitical and diplomacy issues, globalization continues to transform the world. This interdependence has blurred the lines between economic security and physical security.

Increasingly, great-power interests demand cooperation rather than conflict . To that end, maritime nations such as

the United States and China desire open sea lines of communication and protected trade routes, a common security challenge that could bring these powers together, rather than drive them apart (witness China’s response to the issue of piracy in its backyard). Facing these security tasks cooperatively is both mutually advantageous and common sense.¶ Democratic Peace Theory—championed by Thomas Paine and international relations theorists such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman—presumes that great-power war will likely occur between a democratic and non-democratic state. However, as information flows freely and people find outlets for and access to new ideas, authoritarian leaders will find it harder to cultivate popular support for total war—an argument advanced by philosopher Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace.”¶ Consider, for example, China’s unceasing attempts to control Internet access. The 2011 Arab Spring demonstrated that organized opposition to unpopular despotic rule has begun to reshape the political order, a change galvanized largely by social media. Moreover, few would argue that China today is not socially more liberal, economically more capitalistic, and governmentally more inclusive than during Mao Tse-tung’s regime. As these trends continue, nations will find large-scale conflict increasingly disagreeable.¶ In terms of the military, ongoing fiscal constraints and

socio-economic problems likely will marginalize defense issues. All the more reason why great powers will find it mutually beneficial to work together to find solutions to common security problems, such as countering drug smuggling, piracy, climate change, human trafficking, and terrorism—missions that Admiral Robert F. Willard, former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, called “deterrence and reassurance.”¶ As the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a formidable deterrent against unlimited war. They make conflict irrational; in other words, the concept of mutually assured destruction—however unpalatable—actually had a stabilizing effect on both national behaviors and nuclear policies for decades. These tools thus render great-power war infinitely less likely by guaranteeing catastrophic results for both sides. As Bob Dylan warned, “When you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.”¶ Great-power war is not an end in itself, but rather a way for

nations to achieve their strategic aims. In the current security environment, such a war is equal parts costly, counterproductive, archaic, and improbable .

No nuclear war – deterrence Tepperman 2009 [Deputy Editor at Newsweek. Frmr Deputy Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs. LLM, i-law, NYU. MA, jurisprudence, Oxford. (Jonathan, Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb, http://jonathantepperman.com/Welcome_files/nukes_Final.pdf]The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there’s never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it’s hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading “nuclear optimist” and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, “We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It’s striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states.” To understand why—and why the next 64 years are likely to play out the same way—you need to start by recognizing that

all states are rational on some basic level. Their leaders may be stupid, petty, venal, even evil, but they tend to do things

only when they’re pretty sure they can get away with them. Take war: a country will start a fight only when it’s almost certain it can get what it wants at an acceptable price. Not even Hitler or Saddam waged wars they didn’t think they could win. The problem historically

has been that leaders often make the wrong gamble and underestimate the other side—and millions of innocents pay the price. Nuclear weapons change all that by making the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable . Suddenly, when both sides have

the ability to turn the other to ashes with the push of a button— and everybody knows it—the basic math shifts. Even the craziest tin-pot

dictator is forced to accept that war with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort. As Waltz puts it, “Why fight if you can’t win and might lose everything?” Why indeed? The iron logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction is so compelling, it’s led to what’s known as the nuclear peace: the virtually unprecedented stretch since the end of World War II in which all the world’s major powers

have avoided coming to blows. They did fight proxy wars, ranging from Korea to Vietnam to Angola to Latin America. But these never

matched the furious destruction of full-on, great-power war (World War II alone was responsible for some 50 million to 70 million deaths). And since the end of the Cold War, such bloodshed has declined precipitously. Meanwhile, the nuclear powers have scrupulously avoided direct combat, and there’s very good reason to think they always will. There have been some near misses, but a close look at these cases is fundamentally reassuring—because in each instance, very different leaders all came to the same safe conclusion. Take the mother of all nuclear standoffs: the Cuban missile crisis. For 13 days in October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union each threatened the other with

destruction. But both countries soon stepped back from the brink when they recognized that a war would have meant

curtains for everyone. As important as the fact that they did is the reason why: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s aide Fyodor

Burlatsky said later on, “It is impossible to win a nuclear war, and both sides realized that, maybe for the first time.” The record since then

shows the same pattern repeating: nuclear armed enemies slide toward war, then pull back, always for the same

reasons. The best recent example is India and Pakistan, which fought three bloody wars after independence before acquiring their own nukes in 1998. Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn’t do anything to lessen their animosity. But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations (like Pakistani-based terrorist attacks on India in 2001 and 2008). They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up, in Kashmir in 1999, both countries were careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other’s vital interests. Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and coauthor of the forthcoming India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, has found that on both sides, officials’ thinking was strikingly similar to that of the Russians and Americans in 1962. The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with a nuclear holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it.

Miscalc is impossibleQuinlan 2009 (Sir Michael, visiting professor at King's College London, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and former senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, “Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects,” Oxford University Press)One special form of miscalculation appeared sporadically in the speculations of academic commentators, though it was scarcely

ever to be encountered —at least so far as my own observation went—in the utterances of practical planners within government. This is the

idea that nuclear war might be erroneously triggered, or erroneously widened, through a state under attack misreading either what sort of attack it was being subjected to, or where the attack came from. The postulated misreading of the nature of the attack referred in particular to the hypothesis that if a delivery system—normally a missile—that was known to be capable of carrying either a nuclear or a conventional warhead was launched in a conventional role, the target country might, on detecting the launch through its early warning systems, misconstrue the mission as an imminent nuclear strike and immediately unleash a nuclear counter-strike of its own. This conjecture was voiced, for example, as a criticism of the proposals for giving the US Trident SLBM, long associated with nuclear missions, a capability to deliver conventional warheads. Whatever the merit of those proposals (it is not explored here), it is hard to regard this particular apprehension as having any real-life credibility. The flight time of a ballistic missile would not exceed about thirty minutes, and that of a cruise missile a few hours, before arrival on target made its

character—conventional or nuclear—unmistakable. No government will need, and no nonlunatic government could wish, to take within so short a span of time a step as enormous and irrevocable as the execution of a nuclear strike on the

basis of early-warning information alone without knowing the true nature of the incoming attack. The speculation tends moreover to be expressed without reference either to any realistic political or conflict-related context thought to render the

episode plausible , or to the manifest interest of the launching country, should there be any risk of doubt, in ensuring—by explicit

communication if necessary—that there was no misinterpretation of its conventionally armed launch.

Interdependence checks Deudney 2009 (Daniel Prof of Pol Sci, and Ikenberry, Prof of International Affairs, and John, Prof of Pol Sci at John Hopkins and Prof of International Affairs at Princeton, “Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail” http://www.nwc.navy.mil/events/csf/readings/AutocraticRevival.aspx) This bleak outlook is based on an exaggeration of recent developments and ignores powerful countervailing factors and

forces. Indeed, contrary to what the revivalists describe, the most striking features of the contemporary international landscape are the intensification of economic globalization, thickening institutions, and shared problems of

interdependence. The overall structure of the international system today is quite unlike that of the nineteenth century. Compared to older

orders, the contemporary liberal-centered international order provides a set of constraints and opportunities — of pushes and

pulls — that reduce the likelihood of severe conflict while creating strong imperatives for cooperative problem

solving . Those invoking the nineteenth century as a model for the twenty-first also fail to acknowledge the extent to which war as a path to

conflict resolution and great-power expansion has become largely obsolete. Most important, nuclear weapons have transformed great-power war from a routine feature of international politics into an exercise in national suicide. With all of the great powers possessing nuclear weapons and

ample means to rapidly expand their deterrent forces, warfare among these states has truly become an option of last resort. The prospect of such great losses has instilled in the great powers a level of caution and restraint that effectively precludes major revisionist efforts. Furthermore, the diffusion of small arms and the near universality of nationalism have severely limited the ability of great powers to conquer and occupy territory inhabited by resisting populations (as Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq have demonstrated). Unlike during the days of empire building in the nineteenth century, states today cannot translate great asymmetries of power into effective territorial control; at most, they can hope for loose hegemonic relationships that require them to give something in return. Also unlike in the nineteenth century, today the density of trade, investment, and production networks across international borders raises even more the costs of war. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan, to take one of the most plausible cases of a future interstate war, would pose for the Chinese communist regime

daunting economic costs, both domestic and international. Taken together, these changes in the economy of violence mean that the international system is far more primed for peace than the autocratic revivalists acknowledge.

Nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction Socol 2011 Yehoshua (Ph.D.), an inter-disciplinary physicist, is an expert in electro-optics, high-energy physics and applications, and material science and Moshe Yanovskiy, Jan 2, “Nuclear Proliferation and Democracy”, http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/nuclear_proliferation_and_demo.htmlNuclear proliferation should no longer be treated as an unthinkable nightmare; it is likely to be the future reality. Nuclear weapons have been acquired not only by an extremely poor per capita but large country such as India, but also by even poorer and medium-sized nations such as Pakistan and North Korea. One could also mention South Africa, which successfully acquired a nuclear arsenal despite economic sanctions (the likes of which have not yet been imposed on Iran). It is widely believed that sanctions and rhetoric will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and that many countries, in the Middle East and beyond, will act accordingly (see, e.g., recent Heritage report). Nuclear Warfare --

Myths And Facts The direct consequences of the limited use of nuclear weapons -- especially low-yield devices most likely to

be in the hands of non-state actors or irresponsible governments -- would probably not be great enough to bring about significant

geopolitical upheavals. Casualties from a single 20-KT nuclear device are estimated [1] at about 25,000 fatalities with a similar number of injured, assuming a rather unfortunate scenario (the center of a large city, with minimal warning). Scaling the above toll to larger devices or to a larger number of devices is less than linear. For example, it has been estimated that it would take as many as eighty devices of 20-KT yield each to cause 300,000 civilian fatalities in German cities (a result actually achieved by Allied area attacks, or carpet-bombings, during the Second World War). A single 1-MT device used against Detroit has been estimated by U.S. Congress OTA to result in about 220,000

fatalities. It is anticipated that well-prepared civil defense measures , based on rather simple presently known techniques, would decrease these numbers by maybe an order of magnitude (as will be discussed later). There is little doubt that a nation determined to survive and with a strong sense of its own destiny would not succumb to such losses . It is often

argued that the fallout effects of even the limited use of nuclear weapons would be worldwide and would last for generations. This is an

exaggeration . The following facts speak for themselves. -- In Japan, as assessed by REFR, less than 1,000 excess cancer cases (i.e., above the natural occurrence) were recorded in over 100,000 survivors over the past sixty years -- compared with about 110,000 immediate fatalities in the two atomic bombings. No clinical or even sub-clinical effects were discovered in the survivors' offspring. -- In the Chernobyl area, as assessed by IAEA, only fifteen cancer deaths can be directly attributed to fallout radiation. No radiation-related increase in congenital formations was recorded. Nuclear Conflict -- Possible Scenarios With reference to a possible regional nuclear conflict between a rogue state and a democratic one, the no-winner (mutual assured destruction) scenario is probably false. An analysis by Anthony Cordesman, et al. regarding a possible Israel-Iran nuclear conflict estimated that while Israel might survive an Iranian nuclear blow, Iran would certainly not survive as an organized society. Even though the projected casualties cited in that study seem to us overstated, especially as

regards Israel, the conclusion rings true. Due to the extreme high intensity ("above-conventional") of nuclear conflict , it is

nearly certain that such a war, no matter its outcome, would not last for years, as we have become accustomed to in current low-intensity

conflicts. Rather, we should anticipate a new geo-political reality: the emergence of clear winners and losers within several

days , or at most weeks after the initial outbreak of hostilities. This latter reality will most probably contain fewer nuclear-possessing states

than the former.

No nuke winter – studiesSeitz 2011 (Russell, Harvard University Center for International Affairs visiting scholar, “Nuclear winter was and is debatable,” Nature, 7-7-11, Vol 475, pg37, accessed 9-27-11)Alan Robock's contention that there has been no real scientific debate about the 'nuclear winter' concept is itself debatable (Nature 473,

275–276; 2011). This potential climate disaster , popularized in Science in 1983, rested on the output of a one- dimensional model that was later shown to overestimate the smoke a nuclear holocaust might engender. More refined estimates, combined with advanced three-dimensional models (see http://go.nature.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/kss8te), have dramatically reduced the extent and severity of the projected cooling. Despite this, Carl Sagan, who co-authored the 1983 Science paper, went so far as to posit “the

extinction of Homo sapiens” (C. Sagan Foreign Affairs 63, 75–77; 1984). Some regarded this apocalyptic prediction as an

exercise in mythology . George Rathjens of the M assachusetts I nstitute of T echnology protested: “Nuclear winter

is the worst example of the misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory ,” (see

http://go.nature.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/yujz84) and climatologist Kerry Emanuel observed that the subject had “ become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity” (Nature 319, 259; 1986). Robock's single-digit fall in temperature is at odds with the subzero (about −25 °C) continental cooling originally projected for a wide spectrum of nuclear wars. Whereas Sagan predicted darkness at noon from a US–Soviet nuclear conflict, Robock projects global sunlight that is several orders of magnitude brighter for a Pakistan–India conflict —

literally the difference between night and day. Since 1983, the projected worst-case cooling has fallen from a Siberian deep freeze

spanning 11,000 degree-days Celsius (a measure of the severity of winters) to numbers so unseasonably small as to call the very term 'nuclear winter' into question .

Counterforce targeting checks Mueller 2009 (John, Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies and Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. “Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda” p. 8)To begin to approach a condition that can credibly justify applying such extreme characterizations as societal annihilation, a full-out attack with hundreds, probably thousands, of thermonuclear bombs w ould be required. Even in such extreme

cases , the area actually devastated by the bombs' blast and thermal pulse effects would be limited : 2,000 I-MT explosions with

a destructive radius of 5 miles each would directly demolish less than 5 percent of the territory of the United States, for example. Obviously, if major population centers were targeted, this sort of attack could inflict massive casualties. Back in cold war days, when such devastating events sometimes seemed uncomfortably likely, a number of studies were conducted to estimate the consequences of massive thermonuclear attacks.

One of the most prominent of these considered several possibilities. The most likely scenario --one that could be perhaps be

considered at least to begin to approach the rational-was a "counterforce" strike in which well over 1,000 thermo nuclear

weapons would be targeted at America's ballistic missile silos, strategic airfields, and nuclear submarine bases in an effort to destroy the country's strategic ability to retaliate. Since the attack would not directly target population centers, most of the

ensuing deaths would be from radioactive fallout, and the study estimates that from 2 to 20 million , depending mostly on wind,

weather, and sheltering, would perish during the first month.

Intervening actions check escalation Trachtenberg 2000 (Prof of History, Pennsylvania (Marc, The "Accidental War" Question, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/inadv(1).pdf) The second point has to do with how much risk there really is in situations of this sort. It should not be assumed too readily that states

underestimate the degree to which they lose control of the situation when they engage in a crisis. States can generally pull back from the brink if they really want to; prestige will be sacrificed, but often states are willing to pay that price. The history of

international politics in the century that just ended is full of crises that were liquidated by one side accepting what

amounted to defeat , sometimes even humiliating defeat; and in the July Crisis in 1914, the German government chose at the most critical moment to let the war come rather than press for a compromise solution.9 The key thing here is that in 1914 and 1939 political leaders had not totally lost control, but had chosen to accept war rather than back off in a crisis. Their aversion to war was not overwhelming. But when both sides very much want to avoid a full-scale armed conflict, the story is very different. This was the case during the Cold War. People sometimes seem to assume that peace was hanging by a thread during that conflict, and that we were lucky to make our way through it without a

thermonuclear holocaust. But I don't think this is true at all: and in general I think it is very unlikely that a great war would break out if both sides are determined to avoid it. These arguments about how war could break out almost by accident were frequently made during the Cold War itself--and indeed were made by responsible and experie nced officials. A British document from March 1946, for example, argued that the Soviets did not want war, but the kind of tactics they used with the West might lead to a war that neither side wanted: "although the intention may be defensive, the tactics will be offensive, and the danger always exists that Russian leaders may misjudge how far they can go without provoking war with American or ourselves."10 A year later, a British Foreign Office official warned that the fact that the Soviets had military superiority in Europe might make them careless, and that they might "misjudge what measures can safely be taken without producing a serious crisis." Events might get out of control and a situation might develop that could "lead to disaster."11 What is wrong with this point of view? It assumes that the Soviets would not be cautious, that they would not frame their actions very carefully with an eye to the American reaction, that in deciding how far to go they would not gauge very closely how the Americans reacted to the measures they had taken up to that point. This point of view assumes also that the Soviets would find it very hard to draw back if it became clear that they had overstepped the bounds and had thought the American reaction would not be as vigorous as it in fact was--or indeed that they had not made the mental reservation that they could draw back, in necessary, when they decided to embark on a provocative course of action. Basically the assumption is that the Soviets did not care enough about what a war would entail to take these rather elementary and normal precautions. This point of view also assumes that the American response would be very rigid and "spring-loaded": a slight Soviet infringement, and the Americans immediately take the plunge into general war--as though there are no intermediate measures of a political or military nature that would be taken, no process that would unfold within which the two sides would test each other out before resorting to extreme measures. To my mind, anyone with any sense

should know that things would never move directly and mechanically from initial provocation to full-scale war, that things would unfold almost inevitably in a more complex way -- or, in short, that enough " cushioning " exists in the system to keep relatively minor provocations from leading directly to general war.

2AC Extensions

Inherency

No TED Regs Now

Current regulations insufficientFrady, 12 (Captain Troy Frady owns and operates Distraction Charters in Orange Beach, 12.01.2012, Gulf of Mexico Fish, “TURTLE EXCLUDERS RELAXED” http://www.gomfish.com/2012/12/turtle-excluders-relaxed/, jj)According to NOAA fisheries, the data collected on TED’s this past summer showed that the devices may not prevent small turtles from being

caught in the shrimp nets. According to the press release published by the NOAA Fisheries on November 27, 2012, NOAA is withdrawing a proposed rule to require TED’s for skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls and wing net trawls in the gulf. These are all examples of shallow water or inshore trawling or shrimping devices that we are talking about here. The reason this is important, is because the TEDs required by law did not take into effect that small or juvenile turtles that inhabit shallow waters were simply too small to be safely diverted by the excluder bars on the original device design. Basically, what this means is, small turtles pass through the bars and end up drowning before the operator raises his nets.

2AC A2: Regulations Coming Now, Solves the Aff

Regulations aren’t coming—the Fisheries Service constantly proposes rules then puntsC.B.D., 2/19/14 (Center for Biological Diversity, “Lawsuit Launched to Protect Sea Turtles From Drowning in Shrimp Fishing Nets” http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/sea-turtles-02-19-2014.html, jj)

This new legal action comes just two years after the conservation groups settled another lawsuit, one that sought to address more than 3,500 sea turtles that stranded dead or injured on beaches in the same areas in 2011. The Fisheries Service linked many of those sea turtle deaths and injuries to capture in shrimp fishing nets. Conservation groups settled the litigation with the Fisheries Service, which promised to propose a new

rule to help protect sea turtles. Instead of implementing the rule, the Fisheries Service withdrew it. Since then, the agency has failed to complete a revised analysis of the impacts of shrimp trawling on sea turtles, even after acknowledging previous analyses

were inadequate and did not account for poor compliance with existing regulations. “We had high hopes that we were moving toward a solution for sea turtles, but once again the Fisheries Service has failed to actually implement the protective measures,” said Jaclyn Lopez, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “ The agency

has gotten into a disturbing habit of initiating protections and then stalling them . Every day protections are delayed is another day that these sea turtles face the very real risk of drowning in shrimp nets.”

A2: Time Regulations Check

Trawling time regulations fail—the plan is keyBloch, 13 (Benjamin Alexander-Bloch, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune, 2/28/13, “Federal fisheries official tells shrimpers that new turtle rules are coming” http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/02/federal_fisheries_official_tel.html, jj)

But NOAA observers on Louisiana shrimper boats recently observed that often shrimpers don't comply with such time regulations. Only 35 percent of the observed skimmers followed the 55-minute seasonal tow time limit, with many towing for 2 ½ hours, Barnett said. And, that all was with an observer on board, which

presumably would have made shrimpers more cautious than normal. Also, the time regulations are nearly impossible to enforce. Documenting trawl-time violations requires enforcement personnel to be close enough to observe when a trawl is cast and when it is removed. And while a federal law passed in 1987 already requires that larger shrimp trawl nets – usually used more offshore – have TEDs, a Louisiana law prohibits state wildlife agents from enforcing the federal statute, claiming there is little proof that shrimping is a significant cause of turtle deaths. The National Marine Fisheries Service, in conjunction with state agencies, last year performed necropsies on nearly 1,000 turtles that were stranded – washed ashore or found floating – between March and June 2011, and determined that the strandings largely were caused by healthy turtles being caught in fishing gear.

A2: The Industry Self-Regulates / Voluntary Compliance

Voluntary compliance failsYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

The NMFS had expected that shrimp fishermen would voluntarily adopt the TEDs because these devices reduced bycatch and eliminated waste from the ocean bottom. However, extensive technology transfer efforts by NMFS and Sea Grant, including workshops, demonstrations, and even free TEDs, resulted in only about 2 to 3 percent of the offshore fleet using the devices. n131 By 1986, it was apparent that shrimpers would not voluntarily use TEDs . Therefore, the NOAA attempted a mediated rule-making. The NOAA assembled and presented information on turtle-shrimp trawler interactions, turtle strandings, and basic sea turtle biology and ecology to a group consisting of shrimp industry and environmental community representatives. This team negotiated and agreed to many of the restrictions that would later become law. Only one member refused to endorse the final agreement. n132

Current Regulations Are Insufficient to SolveColin Ricketts, Earth Times, 17 April 2014 “Green Turtles Need Help” http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/help-green-turtles/2584/ Far be it for anybody to prescribe what people should eat. When it comes

to changing diet, though, it must be permissible to persuade local people to adopt better habits. The steep decline in populations since 2008 is traceable to over-fishing. As there is no limit on this "take, obviously there will have t be a severe one. Self-regulation is impossible when there is insufficient contact between turtle eaters, turtle catchers and government.

Uniqueness – Sea Turtles Declining

Sea Turtle Population Declines Now

Shrimp fisheries and long lining are big contributors to the turtle population declineWimarc 8’Wimarc, West Indies Marine Animal Research and Conservation, 2008, “What is the leading cause of death for sea turtles?”, http://www.wimarcs.org/news_LeadingCauseOfSeaTurtleDeaths.html, Accessed: July 3rd, 2014

All seven species of sea turtle worldwide are either threatened or endangered and are protected on local and federal levels. The global decline in sea turtle numbers is due to many causes, including habitat destruction, coastal development, and the poaching of eggs and adult turtles. Historically, the poaching and harvesting of turtles for meat, shells, jewelry, and other products was a leading cause of sea turtle mortality, and contributed greatly to the decline in turtle numbers. With increased protection, education, and the implementation of conservation programs as well as improvements in socioeconomic conditions, this has changed. ¶ Another major contributor to sea turtle deaths historically has been the fishing industry . Hundreds of thousands of turtles have been caught as by-catch, or incidental

catch, by the shrimp fisheries. Turtles caught in shrimp nets were injured, drowned or crushed by machinery. The massive destruction to turtle populations resulted in the development of the TED, or turtle excluder device. TED’s are now mandatory for shrimp boats and serve as an escape hatch for turtles, allowing them to safely exit the net. Although this situation has improved, other commercial fishing practices, such as long lining, are currently responsible for high rates of at-sea turtle mortality. Turtles are commonly caught, entangled, or foul-hooked by lines and drown. As a result, long lining has been banned in many areas. Scientists are also currently investigating the use of different types of hooks for commercial fisheries. This might decrease the amount of by catch and foul-hooking incidents, while still yielding a good catch for the target fish species.

