NDI 4Wk Sophomores - Antarctic AFF Copenhaver & Weber

1AC

Plan

The United States federal government should increase its development of physical and cyber infrastructure in Antarctica necessary for exploration of the Southern Ocean.

Advantage – Adaptation

Warming is past the tipping point – it is only a matter of time until we witness the melting of all of Antarctica which would increase sea levels drastically – scientific consensus – new data can reveal more about the status of antartica Rignot 2014 (Eric a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He is the lead author of last week's landmark scientific paper on West Antartica 17 May 2014 “Global warming: it's a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next?” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa//RC)

Last Monday, we hosted a Nasa conference on the state of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which, it could be said, provoked something of a reaction. "This Is What a Holy Shit Moment for Global Warming Looks Like," ran a headline in Mother Jones magazine.¶ We announced that we had

collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector

of West Antarctica was unstoppable , with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels

will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse

of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.¶ Two centuries – if that is what it takes – may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to

stop this process. Reversing the climate system to what it was in the 1970s seems unlikely; we can barely get a grip on emissions that have tripled since the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to hit reduction targets. Slowing down climate warming remains a good idea, however – the Antarctic system will at least take longer to get to this point.¶ The Amundsen sea sector is almost as big as France. Six glaciers drain it. The two largest ones are Pine Island glacier (30km wide) and Thwaites glacier (100km wide). They stretch over 500km.¶ Many impressive scientists have gone before us in this territory. The concept of West Antarctic instability goes back to the 1970s following surveys by Charles Bentley in the 1960s that revealed an ice sheet resting on a bed grounded well below sea level and deepening inland. Hans Weertman had shown in 1974 that a marine-based ice sheet resting on a retrograde bed was unstable. Robert Thomas extended his work to pursue the instability hypothesis. Terry Hughes suggested that the Pine Island sector of West Antarctica was its weak underbelly and that its retreat would collapse the West Antarctic ice sheet. Considerable uncertainty remained about the timescale, however, due to a lack of observation of this very remote area.¶ Things changed with the launch of the ERS-1 satellite which allowed glaciers in this part of antartica to be observed from space. In 1997, I found that the grounding line (where the glacier detaches from its bed and becomes afloat) of Pine Island glacier had retreated five kilometres in the space of four years, between 1992 and 1996. Stan Jacobs and Adrian Jenkins had found a year earlier that the glacier was bathing in unusually warm waters, which suggested the ocean had a major influence on the glacier. Duncan Wingham and others showed that the glacier was thinning. In 2001, I found that Thwaites glacier was retreating too .¶ At that point, the scientific community took a different look at the region. Work by the British Antarctic Survey, Nasa and Chile led to more detailed observations, a monitoring programme was initiated, instruments were placed on the ice, in

the ocean and scientific results started to pile up from a variety of research programmes. From that point, we all sought to find out whether this was really happening. Now, two decades after this process started, we have witnessed glacier grounding lines retreat by kilometres every year, glaciers thinning by metres every year hundreds of kilometres inland, losing billions of tons of water annually, and speeding up several percent every year to the flanks of topographic divides.¶ Thwaites glacier started to accelerate after 2006 and in 2011 we detected a huge retreat of the glacier grounding lines since 2000. Detailed reconstructions of the glacier bed further confirmed that no mountain or hill in the back of these glaciers could act as a barrier and hold them up; and 40 years of glacier flow evolution showed that the speed-up was a long story.¶ All these results indicate a progressive collapse of this area. At

the current rate, a large fraction of the basin will be gone in 200 years, but recent modelling

studies indicate that the retreat rate will increase in the future. How did this happen? A clue is that all the glaciers reacted at the same time, which suggested a common force that can only be the ocean. Ocean heat is pushed by the westerly winds and the westerlies have changed around Antarctica in response to climate warming and the depletion of the ozone. The stronger winds are caused by a world warming faster than a cooling Antarctica. Stronger westerlies push more subsurface warm waters poleward to melt the glaciers, and push surface waters northward.¶ Nerilie Abram and others have just confirmed that the westerlies are stronger now than at any other time in the past 1,000 years and their strengthening has been particularly prominent since the 1970s as a result of human-induced climate warming. Model predictions also show that the trend will continue in a warming climate.¶ What this means is that we may be ultimately responsible for triggering the fast retreat of West Antarctica. This part of the continent was likely to retreat anyway, but we probably pushed it there faster. It remains difficult to put a timescale on it, because the computer models are not good enough yet, but it could be within a couple of centuries, as I noted. There is also a bigger picture than West Antarctica. The Amundsen sea sector is not the only vulnerable part of the continent. East Antarctica includes marine-based sectors that hold more ice. One of them, Totten glacier, holds the equivalent of seven metres of global sea level.¶

