Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

1nc – search for resources

Exploration means the process of searching for resources and development means extracting themUS Code, 14 (43 USC 1331: Definitions, current as of 2014, From Title 43-PUBLIC LANDS CHAPTER 29-SUBMERGED LANDS SUBCHAPTER III-OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS, http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:43%20section:1331%20edition:prelim))

(k) The term “exploration” means the process of searching for minerals, including (1) geophysical surveys where magnetic, gravity, seismic, or other systems are used to detect or imply the presence of such minerals, and (2) any drilling, whether on or off known geological structures, including the drilling of a well in which a discovery of oil or natural gas in paying quantities is made and the drilling of any additional delineation well after such discovery which is needed to delineate any reservoir and to enable the lessee to determine whether to proceed with development and production;

(l) The term “development” means those activities which take place following discovery of minerals in paying quantities, including geophysical activity, drilling, platform construction, and operation of all onshore support facilities, and which are for the purpose of ultimately producing the minerals discovered;

(m) The term “production” means those activities which take place after the successful completion of any means for the removal of minerals, including such removal, field operations, transfer of minerals to shore, operation monitoring, maintenance, and work-over drilling;

The aff violates – the only topical affs are about energy exploration and development

Voting issue –

1. Limits – the energy topic is already huge – adding entire categories of small science research cases or looking through the ocean for missing airplanes or protecting fish habitats makes it impossible to prepare for

2. Negative ground – energy creates a finite, predictable body of literature with stable plan mechanisms that guarantee us links to good energy disads

‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun showing ownershipGlossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005

(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.

EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

Violation – the aff incentives private sector development or exploration – it doesn’t mandate federal development or exploration – these are contextually distinctMcNutt, 13 - chair of the Ocean Exploration 2020 group (Marcia, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020” http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf)

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT By 2020, private sector investments in exploration technology development specifically for the dedicated national program of exploration exceed the federal investment, but federal partners play a key role in testing and refining new technologies.

Forum participants agreed that a top priority for a national ocean exploration program of distinction is the development of mechanisms to fund emerging and creatively disruptive technologies to enhance and expand exploration capabilities. In addition to the significant federal government investment in ocean exploration technology development—whether by the U.S. Navy, NASA, NOAA, or other civilian agencies—many felt strongly that increased investment would come from the private sector to achieve the kind of program they envisioned. Participants also felt that national program partners should continue to play a key role in testing and refining these technologies as well as working to adapt existing and proven technologies for exploration.

Voting issue –1. limits – incentives introduce multiple new mechanisms – it’s hugeMoran, 86 (Theodore, Investing in Development: New Roles for Private Capital?, p. 28)

Guisinger finds that if “incentives”are broadly defined to include tariffs and trade controls along with tax holidays, subsidized loans, cash grants, and other fiscal measures, they comprise more than forty separate kinds of measures . Moreover, the author emphasizes, the value of an incentive package is just one of several means that governments use to lure foreign investors. Other methods—for example, promotional activities (advertising, representative offices) and subsidized government services—also influence investors’ location decisions. The author points out that empirical research so far has been unable to distinguish the relative importance of fundamental economic factors and of government policies in decisions concerning the location of foreign investment—let alone to determine the effectiveness of individual government instrucments.

2. negative ground – they kill core negative strategies like free market counterplans

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

PTX

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

1NC

TPA will pass now but big government proposals unite the opposition and prevent passage Macgillis 2-2 (Alec Macgillis, 2-2-2015, "How the Left Is Teaming Up With the Tea Party to Tank Obama’s Big Trade Deal", Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/democrats_working_with_tea_party_against_obama_s_trade_deal_the_president.html, Accessed: 2-6-2015) JO

To try to block fast track and the TPP, liberal groups and labor unions are not organizing only among their own but are also reaching across the spectrum to conservatives skeptical of fast track and TPP. This left-right alliance has been duly noted in recent

months. What has gone underappreciated, though, is just how much the opponents of the trade deals on the left are appealing to the right very much on the right’s own terms. After years of ridiculing the Tea Party movement’s talk of Obama as an autocrat on issues such as immigration and health care, the left is now pushing those very buttons on trade, noting that fast track would give Obama vast powers and that the TPP would create a new international arbitration panel where corporations could challenge local, state, and national laws. Some left-leaning advocates are going so far as to link the trade issue to the conservative litany of Obama

outrages: the IRS scrutiny of Tea Party groups, Benghazi, and the “Fast and Furious” gun-running fiasco, among others. Essentially, the left is saying to conservative Republicans: If you’re worried about executive overreach and global governance, then you really had better get upset about fast track and TPP . “I tell them I’m concerned about local communities being able to do what they want to,” says Rep. Keith Ellison, the liberal Democrat from Minneapolis and a leading opponent of fast track and TPP, who has been reaching out to House Republicans on the issue. “This is essentially an ‘America’ issue. The last thing I want is some international unelected body deciding these critical questions.” Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch at Ralph Nader–founded Public Citizen, says she reminds conservatives that TPP would “allow people to go to these extra-judicial tribunals to have the U.S. treasury give them