Sea turtle populations are in rapid decline and humans are the causeSea Turtle Inc. 14’Sea Turtle Inc, research company devoted to the study and conservation of sea turtles, “Threats to Sea Turtles”, http://www.seaturtleinc.org/rehabilitation/threats-to-sea-turtles/, Accessed: July 3rd, 2014 A common question we are asked at Sea Turtle, Inc. is “why are sea turtles important?” This is a question with many answers. Sea turtles are important to ocean ecosystems. They maintain marine habitats, help cycle nutrients, and are part of a balanced food web. As they decline, it affects the health of the world’s ocean. It is up to us, as human beings, to be stewards of the environment and work towards conserving our oceans and stabilizing sea turtle populations. You can look up more information on individual species by visiting our About Sea Turtles page.Unfortunately, human impacts are responsible for the rapid decline of sea turtle populations in recent years. It is important that we educate ourselves on the issues that are destroying our oceans and sea turtle populations. If we work to solve these problems, we can create a better marine ecosystem that will be mutually beneficial to humans and animals. Below, some of these issues are discussed. If you have questions about how you, your family, and friends can help, please contact Sea Turtle, Inc. We all love seafood! Unfortunately, fishing gear accidently captures thousands of sea turtles every year. This capture is called “bycatch” and it occurs when fishing equipment (nets, trawls, hooks) catch animals that they were not meant to catch. Historically, shrimp trawls and long-line fishing have been two of the biggest culprits for injuring and killing sea turtles. In 2010, a study conducted by Duke University reported data on marine turtle bycatch for the past 18 years. It showed approximately 85,000 turtles were reported as captured. The study however, only took data from 1% of the total fishing fleets in the ocean. This means that most likely the numbers from those 18

years were in the millions.Today, shrimp trawls are required by U.S. law to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on their boats. TEDs are small gates that allow large animals (turtles, sharks, etc) to escape the back of the trawl, while still capturing small animals like shrimp. However, not all countries or fisherman use these nets and until they do, many more sea turtles will continue to be captured. It is important to for humans to make ecologically responsible decisions when choosing where and from whom we buy our sea food.

Species of turtles are on the brink of extinctionUniversity Of Alabama 13’University of Alabama at Birmingham, February 26th, 2013, “Leatherback sea turtle could be extinct within 20 years at last stronghold in the pacific ocean”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226141233.htm, Accessed: July 3rd, 2014An international team led by the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) has documented a

78 percent decline in the number of nests of the critically endangered leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) at the turtle's last stronghold in the Pacific Ocean.¶ ¶ The study, published online Feb. 26 in the Ecological Society of America's scientific online journal Ecosphere, reveals leatherback nests at Jamursba Medi Beach in Papua Barat, Indonesia -- which accounts for 75 percent of the total leatherback nesting in the western Pacific -- have fallen from a peak of 14,455 in 1984 to a low of 1,532 in 2011. Less than 500 leatherbacks now nest at this site annually.¶ Thane Wibbels, Ph.D., a professor of reproductive biology at UAB and member of a research team that includes scientists from State University of Papua (UNIPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Indonesia, says the largest marine turtle in the world could soon vanish.¶ "If the decline continues, within 20 years it will be difficult if not impossible for the leatherback to avoid extinction," said Wibbels, who has studied marine turtles since 1980. "That means the number of turtles would be so low that the species could not make a comeback.¶ "The leatherback is one of the most intriguing animals in nature, and we are watching it head towards extinction in front of our eyes," added Wibbels.¶ Leatherback turtles can grow to six feet long and weigh as much as 2,000 pounds. They are able to dive to depths of nearly 4,000 feet and can make trans-Pacific migrations from Indonesia to the U.S. Pacific coast and back again.¶ While it is hard to imagine that a turtle so large and so durable can be on the verge of extinction, Ricardo Tapilatu, the research team's lead scientist who is a Ph.D. student and Fulbright Scholar in the UAB Department of Biology, points to the leatherback's trans-Pacific migration, where they face the prevalent danger of being caught and killed in fisheries.¶ "They can migrate more than 7,000 miles and travel through the territory of at least 20 countries, so this is a complex international problem," Tapilatu said. "It is extremely difficult to comprehensively enforce fishing regulations throughout the Pacific."¶ The team, along with paper co-author Peter Dutton, Ph.D., discovered thousands of nests laid during the boreal winter just a few kilometers away from the known nesting sites, but their excitement was short-lived.¶ "We were optimistic for this population when year round nesting was discovered in Wermon Beach, but we now have found out that nesting on that beach appears to be declining at a similar rate as Jamursba Medi," said Dutton, head of the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center's Marine Turtle Genetics Program.¶ The study has used year-round surveys of leatherback turtle nesting areas since 2005, and it is the most extensive research on the species to date. The team identified four major problems facing leatherback turtles: nesting beach predators, such as pigs and dogs that were introduced to the island and eat the turtle eggs; rising sand temperatures that can kill the eggs or prevent the production of male hatchlings; the danger of being caught by fisheries during migrations; and harvesting of adults and eggs for food by islanders.¶

Tapilatu, a native of western Papua, Indonesia, has studied leatherback turtles and worked on their conservation since 2004. His efforts have been recognized by NOAA, and he will head the leatherback conservation program in Indonesia once he earns his doctorate from UAB and returns to Papua.¶ He has worked to educate locals and limit the harvesting of adults and eggs. His primary focus today is protecting the nesting females, eggs and hatchlings. A leatherback lays up to 10 nests each season, more

than any other turtle species. Tapilatu is designing ways to optimize egg survival and hatchling production by limiting their exposure to predators and heat through an extensive beach management program.¶ "If we relocate the nests from the warmest portion of the beach to our egg hatcheries, and build shades for nests in other warm areas, then we will increase hatching success to 80 percent or more," said Tapilatu.¶ "The international effort has attempted to develop a science-based nesting beach management plan by evaluating and addressing the factors that affect hatching success such as high sand temperatures, erosion, feral pig predation and relocating nests to maximize hatchling output," said Manjula Tiwari, a researcher at NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, Calif.¶ Wibbels, who is also the Ph.D. advisor for Tapilatu, says that optimizing hatchling production is a key component to leatherback survival, especially considering the limited number of hatchlings who survive to adulthood.¶ "Only one hatchling out of 1,000 makes it to adulthood, so taking out an adult makes a significant difference on the population," Wibbels said. "It is essentially the same as killing 1,000 hatchlings."¶ The research team believes that beach management will help to decrease the annual decline in the number of leatherback nests, but protection of the leatherbacks in waters throughout the Pacific is a prerequisite for their survival and recovery. Despite their prediction for leatherback extinction, the scientists are hopeful this species could begin rebounding over the next 20 years if effective management strategies are implemented.

Leatherback turtles could go extinct in the near futureOskin 13’Rebecca Oskin, writer for LiveScience, February 27th, 2013, “Pacific Leatherback Turtles Alarming Decline Continues” http://www.livescience.com/27519-pacific-leatherback-turtle-decline.html, Accessed: July 3rd, 2014The Pacific leatherback turtle's last population stronghold could disappear within 20 years if conservation efforts aren't expanded, a new study finds.¶ Most of the Pacific Ocean's leatherback turtles, at least 75 percent, lay their eggs at Bird's Head Peninsula in Papua Barat, Indonesia. The number of leatherback turtle nests at the peninsula's beaches dropped 78 percent between 1984 and 2011, the study discovered.¶ "If the decline continues, within 20 years it will be difficult if not impossible for the leatherback to avoid extinction," Thane Wibbels, a biologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in a statement. "That means the number of turtles would be so low that the species could not make a comeback."

2AC – A2: Sea Turtle Populations Increasing

Err affirmative—it’s difficult to assess turtle population sizes, and their evidence over-emphasizes the number of young turtles as opposed to sexually mature onesQueram, 13 (Kate Elizabeth Queram, Wilmington StarNews, Sun Journal, August 19, 2013, “Sea turtle population appears to be recovering, but how much?” http://www.newbernsj.com/news/local/sea-turtle-population-appears-to-be-recovering-but-how-much-1.189565, jj)

It’s a difficult one to answer. Unlike endangered fish, federal recovery plans for sea turtles don’t rely on increasing population counts to

determine whether a species has rebounded. According to local experts, that’s at least partially because counting the number of turtles in the ocean isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. “Based on what people on the water tell me, there is an increase in young turtles, but that doesn’t mean a population recovery,” said Jean Beasley,

founder of the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center on Topsail Island. “Loggerheads and green turtles, which are our two major species in North Carolina, are not sexually mature until they’re about 35 years old, so those young turtles have to grow up. And these turtles can get in the Atlantic gyre and travel all the way around the hemisphere, so how the heck can anybody assess populations? It is a very, very difficult question to measure.”

Advantage Extensions

Trawling = Key Factor – A2: Alt Causes to Turtle Death

Trawling is key – most recent data proves – that’s Damiano from 2014 – it outweighs other causes

Trawling outweighs their alt causes—it’s the single biggest driver of turtle deathsCenter for Biological Diversity, 2/19/14 (Center for Biological Diversity, “Lawsuit Launched to Protect Sea Turtles From Drowning in Shrimp Fishing Nets” http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/sea-turtles-02-19-2014.html, jj)

“Sea turtles are critically endangered, and no shrimp trawler should be allowed to operate if it can’t prevent the drowning of turtles,” said Teri Shore, program director of Turtle Island Restoration Network. “Any net that can’t prevent turtles from being held underwater and drowning must be prohibited.” “ Shrimp trawls kill more sea turtles than all other sources of mortality in U.S. waters

combined,” said Marydele Donnelly, director of international policy at the Sea Turtle Conservancy. “Nations that export shrimp to the United States are required to protect sea turtles from drowning in their nets, but the U.S. fleet cannot meet these standards right now.”

Trawling is the primary factor, TEDs solveYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

Sea turtles have inhabited the earth for more than 100 million years. n1 However, despite their long history, sea turtles now face

unprecedented threats to their survival . In fact, all but one of the seven species of sea turtles are listed

in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened. n2 The greatest threat to these

animals is probably their incidental catch in shrimp nets. As recently as 1990, a National Academy of

Sciences ( NAS) study concluded that drowning in shrimp trawls "kills more sea turtles than all

other human activities combined ." n3

The chances of sea turtle survival have been enhanced by the development of a shrimp net insert called a turtle excluder device (TED), a contraption similar to a box-shaped cage with a trap door, thought to be effective at

releasing captured sea turtles. The shrimp industry, however, has fought fiercely to prevent the imposition of any regulations requiring TED use.

Alt causes irrelevant—the plan is the most effective way to help sea turtles.Monne, 8 (Alicia Pradas-Monne*, * J.D. 2008, Golden Gate University School of Law, Spring, 2009, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 2 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 273, “COMMENT: A KNOT IN THE LINE: SEA TURTLE BYCATCH REDUCTION PROBLEMS IN THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY” Lexis, jj)

There are two distinct issues entangled in the problem of sea turtle bycatch. First, the direct and detrimental impacts of bycatch threaten the survival of each species of sea turtles. Second, the statutes and regulations designed to protect sea turtles from becoming bycatch are rife with inadequacies that prevent the laws from being effective. These two problems of sea turtle bycatch are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are greatly intertwined and, consequently, so are their solutions.

NMFS correctly recognizes that the incidental capture of sea turtles in fisheries is a primary threat

to the recovery and conservation of sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean . n125 Thus, the most effective way to increase [*287] sea turtle survival is to reduce turtle bycatch numbers by adopting a three-fold approach. First, modify the direct interactions with hooked and entangled sea turtles. Second, amend the current statutes and regulations to enhance the protections already in place. Third, make additional changes to the HMS FMP to further reduce sea turtle bycatch at the fishery level.

Even if other things contribute to turtle mortality, the plan is a meaningful step towards population recoveryYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

Studies conducted between 1973 and 1984 by scientists in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) NMFS

showed that about 48,000 sea turtles were caught in shrimp trawls in the offshore waters of the United States South Atlantic and the Gulf [*269] of Mexico each year. n116 NMFS estimated that over 11,000 of these turtles died because the fishermen used no devices to protect the turtles. n117 These figures indicated that although shrimp trawling, whereby fishermen drag nets up to fifty-five-feet-wide along the ocean floor, n118 is not the only cause of sea turtle mortality, it is the biggest known source caused by man in United States waters. n119

Studies proveYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

In May 1990 the NAS released its Congressionally-mandated study of sea turtles and TEDs. The study found that shrimp trawls are the leading cause of sea turtle deaths at human hands, blaming them for at least 11,000 sea turtle deaths each year. n200 That number could be three to four times higher, however, because that figure includes only ocean deaths, not those in bays, estuaries, and harbors, and it assumes all turtles caught and thrown back survive. n201 The report strongly endorsed the use of TEDs in all shrimping vessels in most places and at most times of the year from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the border between Texas and Mexico in order to reduce the incidental catch and mortality of sea turtles in shrimp nets. n202 Also, the NAS report concluded that ninety-minute tow-time restrictions do not provide sea turtle protection comparable to that provided by TED use. n203 The study recommended forty-minute tows for warm-water months and sixty-minute tows for cold-water months. n204

A2: Oceans Resilient

Group their resiliency arguments—they assume healthy sea turtle populations—that’s Wilson—Sea turtles are a key backstop that guards against cascading ecosystem collapse—sea turtles are key to check jellyfish overpopulation and coral reef collapse, which their evidence doesn’t assume—turtles are THE biggest keystone species

Bio-D key to resilience---species loss snow ballsMills ’10 (Stephanie, renowned author and lecturer on bioregionalism, ecological restoration, community eco-nomics, and voluntary simplicity, “Biodiversity: Peak Nature?” Post Carbon Institute, pg11 , jj)

Given the gravity of the wounds to the planet’s ecosys-tems, future ecosystems are unlikely to resemble those that enlivened Earth during the

Cenozoic era, when mammals and flowering plants came to dominance. Still, humanity will need to learn how to reinhabit post-Cenozoic ecosystems and to participate in them rather than living at their expense. Natural history is the original festival calendar. The sustainable cultures to come are likely to take their diets, occupations, themes, calendars, and boundaries from

their natural surroundings, just as cultures did before imperialism, industrialization, and globalization. The more bio-diversity that remains in our terrains, the more pos-sibilities there will be for discovery, inspiration, and resilience i n this geologic era of our doing. In the Sky Islands wildlands of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, several hopeful ventures in evolutionary diplomacy are under way. Some ranch-ers are restoring creeks in these rugged grasslands, rein-troducing extirpated species from Sonoran mud turtlesto prairie dogs, modifying their range-stocking and grazing practices, and, in some cases,

also reintroduc-ing predators like Mexican wolves, mountain lions, and exceedingly rare jaguars. The ranchers know what’s at stake: “The loss of one species is usually an indicator of an ecosystem out of balance and a larger domino effect to come , to which cattle will also ultimately fall vic-tim.”56More than just a good business or environmen-tal decision, the Sky Islands ranchers’ actions represent a cultural shift toward appreciating that the land’s natural biodiversity has intrinsic value and can ulti-mately add economic value to diversified ranch or farm operations. These foresighted ranchers understand that by shedding the stockman’s historic hostility to preda-tors and managing their lands regeneratively they are strengthening the greater ecosystem on which their livelihood depends.

Eco system recovery will take more than 10 million years – risks total extinction in the short termMills ’10 (Stephanie, renowned author and lecturer on bioregionalism, ecological restoration, community eco-nomics, and voluntary simplicity, “Biodiversity: Peak Nature?” Post Carbon Institute, pg 13, jj)

Naked new volcanic islands born out of the spread-ing seafloor by and by receive bird, plant, spider, and insect colonists that multiply and are eaten or simply die—all becoming soil to host more variations of form and greater diversity. We can take some comfort from such patterns.

Life wants to live. Recovering from mass extinctions is nothing new for planet Earth, although it may take 10 million years or so for such a richly diverse community of organisms to evolve again.

For our part, and for the sake of the world to come, we must become a constituency for wild nature and do everything within our power to mitigate the extinction crisis we are caus-ing (see box 8.2).

A2: Alt Causes to Ocean Health

No impact to their alt causes:

1) Sea turtles solve them—that’s Wilson—they serve as a buffer against destruction of beach dunes, sea-grass beds and coral reefs, while circulating key nutrients—that outweighs the variables they outline

2) The Precautionary principle outweighs—even if other things are hurting the oceans, responsible policy-makers must err on the side of environmental protection—that’s key to prevent ocean collapse—that’s our Yaninek evidence

A2: Alt Caus – Warming Hurts Sea Turtles

1) The plan mitigates the effects of warming—healthy sea turtles maintain the productivity of sea grass beds, allowing the grass to serve as a natural carbon sink. That’s Wilson and Ocean Doctor

2) Global Warming is beneficial to sea turtle populationsWhite 14Mike White, May 18, 2014, The Guardian, “Sea Turtle Female Population Is Growing With Global Warming TrendsRead more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/sea-turtle-female-population-is-growing-with-global-warming-trends/#SQyQ3V7DytsLriVs.99” http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/sea-turtle-female-population-is-growing-with-global-warming-trends/A new study has found that the rising temperatures caused by global warming are beneficial to the population growth of sea turtle populations. However the study also says that if temperatures rise too much that it will systematically cause the sea turtle embryos to die before they hatch. For the time being it seems that the sea turtle female population is growing with global warming trends.Professo r Graeme Hays from Deakin University is a co-author to the research . The study focuses on breeds of sea turtles that are located at the globally important loggerhead turtle rookery that is housed on the Cape Verde Islands which are located in the Atlantic ocean. Even though the study was done in the Atlantic ocean, the lessons learned still apply to other species located in other oceans in other parts of the world, such as the Pacific Ocean. The study found that beaches with more lightly colored sand currently produce a group of sea turtle hatchlings that are 70.1 percent female. The study also found that beaches with sand that is of a darker color produces a group of sea turtle hatchlings that are 93.5 percent female. This proves that the sea turtle female population is growing with global warming trends . Science has taught that the reproductive cycle of a reptile is dependent on the given temperature of the environment. Sea turtles are no exception to this law. The incubation period for a sea turtle embryo is 29 degrees, any higher than that and the ratio of female turtles becomes higher than the ratio of male turtles. Once the temperature rises to the area of 30.5 degrees the sea turtle embryos will then become all female and the male half of the embryos will die off all together. However, if the temperature goes any higher than 33 degrees than all of the sea turtle embryos die. Even with the chance of a population increase, the number of sea turtles that will appear will be small in comparison to the growth that was recorded in past research. An example would be the green sea turtles found in the Caribbean. The population of that particular species is less than one percent of numbers that have been recorded in the past. The research study also stated that even if the sea turtle population continues to balloon over coming decades, sea turtles that have already made it to their adult stage of life will not be in danger for the next 150 years. The findings of the study will attempt to make conservation of the sea turtle species a priority by instructing beaches with regular human traffic to plant more trees or other types of vegetation in order to deter the sand from getting too warm and compromising the sea turtle population. The authoring professor stated that if a beach is going to build a hotel on or near the water, it should cover some areas of the beach where the sand is of a lighter color. Aside from the breeding effects, the effects of global warming are also likely to affect the sea turtle’s feeding sources and make food more scarce for them. This was also stated in the research study. In addition, the rising sea levels are making it even more difficult for sea turtles to find appropriate spots in order to lay their eggs. This is yet another way in which the sea turtle female population is growing with global warming trends. Professor Hays stated that there is still much to be contemplated about the sea turtles and global warming. Sea turtles have swam the earth’s seas for hundreds of millions of years and it is still not known if they can quickly adapt to the changes being brought forth by global warming and climate change.

A2: Sea Turtles Won’t Go Completely Extinct

We don’t have to win sea turtles go totally extinct—just that they become unable to perform vital ecological servicesWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

Sea turtles clearly play important roles in marine ecosystems. Each sea turtle species uniquely affects the diversity, habitat and functionality of its environment. Whether by grazing on seagrass, controlling sponge distribution, feasting on jellyfish, transporting nutrients or supporting other marine life, sea turtles play vital roles in maintaining the health of the oceans. Unfortunately, over the past few centuries, sea turtle populations have experienced significant declines. Before a species goes physically extinct, it can become ecologically extinct. Ecological extinction, which occurs when the number of individuals in a species becomes so small that it is unable to perform its ecological role, happened to green sea turtles in the Caribbean. At the time of Columbus’ voyages to the Caribbean, sea turtles were so abundant that vessels that had lost their way could follow the noise of sea turtles swimming along their migration route and find their way to the Cayman Islands. 93 Current estimates of Caribbean sea turtle populations at that time range from 33 million to 660 million. 94 Greens in the Caribbean consumed such large amounts of seagrass, sponges and jellyfish that their virtual ecological extinction resulted in major changes in the structure and function of the marine ecosystem. 95Sea turtle populations around the world have dwindled in recent centuries and in many places, continue to decline. For some populations, there is risk not only of ecological extinction, but of physical extinction as well. In the words of Aldo Leopold, one of the most influential conservation thinkers of the 20th century, “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”96 Applying this principle to the oceans, quite simply, we need to keep all of the species. Natural resource managers are moving towards an “ecosystem approach” to managing the oceans. The first step in taking an ecosystem approach is to ensure the survival of the key components of the ecosystems, which unequivocally must include sea turtles . The next step is to ensure their populations actually recover. Increased populations of sea turtles are a key step in restoring the balance among ocean species, an essential step toward restoring healthy ocean ecosystems.

EXT – Sea Turtles Solve Extinction

Sea turtles are key to prevent cascading collapse of biodiversity and they’re necessary to advance future life-saving medical and scientific researchDamiano, 14 (DEVON LEA DAMIANO†, † Duke University School of Law, J.D./M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy expected 2014; Princeton University, A.B. 2009, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, “LICENSED TO KILL: A DEFENSE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=dlj, jj)The esthetic value is the enjoyment people get from observing and interacting with flora and fauna.16 The ethical value of preserving biodiversity comes in many forms, depending on one’s ethics. It could be rooted in an inherent “right to exist,”17 or a moral obligation to preserve the earth and its natural resources for future generations. Some religions, like Christianity, also encourage people to practice stewardship over the earth.18

Additionally, biodiversity has an economic value: endangered and threatened species can provide products used by humans, inform scientific or medical research, and contribute to ecosystem services like water filtration, clean air, and healthy soil.19 In 1997, ecological economist Robert Costanza estimated that

the ecosystem services on the planet could be valued at $33 trillion per year , which was significantly greater

than the global gross national product of $18 trillion per year.20 Finally, each species has ecological value because it is interconnected with its predators, prey, competitors, and other aspects of its environment.21 Losing

one species can create a domino effect in the food chain or alter the ecosystem in ways that people

may not be able to predict .22 The argument for protecting sea turtles encompasses all four “e’s.” First, sea turtles are greatly

admired for their esthetic value, and they attract ecotourism in the United States and around the world.23 Second, the ethical and moral reasons to

protect biodiversity generally apply equally to sea turtles. Third, sea turtles provide economic benefits in the form of ecotourism, scientific knowledge, and ecosystem services. For instance, scientists have studied sea turtles’ ability to hold their breath for extended periods of time and their navigational skills, with the hope of finding applications for human use.24 Fourth, sea turtles play a key ecological role in both

the marine and beach ecosystems : they help maintain the health of seagrass beds, which are essential for other marine species, and bring important nutrients onto beaches and dunes.25 It is unlikely that people currently understand all of the value that sea turtles may provide as a key part of the ecosystem. The drafters of the ESA recognized that all forms of life are “potential resources” that “may provide answers to questions which we have not yet learned to ask.”26 Therefore, “[s]heer self-interest impels us to be cautious.”27

Guarantees eco-collapse --- Sea turtles are keystone species – They perform unique ecosystem servicesSea Turtle Survival League 2k [December 22 Sea Turtle Survival League is a conservation group of marine biologists.]

Why should humans care if sea turtles go extinct? There are two major ecological effects of sea turtle extinction. 1. Sea turtles, especially green sea turtles, are one of the very few animals to eat sea grass. Like normal lawn grass, sea grass needs to be constantly cut short to be healthy and help it grow across the sea floor rather than just getting longer grass blades. Sea turtles and manatees act as grazing animals that cut the grass short and help maintain the health of the sea grass beds. Over the past decades, there has been a decline in sea grass beds. This decline may be linked to the lower numbers of sea turtles. Sea grass beds are important because they provide breeding and developmental grounds for many species of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Without sea grass beds, many marine species humans harvest would be lost, as would the lower levels of the food chain. The reactions could result in many more marine species being lost and eventually impacting humans. So if sea turtles go extinct, there would be a serious decline in sea grass beds and a decline in all the other species dependant upon the grass beds for survival. All parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow. 2. Beaches and dune systems do not get very many nutrients during the year,

so very little vegetation grows on the dunes and no vegetation grows on the beach itself. This is because sand does not hold nutrients very well. Sea turtles use beaches and the lower dunes to nest and lay their eggs. Sea turtles lay around 100 eggs in a nest and lay between 3 and 7 nests during the summer nesting season. Along a 20 mile stretch of beach on the east coast of Florida sea turtles lay over 150,000 lbs of eggs in the sand. Not every nest will hatch, not every egg in a nest will hatch, and not all of the hatchlings in a nest will make it out of the nest. All the unhatched nests, eggs and trapped hatchlings are very good sources of nutrients for the dune vegetation, even the left over egg shells from hatched eggs provide some nutrients. Dune vegetation is able to grow and become stronger with the presence of nutrients from turtle eggs. As the dune vegetation grows stronger and healthier, the health of the entire beach/dune ecosystem becomes better. Stronger vegetation and root systems helps to hold the sand in the dunes and helps protect the beach from erosion. As the number of turtles declines, fewer eggs are laid in the beaches, providing less nutrients. If sea turtles went extinct, dune vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would not be as healthy and would not be strong enough to maintain the dunes, resulting in increased erosion. Once again, all parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow. Sea turtles are part of two ecosystems, the beach/dune system and the marine system. If sea turtles went extinct, both the marine and beach/ dune ecosystems would be negatively affected. And since humans utilize the marine ecosystem as a natural resource for food and since humans utilize the beach/dune system for a wide variety of activities, a negative impact to these ecosystems would negatively affect humans.