Sea levels are rising at more rapid speeds than ever Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Earth’s geologic history provides some insight on Antarctica’s relationship with¶ global sea levels. During the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly 20,000 years ago,¶ atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were 180 parts per million by volume (ppmv),¶ one-third lower than pre-industrial values (Sigman and Boyle, 2000), Earth was colder on¶ average by about 5 C, and larger ice sheets caused global sea level to be more than 130¶ m lower than today (Fairbanks, 1989). Through a combination of rising atmospheric¶ carbon dioxide levels, changes in Earth’s orientation and orbit around the sun, and¶ instabilities inherent to large ice sheets, a massive deglaciation occurred that caused sea¶ level to rise at an average rate of 10 mm per year for more than 10,000 years (Figure 2.1).¶ Coral records indicate that the sea level increased at a rate in excess of 40 mm (about 1.6¶ in) per year during one interval around 15,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). Antarctica¶ and its ice sheets contributed about 20 m to the overall 130 m rise in sea level and it¶ appears to have been at least partially responsible for the rapid rise noted

15,000 years¶ ago (Clark et al., 2002).¶ Following the transition from the last glacial period, sea level was relatively¶ stable for a period of approximately 7,000 years (Figure 2.1). However, increasing¶ atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and warming since the advent of the Industrial¶ Revolution raise concerns of significant sea level rise in the future. Presently, sea level is¶ rising at approximately 3.5 mm per year as a combined result of thermal expansion of the¶ oceans and melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets (note that sea ice disappearance does¶

not contribute to sea level rise as it is already part of the ocean volume) (Beckley et al.,¶ 2007; National Research Council, 2010b). Sea level rise has been measured by a¶ combination of tidal gauges and satellites, including altimetric data from the Jason¶ satellites1. Since 2001, ice mass loss has also been measured from gravity field¶ measurements from the GRACE2 (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) satellites (Ward, 2004). Starting from being nearly in balance during the early 1990s, Antarctica¶ has been losing ice at an increasing rate and now contributes more than 0.5 mm to sea¶ level rise each year (Rignot et al., 2011).

A warning system to help predict the effects of climate change is crucial to surviving Associated Press ’14 [Collaboration of scientists, Aljazeera America, Report: Early warning system needed for abrupt climate changes, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/3/climate-change-reportnew.html] Schloss

Hard-to-predict sudden changes to Earth's environment are more worrisome than climate change's bigger but more gradual impacts, a panel of scientists advising the U.S. government concluded Tuesday.¶

The 200-page report by the National Academy of Sciences looked at warming problems that can occur in years instead of centuries. ¶

The report repeatedly warns of potential "tipping points" where the climate passes thresholds, beyond which "major and rapid changes occur." And some of these quick changes are happening now, said study chairman James White of the University of Colorado.¶ The study says abrupt changes like melting ice in the Arctic Ocean and mass species extinctions have already started and are worse than predicted. ¶ The panel of scientists called on the government to create an early warning system. ¶ "The time is here to be serious about the threat of tipping points so as to better anticipate and prepare ourselves for the inevitable surprises," said the report by the Academy,

a research arm of the federal government that enlists independent scientists to look at major issues. ¶ It says thousands of species are changing their ranges, seasonal patterns or, in some cases, are going extinct because of human-caused climate change. Species in danger include some coral, pika, a rabbit-like creature, polar

bears and the Hawaiian silversword plant.¶ At the bottom of the world in Antarctica, the melting ice in the west could be more of a wild card than originally thought. If the massive ice sheet melts, it may happen relatively rapidly and could raise world sea levels by 13 feet. But researchers aren't certain how soon that may occur.¶ However, the report had what researchers called "good news." It said two other abrupt climate threats that worried researchers likely won't be so sudden, giving people more time to prepare and adapt. Those two less-imminent threats are giant burps of undersea and frozen methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and the slowing of deep ocean currents. That slowdown is a scenario that would oddly lead to dramatic coastal cooling.¶ Study co-author Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University compared the threat of abrupt

climate change effects to the random danger of drunk drivers.¶ "You can't see it coming, so you can't prepare for it. The faster it is, the less you see it coming, the more it costs," Alley told The Associated Press. "If you see

the drunk driver coming, you can get out of the way."¶ The scientists said the issue of sudden changes is full of uncertainties, so the world can better prepare by monitoring places like the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets more. ¶ But because of budget cuts and aging satellites, researchers have fewer measurements of these crucial indicators than they did a few years ago, and they will have even fewer in upcoming years, said study co-author Steven Wofsy of Harvard University.¶ Donald Wuebbles, a