compensation without appeal.” This cross-ideological coloring makes the trade debate the most idiosyncratic and entertaining issue in the rut that is national politics today. But whether it will b e enough to block fast track and TPP is another matter . The fact is there are a striking number of conservative Republicans who normally rail against Obama’s overreach and threats to national sovereignty but who are setting aside those concerns in this instance. Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have both come out for fast track and TPP, saying their desire to spur economic growth and assert American leadership abroad trump their constitutional misgivings. So have the Heritage Foundation and two of the biggest conservative activist groups, Freedom Partners and the Tea Party Express. Lining up against the trade deals are a host of other Tea Party-aligned groups and, so far, roughly 20 conservative House Republicans who have gone on the record opposing fast track. The issue has become a moment of truth for the Tea Party movement and conservative Republicans more generally: Do they mean what they’ve been saying all along about the need for checks and balances and constitutional restraints on the executive and global bodies like the U.N.? Or were those just handy rhetorical weapons for issues where Republicans opposed Obama, such as universal health care, weapons that can be laid aside when GOP leaders—and the business lobby—decide it’s in their interest to do so? “There’s a great number of people in Congress on both sides of the aisle who are very beholden to big business—what I call the chamber of crony capitalism,” says Jay Devereaux of Unite in Action, one of the Tea Party groups that received heightened scrutiny from the IRS. “It’s all about favors for their buddies, and the average American be damned and it’s really unfortunate.” You can track the Tea Party split on the issue by following the Twitter feed of End Global Governance, the name given to an umbrella group of conservative organizations fighting against the trade deals on the Hill. The group, led by Tea Party activist Stephani Scruggs, has been visiting the offices of House Republicans and reporting its mixed results. The group reported with a distinct note of betrayal that Rep. Ken Buck, the conservative Coloradan who lost his Senate bid in 2010, was in favor of fast track, as was Rep. Tom Emmer, a new conservative House member from Minnesota. It was relieved, on the other hand, to report that it got a warmer reception in the office of Rep. Morgan Griffith, from western Virginia. (“I’m not likely to support something that gives the president so much authority,” Griffith told me later. “I’m not sure I have the confidence in the president and his people to get it right.”) Scruggs told me that she and her allies have gotten a “pretty good response” overall but that it has definitely been disheartening to see so many conservative Republicans setting aside their usual wariness of Obama now. “What comes into play here are really huge lobbies,” she says. “Big Ag comes in … and they put on a lot of pressure, with compelling

arguments that are really well-funded. Citizen activists like myself, we’ve got to work a little harder.” Meanwhile, out across the country, local Tea Party groups are agitating on the issue. Terry Batton, of the Barbour County Tea Party in Alabama, told me that fast track and TPP were hot topics at quarterly meeting of his state’s Tea Party coalition. “We’re definitely against the trade agreements,” he said. “The long and short of it is that they’re just giving away our sovereignty.” In Wisconsin, Sandi Ruggles of the state’s chapter of the Eagle Forum said she and her fellow members have been sending emails and making calls on the issue. “Obama’s giving himself way too much authority—that’s an authority that should go through Congress,” she said. Rick Manning, president of Americans for

Limited Government, has been going on conservative talk shows to speak against fast track and TPP—“Obamatrade”—and senses a growing opposition. “There’s beginning to be a real awakening on the right pointing out the absurdity of doing [the trade deals] when Republican legislators are complaining about Obama seizing too much power and entrusting even more power to the president , it’s

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

absurd, and really breaks faith with the voters who elected them in 2014,” he said. “The bottom line is we’re going to see a number of Republicans coming out and expressing opposition to trade-promotion authority.” It was hard to detect any such opposition at the House and Senate hearings on trade last week. One after another, Republicans fell over each other to flatter the Obama administration’s point man on the issue, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, distinguishing him, and the agenda he is pushing, from the rest of the administration. Few challenged Froman’s assertion that passing fast track, far from handing trade authority to Obama, would put Congress in the “driver’s seat” on the issue. Rep. Paul Ryan, who was chairing the House hearing in his new capacity as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, joked that he normally would be as likely to trust Obama with new powers as he was to “trust the Patriots with the footballs at Lambeau Field,” but said that fast track was different. Rep. Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican, trumped everyone with this softball greeting to Froman: “Thank you for what you’re doing for our country,” he said. “If you step back, this [trade deal] could be great. … In your opinion, how great could it be?” Afterward, Froman told me it was highly encouraging to see such support from Republicans, including conservative ones. He chalked it up to a recognition on the GOP side that voters want to see something