Sea turtles are keyNational Geographic 14http://education.nationalgeographic.com/archive/xpeditions/lessons/08/g35/seasshark.html?ar_a=1A keystone species is a species that has a major influence on the structure of an ecosystem. Its presence

impacts many other members of the ecosystem, and if its population dwindles or disappears, there can be far-reaching consequences for the ecosystem. Tiger sharks inhabit temperate and tropical waters worldwide and are a keystone species in some ecosystems,

including Shark Bay in Western Australia. Tiger sharks in Shark Bay are extremely important in regulating populations of green sea turtles and dugongs, both

of which feed on the rich sea grass in this region. Tiger sharks thus indirectly keep sea grass from being overgrazed and help maintain the grass at levels necessary for the success of the ecosystem as a whole, which relies on the sea grass for much of its nourishment.

If sea turtles go extinct so would weSea Turtle Conservancy 14http://www.conserveturtles.org/sea-turtle-information.php?page=whycareaboutseaturtlesSea turtles, especially green sea turtles, are one of the very few animals to eat sea grass. Like normal lawn grass, sea grass needs to be constantly cut short to be healthy and help it grow across the sea floor rather than just getting longer grass blades. Sea turtles and manatees act as grazing animals that cut the grass short and help maintain the health of the sea grass beds. Over the past decades, there has been a decline in sea grass beds. This decline may be linked to the lower numbers of sea turtles. Sea grass beds are important because they provide breeding and developmental grounds for many species of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Without sea grass beds, many marine species humans harvest would be lost, as would the lower levels of the food chain. The reactions could result in many more marine species being lost and eventually

impacting humans. So if sea turtles go extinct, there would be a serious decline in sea grass beds and a decline in all the other species dependant upon the grass beds for survival. All parts of an

ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow.

EXT – Yes Oceans Impact

Relative probability analysis proves—can’t gamble on oceansKunich 5 – Professor of Law @ Roger Williams University School of Law [John Charles Kunich, “ARTICLE: Losing Nemo: The Mass Extinction Now Threatening the World's Ocean Hotspots,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 2005, 30 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1

On the other hand, there is an unimaginable cost from failing to preserve the marine hotspots if they contain numerous species of high value at great risk of extinction. We could cost ourselves and our posterity untold advancements in medicine, therapies, genetic resources, nutrients, ecosystem services, and other areas, including perhaps a cure to a global health threat that might not materialize until

centuries from now... truly a "grave error" of the first order . [*128] But if we sit on the sidelines and fail to

invest in hotspots preservation, and we "get lucky" (few species, low value, small extinction risk), our only gain is in the

form of saving the money and effort we could have spent on the hotspots. Even if this amounts to several billion dollars a year, it is a small benefit compared to the incalculably catastrophic losses we could suffer if we guess wrong in betting on the inaction option.¶ The Decision Matrix actually under-represents the extent to which the rational decision is to invest in hotspots preservation. Because the Decision Matrix, in tabular form, devotes equal space to each of the sixteen possible combinations of extreme variable values, it can mislead readers into thinking that each of the sixteen outcomes is equally probable. This is most emphatically not the case. Some of these results are far more probable than others. This problem of apparent equality of disparate results is of the same type as a chart that depicts a person's chances of being fatally injured by a plummeting comet on the way home from work on any given day. There are only two possible results in such a table (survives another day, or killed by meteor), and they would occupy an equal amount of tabular space on the printed page, but the probability of the former outcome is, thankfully, much higher than the likelihood of the latter tragic event.¶ As explained in this Article, it is much more likely that there are numerous, even millions, of unidentified species currently living in the marine

hotspots than that these hotspots are really not centers of profuse biodiversity. It is also very probable that the extinction

threat in our oceans is real , and significant , given what we know about the horrific effects wrought on coral

reefs and other known marine population centers by overfishing, pollution, sedimentation, and other human-made stressors.

n525 Recent discoveries have revealed very high rates of endemism in small areas such as seamounts, which are extremely vulnerable to trawl damage. n526 Even in the deep ocean areas, there is evidence that new technologies are making it both a possibility and a reality to exploit the previously unexploitable biodiversity in these waters via [*129] demersal fishing/trawling, to devastating effect. n527 Only a truly Orwellian brand of doublethink could label as progress the development of fishing methods that do to the benthic habitats what modern clearcutting has done to so many forests, only on a scale 150 times as severe, but it is this "progress" that has brought mass extinction to the seas. n528 However, there is also the positive side, in light of the large numbers of marine species and habitat types, including life forms adapted to extraordinary niches such as hydrothermal vents and the abyss. That is, it would be surprising if there were not highly valuable genetic resources, natural medicines, potential sources of food, and other boons waiting to be discovered there.¶ Therefore, the results that are linked to high, rather than low, values of

each of the three variables are far more probable than the converse outcomes. In terms of probabilities, it is much more likely that either a "first order grave error" or "first order jackpot" will occur than a "lucky wager" or an "unused insurance" result. In fact, all of the combinations with either two or three "high" values of the variables are significantly more probable that any of the combinations with two or three "low" variable values. This means that the tilt in favor

of betting on the hotspots is much more pronounced than is apparent from a cursory glance at the Decision Matrix. The extreme results are far likelier to fall in favor of hotspots preservation than the opposit e .

Preserving US marine ecosystems is key to human survival Craig 03—Associate Dean for Environmental Programs @ Florida State University [Robin Kundis Craig, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values—the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide—coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function

that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary

elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the

planet's ability to support life .

Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860

Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea—and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring—

even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem

should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can—

especially when the U nited States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that

may be unique in the world .

Turtles Good – Beach Dunes

Sea turtles key to the stability of beach dune habitatsWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

Sea turtle eggs directly and indirectly affect the vegetation, species distribution and stability of sandy shorelines. By supplying a concentrated source of high-quality nutrients, sea turtles improve their nesting beaches. 25 Limited nutrients in dune ecosystems, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, are partially provided to the ecosystem by unhatched sea turtle eggs. These vital

nutrients allow for the continued growth of vegetation and subsequent stabilization of beach

dunes . 26 Plant growth not only helps to stabilize the shoreline, but also provides food for a variety of plant eating animals and therefore can influence species distribution. 27 Sea turtle eggs also provide a food source for many predators, which in turn redistribute nutrients among dunes through their feces. 28 These nutrients aid the growth of vegetation and stabilization of the dunes . By contributing nutrients to beach ecosystems, sea turtles help to stabilize dunes, and therefore their own nesting habitat. 29

Turtles Good – Genetic Diversity

Sea turtles key to genetic diversity and the survival of multiple speciesWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

The loggerhead’s transatlantic migration to the Mediterranean is believed to play a key role in expanding the barnacle’s range and genetic diversity . 82 Species associated with a host, such as

sea turtles, are important to generating and maintaining diversity throughout the world’s oceans .

83 Continued loss of loggerheads and other sea turtle species means a decrease in available

substrate for the growth and livelihood of such marine diversity . 84In the open ocean, miles from shore, sea turtles offer an oasis to fish and seabirds. Similar to floating debris, sea turtles can be used as a place to rest, a foraging ground and even a safe haven from potential predators. Of all the sea turtle species, olive ridleys are most frequently associated with seabirds, particularly in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. 85 As they surface to bask in the sun, olive ridleys expose the center of their shell and create a platform for seabirds to perch. 86 Some seabirds take advantage of this opportunity to roost if their feathers are not extremely water-resistant. 87 By

perching on sea turtles, seabirds that would otherwise be vulnerable to attack, find refuge from

sharks . 88 Small baitfish also use sea turtles for protection, by forming tight schools beneath the turtle’s body. 89 These schools of fish then provide a food source for resting seabirds. 90 Some seabirds occasionally feed on epibionts inhabiting the sea turtle’s shell. 91 By offering a location to

roost, feast and hide, sea turtles represent an important resource for birds and fish at sea . 92

Turtles Good – Food Source

Sea turtles are a key source of food—decline throws marine ecology out of balanceWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

By carrying around barnacles, algae and other similar organisms known as epibionts, sea turtles provide a food source for fish and shrimp. Other organisms, such as sheeps head bream, 40wrasse, 41 angelfish and barber pole shrimp, 42 establish “cleaning stations” for sea turtles to visit. With outstretched limbs and a raised head, sea turtles expose their bodies, offering a meal to eager fish and shrimp. 43 This behavior not only feeds smaller organisms, but also benefits sea turtles by reducing drag and keeping their skin and shells clean. 44 Schools of fish can be seen cleaning sea turtles while they sleep or even following aggregations of sea turtles in transit. 45 Some species obtain their diet

strictly from epibionts found on sea turtles . 46Without this food source, certain species of fish and shrimp might be forced to develop other, less successful methods for obtaining food.All sea turtle species are also prey, providing food for other animals, both on shore and at sea. Like many marine organisms, sea turtles are most vulnerable to predation as eggs, hatchlings and juveniles. A long list of terrestrial animals – ants, crabs, rats, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, feral cats, dogs, mongoose and vultures – are known to dig up unhatched nests. The eggs provide a nutrient-rich source of food for these predators. As hatchlings emerge from the nest, they provide another feeding opportunity for natural predators, which includes a variety of seabirds. While most seabirds are daytime predators, species such as the night heron actually listen for hatchlings emerging from nests. 47 If the hatchlings make it to the water, they face continued predation from seabirds with an aerial view of the tiny turtles as they float near the surface. 48 Reef fish, such as grouper and jacks, are also common predators of both hatchlings and juvenile sea turtles. 49 In fact, one study of green sea turtles in Australia showed that up to 97 percent of hatchlings are eaten within the first hour of entering the water. 50 Clearly, hatchlings provide a significant source of protein for nearshore predatory fish. As sea turtles grow, the risk of predation decreases. 51 Adult sea turtles have very few natural predators other than killer whales and sharks. Tiger sharks are known to prey upon green sea turtles and great whites have been documented preying on both green and loggerhead sea turtles. 52,53

Loggerhead Key

Loggerhead turtles are keystone species – key to global marine ecosystems.Coastal Breeze, 8-23-2012, locally owned and operated bi-weekly community newspaper, “Sea Turtle Tidbits,” http://www.coastalbreezenews.com/2012/08/23/sea-turtle-tidbits-6/

There are five species of sea turtles that nest on Florida’s beaches. The most common is the loggerhead. The green turtle and leatherback are also found frequenting beaches throughout the state. The Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill sea turtles nest in Florida but not very

often. All five species are listed as either threatened or endangered under the E ndangered S pecies A ct. Sea turtles are

considered to be a keystone species within their ecosystems. The extinction of any one of the many sea turtle

species would affect many other organisms within both beach systems and marine systems. Loggerhead sea turtles are considered a keystone species because their eggs actually nourish grass dunes along beaches. They are often referred to as floating reefs because their shells act as a home to as many as 100 different

species such as barnacles, small fish, algae and shrimp. The green sea turtle is essential to the health of sea

grass beds. Those that are grazed by the green sea turtle are much healthier and balanced than beds that are not. Hawksbill turtles are

known for eating sponges which prevents them from overtaking slower growing corals in reef systems. Sea turtles also eat jellyfish ,

helping to stabilize their population. The necessity of the sea turtle is recognized by The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. It coordinates two different sea turtle monitoring programs: the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey and the Index Nesting Beach Survey. Both programs track nesting data in hopes of understanding and promoting the overall health of the sea turtle.

Loggerheads are key to global marine biodiversity – they are the keystone of the ocean.James R. Spotila, 10-26-2004, holds the Betz Chair of Environmental Science at Drexel University, where he is also director of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, “Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide to Their Biology, Behavior, and Conservation,” http://books.google.com/books?id=dpsJrFxVIvUC&dq=Loggerhead+turtle+keystone&source=gbs_navlinks_s

A juvenile loggerhead drifts along the Florida coast of the United States. The state boasts the largest and best protected population of

loggerheads in the world. Keystone of the Ocean The loggerhead turtle is a keystone species in the

world’s oceans . As a carnivore it plays a central role in the food chain and is dependent upon the invertebrate

populations that form the vast majority of its food supply. Loggerheads process large numbers of invertebrate prey, breaking

up the shells of mollusks such as conchs, whelks, and clams. Some of the broken shells pass through the turtle’s digestive system and some fall back to the bottom. The small pieces of shell are thus available for other animals to eat as a source of calcium . By digging around on the bottom, loggerheads change ocean bottom communities both in physical structure and the living biological ecosystem. This may control the community organization of the areas in which the turtles forage. Nesting females transfer substantial amounts of nutrients—their eggs—to the terrestrial ecosystems around nesting breaches. For example, up to 28 percent of the energy and 26 percent of the nitrogen

placed into Florida egg clutches are transferred to predators. A substantial number of hatchlings become food for fish and birds as the hatchlings

swim away form the nesting beach. Essentially, loggerheads are swimming reefs. They support a large array of plants and animals that attach to their shells and ride through the oceans with the turtles. More than 100 species of animals from 13 phyla and 37 kinds of algae live on the backs of loggerheads. This baggage increases drag, requiring extra energy to swim. It is not clear if there is any benefit to the turtle from this association, though the varied community of plants an animals on the carapace may provide some camouflage.

Solvency

2AC – A2: TEDs Fail

TEDs are 97 percent effective and have no downsidesYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

TEDs are an effective way of virtually eliminating the greatest human-induced cause of sea turtle

mortality: shrimp trawling . Statistics show that the devices are 97 percent effective at preventing

sea turtle capture and are far more efficient at reducing sea turtle mortality than are limited tow-

times . Experience with TEDs since their implementation has shown that, despite shrimpers's claims to the contrary, the devices do not result in excessive shrimp catch losses, gear loss, or injury. Moreover, TEDs rarely clog and specific TEDs have been developed to even further decrease the chance of clogging. An added benefit of TEDs is that they reduce bycatch, a serious problem threatening the marine environment that is resulting in reduced fishery stocks throughout the world.

TEDs save juvenile and adult turtles—that’s key to their survivalCenter for International Environmental Law, ’99 (“AMICUS BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE BODY ON UNITED STATES – IMPORT PROHIBITION Of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products” http://www.ciel.org/Publications/shrimpturtlebrief.pdf, jj)

2.1.4 Shrimp trawling kills sea turtles at a life stage critical to the maintenance and recovery of sea turtles populations. TEDs provide

the best available means to protect large juvenile and adult sea turtles, which are critical to species

survival . The protection of large juvenile and adult sea turtles is essential because they contribute most significantly to population growth, according to a scientific review of the mortality and conservation status of sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic by the National Academy of Sciences.30 For example, the reproductive value of one adult female loggerhead that nests in the United States was estimated to be 584 27 Sea Turtle Conservation Strategy, in BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF SEA TURTLES 568 (Karen A. Bjorndal ed., 1982) (emphasis added). 28 Marine Turtle Specialist Group, IUCN, A Global Strategy for the Conservation of Marine Turtles, 8 (1995). 29 Eckert, supra note 24, at 611. See also COLIN J. LIMPUS, supra note 15, at 605-610. times more valuable than that

of a hatchling turtle because of the extremely high mortality rate of young turtles over the many years to maturity.31 Because large juveniles and adults are also the group most often killed in shrimp trawls, the National Academy of Sciences report recommended “mandatory use of TEDs at most places at most times of the year.”32

Plan is easy to enforce and verify complianceSteering Committee, Bellagio Conference on Sea Turtles, 2004, “What Can be Done to Restore Pacific Turtle Populations?” Pg 4, google books, jjFishing mortality can be reduced by new technologies, as demonstrated by the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDS) on trawl nets and circle hooks and bait on long lines Technology standards, when combined with reductions in turtle mortality from other sources, such as through nesting site protection, can contribute to the recovery of sea turtle populations. In contrast to many types of regulations, technology standards are comparatively easy to achieve compliance through monitoring and

verification, since only a relatively quick inspection is required . New technologies to reduce sea turtle takes from fishing also permit the creativity of fishers to have full play. When consistently applied, they also have the potential to restructure the incentives for nations in such a way that both compliance and participation in this conservation initiative increase. The potential for increased participation (and hence reduction in free riding) in the conservation initiative, along with increased compliance, could even lead to reductions in sea turtle mortality that outweigh other conservation approaches that on paper may appear to be more effective, but in practice are not, due to problems of compliance, participation, and free riding on others' conservation efforts. Adoption of these technology standards does not preclude adoption of other conservation initiatives, and

in addition, research and extension programs can continue to refine and implement these technology standards. a. In coastal shrimp fisheries, turtle excluder devices or “TEDS' are a grid and trapdoor installed inside a trawling net that, while allowing shrimp to pass to the back of the net, direct sea turtles out and thereby reduce sea turtle bycatch by up to 97 per cent.

The plan is the best method to conserve sea turtlesCommittee on Sea Turtle Conservation, 90 (Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation, National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Commission on Life Sciences, National Academies Press, Jan 1, 1990, “Decline of the Sea Turtles:: Causes and Prevention” google books, pg 14, jj)

Trawl-related mortality must be reduced to conserve sea turtle populations , especially loggerheads

and Kemp’s ridleys. The best method currently available (short of preventing trawling) is the use of TEDs .

Therefore, although the waters off northern Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas arc most critical, the committee recommends the use of TEDs in bottom trawls at most places and most times of the year from Cape Hatteras to the Texas- Mcxico border. At the few places and times where TEDs might be ineffective (e.g., where there is a great deal of debris), alternative conservation measures for shrimp trawling might include tow-time regulations under very specific controls, and area and time closures, as discussed in Chapter 7. Available data suggest that limiting tow times to 40 minutes in summer and 60 minutes in winter would yield sea turtle survival rates that approximate those required for approval of a new TED design. Restrictions could be relaxed where turtles are and historically have been rare."

Empirical evidence provesSea Turtle Conservancy, ‘3 (Proposed TED Rule Would Better Protect Sea Turtles, http://www.conserveturtles.org/velador.php?page=velart42a, jj)

Studies conducted between 1994 and 1999 first documented the failure of TEDs to protect the larger sea turtles. New rules have been delayed for years due a variety of reasons, including politics, resistance by the shrimp industry, and bureaucratic obstacles.

The result has been the needless loss of tens of thousands of sea turtles . However, the new rules are proof that a

diversity of stakeholders can eventually work together for the long-term benefit of threatened and endangered sea turtles. CCC commends the

many NMFS personnel who worked hard to shepherd these regulations through to completion. TEDs do protect turtles , when

properly installed and used. Since 1990, TEDs have been an effective tool in protecting smaller turtles, especially endangered Kemp’s ridleys and juvenile green turtles. It’s not unrealistic to speculate that recent increases in Kemp’s ridley nesting are due, at least in part, to the use of TEDs. It is also possible that the increase in green turtle nesting in Florida is linked in some way to the implementation of TED rules in 1990. With the passage of these new rules, TEDs should help ensure a brighter future for all sea turtles.

More evDamiano, 14 (DEVON LEA DAMIANO†, † Duke University School of Law, J.D./M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy expected 2014; Princeton University, A.B. 2009, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, “LICENSED TO KILL: A DEFENSE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=dlj, jj)

NMFS calculates that approved, properly installed TEDs allow 95–98 percent of sea turtles to escape from the trawls61 and result in minimal loss of shrimp.62 Based on this calculation, the consistent use of TEDs in the Louisiana shrimp fishery would save thousands of endangered and threatened sea turtles each year63 and help species, like the highly endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, continue to recover from the brink of extinction.64

A2: TED’s Fail – Seaweed Clogging

No impact to seaweed cloggingYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

Opponents to TEDs have also claimed that the devices will not work because they will become clogged with seaweed and debris from the ocean bottom. This has been a special concern of shrimpers in the [*290] Gulf of Mexico. However, a NOAA study has indicated that TED-equipped nets foul

only about 4 percent more than nets without the devices . n286 Also, there were only twenty claims involving damaged or lost TEDs submitted to the Fishermen's Contingency Fund (FCF) n287 each year during 1990 and 1991 n288 Moreover, several TEDs, including the Anthony weedless TED, have been specifically designed to deal with sea grass and algae problems. n289

A2: Federal Government Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction Over States

USFG can regulate state sea turtle practicesHOUSTON CHRONICLE, 10 (4/27, “Endangered turtle advocates ask for shrimp-trawling halt” http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Endangered-turtle-advocates-ask-for-730977.php, jj)

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department increased its inspection of shrimp nets Friday after being contacted by NOAA special agents late last week about the spike in turtle deaths, said Mike Ray deputy division director for the department's coastal fisheries. “There's a bunch of effort on the water, and there has been for several days,” Ray said. He said as of Monday shrimp had been confiscated from at least one trawler operating with an improperly installed TED. Department staff will try to determine whether shrimping needs to be curtailed to prevent further Kemp's ridley deaths, Ray said. Dead turtles typically wash ashore this time of year as the nesting season begins and turtles return to the northern Gulf as the weather warms, Ray said. “This is bigger than normal, much bigger,” he said about the number of turtle deaths. “Trawling can cause it, but it can be other things.” The state's jurisdiction

extends 9 nautical miles from shore, but the federal government also has jurisdiction.

A2: No Compliance

Fiat means the plan is enforced

Enforcement being stepped up nowEilperin, 11 (Juliet Eilperin joined The Washington Post as the House of Representatives reporter, where she covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, lobbying, legislation, and four national congressional campaigns. Since April of 2004 she has covered the environment for the national desk, reporting on science, policy and politics in areas including climate change, oceans, and air quality. May 25, 2011, Washington Post, “Shrimping, not oil, causes hundreds of turtles to strand in the gulf” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/shrimping-not-oil-causes-hundreds-of-turtles-to-strand-in-the-gulf/2011/05/25/AGmOPXBH_story.html, jj)“We’re not satisfied with the level of compliance that we’re seeing, and we’re putting our emphasis on improved enforcement and outreach to the shrimp industry,” said Roy Crabtree, administrator for NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Region. “And we’re going to get this fixed.”

NOAA is fixing compliance issues now—it’s just a question of extending applicability of the regulations to state watersBob Berwyn, Summit County Citizens Voice, 6/27/11, “Biodiversity: Feds eye tougher rules to protect sea turtles” http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/06/27/biodiversity-feds-eye-tougher-rules-to-protect-sea-turtles/In other efforts to increase compliance, NOAA’s Fisheries Service gear experts and enforcement personnel have hosted several turtle excluder device workshops throughout the Gulf states to provide information and assistance to fishermen on federal requirements and proper installation of the devices. These experts have conducted numerous courtesy inspections on the docks and at-sea to improve compliance within the Gulf shrimp fishery. NOAA is also actively working to improve compliance by conducting numerous enforcement patrols throughout the Gulf. “Violations of turtle excluder device requirements are being documented, and warnings and citations issued,” said Alan Risenhoover, acting director of NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Law Enforcement. “These actions, combined with increased visibility on the water and outreach on the docks, seem to be resulting in increased compliance.” The shrimp industry has also directly reached out to its members to provide information about turtle excluder device compliance. The Southern Shrimp Alliance scheduled more than a dozen meetings to inform its members that turtle excluder device compliance is a serious issue, stressing the importance of proper installation and maintenance.