University of Illinois climate scientist who wasn't part of the academy study, called it important, especially the call for better warning systems. However, outside scientist Michael Mann of Penn State said he doesn't see the need for a new warning system.¶ "The

warning is already there, loud and clear," Mann said in an email. "The changes we are seeing in the Arctic are unprecedented in thousands of years, and they are already having a catastrophic impact on human civilizations, animals, and ecosystems there."

The Arctic is the ideal place to create and establish an early warning system NSF 2002 [ National Science Foundation, Ozone Hole over Antarctica, Science on the edge Arctic and Antarctic Discoveries, https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozonehole.htm July 1, 2002] Schloss

Life at the margins may be extreme, but it is also fragile. The British Antarctic Survey's first documentation of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 and subsequent NSF-funded study of the phenomenon alerted the world to the danger of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. That research team, led by 1999 National Medal of Science winner, Susan Solomon, conducted observations that have significantly advanced our understanding of the global ozone layer and changed the direction of ozone

research.¶ Stratospheric ozone protects against ultraviolet radiation. The breakdown of this ozone layer by CFC molecules can have harmful effects on a range of life forms, from bacteria to humans. The long, cold, dark Antarctic winters allow the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, the particles of which form an ideal surface for ozone destruction. The returning sunlight provides energy to start the complex chemical reaction that results in ozone destruction . The ozone hole above Antarctica typically lasts about four months, from mid-August to late November.¶ During this period, increased intensity of ultraviolet radiation has been correlated with extensive DNA damage in the eggs and larvae of Antarctic fish. Embryos of limpets, starfish, and other invertebrates do not grow properly. Other species have developed defenses. The Antarctic pearl wort, a mosslike plant on rocky islands, developed a pigment called flavenoid that makes it more tolerant of ultraviolet radiation.¶ In the northern polar regions, ozone levels in the early 1990s measured ten percent lower than those estimated in the late 1970s. The Arctic does experience ozone depletion, but to a lesser degree than the Antarctic. Unlike the Antarctic, large-scale weather systems disturb the wind flow in the Arctic and prevent the temperature in the stratosphere from being as cold. Therefore fewer stratospheric clouds are formed to provide surfaces for the production of ozone-depleting compounds. Some clouds do form, however, and allow the chemical reactions that deplete ozone. Ozone depletion has a direct effect on human inhabitants, but research has only just begun on the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and societies and settlements in the Arctic.¶ The good news is that countries around the world have agreed to

ban the manufacture of CFCs through the Montreal Protocol. The contributions of Antarctic researchers led to swift policy action and because of that the ozone layer should recover in the future. In the meantime, however, NSF-funded research continues to monitor the level of the CFCs still lingering in the atmosphere. The Polar Regions will continue to play an important role as early warning systems for the rest of the globe

Lack of capacity to deal with warming results in devastating impacts – threatens displacing populations and naval readiness Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Globally, rising sea level is expected to threaten the homes and livelihoods of¶ hundreds of millions of people by the second half of this century (see Box 2.2). In an¶ assessment of exposure to coastal flooding by 2070, Miami and New York City ranked¶ 6th and 17th, respectively, in threatened impacts to the world’s major cities (Nicholls,¶ 2007). In particular, rising sea level threatens to cause more frequent flooding by¶ increasing the height of storm surges and the peak level of tidal cycles. Overtopping¶ coastal levees on even a single occasion