get done in Washington and that “the president’s trade agenda is at the top of a list of issues that a lot of people feel they can work with the president on.” But the opposition is far from giving up. With a majority of House Democrats likely to oppose fast track, it would only take a sizable minority of House Republicans to derail it when it comes up for a vote in the next month or two. And so the traditional opponents of free-trade agreements are plugging along, stoking the fires of opposition on the right. The Teamsters have retained a Republican-leaning lobbying outfit, the Keelen Group, to reach out to conservative members. And the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that lobbies against free-trade agreements and has ties to both industry and organized labor, is provoking conservatives’ innate distrust of the GOP establishment by noting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to return the Senate to “regular order” conflicts with the rush and lack of transparency involved in passing trade deals via fast track. “McConnell said, ‘I’m bringing back regular order,’ but in this case it’s suspending regular order, passing something with no amendments before you even know what's coming from the smoky back room in the other branch—it’s procedurally far worse,” says Michael

Stumo, the organization’s CEO. He predicts that the trade deals are in more trouble on the right than GOP leaders and the Obama administration think . “ This is a real street fight ,” Stumo said. “They’ve granted [Obama] a massive amount of authority and don’t want to grant him more.”

Ocean policy has empirically been polarizedEilperin, The Washington Post, 12 [Juliet, October 28, 2012, The Washington Post, “National ocean policy sparks partisan fight”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]

Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy , showing that polarization over environmental issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy , with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights . Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats , and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to managing offshore waters.

Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that “opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.” Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was “like air traffic control helping coordinate an air

invasion on our freedoms.” An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. “The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. What’s not to love?” Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination.

Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be “a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.” In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans.” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the administration’s broad definition of what affects the ocean — including runoff from land — could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because “all water going downhill goes into the ocean. . . . That potential could be there.” The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has

not passed the Senate. Two influential groups — anglers and energy firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the administration’s approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s

oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.” The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. “Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down ,” said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nation’s major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the

policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the election. The National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests — has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about “the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.” Sarah Cooksey, who is Delaware’s coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantic’s regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books. “No government wants another layer of bureaucracy,” she said. In Southerland’s reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman “Ocean Enemy #1” and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on

the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is “the first issue I’ve seen that’s become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.”

PC is key to TPA and trade deals—that solves structural impediments that otherwise tank the economy Wall Street Journal 12-28 (Charles Boustany and Robert B. Zoellick, Mr. Boustany (R., La.) is a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he serves on the Subcommittee on Trade. Mr. Zoellick served as U.S. trade representative, deputy secretary of state, and president of the World Bank., 12-28-2014, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress", WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/charles-boustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308, Accessed: 12-29-2014) JO

Prof. Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that the presidency relied on the “power to persuade.” It’s time for Mr. Obama to persuade on trade. He must make use of the convening power of the executive to bolster his advocacy. His administration must work closely with Congress —to listen, explain, address problems and cut deals . So why does trade matter?

First, Americans are feeling squeezed. On the eve of the election, Pew Research reported that 79% of Americans considered the economy to be poor or at best fair. A boost in U.S. trade can increase wages and lower living expenses for families—offering higher earnings and cutting taxes on trade. Manufacturing

workers who produce exports earn, on average, about 18% more, according to the Commerce Department. Their pay raise can be traced to the higher productivity of competitive exporting businesses. Since World War II, U.S. trade policy has focused on lowering barriers to manufacturing and agricultural products. But U.S. trade negotiators also use free-trade agreements

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

(FTAs) to pry open service sectors and expand e-commerce. In recent years, such business services as software, finance, architecture and engineering employed 25% of American workers, more than twice as many as worked in manufacturing. Business service

employees earned over 20% more than the average manufacturing job, and the U.S. consistently runs a trade surplus in business services. Over the past five years, the World Bank reports, about 75% of the world’s growth has been in emerging markets, which generally have higher barriers to trade. As America’s highly productive farmers and ranchers have seen, growing world markets are the drivers of higher sales. With the boom in U.S. energy innovation and production, fuel exports could spur more investment and jobs in that sector, too. American families, and businesses, benefit from higher incomes and lower-priced imports. The World Trade Organization reports that the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round, the last big global trade agreement, have increased the purchasing power of an average American family of four by $1,300 to $2,000 every year. The Peterson Institute for International Economics

estimates that the new trade deals in the works could offer that family another $3,000 or more a year. Second, the U.S. and world economies desperately need a shift from extraordinary governmental spending and zero-interest-rate monetary policies to growth led by the private sector. Sustained growth can only be generated by private investment, innovation and purchases. American companies need greater confidence in free-enterprise policies before investing their big cash reserves. Trade policy offers an international partnership to overcome structural impediments to growth . The negotiations for the TPP, for example, aim to create an open trade

and investment network among the U.S., six current FTA partners, and five new ones. The biggest additional market is Japan, a pivotal Pacific ally. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to use the TPP to press his own economy toward more competition, without which his goal of reviving Japan will falter. Vietnam and Malaysia would also take part; they believe they can use the rules and disciplines of the TPP to boost growth, improve industries and services, expand global linkages, and avoid the so-called “middle income” trap, where countries’ lack of productivity growth slows the rise to higher incomes.