Solvency – Plan Closes Loophole

Plan creates a universal TED requirement—that solvesBarnette, 12 (Michael Barnette, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, July 2, 2012, “Sea turtles caught in shrimp nets” http://www.environmenttexas.org/blogs/blog/txe/sea-turtles-caught-shrimp-nets, jj)

The implementation of a rule requiring TEDs will help sea turtles continue their long reign on this planet far into the future; based on fossil records, sea turtles have already been around for over 150 million years. Today, there are seven different species of sea turtles: the Leatherback, Hawksbill, Kemp’s Ridley, Olive Ridley, Green, Flatback, and Loggerhead2. The beaches of Texas host the Loggerhead and occasionally the Kemp’s Ridley and Green species of turtles, providing sands for the turtles to nest in during the nesting season from mid-April to late August3. Sea turtles are prevalent throughout all hospitable Texas beaches. Sea turtles are interesting and majestic creatures, dazzling us with their graceful movements in the water and their signature beach crawl. Sea turtles also play a very important role in the aquatic and beach ecosystems they are a part of. On average, female sea turtles lay around 100 eggs in beach sands on one occasion, yet usually only one of these eggs survives to adulthood. The eggs that fail to hatch remain in the sand and decompose, providing nutrients for vegetation that prevents damaging erosion of the beach1. Sea turtles have also provided a source of economic growth for the eco-

tourism industries in various coastal states, creating jobs and providing livelihoods. However, every species of sea turtles is endangered, and their risk of extinction is increasing with each passing day. One unnecessary risk to sea turtles is death by drowning in shrimp nets. Last year during shrimp season, approximately 3,585 sea turtles washed ashore dead due to drowning4. Turtle excluder devices (TED) are attached to the nets that shrimp vessels use to make their catch and allow sea

turtles and other by-catch to escape if they are trapped. The TED is similar to a filter that allows small things (like shrimp) to pass through, but prevents larger things (like sea turtles) from passing through. When a sea turtle does come into contact with a net attached to a TED, the sea turtle is able to escape the confines of the net. Considering that around 28,000

sea turtles per year are captured in the nets of shrimp vessels, a TED is of upmost importance to turtle death-free commercial shrimping5. In spite of the invention and implementation of TEDs in shrimp trawls, thousands of sea turtles continue to

drown in shrimp nets and wash ashore each year. When the U.S. mandated trawls to be equipped with a TED in 1987, certain types of trawls were not required to make the change, such as the skimmer, pusher-net, and butterfly trawls. With these three trawls, fishermen are permitted to forego the use of the TED and instead, bring their nets to surface more often, every 55 minutes, to check for by-catch6. However, this rule is difficult to enforce. In Texas, the skimmer trawl is illegal to use, but the pusher-net and butterfly trawls are permitted. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department does not manage an observer program that would focus on preventing the death of by-catch in shrimp nets, and Texas fishermen are not required to keep any record of turtle encounters7.

Therefore, it is likely that many sea turtles unnecessarily perish off the coast of Texas every year. The accurate use of the TED can prevent these deaths from occurring in the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and help to save the endangered Sea Turtle!

The plan closes the loophole which allows shrimpers to avoid using TEDs by fishing in shallow, state waters.Sea Turtle Camp 12 (Closing the loophole on sea turtle bycatch, http://www.seaturtlecamp.com/blog/2012/05/10/closing-the-loophole-on-sea-turtle-bycatch/, jj)

While legislation in the 1980s requiring mandatory use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) went a long way to protect sea turtle populations, a loophole was established that has continued to inhibit conservation efforts. A current proposal from the National Marine Fisheries Service seeks to correct this loophole, ensuring the Gulf and Atlantic waters will be a little safer for marine species. While TEDs became mandatory on large trawling vessels, primarily those used in the shrimp industry, smaller boats with different equipment were excluded. Instead of using the excluder devices they were required to shorten the nets soak time. From April 1 through October 31 the tow time restriction is 55 minutes and from November 1 through March 31 it extends to 75 minutes. In theory, this shortened soak time will allow turtles to be removed in enough time for them to recover. However, trends in the Gulf seem to indicate the contrary. The last two years have seen over 1,100 dead turtles wash up in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (644 in 2010 and 525 in 2011). Those specimens that were not too degraded were necropsied. Results indicated that the most likely cause of death was drowning, most likely in shrimp nets. These numbers only represent the turtles that were collected; there are undoubtedly many, many more that decomposed at sea and were never accounted for.

More ev—solves thousands of turtle deathsSTRP, 11 (Sea Turtle Restoration Project, 5/27, “Gulf Skimmer Trawls - the Deadly Loophole Around Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs)” http://seaturtles.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1827, jj)

Shrimping with skimmer trawls greatly increased in all Gulf States over the past decade because these vessels work well in shallow Gulf waters and TEDs are not required on them. In 2009, over 6,000 skimmer trawls were licensed for shrimping in Louisiana alone. Thousands of vessels are shrimping without TEDs in the Gulf and posing a serious threat to the survival of the world’s most endangered sea turtle, the Kemp’s ridley. This combined with only 40 percent compliance with and lack of enforcement of TEDs laws in the U.S. results in 25,000 or more sea turtles still captured and killed in the U.S. shrimp fisheries every year.

US Modeled

US leadership gets other countries on board – “follow-the-leader” effectBache ‘5Sali Jayne, professor @ the School of Government @ the University of Tasmania, “Marine Policy Development: The Impact of Flagship Species”, http://www.marecentre.nl/mast/documents/Mast-2004p.241-272.pIt is, however, well recognised that ‘in the field of international environmental diplomacy, progressive policies of individual nations can serve as a catalyst to global awareness and

consensus’ (Kibel 1996:61). This does not necessarily require direct action by one state against another.

Rather, it has been shown that historically environmental progress has benefited from a ‘ follow-

the-leader’ dynamic confirming to higher standards (Shrybman 1991-92).¶ Where such a process of emulation does not occur, there are two options by which a nation state may actively work towards the internationalisation of a domestic goal. A country can attempt to negotiate a settlement or treaty with other states, so as to create an acceptable international benchmark, or else it can try to impose its will upon other nations through unilateral action, commonly either by military force, trade sanctions, or by granting or withholding assistance (Spracker and Lundsgaard 1993). Different operational alternatives each have benefits and shortfalls for agen- ¶ cies or states. A nation state may choose to pursue several of these options to further a goal. Alternatively, where there is no specific directive from central leadership, domestic agencies of state may concurrently pursue different objectives through different means in several fora.

Add Ons

2AC – Environmental Leadership

The plan is key to assert U.S. environmental leadership at international institutions like the W.T.O.New York Times, ‘98 (4/10., “The Sea Turtle's Warning” http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/10/opinion/the-sea-turtle-s-warning.html, jj)

Environmentalists worry that the ruling is merely a prelude to a broader assault on other United States laws authorizing economic sanctions to protect endangered species and prevent overfishing of the oceans. Whether or not they are right, the W.T.O.'s thinking clearly needs broadening. The Clinton Administration is under a special obligation here. When the United States agreed to join the W.T.O. in 1994, Americans were assured that mechanisms were in

place to guard the environment. But the W.T.O.'s committee on environmental issues, which is supposed to

weigh in on matters like the sea turtle, has been ineffectual, in part because the United States has

failed to exercise leadership.

That solves extinctionAshok Khosla 9, IUCN President, International Union for Conservation of Nature, A new President for the United States: We have a dream, 1-29-09, http://cms.iucn.org/news_events/?uNewsID=2595

A rejuvenated America , with a renewed purpose, commitment and energy to make its contribution once again towards a better world could well be the turning point that can reverse the current decline in the state of the global economy, the health of its life support systems and the morale of people everywhere. This extraordinary change in regime brings with it the promise of a deep change in attitudes and aspirations of Americans, a change that will lead,

hopefully, to new directions in their nation’s policies and action. In particular, we can hope that from being a very reluctant partner in global discussions, especially on issues relating to environment and sustainable development, the U nited S tates will become an active leader in international efforts to address the

Millennial threats now confronting civilization and even the survival of the human species . For the

conservation of biodiversity, so essential to maintaining life on Earth , this promise of change has come not a moment too soon. It would be a mistake to put all of our hopes on the shoulder of one young man, however capable he

might be. The environmental challenges the world is facing cannot be addressed by one country, let alone by one man. At the same time, an inspired US President guided by competent people, who does not shy away from exercising the true responsibilities and leadership his country is capable of, could do a lot to spur the international community into action. To paraphrase one of his illustrious predecessors, “the world asks for action and action now.” What was true in President Roosevelt’s America 77 years ago is even more appropriate today. From IUCN’s perspective, the first signals are encouraging. The US has seriously begun to discuss constructive engagement in climate change debates. With Copenhagen a mere 11 months away, this commitment is long overdue and certainly very welcome. Many governments still worry that if they set tough standards to control carbon emissions, their

industry and agriculture will become uncompetitive, a fear that leads to a foot-dragging “you go first” attitude that is blocking progress. A positive intervention by the U nited S tates could provide the vital catalyst that moves the basis of the present negotiations beyond the narrowly defined national interests that lie at the heart of the current impasse. The logjam in international negotiations on climate change should not be difficult to break if the US were to lead the industrialized countries to agree that much of their wealth has been acquired at the expense of the environment (in this case greenhouse gases emitted over the past two hundred years) and that with the some of the benefits that this wealth has brought, comes the obligation to deal with the problems that have resulted as side-effects. With equitable entitlement to the common resources of the planet, an agreement that is fair and acceptable to all nations should be easy enough to achieve. Caps on emissions and sharing of energy efficient technologies are simply in the interest of everyone, rich or poor. And both rich and poor must now be ready to adopt less destructive technologies – based on renewables, efficiency and sustainability – both as a goal with intrinsic merit and also as an example to others. But climate is not the

only critical global environmental issue that this new administration will have to deal with. Conservation of biodiversity, a crucial prerequisite for the wellbeing of all humanity , no less America, needs as much attention ,

and just as urgently. The U nited S tates’ self-interest in conserving living natural resources strongly converges with the global common good in every sphere: in the oceans, by arresting the precipitate decline of fish stocks and the alarming rise of acidification ; on land, by regenerating the health of our soils, forests and rivers; and in the atmosphere by reducing the massive emission of pollutants from our wasteful industries, construction, agriculture and transport systems.

2AC – Jellyfish Add On

Sea turtles stop jellyfish overpopulation—that destroys fish stocksWilson et. al, 10 (Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison,D. and Magliocca, M, Oceana, largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, July 1, 2010, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems” http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf, jj)

Leatherbacks, the largest of the sea turtles, travel the farthest of any sea turtle species and have wide ranging effects on the ocean ecosystem. Surprisingly, leatherbacks get their energy and nutritional needs from a small, gelatinous source—jellyfish. 30 Growing up to 9 feet in length and migrating across entire oceans, leatherbacks rely on large concentrations of jellyfish to satisfy their appetites. 31 They have been known to consume up to 440 pounds of jellyfish – nearly the weight of an adult African lion– each day. 32,33As significant consumers of jellyfish globally, leatherbacks play a pivotal ecological role as a top jellyfish predator. 34 Declines in leatherback turtle populations along with declines in other key predators, such as some commercially valuable fish species, could have repercussions for jellyfish population control. 35This is of particular concern since, as a result of overfishing of many finfish populations, jellyfish are gradually replacing once-abundant fish species. 36 Declining fish stocks leave jellyfish with less

competition for food, resulting in proliferation of jellyfish around the world . 37 The increase in jellyfish is already proving detrimental to the recovery of fish stocks since jellyfish prey on fish eggs and larvae. 38,39 Fewer fish result in more jellyfish, which means even fewer fish in the future. Because leatherbacks consume large amounts of jellyfish, declines in leatherbacks could further

shift species dominance from fish to jellyfish.Other sea turtle species, including loggerhead and green sea turtles, also consume jellyfish.

Declining fish stocks will kill billions via starvation.Science, 11/8/2002. “Poor to Feel Pinch of Rising Fish Prices,” Ebsco.

TOKYO— The first major attempt to project global supply and demand for fish has confirmed what many have long suspected: Rising prices are likely to drive fish out of the reach of growing numbers of poor people who rely on the sea for their protein . But, with several fisheries on the verge of collapse, some analysts believe that the study's dire projections—presented last week at the launching of a global research initiative on fisheries science and policy—might in fact be too rosy . The analysis, by agricultural economists in Penang, Malaysia, and in Washington, D.C., models fish supply and demand to 2020. Under the most likely scenario, it says, prices for salmon and other high-value fish would rise 15%, and prices for low-end fish such as milkfish and carp would increase by 6%. Fish meal prices, it estimates, would jump 18% to satisfy rising demand for feed for cultured, carnivorous high-value

fish (below). “The c onsequences [of current trends] could be dire , depending on whether supply gains are feasible,” says Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, a co-author of the study, which was done by the Penang-based WorldFish Center and the Washington, D.C.-based International Food Policy Research Institute. But a continuation of those gains—which have produced a sixfold rise in total fish catch

since the 1950s—is doubtful, says his boss, center director Meryl Williams, because three-quarters of the current catch comes from fish stocks that are already overfished, if not depleted. “Those [who study] the population dynamics of fisheries would

probably be pessimistic” about supplies, she says. Fish now account for about 7% of the total food supply , according to the

center, and are the primary source of protein for roughly one-sixth of the world's population . Yet fish consumption is generally overlooked in food supply models, which focus primarily on cereals and legumes. Scientists hope to correct that oversight with Fish for All, an initiative to develop science-based policy alternatives for world fisheries. Scientists, environmentalists, and industry representatives from 40 countries gathered in Penang last week for a meeting to launch the effort, led by the WorldFish Center, formerly known as the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources. Both the fish center and the policy institute are part of the World Bank-funded Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

2AC – Ethics Add On (vs K)

Ethical obligation to protect sea turtles—outweighs the KDamiano, 14 (DEVON LEA DAMIANO†, † Duke University School of Law, J.D./M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy expected 2014; Princeton University, A.B. 2009, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, “LICENSED TO KILL: A DEFENSE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=dlj, jj)

The esthetic value is the enjoyment people get from observing and interacting with flora and fauna.16 The ethical value of

preserving biodiversity comes in many forms , depending on one’s ethics. It could be rooted in an inherent “right to exist,”17 or a moral obligation to preserve the earth and its natural resources for future generations. Some religions, like Christianity, also encourage people to practice stewardship over the earth.18 Additionally, biodiversity has an economic value: endangered and threatened species can provide products used by humans, inform scientific or medical research, and contribute to ecosystem services like water filtration, clean air, and healthy soil.19 In 1997, ecological economist Robert Costanza estimated that the ecosystem services on the planet could be valued at $33 trillion per year, which was significantly greater than the

global gross national product of $18 trillion per year.20 Finally, each species has ecological value because it is interconnected with its predators, prey, competitors, and other aspects of its environment.21 Losing one species can create a domino effect in the food chain or alter the ecosystem in ways that people may not be able to predict.22 The argument for protecting sea turtles encompasses all four “e’s.” First, sea

turtles are greatly admired for their esthetic value, and they attract ecotourism in the United States and around the world.23 Second, the ethical and moral reasons to protect biodiversity generally apply equally to sea turtles. Third, sea turtles provide economic benefits in the form of ecotourism, scientific knowledge, and ecosystem services. For instance, scientists have studied sea turtles’ ability to hold their breath for extended periods of time and their navigational skills, with the hope of finding applications for human use.24 Fourth, sea turtles play a key ecological role in both the marine and beach ecosystems: they help maintain the health of seagrass beds, which are essential for other marine species, and bring important nutrients onto beaches and dunes.25 It is unlikely that people currently understand all of the value that sea turtles may provide as a key part of the ecosystem. The drafters of the ESA recognized that all forms of life are “potential resources” that “may provide answers to questions which we have not yet learned to ask.”26 Therefore, “[s]heer self-interest impels us to be cautious.”27

No War Contention EXT’s

EXT – No Great Power War

No great power war—this century is differentHaass, ’13 (Richard, president of the Council on Foreign Relations since July 2003, prior to which he was Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State and a close advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz Visiting Professor of International Studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America's House in Order, p. 63, bgm)

The most important and overlooked feature of the contemporary world is that great power conflict

is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future . Great power suspicion and competition and rivalry

have not disappeared and will not, but neither are they likely to spill over into conflict, much less

all-out war . This is worth emphasizing because more than anything else, it distinguishes the first half of this century from virtually all of the century that preceded it. The twentieth century was defined by two world wars and a cold war that mercifully stayed that way; the twenty-first century is starting out and promises to remain for some time something qualitatively different.

EXT – No Nuclear Winter

Nuclear winter can’t be proven—their studies are politically biasedAmerican Institute of Physics August 2011 ("Wintry Doom," August, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm)Atmospheric scientists were well-placed to take up the question of smoke from a nuclear war. Measurements like Crutzen's of the effects of soot and the like had greatly advanced since the 1975 study. Richard Turco and others, working on the dinosaur extinction problem, had developed a computer model of a haze-filled atmosphere, and it had occurred to them that dust lofted by the explosions of a nuclear world war might have effects comparable to the dust from an asteroid impact. Meanwhile the surprising observation that a giant dust storm was cooling the atmosphere of Mars had inspired two more scientists, James Pollack and Brian Toon, into new calculations of dust effects. This led them into work with Carl Sagan on how the aerosols emitted by volcanic eruptions could affect climate. Now these scattered

scientists joined forces to calculate the consequences of an exchange of hydrogen bombs. Their

ominous conclusion was that the sooty smoke from burning cities could bring on a " nuclear winter "

— months or even years of cold so severe it would gravely endanger living creatures.(8) The scientists did this work mainly for public consumption. When they announced their results in 1983, it was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control. Surely the likelihood that all-out nuclear war was literally suicidal would persuade nations to reduce their arsenals? As a side effect, the studies helped to improve scientific understanding of how aerosols could affect

climate.(9) The computer models were so simplified, and the data on smoke and other aerosols were still so poor, that the scientists could say nothing for certain. Critics, mostly people opposed to nuclear disarmament, quickly pointed

out the deficiencies. In the mid 1980s, detailed studies confirmed that a nuclear war would probably alter global climate temporarily. But as Schneider and a coauthor explained in a widely read article, it was not likely to bring an apocalyptic winter , but it would bring a damaging "nuclear fall." (According to more recent research, smoke following even a limited, regional war would probably dim sunlight enough to kill many more people through starvation than would die directly under the bombs.)(10)

New science proves that extinction won’t occur from nuclear winterRobock 2010 (Alan, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, "Nuclear Winter," WIREs Climate Change, May/June, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/WiresClimateChangeNW.pdf)While it is important to point out the consequences of nuclear winter, it is also important to point out what will not be the consequences. Although extinction of our species was not ruled out in initial studies by biologists, it now seems that this would not take plac e . Especially in Australia and New Zealand, humans would have a better chance to survive. Also, Earth will not be plunged into an ice age. Ice sheets, which covered North America and Europe only 18,000 years ago and were more than 3-km thick, take many thousands of years

to build up from annual snow layers, and the climatic disruptions would not last long enough to produce them. The oxygen consumption by the fires would be inconsequential, as would the effect on the atmospheric greenhouse by carbon dioxide production. The consequences of nuclear winter are extreme enough without these additional effects, however.

T Answers

T

2AC – A2: T – Development

1) We meet: [explain]

2) Counter interpretation – development includes conservation of speciesBarnabe, 97 – professor of marine ecology at the University of Montpellier (Gilbert, Ecology and Management of Coastal Waters: The Aquatic Environment, p. 3-4)

1.3 DEFINITIONS OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENTIn ecological terms, development is defined as the organisation of a space by modifying an ecosystem in order to exploit it, or the creation of habitats with a view to encouraging reproduction or settling of particular species (Parent, 1990). Thus, pastoral, rural or forestry developments have become well known on land and involve the development and careful exploitation of natural resources with respect to the environment, since development also requires judicious organisation.The development of European coastal waters which is aimed first at animal and, to a lesser degree, at plant resources can be defined in the same way . This consists of the application of scientific and technical principles and concepts to animal or plant populations, as well as to their habitats, with a view to encouraging the reproduction or settling of particular species or ensuring their healthy survival.These aims are of no direct benefit to man, whereas those of land management concern human ecology and are defined as the organisation of space so as to improve living conditions for populations, to develop economic activities and to develop natural resources while avoiding disturbance of natural ecosystems (Parent, 1990). According to Lamotte (1985), the concept of development consists of the transformation by man of a system—extending to the land, productivity, or some complex combination of these—with a view to more rational or efficient utilisation of resources; he added that it involves an activity which is essential to human society ... man's objective is to free himself from the constraints of the functioning of natural ecosystems in which he evolves and which he transforms.The coastal domain is not very well defined; in France, it is considered to be a zone approximately 40 km on either side of the water's edge (Anon., 1994). Coastal waters thus extend 40 km out from the coast.Development of coastal waters must aim to compromise between man's requirements (in terms of food, leisure, etc.) and safeguarding aquatic ecosystems. There is no contradiction between these two objectives, even from the point of view of strict human utilitarianism; this goal can also be attained by conservation of ecosystems (since reserves or wildlife parks constitute developments) as well as by modifications. It has been said that it has now become essential to save the whales and the elephants ... not for the whales and elephants themselves, but in order that we develop the qualities that will save them and which will save ourselves (Panneau, 1990).This compromise between strict human utilisation and conservation of natural ecosystems can also be shown by sustainable development*, which consists of management and development that are limited with respect to nature but are permanently renewable, as advocated by the Rio Conference in 1992.

We meet – our Zuardo evidence from the 1AC is contextual proof – it says “TEDs are effective conservation measures”

3) Reasons to prefer-

A) Aff flexibility – their interpretation over-limits, and makes only resource affs topical.

B) Topic education – conservation of endangered species is a core ocean policy controversy – their interpretation limits out the heart of the topic in favor of stale energy debates

C) No ground loss – we guarantee them links to the shrimp industry DA, TEDs bad, spending, tradeoff and politics

D) Not bidirectional – our interp still forces the aff to increase management of the ocean, their interp is arbitrary, and the word “increase” checks limits explosion

4) Prefer reasonability – if there is no ground loss an interpretation that expands aff ground should be preferred – competing interpretations causes a race to the bottom

1AR – Development Interp

Development includes management, conservation and regulation of a resource—and, animals also count as resourcesBorgese, 94 - Elisabeth Mann Borgese is Professor of Political Science at Dalhousie University. She is the Founder of the International Ocean Institute and acts as Chairperson of the IOI Planning Council.Elisabeth Mann Borgese is Professor of Political Science at Dalhousie University. She is the Founder of the International Ocean Institute and acts as Chairperson of the IOI Planning Council. Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas, http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0envl--00-0----0-10-0---0---0direct-10---4-------0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00&cl=CL3.33&d=HASH015e0d6a44dfd69a2ad9fcdc.1&gt=2

The word "development," in its international setting too readily associated with "economic development," refers here to the use or exploitation of a natural resource. The word "sustainable," which conveys the idea of holding up or support, in this context means development that is conservative, and is conducive to continued viability of a resource.The term "sustainable development" which appeared in the World Conservation Strategy published in 1980 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and was adopted by the World Commission on Environment and Development, is used to describe management (i.e. regulation of use and exploitation, and conservation) of a given resource in such a manner that the benefits of the resource are optimized, that is, made available on an equitable basis to the largest number over the longest term. It requires the sparing and economical use of non-renewable resources , and maintenance of the productivity of renewable resources, as well as avoidance of or compensation for, irreversible effects caused to the resource through use or exploitation that does not meet these standards.Such equitable allocation of benefits from a resource necessarily implies regulation of access to the resource, whether that resource is a stock of fish , a deposit of minerals, or the air or water ; and whether the resource is fixed, or mobile and fluctuating across national boundaries, or beyond national jurisdiction in areas sometimes referred to as "global commons." The Report of the World Commission declares that... physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay attention to such considerations as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits. Even the narrow notion or physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation. (emphasis added)1Thus, according to the Report, "sustainable development" requires, inter alia, (1) "that [the] poor get their fair share of the resources required to sustain [economic] growth"; and (2) "that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet's ecological means.... Painful choices have to be made...." The Report is right to conclude, therefore, that "sustainable development" implies nothing less than the "progressive transformation of economy and society"; and to emphasize that "in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will."2

Development includes management efforts like the planOwen 3 – Daniel Owen, Consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, “Legal And Institutional Aspects Of Management Arrangements For Shared Stocks With Reference To Small Pelagics In Northwest Africa”, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 988, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4698b/y4698b04.htm

1.2 The legal regime for management of shared stocksFor a stock shared between two or more neighbouring coastal States and not ranging onto the high seas, the regime of Art 63(1) LOSC is appropriate. It states that:

Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.

Regarding the term “development”, Nandan, Rosenne and Grandy[4] state that:The reference to “ development”... relates to the development of those stocks as fishery resources .

This includes increased exploitation of little-used stocks, as well as improvements in the management of heavily-fished

stocks for more effective exploitation. Combined with the requirement in article 61 of not endangering a given stock by overexploitation, this envisages a long-term strategy of maintaining the stock as a viable resource.