can have dire consequences, as evidenced by the¶ results of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. Higher sea level also threatens¶ wetland habitats, as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program reported (Titus, 2009),¶ namely that most of the mid-Atlantic coastal wetlands would be lost in the next century if¶ local sea level rises by as much as one meter. The U.S. Navy has taken steps to examine the potential impacts of climate change, including those from sea level rise, on future¶ naval operations and capabilities (National Research Council, 2011e).¶ Global average sea level is, of course, less relevant than how much sea level will¶ rise in specific locations—primarily where the sea meets where people live and work—¶ and here lies a poignant wrinkle. Loss of ice weakens the local gravitational attraction¶ that the ice sheet exerts on the ocean, leading to a reduction in sea level at the margin of¶ the ice sheet. Further afield from where the ice loss occurs, sea level rises by more than¶ its global average, with the specific locations of maximal rise depending upon the¶ rotation of Earth and the geometry of the ocean basins. Local variations in sea level also¶ depend upon changes in ocean circulation and storm activity. As it happens, loss of ice¶ from West Antarctica would cause about a 15 percent greater sea level rise along the¶ Eastern and Western United States than the global average, with the largest increase¶ centered approximately at Washington, D.C., highlighting how the United States is¶ uniquely exposed to the fate of West Antarctica and the Antarctic ice sheet (Mitrovica,¶ 2009) (Figure 2.2).

And Naval power is key to deter conflicts and to maintain global stability A Cooperative Strategy¶ for 21st Century Seapower 2007¶ (October U.S. Navy http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf//RC)

Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western¶ Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital¶ interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment¶ to regional security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and¶ peer competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly¶ repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces¶ will be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives:¶ Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime¶ power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area¶ of conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders,¶ pandemics, and the interruption of vital resources are all possible when¶ regional crises erupt. While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of¶ networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we cannot¶ act to mitigate all regional conflict.¶ Where conflict threatens the global system and our national

interests,¶ maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of¶ national

and multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of¶ options for deterrence,

escalation and de-escalation. Maritime forces¶ that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the Nation’s¶ primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they¶

provide the means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises.¶ Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime¶ forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure friends and¶ allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while working¶ to sustain the global order.¶ Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleet—ships,¶ aircraft, Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activities—capable of¶ selectively controlling the seas, projecting power ashore, and protecting¶ friendly forces and civilian populations from attack. Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous¶ to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and¶ extension of this

Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key¶ component of deterring major power

war. While war with another great¶ power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous¶ effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national¶ power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality,¶ global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access,¶ and operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range¶ of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that¶ includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors¶ conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.¶ Win our Nation’s wars. In times of war, our ability to impose local sea¶ control, overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project and¶ sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an indispensable¶ element of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage¶ must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force¶ commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a robust sealift¶ capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power¶ projection enable extended campaigns ashore.

Advantage – Energy Grids

Probability of a severe space storm happening is highHouse of Commons Defense Committee 11 [Developing Threats to Electronic Infrastructure, House of Commons Defense Committee, http://www.proteccioncivil.org/catalogo/naturales/climaespacial/documentacion/1552.pdfThe impact of EMP events caused by nuclear devices would be very severe but the likelihood is currently considered to be low. Non-nuclear EMP devices exist and the risks are being kept under review but are not currently considered to be sufficient to warrant recognition as a national security risk. Severe space weather, which might cause geomagnetic storms impacting the Earth’s magnetosphere, has been the subject of extensive research over the past year. The likelihood of a severe space weather event is assessed to be moderate to high over the next five years, with the potential to cause damage to electrically conducting systems such as power grids, pipelines, and signalling circuits.

Major solar storm inevitable- sun is at peak nowMillman 2/26 [Gregory, senior columnist for Risk & Compliance Journal, Catastrophic Solar Storm Inevitable, Insurers Warn, Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/02/26/catastrophic-solar-storm-inevitable-insurers-warn/]The sun erupted on Monday, releasing a powerful flare that happened to point away from earth, a lucky break for earthlings. In 1859, a similar solar eruption knocked out telegraph systems across Europe and North America,

and had Rocky Mountain gold miners up for breakfast at 1 a.m. because they thought it was daytime. Analysts say that another solar storm as severe as that 1859 event is inevitable, will be much more costly–and they note ominously that the sun is now near the peak of its activity cycle. ”The risk is real, and it will happen one day–we know that,” Romain Launay, advisor to the chairman and chief executive officer of the Paris-based reinsurer, SCOR SE SCR.FR -0.94%, told Risk & Compliance Journal in an interview, “The uncertainty lies in the exact consequences.” The consequences are likely to be more severe than in the horse-and-buggy 19th century. According to a new

report from SCOR they could include long power blackouts affecting millions of people, and causing trillions of dollars in damage. “The more we rely on the Internet, the availability of all sorts of communication channels, GPS, etc., the more we are dependent on power. That’s the major exposure driver,” said Reto Schneider, head of emerging risk management at Swiss Re SREN.VX +0.06%, which has also raised concerns about the risk. Lloyd’s last year reported that a major solar storm is “almost inevitable”, estimating the frequency at one every 150 years, and said that 20 million-40 million people in the U.S. are at risk of power outages lasting from two weeks to two years. Of course, it has been 155 years since that last really big one in 1859.