Nuclear war Harris, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, and Burrows, counselor in the NIC, ‘09

[Mathew J. Burrows is a counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Jennifer Harris is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, The Washington Quarterly, April, http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, accessed: 7/13/13]

Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that

the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For

that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up

on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long

established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attack and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized , particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions . It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines

between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will

produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge , particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus

focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions , rivalries, and counterbalancing moves , but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. What Kind of World will 2025 Be? Perhaps more than lessons, history loves patterns. Despite

widespread changes in the world today, there is little to suggest that the future will not resemble the past in several respects. The report asserts that, under most scenarios, the trend toward greater diffusion of authority and power that has been ongoing for a couple of decades is likely to accelerate because of the emergence of new global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential growth in regional blocs, and enhanced strength of non-state actors and networks. The multiplicity of actors on the international scene could either strengthen the international system, by filling gaps left by aging post-World War II institutions, or could further fragment it and incapacitate international cooperation. The diversity in both type and kind of actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of transnational challenges facing the international community. Because of their growing geopolitical and economic clout, the rising powers will enjoy a high degree of freedom to customize their political and economic policies rather than fully adopting Western norms. They are also likely to cherish their policy freedom to maneuver, allowing others to carry the primary burden for dealing with terrorism, climate change, proliferation, energy security, and other system maintenance issues. Existing multilateral institutions, designed for a different geopolitical order, appear too rigid and cumbersome to undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources. Nongovernmental organizations and philanthropic foundations, concentrating on specific issues, increasingly will populate the landscape but are unlikely to affect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at greater inclusiveness, to reflect the emergence of the newer powers, may make it harder for international organizations to tackle transnational challenges. Respect for

the dissenting views of member nations will continue to shape the agenda of organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted. An ongoing financial crisis and prolonged recession would tilt the scales even further in the direction of a fragmented and dysfunctional international system with a heightened risk of conflict. The report concluded that the rising BRIC powers (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) seem averse to challenging the international system, as Germany and Japan did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but this of course could change if their widespread hopes for greater prosperity become frustrated and the current benefits they derive from a globalizing world turn negative.

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

CapFocusing on the endpoint of the ecological crisis precludes understanding of its underlying capitalist causes – makes repeated environmental destruction inevitable.Swyngedouw 6 (Erik, Department of Geography @ Manchester, Urban and Landscape Perspectives 9, 2, p.185-205, September)

The inability to take ‘natures’ seriously is dramatically illustrated by the controversy over the degree to which disturbing environmental change is actually taking place and the risks or dangers associated with it. Lomborg’s The Sceptical Environmentalist captures one side of this controversy in all its phantasmagorical perversity (Lomborg, 1998), while climate change doomsday pundits represent the other. Both sides of the debate argue from an imaginary position of the presumed existence of a dynamic balance and equilibrium, the point of ‘good’ nature, but one side claims that the world is veering off the correct path, while the other side (Lomborg and other sceptics) argues that we are still pretty much on

nature’s course. With our gaze firmly fixed on capturing an imaginary ‘idealised’ Nature, the controversy further solidifies our conviction of the possibility of a harmonious, balanced, and fundamentally benign ONE Nature if we would just get our interaction with it right, an argument blindly (and stubbornly) fixed on the question of where Nature’s rightful point of benign

existence resides. This futile debate, circling around an assumedly centred, known, and singular Nature, certainly permits -- in

fact invites -- imagining ecological catastrophe at some distant point (global burning (or freezing) through climate change, resource

depletion, death by overpopulation). Indeed, imagining catastrophe and fantasising about the final ecological Armageddon seems considerably easier for most environmentalists than envisaging relatively small changes in the socio-political and cultural-economic organisation of local and global life here and now. Or put differently, the world’s premature ending in a climatic Armageddon seems easier to imagine (and sell to the public) than a transformation of (or end to) the neo-liberal capitalist order that keeps on practicing expanding energy use and widening and deepening its ecological footprint.