Development implies management for sustainable useBarnabe, 97 – professor of marine ecology at the University of Montpellier (Gilbert, Ecology and Management of Coastal Waters: The Aquatic Environment, p. 167-168)

It is thus necessary to change strategy, which is what we propose in the following chapters. Our proposals are based on the work on developing the rearing of sea bream and sea bass in our laboratory (Barnabe and Rene, 1972, 1973; Barnabe, 1974, 1976, 1990a), fisheries studies (Barnabe, 1973. 1976), eco-ethological studies offish in the littoral zone (Barnabe and Chauvet, 1992; Chauvet et a!., 1991), and also on the coordination of studies examining aquaculture and aquatic resources (Barnabe, 1990c, 1991). In order to expose what is happening elsewhere in the area of exploitation of aquatic resources, we have chosen the term "development", as it also implies "management" and comes under the perspective of "sustainable development" as it has been called since the Rio Conference in 1992.

Development includes fisheries and protection from pollutionUN 3 (United Nations General Assembly A/RES/57/141 21 February 2003 Fifty-seventh session Agenda item 25 (a) 02 54754 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/57/L.48/Rev.1 and Add.1)] 57/141. Oceans and the law of the sea http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNGARsn/2002/217.pdf)II. World Summit on Sustainable Development 7.We l c o m e s the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit onSustainable Development (“Johannesburg Plan of Implementation”), adopted on4 September 2002,9 which once again emphasizes the importance of addressing the

sustainable development of oceans and seas and provides for the further implementation of chapter 17 of Agenda 21;2 8.Also welcomes the commitments set out in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation to actions at all levels, within specific periods for certain goals, to

ensure the sustainable development of the oceans, including sustainable fisheries,the promotion of the

conservation and management of the oceans, the enhancement of maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment from pollution, and the improvement of scientific understanding and assessment of marine and coastal ecosystems as a fundamental basis for sound decision-making;

Conservation, protection, and sustainability are ocean developmentCIDA ND (Canadian International Development Agency, “STRATEGY FOR OCEAN MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT”)

Chapter 17 of the Agenda defines objectives and activities in ocean development and management area, including:¶ Integrated

management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas, including EEZs;¶ Sustainable use and

conservation of marine living resources in high-seas areas;¶ Sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources in areas

under national jurisdiction:¶ The need to deal with critical uncertainties about marine environmental issues and climate change;¶ The strengthening of international and regional co-operation and co-ordination; and¶ Sustainable development of small island states

Ocean development includes area designation for resource protectionOregon State Legislature 94 (Oregon’s state legislative body, “Oregon Territorial Sea Plan: PART TWO:Making Resource Use Decisions” adopted in 1994)

For purposes of the "local consultation process" mandated by ORS 196.465, the term¶ "major ocean developments" means any of the following:¶ 1.) Any ocean development that involves the siting of an onshore facility in a coastal¶ county or city.¶ 2.) Any ocean activity that results in a Joint Review Panel.¶ 3.) Federal or state ocean leasing for oil/gas or hard mineral exploration or development¶ (not geological or geophysical testing or sampling).¶ 4.) Any ocean activity or action for which state or federal law requires approval from the¶ Governor.¶ 5.)

Designation of any restricted ocean-use area, whether for resource protection (e.g.,¶ marine sanctuary) or for

development (e.g., kelp lease). Included in this category are any¶ future amendments, deletions, or additions to the rocky-shore site planning designations¶ in the adopted Territorial Sea Plan, and future adoptions of rocky-shore site-management¶ plans whether those actions are made by OPAC or any other state agency empowered by¶ the plan to do so.

Ocean development includes protection and establishing legal regimesVisbeck et al, 13 – GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research (Martin, “Establishing a Sustainable Development Goal for Oceans and Coasts to Face the Challenges of our Future Ocean” June, http://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/establishing-a-sustainable-development-goal-for-oceans-and-coasts-to-face-the-challenges-of-our-future-ocean/KWP_1847.pdf)

3 Ocean Sustainability and Sustainable DevelopmentThe definition of an SDG for oceans and coasts (SDG Oceans and Coasts), the formulation of a set of specific targets and the development of an underlying indicator set to measure these objectives are essential elements of a prudent ocean management strategy. Importantly, both the sustainable development goal and the corresponding indicator set should cover the coasts, the exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and the high seas. Furthermore, an SDG Oceans and Coasts should reflect the ecosystem approach and make reference to the polluter pays principle. The ecosystem approach, adopted as the primary framework for action under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992), aims at managing the ecological system as a whole by integrating land, water, and living resources. It promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way and incorporates the precautionary principle by urging stakeholders, especially States, to take action even under conditions of scientific uncertainty.3.1 Sustainable Development Goal for Oceans and CoastsThe primary objectives of the proposed SDG OCEAN and COASTS should be to:1) Ensure the basic life-sustaining and regulating functions of the oceans (oxygen production, key processes in the climate system, and in the hydrological cycle).a) Limit activities that alter these functions.b) Limit CO2 emissions to reduce further ocean warming, acidification and de-oxygenation. 2) Ensure a healthy and productive marine environment to sustain all provisioning and non-provisioning (i.e. supporting and regulating) services of oceans and coastsa) Exploit all living resources within safe biological limits and in accordance with the ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle.b) Exploit all non-living resources in accordance with the ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle.c) Limit use and degradation of marine space in accordance with the ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle.d) Develop and distribute technical capacities for the sustainable use of ocean resources.e) Provide access to marine information and data and build global capacity for the assessment of oceans and for the management of ocean related activities.f) Report on the status of the oceans and coasts regularly against a set of ocean and coastal indicators.3) Build resilient coastal communities through mitigation and adaptation strategies, innovation and sustainable development, by sharing benefits and responsibilities.4) Engage in integrated and multi-level ocean governance.a) Develop a framework for MSP within EEZs and in areas beyond national jurisdiction.b) Improve and harmonize legal frameworks for oceans and coasts to take into account current and future uses. c) Improve and harmonize the governance of ocean and coastal regimes. For all these objectives, specific targets need to be developed and negotiated at a national, regional and global level. For that purpose, the proposed SDG OCEANS AND COASTS can be operationalized through the three dimensions OCEAN SERVICES, OCEAN HEALTH AND COASTAL RESILIENCE discussed in Section 2. Progress against the targets in these dimensions should be monitored through an adequate set of indicators to measure sustainable development for oceans and coasts.

Turtles = resource

—and, turtles are a resourceMortimer 2 (Jeanne A. Mortimer, A Strategy to Conserve and Manage the Sea Turtle Resources of the Western Indian Ocean Region, A report produced for IUCN, WWF, and The Ocean Conservancy, http://www.ioseaturtles.org/eleclib/WIOStrategyJMortimer.pdf, jj)

Globally significant populations of five species of sea turtles occur in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO). These have long been a resource of economic and cultural significance to people living in the region. From time immemorial, turtle meat and eggs provided protein to coastal residents. For centuries, meat from green turtles and shell from hawksbills was exported to foreign markets in Europe and Asia, providing a source of revenue for the region. Sadly, over-exploitation in the WIO and elsewhere has resulted in the decline or collapse of many sizable turtle populations. All five species are now on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (1996), and all are currently listed either as “Critically Endangered” (i.e., the hawksbill, Eretmochelys imbricata, and the leatherback, Dermochelys imbricata), or “Endangered” (i.e., the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, and the olive ridley, Lepidochelys olivacea.) Today international agreements--most importantly, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)--prohibit international trade in sea turtles. Nevertheless, sea turtles remain an important resource in the WIO. In most countries turtle meat and eggs are consumed locally, while in some locations (for example, South Africa, Kenya and Seychelles) turtles also generate income by attracting “turtle watching” eco-tourists. Turtles are also crucial for the functioning of healthy marine ecosystems (Jackson et al., 2001).

Turtles = a resourceDamiano, 14 (DEVON LEA DAMIANO†, † Duke University School of Law, J.D./M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy expected 2014; Princeton University, A.B. 2009, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, “LICENSED TO KILL: A DEFENSE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=dlj, jj)

The argument for protecting sea turtles encompasses all four “e’s.” First, sea turtles are greatly admired for their esthetic value, and they attract ecotourism in the United States and around the world.23 Second, the ethical and moral reasons to protect biodiversity generally apply equally to sea turtles. Third, sea turtles provide economic benefits in the form of ecotourism , scientific knowledge , and

ecosystem services . For instance, scientists have studied sea turtles’ ability to hold their breath for extended periods of time and their navigational skills, with the hope of finding applications for human use.24 Fourth, sea turtles play a key ecological role in both the marine and beach ecosystems: they help maintain the health of seagrass beds, which are essential for other marine species, and bring important nutrients onto beaches and dunes.25 It is unlikely that people currently understand all of the value that sea turtles may provide as a key part of the ecosystem. The drafters of the ESA recognized

that all forms of life are “potential resources” that “may provide answers to questions which we

have not yet learned to ask. ”26 Therefore, “[s]heer self-interest impels us to be cautious.”27

They’re a non-consumptive sustainable resourceWilson, Clevo (06/2001). "Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism resource especially in Australia". Tourism management (1982) (0261-5177), 22 (3), p. 279.

Considerable potential exists to exploit sea turtles as a non-consumptive sustainable resource in sea-turtle-based tourism, especially but not exclusively in Australia. The economic benefits of sea-turtle-

based tourism, therefore, promise not only to be a strong argument to reduce the current high consumptive uses of sea turtles but also to take appropriate action to reduce other impacts that are threatening the survival of these unique ancient reptiles in Australia as well as world-wide. Sea-turtle-based tourism can complement conservation work and be educational. The authors intend to undertake an in-depth survey of tourism at Mon Repos Conservation Park with this in mind. The non-consumptive economic potential can strengthen arguments to make “turtle excluder” devices mandatory by law on fishing trawls and to limit boat speeds. Furthermore, non-consumptive economic values provide a strong argument for inter-governmental efforts to curb the large-scale harvesting of eggs and of sea turtles for their meat and tortoiseshells in neighbouring countries. In conclusion, it must be pointed out that if the current high harvesting and incidental destructive practices are not curbed, sea turtles are likely to disappear depriving native communities of their present consumptive uses and extinguishing a valuable resource which could be sustained by improved managerial practices.

Plan = Conservation

The plan is a conservation measureMurray, ‘9 (Kimberly T. Murray*, NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH, Vol. 8: 211–224, 2009, “Characteristics and magnitude of sea turtle bycatch in US mid-Atlantic gillnet gear” doi: 10.3354/esr00211, jj)

Bycatch of sea turtles in commercial fishing gear is a conservation problem demanding innovative solutions for mitigation. Fisheries bycatch is one of many factors negatively affecting turtle populations (Lewison & Crowder 2007). Assessing both the distribution of turtle bycatch and factors influencing bycatch rates can help identify areas of elevated risk of bycatch (Gardner et al. 2008, Sims et al. 2008). In some cases fishing effort can be steered away from these bycatch ‘hotspots’, so that fishing can continue while minimizing the potential for turtle bycatch (Howell et al. 2008). Furthermore, understanding fishing gear characteristics that influence bycatch or bycatch rates can help lead to gear modifications designed to reduce bycatch (Haas et al. 2008).

DA Answers

Shrimp DA Answers

2AC – A2: Shrimp Industry DA

1. Case outweighs –

a. Environmental collapse is terminal and irreversible – intervening actors and deterrence check war from economic decline

b. Nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction – nuclear winter theory has been disproven

2. We access their impact —sea turtle collapse causes a ripple effect that destroys ocean ecosystems—that dooms the shrimping industry in the long term

3. Non-unique —the shrimping industry is low now, but resilientFishery News 3/24/14 (“Fighting The Good Fight” http://usfishlaw.com/fighting-the-good-fight-ensuring-the-survival-of-the-southern-us-shrimping-industry/, jj)

With the influx of cheap unfairly traded imported shrimp into the US market, the livelihoods of the shrimpers of the Gulf and Southern Atlantic coast were gravely threatened. The Southern Shrimp Alliance was founded in 2002. It is a non-profit organization composed of fishermen, processors, and other members of the domestic shrimping industry located in the 8 warm water shrimp producing states of the southern Atlantic and Gulf Coast (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas). The Southern Shrimp Alliance works to maintain the shrimping industry in the Southern United States. With the influx of cheap unfairly traded imported shrimp into the US market, the

livelihoods of the shrimpers of the Gulf and Southern Atlantic coast were gravely threatened. This increase in foreign shrimp , proposed

restrictions on the shrimping industry by the federal government, and the increased costs of operating all threatened to break down an industry that has been the backbone of many coastal communities throughout the Southern Atlantic and Gulf Coast. The Southern Shrimp Alliance is working to preserve this traditional way of life, which remains one of the nation’s most valuable fisheries – as well as one of the most sustainable fisheries – in the nation. A board of directors composed of 16 volunteer members governs the Southern Shrimp Alliance, with each of the 8 states electing two members to the board. The board sets the policies and the financial goals of the industry through a majority rules voting system. The Southern Shrimp Alliance is funded through its membership dues and contributions from private donors from throughout the industry. The Southern Shrimp Alliance does not rely on the federal government to provide any funding towards its functioning. The Alliance has also received funds received related to the trade litigation, using these amounts to make contributions to state programs that benefit the U.S. shrimping industry (such as state marketing programs) and various other activities that have benefited the entire domestic shrimp industry while imposing a minimal financial burden on members of the industry itself. One of the most successful actions that the Southern Shrimp Alliance has taken was the imposition of antidumping duties foreign shrimp imported from 6 countries. An antidumping duty order was imposed by the Department of Commerce and, in result, shrimp sold at prices significantly below fair value are subject to duties that push up the price. This duty is meant to level the playing field and to prevent the further loss of American jobs to foreign competition. The Southern Shrimp Alliance has continued to defend the antidumping duties the Department of Commerce imposed before federal agencies and federal courts. In addition, the Alliance has enhanced the enforcement of the trade remedy by working with government agents to prevent the illegal evasion of duties by foreign entities willing to engage in fraud. While the Southern Shrimp Alliance is determined to continue to work on leveling the playing field for the domestic shrimping industry, they are also focused on making sure that the trade relief that the duties provide benefits the industry as a whole and not just a select few. The antidumping duties have been in place since February 1, 2005,

and since this time the Southern Shrimp Alliance has been at the forefront of the defense to the trade relief it provides. Over this time the shrimping industry has experienced mixed results from the duties. The antidumping duties did reduce the rapid growth of cheap shrimp imports from foreign countries. This decrease in foreign import dominance in the U.S. market as a result of the effort of the Southern Shrimp Alliance has allowed for thousands of small business owners to continue to operate their business in the domestic industry. The antidumping duties also resulted in over $186 million dollars

being made available to the US shrimping industry between 2005 and 2013 through the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA). The

resilience of the domestic shrimping industry when facing the adversity of unfair import

competition has shown that it can overcome extreme obstacles and work as a community towards

a common goal that will benefit the entire industry as a whole.

4. No link – their evidence is industry hype—the economic impact is negligibleYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE

REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj) *gender modifiedFurthermore, many of the allegations the shrimp industry made against TEDs have been proven incorrect. For instance, many shrimpers claimed that the devices would cause excessive shrimp

catch losses of between 30% and 50%. However, in the Gulf of Mexico in 1990 and 1991, with TED regulations in force, more pounds of shrimp were caught per day fished than in any of the other three previous years. n282 And, in the Atlantic Ocean, off the South Carolina coast, the total shrimp catch for 1991, when federal TED regulations were in effect, was the largest in six years. n283 Studies conducted by shrimp *[fisherpersons]fishermen in conjunction with the NMFS have shown the loss rate of shrimp ranges from 5% to 8% in the Gulf of Mexico and approximately 13% in the Atlantic. n284 Furthermore, a NOAA

study that tested several types of TEDs has shown that there is an average shrimp loss of about 10%. n285 Therefore, the amount of shrimp lost through TED use is negligible. This slight loss of shrimp is definitely a worthwhile sacrifice when saving threatened and endangered species.

5. Turn —the plan helps the shrimping industry by reducing bycatch Yaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

Another benefit of TEDs is that they cut down on the amount of bycatch shrimp fishermen haul in. Bycatch is the incidental catch of non-target species and includes juvenile fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, sea birds, and small fish species. Bycatch has become an issue of great concern to those interested in the future of marine fisheries. The problem is global in scope - a harmful side effect of certain types of fishing that, like shrimping, employ non-selective nets. The worst types of gear in terms of bycatch are the ocean fly-net, long-haul [*291] seine, sciaenid pound net, and the shrimp trawl. n295 Of these, the shrimp trawl is the most grievous offender.

Over 90% of what is caught in shrimp trawls is not shrimp . n296 In the Gulf of Mexico, about ten pounds of fish are caught for every pound of shrimp, n297 and in some areas that ratio is twenty-one pounds to one pound. n298 It is estimated that Gulf shrimpers kill and waste about 2.5 billion pounds of fish (mostly juveniles) each year. n299 Of that amount, "about 70 percent by weight would have been commercially valuable if permitted to mature." n300 More than 100 species are commonly caught in shrimp trawls. n301 One of these, the red snapper, is severely depleted largely because of the excessive amount of juvenile fish caught as bycatch. n302 About 12 million small red snapper are discarded each year by Gulf shrimpers. n303 Among the other types of fish that shrimp nets catch are king and Spanish mackerel, red drum, spotted sea trout, croaker, n304 weakfish (gray trout), and menhaden. n305 The bycatch problem extends beyond the Gulf of Mexico; it is a global problem. The International Game Fish Association has reported that the world's fishing industry keeps about 100 million tons of the marine life it harvests annually and discards about another 100 to 150 million tons of

bycatch. n306 Bycatch seriously affects the marine environment . Many of the fish incidentally taken are juveniles and

are either dumped overboard dead or are sold for a few cents per pound for use as pet food or crab bait. This reduces the number of young fish in the area, resulting in fewer fish to reproduce later. Bycatch also threatens the food

chain . As these juvenile fish are repeatedly removed from the environment, species that feed on them will be affected.

[*292] An added benefit of TEDs is that they can reduce bycatch by as much as 50% to 60%. n307

Reduced bycatch can also help shrimpers in other ways . For example, ordinarily shrimpers have to separate by hand the shrimp from the bycatch. A reduction in bycatch decreases the amount of time spent on that slow, costly process. n308 Moreover, the decrease in bycatch can result in a reduction of drag and can thereby increase fuel efficiency. n309 Although other measures, such as regulations mandating use of finfish excluder devices (FFEs) and larger net mesh size requirements, are definitely needed to address the alarming bycatch problem, TEDs are eliminating some incidental catch.

6. No internal link – they have no evidence that decline of shrimping would lead to total economic collapse.

7. Even massive economic decline has zero chance of war Robert Jervis 11, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December 2011, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425

Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic

liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the

solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict , it will not make

war thinkable .

8. Resilience makes the impact impossibleZakaria 2009 – PhD in political science from Harvard, editor of Newsweek International, former managing editor of Foreign Affairs (12/12, Fareed, Newsweek, “The Secrets of Stability”, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425/page/2)

One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial system, which had fueled a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age of globalization—about the virtues of free markets, trade, and technology—were being called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree not seen since the 1930s.Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted we were doomed to a long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression."Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets.Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization.

One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you

count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation.

But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions o f economic and political collapse have not materialized at all.A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?"This revival did not happen because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By massively expanding state support for the through central banks and national treasuries—they buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments played a tiny role in national economies.It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force. When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking again—the animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit.

Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian

default of 1998, and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.

The first is the spread of great-power peace. Since the end of the Cold War, the world's major powers have not competed with each other in geomilitary terms. There have been some political tensions, but measured by historical

standards the globe today is stunningly free of friction between the mightiest nations. This lack of conflict is extremely rare in history. You would have to go back at least 175 years, if not 400, to find any prolonged period like the one we are living in. The number of people who have died as a result of wars, civil conflicts, and terrorism over the last 30 years has declined sharply (despite what you might think on the basis of overhyped fears about terrorism). And no wonder—three decades ago, the Soviet Union was still funding militias, governments, and guerrillas in dozens of countries around the world. And the United States

was backing the other side in every one of those places. That clash of superpower proxies caused enormous bloodshed and instability: recall that 3 million people died in Indochina alone during the 1970s. Nothing like that is happening today.Peace is like oxygen, Harvard's Joseph Nye has written. When you don't have it, it's all you can think about, but when you do, you don't appreciate your good fortune.

Peace allows for the possibility of a stable economic life and trade. The peace that flowed from the end of the Cold War had a much larger effect because it was accompanied by the discrediting of socialism. The world was left with a sole superpower but also a single workable economic model—capitalism—albeit with many variants from Sweden to Hong Kong.

This consensus enabled the expansion of the global economy; in fact, it created for the first time a single world economy in

which almost all countries across the globe were participants. That means everyone is invested in the same system . Today, while the

nations of Eastern Europe might face an economic crisis, no one is suggesting that they abandon free-market capitalism and return to communism. In fact, around the world you see the opposite: even in the midst of this downturn, there have been few successful electoral appeals for a turn to socialism or a rejection of the current framework of political economy. Center-right parties have instead prospered in recent elections throughout the West.

The second force for stability is the victory—after a decades-long struggle—over the cancer of inflation. Thirty-five years ago,

much of the world was plagued by high inflation, with deep social and political consequences. Severe inflation can be far more disruptive than a recession, because while recessions rob you of better jobs and wages that you might have had in the future,

inflation robs you of what you have now by destroying your savings. In many countries in the 1970s, hyperinflation led to the destruction of the middle class, which was the background condition for

many of the political dramas of the era—coups in Latin America, the suspension of democracy in India, the overthrow of the shah in Iran. But then in 1979, the tide began to turn when Paul Volcker took over the U.S. Federal Reserve and waged war against inflation. Over two decades, central banks managed to decisively beat down the beast. At this point, only one country in the world suffers from -hyperinflation: Zimbabwe. Low inflation allows people, businesses, and governments to plan for the future, a key precondition for stability.

Political and economic stability have each reinforced the other. And the third force that has underpinned the resilience of the global system is technological connectivity. Globalization has always existed in a sense in the modern world, but until recently its contours were mostly limited to

trade: countries made goods and sold them abroad. Today the information revolution has created a much more deeply connected global system.Managers in Arkansas can work with suppliers in Beijing on a real-time basis. The production of almost every complex manufactured product now involves input from a dozen countries in a tight global supply chain. And the consequences of connectivity go well beyond economics. Women in rural India have learned through satellite television about the independence of women in more modern countries. Citizens in Iran have used cell phones and the Internet to connect to their well-wishers beyond their borders. Globalization today is fundamentally about knowledge being dispersed across our world.This diffusion of knowledge may actually be the most important reason for the stability of the current system. The majority of the world's nations have learned some basic lessons about political well-being and wealth creation. They have taken advantage of the opportunities provided by peace, low inflation, and technology to plug in to the global system. And they have seen the indisputable results.

Despite all the turmoil of the past year, it's important to remember that more people have been lifted out of poverty over the last two decades than in the preceding 10. Clear-thinking citizens around the world are determined not to lose these gains by falling for some ideological chimera, or searching for a worker's utopia. They are even cautious about the appeals of hypernationalism and war. Most have been there, done that. And they know the price.

9. US isn’t key to the world economyThe Economist 08 (3-6, The decoupling debate http://www.economist.com/node/10809267, jj)

MANY nasty words begin with the letter D: death, disease, depression, debt (when you drown in it) and deflation. “Decoupling”, on the other hand, has a nicer ring to it, even if it is the source of a great deal of controversy. Economists continue to argue about whether or not emerging economies will follow America into recession. The most pessimistic claim that “it makes no sense to talk about decoupling in an era of globalisation”: economies have become more intertwined through trade and finance, which should make business cycles more synchronised, not

less. The slide in emerging stockmarkets on Wall Street's coat-tails appears to endorse their view. Yet recent data suggest decoupling is no myth . Indeed, it may yet save the world economy . Decoupling does not mean that an American recession will have no impact on developing countries. That would be daft. Such countries have become more integrated into the world economy (their exports have increased from just over 25% of their GDP in 1990 to almost 50% today).