We have an ethical obligation to reject capitalism – capitalism makes its victims anonymous, destroying the ability to find value in lifeZizek, senior researcher at the University of Ljubljana, and Daly, senior lecturer in sociology at Northampton

University, 2004(Slavoj and Glyn, “Conversations with Zizek”, page 18-19)For Zizek, a confrontation with the obscenities of abundance capitalism also requires a transformation of the ethico- political imagination . It is no longer a question of developing ethical guidelines within the existing political framework (the various institutional and corporate ‘ethical committees’) but of developing a politicization of ethics; an ethics of the Real.8 The starting point here is an insistence on the unconditional autonomy of the subject; of accepting that as human beings we are ultimately responsible for our actions and being-in-the-world up to and including the constructions of the capitalist system itself. Far from simple norm-breaking or refining / reinforcing existing social protocol, an ethics of the Real tends to emerge through norm-breaking and in finding new directions that, by definition, involve traumatic changes: i.e. the Real in genuine ethical challenge. An ethics of the Real does not simply defer to the impossible (or infinite Otherness) as an unsurpassable horizon that already marks every act as a failure , incomplete and so on. Rather, such an ethics is one that fully accepts contingency but which is nonetheless prepared to risk the impossible in the sense of breaking out of standardized positions . We might say that it is an ethics which is not only politically motivated but which also draws its strength from the political itself. For Zizek an ethics of the Real (or Real ethics) means that we cannot rely on any form of symbolic Other that would endorse our (in)decisions and (in)actions : for example, the ‘neutral’ financial data of the stockmarkets; the expert knowledge of Beck’s ‘new modernity’ scientists, the economic

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

and military councils of the New World Order; the various (formal and informal) tribunals of political correctness; or any of the mysterious laws of God, nature or the market. What Zi zek affirms is a radical culture of ethical identification for the left in which the alternative forms of militancy must first of all be militant with themselves . That is to say, they must be militant in the fundamental ethical sense of not relying on any external/higher authority and in the development of a political imagination that, like Zizek’s own thought, exhorts us to risk the impossible.

Vote negative to refuse to participate in activities which support capitalism. We must hollow out capitalist structures by refusing to invest our energy in reforms and rescue operationsHerod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004(James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism . This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures , hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells . This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed , but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations . Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism , for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms , as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system. Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image , an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another , and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way , and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.

Text: The United State federal government should repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, eliminate federal support for the production of corn ethanol, and slowly phase out nationwide use

CP solves dead zones—corn ethanol is one of the primary causes Forbes ’13 (Helman, Christopher. "Attention Fracktivists: Corn Ethanol Is The Real Environmental Culprit." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 06 Feb. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/11/11/attention-fracktivists-corn-ethanol-is-the-real-environmental-culprit/>.) JO

Ethanol is proving terrible for the environment. Spurred by the absurd biofuel volumes mandated by the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, farmers in recent years have plowed over 5 millions of acres of conserved land and virgin prairie. This has released massive amounts of carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil. So

much for ethanol’s promise of being a carbon-neutral replacement for oil. Roughly 40 % of America’s corn crop goes to support ethanol production. From the late 2000s through 2012 corn prices — stimulated by the federal ethanol mandates – soared, surpassing $7.50 a bushel last year before

falling off. High prices naturally brought overfarming of corn, destroying animal habitats and causing massive water pollution from fertilizer runoff. The evidence of water pollution caused by ethanol is obvious: nitrogren fertilizer applied in the corn fields has ruined wells under farmland and has seeped into rivers that millions of people rely on for drinking water. Eventually the chemicals drift down the Mississippi, resulting in a 5,800 square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico . And farmers are having to pump more and more chemicals onto their fields. Because by insisting on growing cash-crop corn year after year rather than rotating their crops, farmers are knowingly depleting the quality of their soil, which then requires ever more additives to maintain yields. But don’t take my word for it. Read “The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama’s Green Power Push,” a 4,000-word report published today by the Associated Press. Dina Cappiello and her A.P. colleagues conclude that despite initial claims from President George W. Bush, that ethanol would make the country ”stronger, cleaner and more secure,” that hasn’t been the case. On the contrary, she writes: “ [T]he ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.” You can’t read this article and conclude that the nation’s farmers ought to continue plowing over more and more land in a futile attempt to meet the federally mandated goal of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, up from 14 billion gallons this year. And the ethanol wet dream certainly makes no sense in light of the oil and gas boom that has blessed America in recent years. Drillers have found far more energy in the fossilized remains of ancient plant life miles under the surface than corn farmers could hope to grow in decades. The A.P. writers don’t get into the relative merits of drilling and fracking versus growing corn, but it’s become increasingly clear that that the ire of the anti-fracking crowd is misplaced. Whereas fracktivists have been hard-pressed to identify even a dozen sites where

fracking (rather than natural methane migration) can truly be blamed for groundwater pollution, the evidence of water pollution caused by nitrogen

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

fertilizer is obvious and widespread (read here about its impact on Chesapeake Bay). Fracking of oil and gas in shale formations has brought far more

energy security to the U.S. than corn-based ethanol has. We simply don’t need it to feed our cars, which are not only getting more efficient every year but can easily be made to run on natural gas or electricity rather than oil.

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Case

Means to justify saving the environment only breeds a utopian mindsetStavrakakis 99 (Yannis, Visiting Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex, Lacan and the Political, “The Lacanian Object” p.63-5)

Mac Arthur, Odum and Clements, like Isaac Newton, ‘had tried to make nature into a single, coherent picture where all the pieces fitted firmly together’. All of them tried to reduce the disorderliness or the unknown qualities of nature to a single all-encompassing metaphysical idea (Worster, 1994:400). Even conceptions of nature stressing the element of conflict, such as the Darwinian one, sometimes

feel the need to subject this non-perfect image to some discernible goal of nature (for example the ‘constantly increasing diversity of

organic types in one area’—Worster, 1994:161) which introduces a certain harmony through the back door. What constantly emerges from this

exposition is that when harmony is not present it has to be somehow introduced in order for our reality to be coherent. It has to be introduced through a fantasmatic social construction. 19 One should not get the impression though that this is a mere philosophical

discussion. In so far as our constructions of reality influence our behaviour—and this is what they basically do—our fixation on harmony has direct social and political consequences. Reality construction does not take place on a superstructural level. Reality is forced to conform to our constructions of it not only at the spiritual or the intellectual, but also at the material level. But why does it have to be forced to conform? This is due, for instance, to the gap between our harmonious fantasmatic constructions of nature and nature itself, between reality and the real. Our constructions of reality are

so strong that nature has to conform to them and not they to nature; reality is conceived as mastering the real. But there is always a certain leftover, a disturbing element destabilising our constructions of nature. This has to be stigmatised, made into a scapegoat and exterminated. The more beatific and harmonious is a social fantasy the more this repressed destabilising element will be excluded from its symbolisation—without, however, ever disappearing. In this regard, a vignette from the history of nature conservation can be revealing. As is

well known nature conservation was developed first in the United States; what is not so well known is that ‘a major feature of the crusade for resource conservation was a deliberate campaign to destroy wild animals —one of the most efficient, well-organized, and well-financed such efforts in all of man’s history’ (Worster, 1994:261). All this, although not solely attributable to it, was part of a ‘progressive’

moralistic ideology which conceived of nature together with society as harbouring ruthless exploiters and criminals who should be banished from the land (Worster, 1994:265). The driving force behind this enterprise was clearly a particular ethically distinctive construction

of nature articulated within the framework of a conservation ideology. According to this construction what ‘was’ had to conform to what ‘should

be’ and what ‘should be’, that is to say nature without vermin (coyotes and other wild predators), was accepted as more natural—more harmonious—than what ‘was’: ‘These conservationists were dedicated to reorganizing the natural economy in a way that would fulfil their own ideal vision of what nature should be like’ (Worster, 1994:266). This construction was accepted by the Roosevelt administration in the USA (1901-9) and led to the formation of an official programme to exterminate vermin. The job was given to a government agency, the Bureau of the Biological Survey (BBS) in the Department of Agriculture, and a ruthless war started (in 1907 alone, 1,700 wolves and 23,000 coyotes were killed in the National Parks and this policy continued and expanded for

years) (Worster, 1994:263). What is this dialectic between the beatific fantasy of nature and the demonised vermin doing if not illustrating the Lacanian dialectic between the two sides of fantasy or between fantasy and symptom? Since we will explore the

first of these two Lacanian approaches to fantasy in Chapter 4, we will concentrate here on the fantasy/symptom axis. 20 As far as the promise of filling the

lack in the Other is concerned, fantasy can be better understood in its relation to the Lacanian conception of the symptom; according to one possible reading, fantasy and symptom are two inter-implicated terms. It is the symptom that interrupts the consistency of the field of our constructions of reality, of the object of identification, by embodying the repressed jouissance, the destabilising part of nature excluded from its harmonious symbolisation. The symptom here is a real kernel of enjoyment; it is the repressed jouissance that returns and does not ever ‘stop in imposing itself [on us]’ (Soler, 1991:214). If fantasy is ‘the support that gives consistency to what we call reality’ (Žižek, 1989:49) on the other hand reality is always a symptom (Žižek, 1992). Here we are insisting on the late Lacanian conception of the symptom as sinthome. In this conception, a signifier is married to

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

jouissance, a signifier is instituted in the real, outside the signifying chain but at the same time internal to it. This paradoxical role of the symptom can help us understand the paradoxical role of fantasy. Fantasy gives discourse its consistency because it opposes the symptom (Ragland-Sullivan, 1991:16). Hence, if the symptom is an encounter with the real, with a traumatic point that resists symbolisation, and if the discursive has to arrest the real and repress jouissance in order to produce reality, then the negation of the real within fantasy can only be thought in terms of opposing, of stigmatising the symptom. This is then the relation between

symptom and fantasy. The self-consistency of a symbolic construction of reality depends on the harmony instituted by fantasy. This fantasmatic harmony can only be sustained by the neutralisation of the symptom and of the real, by a negation of the generalised lack that crosses the field

of the social. But how is this done? If social fantasy produces the self-consistency of a certain construction it can do so only by presenting the symptom as ‘an alien, disturbing intrusion, and not as the point of eruption of the otherwise hidden truth of the existing social order’ (Žižek,