Sales to America will obviously weaken. The point is that their GDP-growth rates will slow by much less than in previous American downturns. Most enjoyed strong growth during the fourth quarter of last year, and some speeded up, even as America's economy ground to a virtual halt and its non-oil imports fell. One reason is that while exports to America have stumbled, those to other emerging economies have surged (see chart 1). China's growth in exports to America slowed to only 5% (in dollar terms) in the year to January, but exports to Brazil, India and Russia were up by more than 60%, and those to oil exporters by 45%. Half of China's exports

now go to other emerging economies. Likewise, South Korea's exports to the United States tumbled by 20% in the year to February, but its total exports rose by 20%, thanks to trade with other developing nations. A second supporting factor is that in many emerging markets domestic consumption and investment quickened during 2007. Their consumer spending rose almost three times as fast as in the developed world. Investment seems to be holding up even better: according to HSBC, real capital spending rose by a staggering 17% in emerging economies last year, compared with only 1.2% in rich economies. Sceptics argue that much of this investment, especially in China, is in the export sector and so will collapse as sales to America weaken. But less than 15% of China's investment is linked to exports. Over half is in infrastructure and property. It is not just China that is building power plants, roads and railways; a large chunk of the Gulf's petrodollars are also being spent on gleaming skyscrapers and new airports—not to mention ski-domes in the desert. Mexico, Brazil and Russia have also

launched big infrastructure projects that will take years to complete. The four biggest emerging economies, which accounted for

two-fifths of global GDP growth last year, are the least dependent on the U nited S tates: exports to America account for just 8% of China's GDP, 4% of India's, 3% of Brazil's and 1% of Russia's. Over 95% of China's growth of 11.2% in the year to the fourth quarter came from domestic demand. China's growth is widely expected to slow this year—it needs to, since even Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, warned this week of overheating—but to a still boisterous 9-10%.

1AR #3 – UQ EXT

The shrimping industry is struggling now—multiple warrantsSavannah Now, 7/3/14 (“Georgia shrimpers await word on disaster aid” http://savannahnow.com/exchange/2014-07-03/georgia-shrimpers-await-word-disaster-aid#.U7iNlvldWZA, jj)

Shrimpers in both Georgia and South Carolina started this season struggling to haul in a catch big enough to make a living. In the end, only South Carolina’s industry turned out all right. Frank Blum, head of the S.C. Seafood Alliance, said his state did not submit an application for federal aid. “It looked bad at first,” he said. “But after all the data were in, we did not meet the requirements.” In February preliminary numbers showed South Carolina’s shrimp catch was 40 percent less than the five-year average. Blum said poor shellfish harvesting had also worried some fishermen, but that, too, did not rise to a disaster level. “The science was not with it,” said Blum. “We wrote a letter to the governor that said, ‘stand by.’” Georgia did apply for disaster aid with the backing of the governor, said John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance. “From what we know right now, it’s still in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s hands,” said Williams. “Unfortunately that’s all we know at the moment.” It’s uncertain when a decision could be made. Kim Amendola, spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Gov. Nathan Deal sent in Georgia’s application in February. “We are actively reviewing the Georgia disaster request, along with supplemental information we’d requested from the state to aid in our analysis of the impact to fishermen,” she said on Friday. “We are working closely with the state and working on the request as quickly as possible, because we understand the importance and implications of such a request.” If NOAA finds that Georgia shrimpers deserve disaster relief, the next step is for Congress to review it and then appropriate the money. At that point the federal agency and state officials would decide how to give out the funding. What that aid would look like is uncertain. Amendola said state officials typically consult with the affected industry before deciding on the best type of relief. “However, for example, we have issued direct payments to compensate for lost

income and funded projects to help benefit the resource such as habitat restoration, etc.,” she said. As for the causes, some suspected heavy rains had reduced the water’s salinity, while others pointed to black gill disease. High fuel prices ,

insurance and foreign imports have also added to shrimpers’ financial strain in recent years.

Cheap foreign imports are hammering the shrimp industryJORDAN BLUM, 9/28/13, The Advocate, “Shrimp import duty refused” http://theadvocate.com/home/7111170-125/shrimp-import-duty-refused, jj

WASHINGTON — The Louisiana shrimp industry was dealt a blow Friday after the U.S. International Trade Commission voted against increased duties on frozen shrimp imported into the country from several nations. In a divided 2-4 vote, the commission ruled that the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industry failed to present a strong enough case that the Gulf shrimp industry was unfairly suffering from cheap frozen shrimp coming in from China, Vietnam, Ecuador, India and Malaysia. The vote was one shy of victory for the Gulf shrimp industry because a tie vote legally sides with domestic industry. The overall argument presented during debate last month by Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and others is that the lower-costing frozen shrimp from foreign nations — 75 percent of the U.S. domestic consumption — competes unfairly against Louisiana and Mississippi shrimpers because the foreign industries receive extra government subsidies and can undercut the prices of domestic shrimpers and processors. Eddy

Hayes, the Gulf coalition’s legal counsel, expressed disappointment after the ruling. “Absent relief from subsidized imports, the culture, way of life, and economic opportunity provided by the Gulf shrimp industry will continue to be in jeopardy,” Hayes said. Once the commission releases its report and explains its ruling, Hayes said, a decision can be made to appeal to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. Dardenne, whose office now includes the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board, said he was “surprised” by the vote and called it a “huge blow to the industry.” The Louisiana shrimp industry has a $1.3 billion annual economic impact and includes 14,000 direct and indirect

jobs, according to his office. “It’s very frustrating when an American tribunal fails to protect our businesses from clearly abusive and illegal practices from foreign governments,” Dardenne said. Domestic shrimp prices have increased in the past year or so, and that evidence harmed the Gulf coalition’s assertions. But with temporary increased duties in place in recent months, David Veal, executive director of the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industry, or COGSI, argued that the increased domestic pricing strengthened their argument. “We filed these

petitions because our industry is being hammered by large volumes of subsidized shrimp imports ,” Veal said in

a prepared statement. “The improved pricing we have seen in the market since the imposition of provisional duties on these imports in the spring of this year confirms how important relief from these subsidized imports is to the domestic industry. While the commission did not vote in our favor today, we are not throwing in the towel on this vital issue.”

“Red-listing” is killing shrimpersBrianna Elliott, 5/23/14, Oceana, “World Turtle Day Spotlight: Fighting for Turtle Excluder Devices in Louisiana” http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/05/world-turtle-day-spotlight-fighting-for-turtle-excluder-devices-in-louisiana, jj

But, sea turtles aren’t the only ones harmed by this industry. Louisiana’s entire market share is at risk because Louisiana shrimp are “ red-listed” on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s seafood guide , encouraging consumers to avoid this product because the harvest practices threaten marine life. Louisiana is the only

U.S. state “red-listed” for shrimp. Oceana is not going to let Louisiana slip under the radar. In April, we called on

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, urging him to reverse state law banning the enforcement of TEDs. Oceana also offered to meet with Jindal to explain the science and clear benefits of using TEDs for developing both sustainable shrimp fishing and protecting sea turtle populations. Jindal has not yet responded. Oceana will continue to press Governor Jindal and state legislators to bring Louisiana into compliance with federal law.

1AR #4 – Link Defense

Plan is the perfect balance—it doesn’t doom shrimpersYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj)

The TED regulations issued in accordance with the ESA have not, therefore, meant economic

doom for the American shrimp industry . Rather, the regulations and the events surrounding them seem to represent the right balance between meeting conservation needs and recognizing economic demands.

Their estimates are flawed—our data is bestYaninek, 95 (Kathleen Doyle Yaninek *, * B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1985; M.S.J., Northwestern University, 1986; J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1994. Ms. Yaninek is an attorney practicing in the areas of personal injury, insurance defense and commercial litigation with Mette, Evans & Woodside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, North Carolina Central Law Journal, 1995, 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 256, “ARTICLE: TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE

REGULATIONS: LAWS SEA TURTLES CAN LIVE WITH” Lexis, jj) *gender modified Environmentalists denied the accuracy of the shrimpers' loss estimates. For example, at the same hearing at

which Hickman testified, Claudine Schneider, a United States Representative from Rhode Island, pointed out that, "in various studies that have been conducted by the shrimp fishermen*[fisherpersons] themselves in conjunction with the NMFS, the loss rate of shrimp range from 5 to 8 percent in the Gulf of Mexico [*273] and approximately 13 percent in the Atlantic."

n143 Furthermore, a NOAA study of different types of TEDs has shown that with use of such devices there is an average shrimp loss of about 10 percent and an average reduction in bycatch of about 13 percent. n144

The Verity case addressed this issue of the economic impact of the TED regulations on shrimpers. The court determined that "shrimpers will purchase and install certified TEDs at an expected cost of $ 200 to $ 400 per TED. The average annual cost to the entire industry was estimated at $ 5.9 million, which included the cost of expected shrimp loss during the start-up period, before gear adjustments and changes in trawling techniques overcome any initial inefficiencies. There is substantial evidence in the

administrative record indicating that anticipated catch loss resulting from use of the TEDs will

amount to no more than 5 percent." n145

Best estimates go affOceana, ‘3 (2/21, “Oceana Welcomes Regulation to Protect Sea Turtles from Shrimp Fishing; Calls for More Action to Save These Endangered and Threatened Animals” http://oceana.org/en/news-media/press-center/press-releases/oceana-welcomes-regulation-to-protect-sea-turtles-from-shrimp-fishing-calls-for-more-acti, jj)

“The shrimp industry argues that the new TEDs will be too costly, but the government's economic analysis estimates that retrofitting a net to comply with the new rule will be $220 per net,” said Ted Morton, Oceana's Federal Policy Director. “This investment to enlarge TEDs will be made up by fewer shrimp fishing seasons that are interrupted by emergency closures because of dead sea turtles washing ashore.”

Super inexpensiveCenter for International Environmental Law, ’99 (“AMICUS BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE BODY ON UNITED STATES – IMPORT PROHIBITION Of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products” http://www.ciel.org/Publications/shrimpturtlebrief.pdf, jj)

2.2.1 TEDs are effective, inexpensive and easy to use . TEDs are inexpensive, easy to install and they do not result in excessive shrimp loss.45 They also are extremely effective: TEDs developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) exclude 97 percent of the sea turtles entrained while

retaining most shrimp, increasing trawling efficiency, and reducing finfish bycatch by 50-60 percent.46 Some hard grid TEDs show no significant shrimp loss when compared to trawls without TEDs.47 This allows for the unimpeded, if not improved, harvesting of shrimp. Clearly, for the tremendous conservation benefits conveyed, TEDs impose little economic burden. In fact, TEDs are ultimately beneficial to both the commercial fishing industry and the environment.

1AR #5 – Link Turn

TEDs help the shrimping industry—reduce by-catch and locks in higher quality shrimp.Baker, 12 (Scott Baker, Nov. 2012, NC State University, Sea Grant North Carolina, “Bycatch Reduction in the Shrimp Fishery” http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/ncu/ncug12003.pdf, jj)

If the narrower grid shows similar results on other vessels and otter trawl configurations, decreased bycatch could lead to fewer crew hours required to cull the shrimp, as well as less fuel to complete tows. Bycatch reduction may make it possible for trawlers to conduct longer tows. Less bycatch

also may lead to higher-quality shrimp (e.g., less crushed shrimp, less culling time before storage) that could command a higher dockside price. Finally, the TED can eliminate large sharks and rays, making the deck safer for the crew.

Our ev quotes actualy shrimpers—benefits of TEDs outweigh their linksJanet Krenn, Virginia Sea Grant, 5/15/14, “Big Challenges, Joint Solutions: Building Capacity for Collaborative Fisheries Research” http://vaseagrant.vims.edu/2014-ists-workshop/, jjThe surprise in the room was understandable. There has been a long-standing perception that

fishermen and shrimpers didn’t like using turtle excluder devices, or TEDs and resented the regulations. “ All of a

sudden there were serious captains saying they like and use TEDs, and it made [the researchers

and conservationists] think twice ,” recalls Tony Nalovic. Nalovic, Virginia Sea Grant Collaborative Fisheries Research Fellow, was one of the

co-organizers of the daylong workshop for fishermen and scientists. The goal of the workshop was to share examples and ideas on working together to conduct collaborative fisheries research. The event was organized by Virginia Sea Grant, World Wildlife Foundation, and International Sea Turtle Society. “You can’t just approach a fisherman and say, ‘this is what I want to do with your gear’,” says Nalovic. “You need to come up with ideas together. So when you have your results, industry knows the research originated with the fishermen’s needs in mind. There’s more credibility in the science and greater trust in scientists.” Loggerhead turtle escapes from a net equipped with a turtle excluder device (TED). Loggerhead turtle escapes from a net equipped with a turtle excluder device (TED). A TED is a grate that helps keep turtles out of a towed net. Before coming to Virginia Institute of Marine Science for his masters, Nalovic worked with shrimpers in French Guinea to develop and test a new type of device that further reduced the accidental catch of sea turtles. The device Nalovic tested was a variation on the TED; his experiments demonstrated that the equipment was successful on commercial fishing boats. As a result of so many shrimpers adopting the new device, accidental catch of sea turtles

in that fleet was practically eliminated. Nalovic says the shrimpers liked using TEDs because they had benefits

beyond turtle conservation . They kept large animals out of nets, so boats pulled less weight and saved fuel. Without larger animals crushing shrimp in the trawls, product got to market in better condition. They also reduced catch of finfish, which reduced the number of hazardous animals like stingray and sharks that ended up on deck.

1AR #7 – Econ Decline No Cause War

Economic collapse doesn’t cause war---that’s Jervis---if the current downturn didn’t cause global war then the factors cited in their evidence aren’t sufficient to cause hot wars. Decline predisposes countries to cooperation --- there’s no rational incentive to fight.

No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars , arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine

concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder.

The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace

Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 20 07 .”38 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the

start of the financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies

confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline

in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date

generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-

2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 20 08 financial crisis , the proper comparison is with Great Depression . And by

that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This

Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

**No conflicts resulted from the recession – disproves the impactBarnett 9—senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC (Thomas, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, 25 August 2009, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary

predictions of , and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how

globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. No ne of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine)

predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an

almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar

picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements.

Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state- on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to

one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends . And with the United States effectively tied down

by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: •No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); •The usual frequency maintained in civil

conflicts (in all the usual places); •Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); •No great improvement or

disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); •A modest scaling back of

international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and •No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and

investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis . Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's

major economies remain governed by center -left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to

say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade

order.

**History proves Ferguson 6— Laurence A. Tisch prof of History at Harvard. William Ziegler of Business Administration at Harvard. MA and D.Phil from Glasgow and Oxford (Niall, “The Next War of the World,” September/October 2006, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_next_war_of_the_world.html)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise

of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered . Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by

fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than

the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Robust studies prove Miller 2k – Professor of Management, Ottawa (Morris, Poverty As A Cause Of Wars?, http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/pac256/WG4draft1.htm)

Thus, these armed conflicts can hardly be said to be caused by poverty as a principal factor when the greed and envy of leaders and their hegemonic ambitions provide sufficient cause. The poor would appear to be more the victims than the perpetrators of armed conflict. It might be alleged that some dramatic event or rapid sequence of those types of events that lead to the exacerbation of poverty might be the catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who might be tempted to seek a

diversion by finding/fabricating an enemy and going to war. According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment

for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since World War II they concluded that Much of the conventional wisdom about the political

impact of economic crises may be wrong... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and

negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes. A more direct role was played by political variables such as ideological polarization,

labor radicalism, guerilla insurgencies and an anti-Communist military... (In democratic states) such changes seldom lead to an

outbreak of violence (while ) in the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression

(thereby using one form of violence to abort another.

Econ collapse saps resources from military aggression Bennett 2k – PolSci Prof, Penn State (Scott and Timothy Nordstrom, Foreign Policy Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Ebsco)

Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems. Military competition between

states requires large amounts of resources, and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy. In a “guns versus butter” world of economic trade-offs, when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to be most important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways

to alleviate active problems. Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be

forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among other things, this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete economically with the United States.

No geopolitical effectsBlackwill 2009 – former US ambassador to India and US National Security Council Deputy for Iraq, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (Robert D., RAND, “The Geopolitical Consequences of the World Economic Recession—A Caution”, http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2009/RAND_OP275.pdf)

Did the economic slump lead to strategic amendments in the way Japan sees the world? No. Did it slow the pace of India’s emergence as a rising great power? No. To the contrary, the new Congress-led government in New Delhi will accelerate that process. Did it alter Iran ’s apparent determination to acquire a nuclear capability or something close to it? No. Was it a prime cause of the recent domestic crisis and instability in Iran

after its 2009 presidential election? No. Did it slow or accelerate the moderate Arab states intent to move along the nuclear path? No. Did it affect North

Korea’s destabilizing nuclear calculations? No. Did it importantly weaken political reconciliation in Iraq? No, because there is almost none in any case. Did it slow the Middle East peace process? No, not least because prospects for progress on issues between Israel and the Palestinians are the most unpromising in 25 years.

Did it substantially affect the enormous internal and international challenges associated with the growth of Jihadiism in Pakistan? No. But at the same time, it is important to stress that Pakistan, quite apart from the global recession, is the epicenter of global terrorism and now represents potentially the most dangerous

international situation since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Did the global economic downturn systemically affect the future of Afghanistan? No. The fact that the United States is doing badly in the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the economic deterioration. As Henry Kissinger observes, “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.” And NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. Did it change in a major way the future of the Mexican

state? No. Did the downturn make Europe, because of its domestic politics, less willing and able over time to join the U.S. in effective alliance

policies? No, there will likely be no basic variations in Europe’s external policies and no serious evolution in transatlantic relations. As President Obama is experiencing regarding Europe, the problems with European publics in this regard are civilizational in character, not especially tied to this recession—in general, European publics do not wish their nations to take on foreign missions that entail the use of force and possible loss of life. Did the downturn slow further EU

integration? Perhaps, at the margin, but in any case one has to watch closely to see if EU integration moves like a turtle or like a rock. And so forth. To be clear, there will inevitably be major challenges in the international situation in the next five years. In fact, this will be the most dangerous

and chaotic global period since before the 1973 Middle East war. But it is not obvious that these disturbing developments will be primarily a result of the global economic problems. It is, of course, important to be alert to primary and enduring international

discontinuities. If such a convulsive geopolitical event is out there, what is it? One that comes to mind is another catastrophic attack on the American homeland. Another is the collapse of Pakistan and the loss of government control of its nuclear arsenal to Islamic extremists. But again, neither

of these two geopolitical calamities would be connected to the current economic decline. Some argue that, even though geopolitical changes resulting from the current global economic tribulations are not yet apparent, they are occurring beneath the surface of the international system and will become manifest in the years to come. In short, causality not perceptible now will become so. This subterranean argument is difficult to rebut. To test that hypothesis, the obvious analytical method is to seek tangible data that demonstrates that it is so. In short, show A, B, and/or C (in this case, geopolitical transformations caused by the world slump) to have occurred, thus substantiating the contention. One could then examine said postulated evidence

and come to a judgment regarding its validity. To instead contend that, even though no such data can be adduced, the assertion , nevertheless, is true because of presently invisible occurrences seems more in the realm of religious conviction than rigorous analysis . But it is worth asking, as the magisterial American soldier/statesman George Marshall often did, “Why might I be wrong?” If the global economic numbers continue to decline next year and the year after, one must wonder whether any region would remain stable— whether China would maintain internal stability, whether the United States would continue as the pillar of international order, and whether the European Union

would hold together. In that same vein, it is unclear today what effect, if any, the reckless financial lending and huge public debt that the United States is accumulating, as well as current massive governmental fiscal and monetary intervention in the American economy, will have on U.S. economic dynamism, entrepreneurial creativity, and, consequently, power projection over the very long term. One can only speculate on that issue at present, but it is certainly worth worrying about, and it is the most important “known unknown”27 regarding this subject.28 In addition, perhaps the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on China is more fragile than posited here, and possibly Pakistan and Mexico are much more vulnerable to failed-state outcomes primarily because of the economic downturn than

anticipated in this essay. While it seems unlikely that these worst-case scenarios will eventuate as a result of the world

recession, they do illustrate again that crucial uncertainties in this analysis are the global downturn’s length and severity and the long-term effects

of the Obama Administration’s policies on the U.S. economy. Finally, if not, why not? If the world is in the most severe international economic crisis since the 1930s, why is it not producing structural changes in the global order? A brief

answer is that the transcendent geopolitical elements have not altered in substantial ways with regard to individual nations in the two years since the economic crisis began. What are those enduring geopolitical elements? For any given country, they include the following: • Geographic location, topography, and climate. As Robert Kaplan puts it, “to embrace geography is not to accept it as an implacable force against which humankind is powerless. Rather, it serves to qualify human freedom and choice with a modest acceptance of fate.”29 In this connection, see in particular the works of Sir Halford John Mackinder and his The Geographical Pivot of History (1904)30, and Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (1890).31 • Demography—the size, birth rate, growth, density, ethnicity, literacy, religions, migration/emigration/ assimilation/absorption, and industriousness of the population. • The histories, foreign and defense policy tendencies, cultural determinants, and

domestic politics of individual countries. • The size and strength of the domestic economy. • The quality and pace of technology. • The

presence of natural resources. • The character, capabilities, and policies of neighboring states. For the countries that matter most in the global order, perhaps

unsurprisingly, none of these decisive variables have changed very much since the global downturn bega n, except

for nations’ weaker economic performances. That single factor is not likely to trump all these other abiding geopolitical determinants and therefore produce international structural change. Moreover, the fundamental power relationships between and among the world’s foremost countries have also not altered , nor have those nations’ perceptions of their vital national

interests and how best to promote and defend them. To sum up this pivotal concept, in the absence of war, revolution, or other extreme international or

domestic disruptions, for nation-states, the powerful abiding conditions just listed do not evolve much except over the very long term, and thus neither do countries’ strategic intent and core external policies— even, as today, in the face of world economic trials. This point was made earlier about Russia’s enduring national security goals, which go back hundreds of years. Similarly, a Gulf monarch recently advised—with respect to Iran—not to fasten on the views of President Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Khamenei. Rather, he counseled that, to best understand contemporary Iranian policy, one should more usefully read the histories, objectives, and strategies of the Persian kings Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, who successively ruled a vast empire around 500 BC.32

The American filmmaker Orson Welles once opined that “To give an accurate description of what never happened is the proper

occupation of the historian.” 33 Perhaps the same is occasionally true of pundits . ■

1AR #8 – Econ Resilient

The global economy’s resilient --- extend Zakaria --- we survived downturns in 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998, and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The same policy interventions and safeguards that checked collapse then will protect us now. The system is too deeply connected.

Lessons learned from the 30s are durableDrezner 2011 – professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (8/12, Daniel, Foreign Policy, “Please come down off the ledge, dear readers”, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge_dear_readers) *note: charts and graphics omitted

 So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and disturbances, and eerie echoes

of the Great Depression. Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering for a while, because that's what

happens after major financial shocks . Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it 1931? Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how 1931 played out . The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic career to studying the Great Depression. I'm gonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be because central bank heads replay the same set of mistakes.

The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of publuc attitudes, compare the results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts below: The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things stand out. U.S. support has

declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers, such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression , public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so drastc.

Another big difference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade

matters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them.

The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the

bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working papercited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19:

[I]n countries with better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries

with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient declines . For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant.

This is good news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931 . What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule . So yes, the recent economic news might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the

mistakes of the 1930's. And, based on the data we've got , that's not going to happen .

**The economy is resilientWashington Times 2008 – chief political correspondent for The Washington Times (7/28, Donald Lambro, The Washington Times, "Always darkest before dawn", lexis, WEA)

The doom-and-gloomers are still with us , of course, and they will go to their graves forecasting that life as we know it is coming to an end and that we are in for years of economic depression and recession. Last week, the New York Times ran a Page One story maintaining that Americans were saving less than ever, and that their debt burden had risen by an average of $117,951 per household. And the London Telegraph says there are even harder times ahead, comparing today's

economy to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Wall Street economist David Malpass thinks that kind of fearmongering is filled with manipulated statistics that ignore long-term wealth creation in our country, as well as globally. Increasingly, people are investing "for the long run - for capital gains (not counted in savings) rather than current income - in preparation for retirement,"

he told his clients last week. Instead of a coming recession, "we think the U.S. is in gradual recovery after a sharp two-quarter slowdown, with consumer resilience more likely than the decades-old expectation of a consumer slump," Mr. Malpass said. "Fed data shows clearly that household savings of all types - liquid, financial and tangible - are still close to the record levels set in September. IMF data shows U.S. households holding more net financial savings than the rest of the world

combined. Consumption has repeatedly outperformed expectations in recent quarters and

year," he said. The American economy has been pounded by a lot of factors , including the housing collapse (a needed correction to bring home prices down to earth), the mortgage scandal and the

meteoric rise in oil and gas prices. But this $14 trillion economy, though slowing down, continues to grow by about 1 percent on an annualized basis, confounding the pessimists who said we were plunging into a recession, defined by negative growth over two quarters. That has not happened - yet. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I do not think we are heading into a recession. On the contrary, I'm more bullish than ever on our economy's long-term prospects.