1991a:40). The social fantasy of a harmonious social or natural order can only be sustained if all the persisting disorders can be attributed to an alien intruder. To return to our example, the illusory character of our harmonious construction of nature is shown in the fact that there is

a part of the real which escapes its schema and assumes a symptomatic form (vermin, etc.); in order for this fantasy to remain coherent, this real

symptom has to be stigmatised and eliminated. It cannot be accepted as the excluded truth of nature; such a recognition would lead to a dislocation of the fantasy in question. When, however, the dependence of fantasy on the symptom is revealed, then the play—the relation—between the symptom and fantasy reveals itself as another mode of the play between the real and the symbolic/imaginary nexus producing reality.

Non profit organizations are being set up in the status quo to create sustainable solutions to ocean clean up using gathered plastic for fuel.

Sesini, Masters in Green Management, Energy, and Corporate Social Responsibility at Bocconi University, 2011

(Marzia, “THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS“ http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/sesini_thesis.pdf)

Best Practices - Private/Nonprofit Partnerships¶ Moreover, in an effort to implement best practices collaborative private/nonprofit partnerships have been created to help reduce and prevent marine debris. Project Kaisei, a nonprofit organization that organizes plastic cleaning expedition in the Pacific Ocean, and Covanta Energy, a Fairfield-based company that owns waste-to-energy power generation plants, under the auspices of the Global Clinton Initiatives (GCI) partner up to clean up the ocean debris starting with the plastic in the North Pacific Gyre, with a yearly conversion target of 50 tons of marine debris into renewable energy.¶

Covanta Energy uses the debris collected by Project Kaisei to “test its new waste-to- fuel technology to convert the plastic into a diesel substitute using a catalytic process for converting solid organic materials directly to mineral diesel fuel” (Covanta Energy), and to showcase how waste, and in particular plastic, can have added value if properly recycled. This in the hope that a larger scale cleanup effort will take place, helping protect the ocean and the marine wild life (Covanta Energy).¶ 16¶

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Ocean Clean Up Coming Now - Extensions[___]

[___] Public private partnerships provide a market for testing technology to find the best solutions.

Sesini, Masters in Green Management, Energy, and Corporate Social Responsibility at Bocconi University, 2011

(Marzia, “THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS“ http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/sesini_thesis.pdf)

Finally, data on the amount, distribution, and especially environmental and economic impacts of such pollution are key in dealing with the problem of plastic end-of-life use and implementing programs, as well as science-based monitoring and consistent widespread sampling. Greater research and new technology development effort are needed to assess next steps, address gaps, and prevent plastic to enter the oceans.¶

As a show case of best practice that could lead the way to greater public awareness on the issue of plastic disposal and recycling. For example a partnership between Project Kasei and Covanta Energy set a goal of conversion of plastic to fuel of 50 tons per year.¶

The hope is that a larger scale cleanup effort, which will help protect the ocean and the marine wild life, will take place as a result of this project. In addition, it is an excellent opportunity for the private sector to test a new technology as a viable solution to address plastic dumping, and to create secure, financial business opportunities and help identifying recycling cost- effective solutions.

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Clean Up Efforts Kill Sea Life

Plastic clean up would be devastating for sea life caught up in the filtration system and sucked from the ocean. .

Kazo, President at Wildlife Research Team, 2013

(Donna, President/Director/co-founder at Wildlife Research Team, Inc, http://wildliferesearchteam.wordpress.com/tag/boyan-slat/)

In closing, I quite liked this comment from “Harry,” who watches over a particular beach in Maine, and discusses his findings in his blog, on Slat’s plan: “This idea that if we’ve messed something up, there’s science/tech out there that can fix it. That keeps us from having to make the hard choices about our lifestyle. In this case, there isn’t. It is not possible to clean the oceans up of their debris. Not without breaking the bank of every nation on earth and scooping out and killing all the life in its first 100 feet of depth. That’s what we have done to our planet in just a couple generations. That’s plastic’s legacy. We cannot actively go out and clean it up in any meaningful way. What we can do is to change consumption behavior, change materials, improve waste management; do the things that stop persistent plastic from getting in the ocean in the first place.”¶

It starts with me, and with you.

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Clean Up Efforts Kill Plankton[___]

[___] Even passive clean up systems will kill plankton caught in the system.

Wilson, Associate Director at The 5 Gyres Institute, 2013

(Stiv,”The Fallacy of Cleaning the Gyres of Plastic With a Floating "Ocean Cleanup Array"

, Inhabitat, July 17, http://inhabitat.com/the-fallacy-of-cleaning-the-gyres-of-plastic-with-a-floating-ocean-cleanup-array/)

Another technicality is bycatch. Slat suggests that plankton wouldn’t be collected along with the plastic, though he admits more research is needed on this. The definition of plankton is an organism that can’t swim against a current; plankton have no control where they go and the assumption that they’ll somehow avoid the current that is taking the plastic into the processing thinga-ma-jiggy is a bad one. After conducting 50+ surface samples myself, at least half of the material we get from the surface is biomass. Zooplankton is really fragile, and trying to separate it from plastic in most cases is going to damage these critters beyond survivability, especially on an industrial scale. Plan B in Slat’s concept is to centrifuge the critters out—that would rip off their antennae and feeding apparatus. Scientists, when collecting zooplankton, use live catch nets and are very, very careful so as not to damage them. Plankton biologists, needless to say, are skeptical. Though zooplankton certainly isn’t the most charismatic fauna out there (and probably wouldn’t draw the ire of PETA if Slat’s device killed them), let’s remember that all life in the ocean depends on plankton at the base of the food chain. And if one endangered sea turtle was caught up? The fines that Slat would face would bankrupt his project in a second.

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Plastics Don’t Kill off SpeciesPlastics are not killing off entire species or ecosytsems. Science is not conclusive on the impacts of plastic.

Newitz, editor in chief of io9 and PhD in English and American Studies from UC Berkeley, 2012

(Annalee, “Lies You've Been Told About the Pacific Garbage Patch, 5-21, http://io9.com/5911969/lies-youve-been-told-about-the-pacific-garbage-patch)

Nobody who studies ocean ecosystems would ever argue that this plastic isn't harmful. But many documentaries and articles about the garbage patch make it seem as if the main problem is that the garbage is killing animals. Birds and fish mistake the plastic for food, eat it, and then slowly starve to death. Goldstein points out that there is clear evidence that both birds and fish are eating the plastic, but it's very hard to draw conclusions about whether eating it is killing them. Generally, scientists are only able to examine the stomachs of animals who are already dead. "Some studies of albatrosses show plastic correlating with poor nutrition — and you do see a lot of dead chicks with their stomachs absolutely stuffed with plastic," Goldstein explained. The problem is that we don't know whether there are also birds who eat the plastic and survive. "We're not going to go around killing baby albatrosses to examine their stomach contents," she added.¶

This is an even more difficult issue when it comes to fish, since she and many other researchers have found living fish with plastic in their stomachs. It's not clear whether these fish are suffering malnutrition, or are unharmed by eating plastic because they can just pass it out in their excrement. Fish digestive systems are a lot different from those of birds, so it's possible that what's harmful to the albatrosses isn't affecting the fish as much.¶

Ocean plastics aid biodiversity by increasing habitat for small insects and other surface

Newitz, editor in chief of io9 and PhD in English and American Studies from UC Berkeley, 2012

(Annalee, “Lies You've Been Told About the Pacific Garbage Patch, 5-21, http://io9.com/5911969/lies-youve-been-told-about-the-pacific-garbage-patch)

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

And finally, there is a class of creatures who are actually thriving as a result of the plastic influx. These are water skater insects, small crabs, barnacles, and invertebrates called bryozoans, who live on hard surfaces in the water. Some of them, like the barnacles and bryozoans, can do a lot of damage to ship hulls and have caused harm in other ecosystems they've invaded. Usually, these creatures lead a hardscrabble life, barely making it in the deep ocean where hard surfaces are limited to, as Goldstein put it, "the odd floating tree trunk, rare shells, feathers, or pieces of pumice." But now, with all the plastic floating around, these once-rare creatures are enjoying a boom time.¶

Ocean Clean Up Negative NAUDL 2014-15

Inherency Answers

Food Chain not protected by clean upA passive collection system will fail to filter microplastics. These tiny bits are the the most dangerous to sea life and a healthy food chain.

Newsweek, weekly news magazine, 2010

(Daniel, “Can the Pacific Garbage Patch Be Cleaned Up?”, Newsweek, 3-13 http://www.newsweek.com/can-pacific-garbage-patch-be-cleaned-75657)

The project goal for the mission, named Project Kaisei (meaning "ocean planet" in Japanese), was not to measure the size with precision, but to test several methods of extracting the plastic and finding ways to dispose of it properly, ideally through recycling. Testing methods of getting the larger items—plastic chairs, large toys—turned out to be easy. But that still left the much bigger amount of smaller items, like partially broken down toothbrushes, combs, and bottle caps—all of which can't be as easily harvested. "The smaller pieces are the ones that are concerning," says Mary Crowley, Kaisei's project leader and a lifelong ocean explorer. "That's what fish and birds may be eating, and it's terrifying how widely they're being distributed."

There's no perfect way to fish it all out of the ocean, especially not without harming ocean creatures in the process. But the crew tested several possible methods. Some were active, involving the dragging of nets to trap and concentrate the trash to be collected. Others were passive, consisting of large floating receptacles placed near highly concentrated areas and then picked up later to dispose of its contents back on land. The latter, Crowley found, is an applicable and plausible way to collect at least the big items.