1AR #9 – US Not Key

De-coupling prevents global economic collapse --- extend The Economist --- the US is not key to the world economy --- emerging economies do not depend on the US for growth --- even if US growth slows it will barely put a dent in global GDP

**Asia’s de-coupled --- props up the global economy absent the USBandow 10 (Doug Bandow, Cato Institute, International Journal of Korean Studies, Spring/Summer 2010. Promoting Long-Term Economic Growth: America and East Asia Working Together http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/doug-bandow-ijks-xiv.pdf, jj)

However, Asia increasingly will act as a second engine of growth. South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan all have become advanced industrialized nations and major trading states . China is pairing rapid economic growth with a large population. Asia’s role in spurring economic recovery is evident in the aftermath of last fall’s financial crisis. The U.S. and Europe fell into severe recessions while facing a crisis of confidence in their core financial institutions. Some small countries, such as Iceland, found their banks disastrously overextended, while others, such Greece, have seen their governments veer close to defacto bankruptcy.

There in so such thing as the global economy—economic links are regionalFletcher 2010 – Adjunct Fellow at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council (7/7, Ian, Huffington Post, “The myth of the global economy”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/the-myth-of-the-global-ec_b_638546.html, props to Mustafa for the cite, WEA)

If there's one thing everyone knows these days, whether they're happy about it or not, it's that we live in a "global" economy. This fact is taken as so obvious that anyone who disputes it is regarded as not so much wrong as simply ignorant -- not even worth arguing with. So it may come as a shock to many that, in reality, the cliche that we live in a borderless global economy does not survive serious examination. The key is to ignore the Thomas Friedmanesque rhetoric the media is flooded with and get down to some hard numbers. The easiest hard number is this: Because the U.S. is roughly 25 percent of the world economy, a truly borderless world would imply that imports and exports would each make up 75 percent of our economy, since our purchase and sale transactions would be distributed around the world. This would entail a total trade level (imports plus exports) of 150 percent of GDP . Instead, our total trade level is 29 percent: imports are 17 percent and exports 12 percent. So our economy is nowhere near borderless. Furthermore, as our trade is almost certainly destined to be balanced by import contraction, rather than an export boom, in the next few years, our trade level is almost certainly poised to go down, not up. So unless the U.S. can somehow magically find a way to keep sucking in $300 to $700 billion a year in imports it doesn't pay for with exports, America in a few years will be importing significantly less and will be a less globalized economy. A truly unified world economy would also mean that rates of interest and profit would have to be equal everywhere--because if they weren't, the differences would be arbitraged away by the financial markets. But this is nowhere near being the case: Interest rates and corporate profits vary widely around the world. Economists James Anderson and Eric van Wincoop have calculated that the average cost of international trade (ignoring tariffs) is the equivalent of a 170 percent tariff. Even between adjacent and similar nations like the U.S. and Canada, national borders still count: Canadian economist John McCallum has documented that trade between Canadian provinces is on average 20 times as large as the corresponding trade between Canadian provinces and American states. And much of international trade is interregional anyway, not global, being centered on European, North American, and East Asian blocs; this is true for just under 50 percent of both agriculture and manufactured goods. In reality, the world economy remains what it has been for a very long time: a thin crust of genuinely global economy (more visible than its true size due to its concentration in media, finance, technology, and luxury goods) over a network of regionally-linked

national economies, over vast sectors of every economy that are not internationally traded at all (70 percent of the U.S. economy, for example). On present trends, it will remain roughly this way for the rest of our lives. The world economy in the early 21st century is not even remotely borderless. Another stubborn reality is that, contrary to what some people seem to think, the nation-state is a long way from being economically irrelevant. Most fundamentally, it remains relevant to people because most people still live in the nation where they were born, which means that their economic fortunes depend upon wage and consumption levels within that one society. Unemployed Americans are learning this the hard way right now. Capital is a similar story. Even in the early 21st century, it hasn't been globalized nearly as much as often imagined. And it also cares very much about where it lives, frequently for the same reasons people do. (Few people wish to live or invest in Zimbabwe; many people wish to live and invest in California.) For a start, because 70 percent of America's capital is human capital, a lot of capital behaves exactly as people do, simply because it is people. Another 12 percent has been estimated by the World Bank to be social capital, the value of institutions and knowledge not assignable to individuals. So although liquid financial capital can indeed flash around the world in the blink of an electronic eye , this is only a fraction (under 10 percent) of any developed nation's capital stock. Even most nonhuman capital resides in things like real estate, infrastructure, physical plant, and types of financial capital that don't flow overseas -- or don't flow very much. (Economists call this "don't flow very much" phenomenon home bias, and it is well documented.) As a result, the output produced by all this capital is still largely tied to particular nations. So although capital mobility certainly causes big problems of its own, it is nowhere near big enough to literally abolish the nation-state as an economic unit. Will it do so one day? Even this is unlikely. Even where famously dematerializing and globalizing assets, like fiber optic telecom lines, are added -- assets that supposedly make physical location irrelevant--they are still largely being added where existing agglomerations of capital are. For example, although fiber optic backbones have gone into places like Bangalore, India, which were not global economic centers a generation ago, big increments of capacity have also gone into places like Manhattan, Tokyo, Silicon Valley, and Hong Kong, which were already important. As a result, existing geographic agglomerations of capital are largely self-reinforcing and here to stay, even if new ones come into being in unexpected places (often through decisions made by national governments). And these agglomerations have national shape because of past history; legacy effects can be extremely durable. Previous technological revolutions , such as the worldwide spread of railroads, were at least as big as current innovations like the Internet, and they didn't abolish the nation-state . Ironically, the enduring relevance of the national economy is clearest in some of the "poster child" countries of globalization, like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Ireland. In each of these nations, economic success was the product of policies enacted by governments that were in some sense nationalist. Japan industrialized after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 to avoid being colonized by some Western power. Taiwan did it out of fear of mainland China. South Korea did it out of fear of North Korea. Ireland did it to escape economic domination by England. In each case, the driving force was not simply desire for profit. This exists in every society (including resource-rich basket cases like Nigeria, where it merely produces gangsterism), but does not reliably crystallize into the policies needed for economic growth. The driving force was national political needs that found a solution in economic development.

Emerging economies have decoupled from the US – industries, jobs and consumersBrush 10 (Michael, award-winning New York financial writer who has covered business and investing for The New York Times, Money magazine and the Economist Group, studied at Columbia Business School in the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship program, “Emerging markets will lead us back,” MSN Money, http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/emerging-markets-will-lead-us-back.aspx)

Now that investment should pay off. Emerging economies are starting to truly emerge as economic powerhouses , with some already casting off the global recession and posting strong growth. Take stocks, for example: Even after a strong rally, the U.S. market is merely about even this year. China's market is up 27%. India's is up 48%. The good news: This will help the U.S. bounce back, perhaps more strongly than most anticipate, as a world of new consumers starts

buying our stuff. The risk, at least if you're nationalistically minded: Though the U.S. may not lose its leadership role in the global economy, its

superiority will dwindle. Recent news of robust growth in places such as China and India confirms that emerging markets are on an economic path of their own, relying less on support from U.S. customers . This is the

theoretical decoupling that many economists had buzzed about, then dismissed as the world followed the U.S. into recession. It turns out that decoupling is real. Next, expect consumers in these emerging economies to start buying more stuff made in the U.S., nudging the U.S. back to "normal" growth of 3% to 3.5% per year sooner than many people expect, says James Paulsen, an economist and market strategist

with Wells Fargo. And that is how the "investments" made by U.S. consumers will pay off. Our spending helped them build up industries, creating jobs and consumers -- who now can turn around and buy from us. To be sure, emerging-market economies deserve credit, too. Most of their financial institutions steered clear of the credit -market mess that has crippled the more advanced economies of the U.S. and Europe, says Cristina Panait, who follows emerging markets as a portfolio manager of the Payden Emerging Markets Bond Fund (PYEMX). But here's a closer look at how the U.S. consumer helped create this boom. After World War II, the U.S. channeled $13 billion to Europe for rebuilding, recognizing that we needed the region as a trading partner. That's about $115 billion in today's dollars. The payoff came in the 1950s and 1960s, when European demands for our stuff contributed to robust U.S. economic growth. This ingenious strategy was called the Marshall Plan, named after then-Secretary of State George Marshall, who played a key role in developing it. Now the U.S. is starting to benefit from an unofficial Marshall Plan set in motion by U.S. consumers over the past 15 years, Paulsen believes. As U.S. consumers binged, a lot of what they bought came from factories in China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and other emerging-world countries. During this time, the U.S. ran trade deficits of about $650 billion a year, Paulsen estimates. That means we spent that much more abroad than foreigners bought from us. That money helped emerging-market nations build out their infrastructure. It paid the salaries that fueled the growth of now-thriving middle classes. "We ran trade deficits for the better part of a decade and a half, and that amounts to a constant investment in these economies," Paulsen says. The result was a "new world consumer, with wants, desires and savings." Trade deficits were criticized along the way as a sign the U.S. was living beyond its means. But the payoff may be coming soon. Here are some

numbers that give a sense of the changes that U.S. consumers helped bring about in the emerging world: In China, about 400 million people have risen above poverty since the late 1970s. And 150 million of them now have manufacturing jobs -- a group nearly

the size of the entire U.S. work force, says Fred Fraenkel, the chairman of investment policy for Beacon Trust. An additional 200 million Chinese should rise above poverty in the next five to 10 years, he estimates. The size of the middle class has likewise been rising dramatically throughout the developing world. "This is moving so fast . . . that it's hard to comprehend," Fraenkel says. One way to grasp the big picture is to consider how sharply the emerging-market share of world gross domestic

product has risen. Developing economies accounted for 45% of world GDP last year , up from 37% in 2000, says Panait, of investment firm Payden & Rygel. The value of emerging-market contribution to world GDP rose to $30.9 trillion in 2008 from $15.5

trillion in 2000. Emerging-market customers are now buying much more of our stuff. Developing countries bought 35% of the $1.3

trillion worth of U.S. exports in 2008, according to Franklin Vargo of the National Association of Manufacturers. That's up from 25% in 1990. China was the largest, with $70 billion in purchases, followed by Brazil, Singapore and Taiwan. They buy agricultural products but also significant amounts of manufactured goods. That's a lot of theory, but what does it mean for investors? First, U.S. stocks may rally a lot more, and sooner, than many pundits currently expect. Keeping money on the sidelines may be a mistake. It probably also makes sense to buy stocks of companies in these regions despite their big rallies. Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index ($HSI) is up 61% from its low point of this recession; India's stock market is up 75%. Some potential buys include Chinese education companies, such as China Distance Education (DL, news, msgs), ChinaEdu (CEDU, news, msgs) and New Oriental Education & Technology Group (EDU, news, msgs), and Indian car company Tata Motors (TTM, news, msgs), says Paul Goodwin of Cabot China & Emerging Markets Report, a top-ranked investment newsletter by Hulbert Financial Digest. Brazilian banks such as Banco Bradesco (BBD, news, msgs) and Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo (ITUB, news, msgs) look attractive as plays on expanding use of consumer banking services, says Will Landers, the portfolio manager of the BlackRock Latin America Fund I (MALTX). Uri Landesman, the head of global growth strategies at ING Investment Management, likes Millicom International Cellular (MICC, news, msgs), which offers mobile telephone services in Central America, South America, Africa and Asia. "It's the Vodafone Group (VOD, news, msgs) of emerging markets," he says. U.S. exports leveled off earlier this year after falling sharply during the depths of the recession, and emerging economies slowed down, too. But for the longer term, purchases of U.S. products should continue to rise, for two reasons:

Emerging economies are showing robust growth. India's economy was up 5.8% in the first quarter. China's GDP

grew 7.9% in the second quarter. Overall, JPMorgan Chase analysts estimate that emerging Asia's GDP grew by an annualized 7% in the second quarter. The International Monetary Fund projects emerging economies will grow by 4.7% next year, with China and India leading the

way at 8.5% and 6.5%, respectively. "We're convinced that the emerging markets are going to lead the way out of the recession," Panait says.

Decoupling – US isn’t key to emerging markets Passell 12 (Peter Passell, Economics Editor of Democracy Lab, is a Senior Fellow at the Milken Institute, “Decoupling: Ties That No Longer Bind ,” 4/4/12) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/03/ties_that_no_longer_bind?page=fullEverybody knows that the global economy is becoming more tightly integrated -- that factors ranging from the collapse of ocean shipping costs, to the rise of multinational manufacturing, to the growth of truly international securities

markets, have bound national economies to each other as never before. This, of course, must mean we're now all in it together. Booms and busts in rich countries will reverberate ever more strongly through developing and emerging market economies. Right? Sounds reasonable, but that's not what's happened. The big emerging market economies (notably, China, India and Brazil) took only modest hits from the housing finance bubble and subsequent recession in the U.S ., Japan and Europe, then went back to growth-as-usual . Hence the paradox: Emerging-market and developing countries have somehow "decoupled " from the Western business cycle in an era of ever-increasing economic integration. But the experts have yet to agree on why. Here are the two contending explanations: Changing Trade Patterns Just a few decades ago, most developing countries depended heavily on commodity exports -- everything from bananas to copper to soybeans to oil. And trade patterns were pretty straightforward: Rich countries supplied industrial goods in return for those commodities. When Europe, Japan and the U.S. went into recession, their demand for commodities fell, dragging supplying countries down with them. Actually, the impact was even worse than you might expect, since commodity suppliers were hit by the double whammy of falling export volume and falling export prices. The content of trade shifted in the 1980s and 1990s with the movement of industries that used lots of cheap labor to low-wage economies, mostly in Asia. But most of the demand for the exports of poor and emerging market countries came from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan. So when the U.S. burped, Thailand, Mexico and Chile all got indigestion. (Hey, be thankful I found an alternative to the sneeze/caught cold metaphor.) Many countries -- notably, the oil and mineral producers -- remain one-trick ponies, heavily dependent on commodity exports. But as the major emerging-market economies have grown bigger and more sophisticated, they've diversified their exports and moved up the food chain with higher-tech products. China, not so long ago the global hub for cheap apparel and shoes, now exports (among so many other things) solar panels and medical equipment. India exports pharmaceuticals and software as well as cotton, sugar and home furnishings. Brazil exports weapons and commercial jets along with coffee, soybeans and oranges. This has set the stage for a radical shift in who trades what, and with whom. China and India have become voracious importers of commoditie s from countries that once looked only to the rich industrialized countries for markets. By the same token, emerging market economies are selling a greater proportion of their manufactured exports to other emerging market economies. All told, EME exports to other EMEs has risen from less than 10 percent of their total to close to 40 percent today. As a result of this diversification, both emerging market exporters of manufactures and developing country exporters of commodities have become less sensitive to the ups and downs of rich economies. The obvious example is the new synergy between China and the major oil exporters. Growing Chinese demand probably prevented a collapse in oil prices during the recession, and is being blamed by the White House for the current spike in fuel prices But the impact of the shift -- including the political friction it is creating -- can be seen all over the place. India has resisted US-led efforts to embargo trade with Iran because it gets much of its oil from Iran in return for sugar and rice. Mexico and Brazil recently settled a trade dispute in which Brazil sought to keep out Mexican autos that competed with domestic Brazilian production. Decoupling has been documented more rigorously. A recent statistical study from the Inter-American Development Bank found that the impact of a change in GDP in China on the GDP of Latin America has tripled since the mid-

1990s, while the impact of a change in US GDP on Latin America has halved . Better Policy Making One reason emerging-market countries managed to skate through the last recession without much damage is that they used fiscal and monetary tools appropriately to offset the impact of falling demand for their exports. Beijing ordered China's provincial and local governments to spend an extra $580 billion (mostly on infrastructure projects) in response to falling exports to the U.S. and Europe. India's central bank, for its part, sharply cut the interest rate at which banks could tap government funds and directly injected funds into financial markets through other means. Brazil's left-center government used a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus to end its own economic downturn after just two quarters, and managed a stunning 7 percent growth rate in 2010. So, isn't that what any sensible government would do? Britain and, arguably, the eurozone, have not behaved sensibly, leaving them vulnerable to a "double-dip" recession. The more important point here, though, is that China, India and Brazil were able to act decisively to decouple from the rich countries' recession because they had built credible records in managing budget deficits and containing inflation. Equally important -- and more surprising -- developing countries that were heavily dependent on commodity exports also managed to buffer the impact of the downturn. Traditionally, these countries have been unable to resist government spending binges in boom times and have lacked the capacity to borrow in lean times to offset the fall in export revenues. Their fiscal policies were thus "pro-cyclical" in the sense that they exacerbated swings in total demand. But as Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard has shown, most commodity-dependent exporters have managed to get their fiscal acts together, and were thus able to expand demand with "counter-cyclical" stimulus policies during the last recession. Chile has led the way with a remarkably sophisticated law that largely forces the government to build fiscal reserves when the price of Chile's premier export -- copper -- is high, and allows it to spend down the fund when copper declines. More generally, Frankel argues, developing countries are getting better at buffering export price fluctuations because they are building credible government institutions for managing their economies.

Agenda Politics Answers

2AC – A2: Obama Good DA

( ) Turn—conservation programs like the plan are bipartisanNichols & Rowley, ‘6 (Dr. Wallace J. Nichols is a research associate at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and a member of Oceana's Ocean Council, an international ocean protection group. Anne Alexander Rowley is chairwoman of the council. June 8, 2006, Buffalo News, “The ocean is a key component of life on Earth” Lexis, jj)

Home to 80 percent of the world's creatures, the ocean knows no divisions . Consider that a single molecule of sea-water circulates

around the entire world ocean in seven years. Sea turtles, whales, tuna and sharks weave together the ocean world with their thousand-mile migrations. A sea turtle born in Mexico may graze on a coral reef in Hawaii or pluck jellyfish from Indonesian

seas. Here at home, thanks to the work of groups like Ocean Champions, Oceana, Conservation International and others, a broad movement is under way to secure our coastal waters and safeguard our ocean. In bipartisan efforts , people like Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., and former Sen. Connie

Mack, R-Fla., defend healthy ocean systems by supporting coastal protection, fisheries management and scientific research. But a productive and abundant ocean will require more than strong protection at home. Our efforts must be large and deep-oceanic in nature.

( ) No link - The disad is not an opportunity cost – Congress could do the plan and pass X

( ) Political capital doesn’t exist and isn’t key to their DA- more likely winners winHirsch 13 Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweek’s Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, “The World from Washington.” Earlier on, he was Newsweek’s foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war on terror. He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207

On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response,

the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “pol itical cap ital ” Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no

bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had

talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second

term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought

to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of

deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on

the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a

“mandate” or “pol itical cap ital ”—chances are fair that both will now happen . What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to

precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if

it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members

of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in

the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his

advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly

come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without

such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s

got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of pol itical cap ita l—or mandates, or momentum—is so

poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong . “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University.

“The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is

distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the

way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything . Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have

real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed,

the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the

Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that pol itical cap ital is , at best, an empty concept , and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a

president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one

issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of cap ital . “The

idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶ ALL

THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush

decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls.¶ THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER¶ Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and

attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the government’s attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.

In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of pol itical cap ital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s

atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins —as he already has,

apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that will create momentum , and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.” Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-

partisan” president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal imprimatur on any plan—from deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t worry about who’s got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where I’m saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.

1AR – Plan Popular

Ocean protection measures are bipartisan—“RESTORE Act” provesJoe Henderson, The Tampa Tribune, 7/17/12, “Congress can still cooperate” Lexis, jj

I mean, I'm always stunned when politicians come together from opposite sides of the aisle to pass important legislation for the public good. I guess I shouldn't say "always" since I haven't had to test this theory too often in our

toxic political climate, but you know what I mean. Anyway, there was U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, Democrat, visiting the Florida Aquarium on Monday with some shocking news. When they put their minds to it, our leaders still know how to work together. They proved it by passing the RESTORE Act. He seemed surprised. I can understand why. "This is how government is supposed to work, where you reach across the aisle and bring both parties together in a bipartisan way and you build consensus," he said. "When those differences arise, you work out the differences. We're seeing that against a backdrop of gridlock, of excessive partisanship, of excessive ideological rigidity on matters of the budget and deficit

reduction. "What you're seeing played out in front of us is politics at its worst. In the midst of all that, here is this little bright, shining moment of bipartisanship." That cooperation helped RESTORE pass both the House and Senate, and it is now the law. Nelson staged this event at the Aquarium's coral reef exhibit. As he spoke, all manner of aquatic life, including sharks and sea turtles, swam past in the tanks behind him. It was a none-too-subtle reminder about the BP oil disaster two years ago in the Gulf of Mexico, a catastrophe this law will address. Among the provisions is a science monitoring program to address issues that will remain long after the tar balls go away. "We have seen lesions affecting fish and we don't know why," Ocean Conservancy Director TJ Marshall said. "We have seen some beaches

changing on a micro level, and we don't know why. This will raise questions of, 'Is this the right place to visit for my vacation?'" For a state like ours, so dependent on the water, this was more than just messy. Besides the environmental damage, the spill was a gut-punch to tourism, restaurants, recreational and commercial fishing -- you name it. Fewer tourists meant fewer jobs.

1AR – Winners Win

( ) Winners winSinger, ’09 (Jonathan, My Direct Democracy editor, “By Expending Capital, Obama Grows His Capital”, 3-3-9, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428, accessed 7-8-9, AFB)

"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this

six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital . Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near- unanimous opposition of the Republicans on

Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result.

Getting wins is key – the more unpopular the act the bigger returnOrnstein, ’01 (Norm, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “How Bush is Governing,” May 15, AEI event, http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.281/transcript.asp)

The best plan is to pick two significant priorities, things that can move relatively quickly . And in an ideal world, one of them is going to be a little bit tough , where it's a battle, where you've got to fight, but then your victory is all the sweeter . The other matters but you can sweep through fairly quickly with a broad base of support and show that you're a winner and can accomplish something. Bush did just that, picking one, education, where there was a fairly strong chance. Something he campaigned on, people care about, and a pretty strong chance that he could get a bill through with 80, 85 percent support of both houses of Congress and both parties. And the other that he picked, and there were other choices, but he picked the

tax cuts. What flows from that as well is, use every bit of p olitical c apital you have to achieve early victories that will both establish you as a winner, because the key to political power is not the formal power that you have. Your ability to coerce people to do what they otherwise would not do. Presidents don't have a lot of that formal power. It's as much psychological as it is real . If you're a winner and people think you're a winner, and that issues come up and they’re tough but somehow you're going to prevail, they will act in anticipation of that. Winners win . If it looks like you can't get things done, then you have a steeply higher hill to climb with what follows. And as you use your political

capital, you have to recognize that for presidents, political capital is a perishable quality, that it evaporates if it isn't used. That's a lesson, by the way, George W. Bush learned firsthand from his father. That if you use it and you succeed, it's a gamble, to be sure, you'll get it back with a very healthy premium.

Wins spillover to policy successPrins and Marshall, ’11 (Brandon, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Tennessee, and Bryan, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami (Ohio), “Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3, September)

Presidents rely heavily on Congress in converting their political capital into real policy success. Policy success not only shapes the reelection prospects of presidents, but it also builds the president’s reputation for political effectiveness and fuels the prospect for subsequent gains in political capita l (Light 1982). Moreover, the president’s legislative success in foreign policy is correlated with success on the domestic

front. On this point, some have largely disavowed the two-presidencies distinction while others have even argued that foreign policy has become

a mere extension of domestic policy (Fleisher et al. 2000; Oldfield and Wildavsky 1989) Presidents implicitly understand that there exists a linkage between their actions in one policy area and their ability to affect another . The use of force is no exception; in promoting and protecting U.S. interests abroad, presidential decisions are made with an eye toward managing political capital at home (Fordham 2002).

1AR – PC Not Real / Key

( ) Issues are compartmentalized – no reason the plan will change peoples’ votes on a separate bill. And, PC irrelevant to the agendaSilver, 1/26/11 – political statistician and all-around baller (Nate. “Obama’s paradox of choice.” http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/obamas-paradox-of-choice/)

Now, however, the stakes are probably much lower for him. With Democrats no longer in control of the House of Representatives, Mr. Obama will not be able to pass any major Democratic policy initiatives now, no matter how much political capital he might be willing to stake on them . Meanwhile, the Republicans control only the House, not the Senate. In contrast to Bill Clinton — who faced opposition control of both houses of Congress after his first midterm election — Mr. Obama may never have to use his veto pen. This is not to suggest, exactly, that Mr. Obama’s job has become easy (the president’s job never is). But surely it has become easier in one regard: he has far fewer choices to make.

Votes are ideological and Obama is powerless.Jamelle Bouie, Writing Fellow at The American Prospect, 05/05/11, “Political Capital,” http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2011&base_name=political_capital

Unfortunately, political capital isn't that straightforward . As we saw at the beginning of Obama's presidency, the mere fact of popularity (or a large congressional majority) doesn't guarantee support from key members of Congress. For Obama to actually sign legislation to reform the immigration system, provide money for jobs, or

reform corporate taxes, he needs unified support from his party and support from a non-trivial number of Republicans. Unfortunately, Republicans (and plenty of Democrats) aren't interested in better immigration laws, fiscal stimulus, or

liberal tax reform. Absent substantive leverage -- and not just high approval ratings -- there isn't much Obama can do to pressure these members (Democrats and Republicans) into supporting his agenda. Indeed, for liberals who want to see Obama use his political capital , it's worth noting that approval-spikes aren't necessarily related to policy success . George H.W. Bush's major domestic initiatives came before his massive post-Gulf War approval bump, and his final year in office saw little policy success. George W. Bush was able to secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in the year following 9/11, but the former two either came with pre-9/11 Democratic support or were Democratic initiatives to begin with. To repeat an oft-

made point, when it comes to domestic policy, the presidency is a limited office with limited resources. Popularity with the public is a necessary part of presidential success in Congress , but it's far from sufficient.

And, the theory of pol cap is wrong—issues are compartmentalizedDickinson, 09 – professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt (5/26/09, Matthew, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,”http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/)

These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote   on a   nominee or   legislative item   is   rarely influenced by anything a president does.   Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? –   this   m istakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence .   Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’   ideological and partisan leanings,   the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection   or not – we   can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants . (I am ignoring the

importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then,   most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying

Empirics prove Bond & Fleisher, ‘96 (Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996. "The President in Legislation”)

In sum, the evidence presented in this chapter provides little support for the theory that the president's perceived leadership, skills are associated with success on roll call votes in Congress. Presidents reputed as highly skilled do not win consistently more often than should be expected. Even the effects of the partisan balanced Congress, the president's popularity, and, the cycle of decreasing influence over the course of his term.

Presidents reputed as unskilled do not win consistently less often relative to. More over, skilled presidents do not win significantly more often than unskilled presidents on either important votes or close votes, in which skills have the greatest potential to affect the outcome . Because of the difficulty of establishing a definitive test of the skills theory, some may argue that it is premature to reject this explanation of presidential success based on the tests reported in this chapter. It might be argued that these findings by themselves do not deny that leadership skill is an important component of presidential-congressional relations. Failure to find systematic effects in general does not necessarily refute the anecdotes and case studies demonstrating the importance of skills.

Party support and divisions proveBond & Fleisher, ‘96 (Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996. "The President in Legislation”)

Neustadt is correct that weak political parties in American politics do not bridge the gap created by the constitutional s eparation o f p owers . We would add: neither does skilled presidential leadership or popularity with the public. In fact, the forces that Neustadt stressed as the antidote for weak parties are even less successful in linking the president

and Congress than are weak parties. Our findings indicate that members of Congress provide levels of support for the President that are generally consistent with their partisan and ideological predispositions . Because party and ideology are relatively stable , facing a Congress made up of more members predisposed to support the president does increase the likelihood of success on the floor. There is, however, considerable variation in the behavior of the party factions. As expected, cross-pressured members are typically divided, and when they unify, they

unify against about as often as they unify for the president. Even members of the party bases who have reinforcing partisan and ideological predispositions frequently fail to unify for or against the president's position. Our analysis of party and committee leaders in Congress reveals that support from congressional leaders is associated with unity of the party factions. The party bases are likely to unify only if the party and committee leader of a party take the same position.

But party and committee leaders within each party take opposing stands on a significant proportion of presidential roll calls. Because members of the party factions and their leaders frequently fail to unify around a party position, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the outcome of presidential roll calls.

Studies proveLeloup and Shull, ’99 – prof. political science (Lance and Steven, The President and Congress, p. 5-6)

Second, a somewhat different congressionalist or Congress-centered view comes from recent research on presidential legislative success

with Congress. As we will examine in more detail below, some recent studies have show n that the most important explanations of what happens to presidential proposals or positions have to do with the partisan and ideological composition of Congress rather than characteristics of the presidency. That is to say, the outcomes of the legislative process are more a function of the composition of Congress than the president's popularity or margin of electoral victory.

Decentralization provesJones, 2k – Emeritus Professor of Political Science at U Wisconsin-Madison, (Charles, Presidential Studies Quarterly, March, p.6)

Besides not considering the full range of available views, members of Congress are not generally in a position to make trade-offs between policies. Because of its decentralization, Congress usually considers policies serially, that is, without reference to other policies. Without an integrating mechanism, members have few means by which to set and enforce priorities and to emphasize the policies with which the president is most concerned.

CP Answers

States CP

2AC – A2: States CP

1. Perm --- do both --- shields the link to politicsOverby 3 A. Brooke, Professor of Law, Tulane University School of Law, “Our New Commercial Law Federalism.” Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Temple Law Review, Summer, 2003 76 Temp. L. Rev. 297 Lexis

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States' officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.n65 The concerns articulated in New York and echoed again in Printz addressed the erosion of the

lines of political accountability that could result from federal commandeering.n66 Federal authority to compel implementation of a national legislative agenda through the state legislatures or officers would blur or launder the federal provenance of the legislation and shift political consequences and costs thereof to the state

legislators. Left unchecked, Congress could foist upon the states expensive or

unpopular programs yet shield itself from accountability to citizens . While

drawing the line between constitutionally permissible optional implementation and impermissible mandatory implementation does not erase these concerns with accountability, it does ameliorate them slightly.

2. Perm do the counterplan – the counterplan is an example of how the plan could be implemented

3. 50 state fiat is voting issue --- no single actor controls both federal and state policies, and there’s no literature for uniform 50 state action which makes aff offense impossible and skews topic research and education --- reject the team – the abuse is magnified by lack of a solvency advocate

4. The federal government is key—extend Keledijian—there’s an enforcement problem in federal waters in the status quo—states have no jurisdiction over that—the CP ensures shrimpers shift trawling back to federal areas, killing sea turtles

5. States fail – consistent federal regulations are key – a patchwork policy dooms sea turtles

Widecast, ‘8 (Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network, http://www.widecast.org/Legislation/Caribbean.html)

The ‘patchwork’ approach is less than ideal for species, such as sea turtles, that are migratory at

all life stages . The legal framework protecting sea turtles should be consistent among range States; similarly,

habitat protection policies should be geographically inclusive at the population level and embrace both nesting and foraging grounds in order to

achieve conservation goals. That this is not presently the case carries consequences for individual turtles swimming between protected and unprotected jurisdictions, and, presumably, serves to diminish the effectiveness of moratoria and other conservation measures.

6. Only federal biodiversity protection is effectiveMaziarka, 12 (Glorian Maziarka, student at St. Thomas University School of Law currently pursuing her JD and Certificate in Environmental Justice and graduates in December, 2012. Glorian is a member of the Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, where she wrote her comment titled: “A Caribbean without Reefs: Analyzing Current Domestic and International Environmental Law Legislation in the Wider Caribbean Region.” Glorian graduated with honors from University of Puerto Rico in San Juan, Puerto Rico, with a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology in 2005. Glorian is currently a legal intern at the Department of Homeland Security. Her past legal experience includes a paralegal position with Markowicz International Law Firm, legal intern at the US Coast Guard District Seven Legal, and legal intern for the Consumer and Housing Units at Legal Aid Services of Broward County, November 11, 2012, Earth Blawg, “Commercial Enough?: Whether Protection of Endangered Species is within Congress’ Commerce Clause Powers” http://earthblawg.com/2012/11/11/commercial-enough-whether-protection-of-endangered-species-is-within-congress-commerce-clause-powers/, jj)

The most simple explanation as to why are all species protected by the federal government regardless of their commercial value is that it is just less complicated this way and promotes

consistency . It is impossible to determine which species have absolutely no effect on interstate commerce at all. For example, tourists who

go scuba diving may want to see an endangered clown fish swimming around it, or see a Key Deer running by while they drive to the beach.

The best approach is to assert that, no matter how rare the species, they are all part of nature’s biodiversity. All species on this earth are somehow interconnected, so it seems sensible to allow one

body of government to regulate their protection.

7. International perception deficit – the CP doesn’t access our arguments about spurring international solutions to the sea turtles crisis

A) Only federal action ensures clarity of signalLaurance Geri & David McNabb 2011, Laurance (Larry) Geri is a member of the faculty of The Evergreen State College, where he teaches in the Masters Program in Public Administration; David E. McNabb is business administration professor emeritus at Pacific Lutheran University and currently a member of the adjunct faculty of Olympic College; Energy Policy in the U.S.: Politics, Challenges, and Prospects for Change, electronic copy of book, KEL)

With some form of climate change legislation likely to emerge from the U.S. Congress over the next few years, there are significant questions about the role and scope of state action, and what limits, if any, should be set on state energy subsidy and regulatory programs. The argument for federal action is clear: national-level

action would provide a comprehensive and consistent commitment to a policy goal and support a

clear national strategy . States and regions, however, can make the case that they share regional climate change threats, such as

wildfires in the West and hurricanes in the Southeast. A significant risk of state or regional action is the threat of competition weakening standards, as some states seek a cost advantage in attracting industry and employment. For federal policy makers, a related question is whether new regulations should provide a floor on state action (Andreen 2009). Should states be allowed to aim for more stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets?

B) International cooperation is key to solve sea turtlesScience Daily, 2/17/03, “Leatherback Sea Turtles Careening Towards Extinction; Scientists Call For International Cooperation To Save Giant” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030217114846.htm, jj

Yet saving sea turtles is possible. International cooperation has worked before to reverse the decline of Kemp's ridleys – another species of sea turtle whose numbers became dangerously low in the mid 1980's. Kemp's ridleys sank to about 300 nesting females per year before their decline was reversed by an international effort, protecting them on their nesting beaches in Mexico and by requiring turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in U.S. and Mexican trawl fisheries. TEDs are metal grids placed in the backs of trawl nets that allow the turtles to slip out of harm's way instead of being entrapped in the net, then drowning. Since the implementation of these efforts in the late 1980's, Kemp's ridleys have been increasing 11-13% per year, from a low of only 800 nests in 1986 to 6,200 in 2002. "People worked very hard for over a decade protecting them on nesting beaches and in the water, and now we're seeing recovery. So there is a precedent for success.

Saving leatherbacks will be harder because of their range," says Crowder. " It will require even more

international cooperation . There is hope, but we need to act now."

1AR – Fed Regs Key

States fail—no resource, race to the bottom, and patchworkGlicksman, 10 (Robert L. Glicksman*, * J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, The George Washington University Law School, Environmental Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, “Climate Change Adaptation: A Collective Action Perspective on Federalism Considerations” http://elawreview.org/articles/volume-40/issue-40-4/climate-change-adaptation-a-collective-action-perspective-on-federalism-considerations/, jj)

A second justification for federal environmental regulation is the achievement of economies of scale or synergistic effects through resource pooling.[85] “The advantages of resource pooling . . . [qualify as a] ‘public good,’ which in collective action terms creates an incentive for each state to free ride on the efforts of others.”[86] The federal government often has superior resources because it can pool the resources of the states. In the environmental context, resource pooling has the capacity to generate efficiencies in the collection and distribution of scientific and technical information.[87] The federal government’s superior resource base thus may support vesting federal agencies with responsibilities to gather and disseminate information needed to make regulatory decisions. The advantages of resource pooling provide a stronger justification for creating a federal role in generating information and disseminating it to the states than for allocating to the federal government the authority to regulate risk-creating activities. The resource pooling rationale also may be relevant to regulatory enforcement, however. Much as cartelization and collective bargaining tend to enhance the clout of the companies or unions whose efforts are pooled, the superior resources often available to federal regulators may put them in a better position than state or local authorities to induce desirable behavior by regulated entities.[88] 3. The Race-to-the-Bottom A third rationale for federal environmental regulation is the so-called race-to-the-bottom. This justification proceeds on the premise that competition for business and industry will drive states to relax their environmental standards to gain the economic benefits and tax revenues brought to them if businesses or industries decide to locate within their borders.[89] This dynamic proceeds even if the states as a collective would be better off if the states did not seek to undercut each other due to each state’s fear that if it decides to regulate, it will lose out to states who prioritize the economic benefits of economic activity more than its environmental costs.[90] Scholars have debated whether the empirical evidence supports the race-to-the-bottom theory,[91] but Congress has relied on the theory as a rationale for federal action whatever the reality is.[92] In one case, for example, the United States Supreme Court described the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act[93] as a response to a congressional finding that nationwide “surface mining and reclamation standards are essential in order to insure that competition in interstate commerce among sellers of coal produced in different States will not be used to undermine the ability of the several States to improve and maintain adequate standards on coal mining operations within their borders.”[94] Thus, federal regulation can halt the race-to-the-bottom by subjecting activities that generate environmental harms to a minimal level of regulation that no state can undercut. 4. Uniform Standards In some cases, the need for uniform standards provides yet another important justification for federal environmental regulation. Uniform standards reduce transaction costs for regulated entities such as product manufacturers and distributors, especially for commodities sold in interstate commerce.[95] In theory, states acting independently may be able to develop uniform standards by harmonizing their laws, but in practice it is difficult and unusual for them to fully achieve uniformity in the regulation of products that produce environmental spillover costs. In authorizing federal regulation of the adverse environmental consequences of the manufacture and use of products such as automobiles, Congress has viewed uniform federal regulation as a way to relieve product manufacturers of the need to keep abreast of and comply with a welter of potentially contradictory regulatory restrictions resulting from regulation by individual states.[96]

1AR EXT – State Fiat = Voting Issue

50 state fiat is a voting issue:

A) Topic research – the States CP deters education on multiple affs before the season even begins – it skews research practices away from real-world advocacies towards contrived affs with federal key warrants – research is key to education and the most portable skill

B) Fairness – no comparative literature exists on the merits of federal action vs uniform state action, that makes generating offense impossible – aff ground outweighs because solvency advocates are limited and the topic already excludes military affs

Reject the team to deter future abuse – we have to make a massive time investment just to get back to square one, otherwise it’s a no-cost option – the abuse is magnified by their CP’s lack of a solvency advocate – makes clash and pre-round prep impossible

EXT – states don’t solve intl perception

Modeling key to solvency—states don’t solveKevin L. Doran ’6, Attorney and senior research fellow at the Energy and Environmental Security Initiative (7 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 95 2005-2006)P43 No discussion of the potential efficacy of state-level policies in achieving a national sustainable energy economy would be complete without reference to the global context in which such policies take place. Even if current state-level policies were able elevate renewable energy to the role of a major player in the U.S. energy economy and achieve the singular feat of stabilizing U.S.

GHG emissions at the level called for by Kyoto, this alone would not secure a sustainable U.S. energy economy. We are living in a global atmospheric commons, and emissions from any part of the world affect all parts of the world. According to estimates by the EIA, CO[2] emissions from developing countries will likely exceed those of industrialized countries sometime between 2015 and 2020. n98 The goal of securing a sustainable U.S. energy

economy is thus inextricably tied to the goal of securing a global sustainable energy economy. P44 Finding and deploying the solutions needed to meet galloping global energy demand within the context of sustainable development is perhaps the greatest environmental challenge of the Twenty-First Century. There is no

guarantee that we will prove equal to this extraordinary challenge. However, if we are to do so, we will need technology solutions and

policy frameworks at all geographic levels working in concert.

Agent Cp’s

Congress key

Legislation is key to protect sea turtles—must be legally binding.Zuardo, 10 (Tara Zuardo*, Bachelors degree with High Honors from the University of California, Berkeley, and will obtain a J.D. and a certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law with an emphasis in Animal Law from Lewis & Clark Law School in May 2010, Animal Law, 16 Animal L. 317, “COMMENT: HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION” Lexis, jj)What does this all mean for future protections of sea turtles? There does not seem to be a concrete answer to this question. However, if the input of sea turtle conservationists is taken into account, there will be a greater chance that sea turtles will be protected internationally. Agreements and

legislation must provide clarity and legally binding obligations for scientists and the States who put them into practice. Finally, they must address a myriad of threats facing sea turtles and promote cooperation.

A2: Courts CP

Courts fail because of excessive deference, and there will never be a test case because of standing rulesMonne, 8 (Alicia Pradas-Monne*, * J.D. 2008, Golden Gate University School of Law, Spring, 2009, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 2 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 273, “COMMENT: A KNOT IN THE LINE: SEA TURTLE BYCATCH REDUCTION PROBLEMS IN THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY” Lexis, jj)

n151. Currently, the courts are ineffective forums for reducing the numbers of sea turtles caught as

bycatch . See Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 488 F.3d 1020, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding the lower court's determination that NMFS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it set out mortality rates for leatherback sea turtles in the USAPL in its 2004 biological opinion); N.C. Fisheries Ass'n. v. Gutierrez, 518 F. Supp. 2d 62, 85 (D.D.C. 2007) (stating legal challenges to the Secretary of Commerce's compliance with the MSA are frequently unsuccessful); see also Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, 384 F. Supp. 2d 203,

219 (D.D.C. 2005) ("Time and time again courts have upheld agency action based on the "best available' science, recognizing that some degree of speculation and uncertainty is inherent in agency decisionmaking."). Courts consistently come down on the side of the regulatory agencies, according

them great deference . Furthermore, in MSA actions in particular, plaintiffs often lack the requisite standing

to file suit . See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (holding plaintiff must demonstrate

that he or she has been harmed by the government action). Regardless of the reasoning, the result is the same: courts

remain ineffective forums, causing us to look at alternative methods to reduce sea turtle bycatch

numbers .

PIC’s

A2: PIC

A universal mandate is key—exemptions weaken the effectiveness of the plan’s regulatory regimeMonne, 8 (Alicia Pradas-Monne*, * J.D. 2008, Golden Gate University School of Law, Spring, 2009, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 2 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 273, “COMMENT: A KNOT IN THE LINE: SEA TURTLE BYCATCH REDUCTION PROBLEMS IN THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY” Lexis, jj)

First and foremost, Congress needs to modify the sea turtle take exemption application and approval process. Currently, sea turtle take exemptions constitute a free pass by the ESA because there is no penalty once a USAPL vessel exceeds its permitted number of allowable takes. n153 If modifications

are not made to the sea turtle take exemption process, we are in effect condoning the violation of

take limitations created to protect sea turtle species .

The most effective way to address the current application and approval process of sea turtle takes is the most extreme - prohibit any exemptions for listed sea turtles by mandating that the USAPL cannot take any turtles. This is the only way to ensure that the USAPL will not contribute to the further depletion of sea turtle species. n154In the alternative, a less extreme approach is to make the exemption application and approval process more vigorous. n155 A more effective application process requires two essential modifications. First, the number of sea turtles requested in the exemption application needs to be a number that truly does not result in the further depletion of the endangered or threatened turtle species. n156 The number of permitted sea [*291]

turtle takes should promote their recuperation while providing for the USAPL's sustainability. n157 This means, however, that for some sea turtle species, like the leatherback sea turtle, the permitted number may realistically be zero, meaning no allowable takes. n158 Otherwise, sea turtle numbers will remain stagnant at best, and in the case of the leatherback, population numbers may quickly drop to the level of extinction. n159

*USAPL = U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery

Advantage CP’s

A2: “Headstarting” / Nest Site Protection CP

Counterplan fails—only the plan can protect juvenile and adult turtles—they’re keyCenter for International Environmental Law, ’99 (“AMICUS BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE BODY ON UNITED STATES – IMPORT PROHIBITION Of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products” http://www.ciel.org/Publications/shrimpturtlebrief.pdf, jj)

2.2.2 Other conservation measures are ineffective in protecting sea turtle populations because they do not save large juvenile and adult sea turtles. Conservation measures other than TEDs, such as

the protection of nesting sites and “headstarting,” only protect eggs and hatchlings .55 These alternative measures cannot protect turtle populations adequately because the protection of eggs and hatchlings alone does not translate into significant increases in population size.56 Even if these measures achieved a 100 percent hatchling survival rate during the first year, models have shown that they are unlikely to have a significant effect on population due to high mortality rates before hatchling turtles reach breeding age.57To maintain current population levels, “headstarted” turtles would have to survive at least as well as wild turtles after they are released.58 In fact, their captive upbringing may make hatchlings less prepared for life in the wild. Headstarted turtles are raised in buckets, fed food pellets and have limited opportunities to swim, making it difficult for the hatchlings to recognize or capture their natural food, much less learn migrating skills.59 Only two nestings of “headstarted” turtles have been documented in the world to date,60 and those two turtle nestings came after more than 22,000 Kemp’s ridleys were released.61 Meanwhile a number of headstarting programs around the world have been discontinued.62Even if the “headstarted” turtles were to survive as well as wild turtles, “headstarting” cannot be certain to compensate for losses in later stages of life when the population is already declining.63 Due to the slow maturation of turtles, the ultimate success of “headstarting” -- an increase in nesting turtles -- cannot be measured for as much as 50 years depending on the species.64 Deferring implementation of TEDs while waiting several decades for such confirmation presents a

very high risk of causing the extinction of some sea turtle populations . Finally, “headstarting” is not cost effective -- costs per turtle have been estimated to be between $175 to $400, a cost largely wasted if the turtles are released into waters only to be drowned by shrimp trawlers without TEDs.

A2: Area Closures CP

Area closures fail—turtles are constantly migratingCenter for International Environmental Law, ’99 (“AMICUS BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE BODY ON UNITED STATES – IMPORT PROHIBITION Of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products” http://www.ciel.org/Publications/shrimpturtlebrief.pdf, jj)

Time and area closures are too limited to be effective . Closures only protect the large juvenile or adult turtles while they are in the closed area or during the time when shrimping is banned, and not in other places or at other times. Research suggests that this type of conservation plan only delays

mortality, but does not prevent it .69 For shrimpers, area and time closure boundaries can be easily

defined. Turtles, however, are highly migratory species and they do not stay in one area for extended periods of time.The Complainants have instituted some of these alternative conservation measures, yet their turtle populations are declining. Sea turtle populations have declined in Thailand, with the loggerhead sea turtle thought to be extinct in Thai waters.70 The main hazard identified as affecting the population of sea turtles in the Gulf of Thailand is the heavy fishing activity in the area, especially trawling, and the use of drift gill nets and long-line hooks.71 In India, near-shore mechanized fishing has also been determined to be the cause of a large number of sea turtle deaths.72 In 1994, one study counted more than 5,000 dead olive ridley sea turtles off the coast of Orissa in a six month period,73 attributing these deaths to accidental capture in trawl nets.74 Another study conducted at Gahirmath, India determined that mechanized boats, including trawlers, drown turtles during the breeding season, posing a “serious threat” to these species.75 Death in trawl nets is also a significant factor in the mortality of sea turtles in Malaysia.76 One study found that “[The number of turtles caught by trawl and drift nets in 1985 and 1986] which include both juvenile and adult turtles, are alarmingly high when compared with the number of nestings recorded for each species, and it can be seen that fishing nets have the potential of quickly decimating the current populations of sea turtles.”77 Sea turtle populations in Malaysia were found to be in serious decline in 1996.78

Misc

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/fisheries/facts/turtle_excluder_device_ted.html

Zuardo, 10 (Tara Zuardo*, Bachelors degree with High Honors from the University of California, Berkeley, and will obtain a J.D. and a certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law with an emphasis in Animal Law from Lewis & Clark Law School in May 2010, Animal Law, 16 Animal L. 317, “COMMENT: HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION” Lexis, jj)

Several human activities act in concert to threaten sea turtle populations and undermine protections advanced by international agreements. Arguably, fishing may be the leading cause of the decline in sea turtle populations. n20 The equipment used by fishers is often harmful to sea turtles; various types of bait hooks, nets, dredges, longlines, and trawls may kill, drown, or injure them. n21 For example, one fishing line may have hundreds or even thousands of hooks attached in order to effectively bait swordfish, tuna, and halibut, but it is also likely to ensnare sea turtles. These unintended sea turtle catches are referred to as "bycatch." n22 In the United States, federal law requires shrimp vessels to fish with nets that are equipped with turtle excluder devices (TEDs), which provide an escape for sea turtles that have been swept into the shrimp trawling nets. n23 Unfortunately, many small-scale fisheries do not comply with the law and the lack of enforcement has left sea turtles vulnerable to being caught and killed by nets without TEDs. n24Moreover, the collected data illustrates the incredible impact that fishing operations have on sea turtle populations: shrimp trawling kills approximately 150,000 sea turtles each year; longline fishing captures, injures, or kills more than 200,000 Loggerhead turtles and [*321] 50,000 Leatherback turtles each year; n25 and the Mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries alone catch about 770 Loggerhead sea turtles each year. n26 In 2007, Loggerhead nest counts on Florida beaches were the lowest since counting began twenty years ago. n27