Increased monitoring capabilities create the knowledge necessary to prepare and respond to space storms Baker et al. 2004 (Daniel University of Colorado Professor Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics “Effects of Space Weather On Technology Infrastructure” Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry – Vol. 176//RC) Contemporary models of large power grids and the electromagnetic coupling¶ to these infrastructures by the geomagnetic disturbance environment have¶ matured to a level in which it is possible to achieve very accurate¶ benchmarking of storm geomagnetic observations and the resulting GIC. As¶ abilities advance to model the complex interactions of the space environment¶ with the electric power grid infrastructures, the ability to more rigorously¶

quantify the impacts of storms on these critical systems also advances. This¶ quantification of impacts due to extreme space weather events is leading to¶ the recognition that geomagnetic storms are an important threat that has not¶ been well recognized in the past. These capabilities for detailed analysis and¶ have also enabled the development of predictive tools to help the

power¶ industry deal with these threats. ¶ New understandings of the complex nature of geomagnetic disturbance¶ environments at low to high latitude locations and the increasing ability of¶ grids of higher kV design to conduct large GIC flows are also changing the¶ view of risks that power grids may face due to the space weather¶ environment. It is no longer the case that power grids at high latitudes which¶ are in close proximity to auroral electrojets are the only power systems that¶ are at-risk due to GIC impacts. SSC and ring current intensifications can¶ cause equivalently large GIC’s in power grids located even at equatorial¶ latitudes. Ultimately the combination of regional deep-earth ground¶ conditions and the design of the power grid itself will determine the extent of¶ possible GIC risk that will occur for a power system. The geo-electric field¶ responses of regional ground conditions are highly uncertain, but all ground¶ strata exhibit uniformly high degrees of frequency dependency and nonlinear¶

response across the frequency range of concern for geomagnetic¶ disturbance environments. While more work is needed to better define the¶ regional risk factors due to ground conductivity conditions, there is near¶ unambiguous evidence that higher kV-Rated power grid designs are likely to¶ experience relatively larger GIC flows for any geomagnetic disturbance¶ condition or grid latitude location. The prevailing design evolution of power¶ grids have greatly escalated this aspect of risk modifier as the power systems¶ have grown in size and kV operating voltages. Because of this, kV rating is¶ a more appropriate initial screening for determining GIC risk for power¶ grids. In other words, power grids with operating voltage levels of 400kV¶ or greater are all potentially at risk no matter where they may be located in¶ the world.¶ Improving understanding of both storm processes and the interactions¶ with power grid infrastructures are forcing a change in basic assessments of¶ which power grids face risks from geomagnetic storms and for what reasons. The risk implications extend to power grids that have never considered the¶ risk of GIC previously because they were not at high latitude locations. In¶

contrast to these previous notions, latitude location is not as important a¶ consideration of GIC risk as that due to grid design and related risk factors.¶ Both studies and observation evidence are indicating that power grids even¶ at equatorial locations can have large GIC flows. In initial screening for¶ determining GIC risk for power grids, operating voltage levels are proving to¶ be a more relevant screening criterion. In other words, grids with operating¶ voltage levels of 400kV or greater are all potentially at risk.

Research in the Antarctica make it possible to understand extreme weather conditions in space – extreme space storms risk shutting down the energy grid Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

As society becomes more dependent on space-based technologies such as¶ satellites for communications and navigation, it is becoming more vulnerable to severe¶ space weather events—magnetic storms on the sun that can spew high energy particles¶ toward Earth. Space weather can disrupt the proper functioning of Global Positioning¶ System (GPS) satellites, as well as electrical power distribution at the surface.¶ In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in

recorded history caused visible auroras¶ all over the globe and made telegraph systems all over Europe and the United States fail,¶ spark, and catch fire. If such an event were to occur today,

it could cause trillions of¶ dollars worth of damage and many areas of the United States and

the rest of the world¶ could be left without electrical power and communications for several

months .¶ The alignment of Earth’s magnetic field places the planet’s poles in an optimal¶ position to monitor space weather. The region around the South Pole is an ideal location¶ to monitor changes in space weather, as compared to the North Pole where shifting sea¶ ice makes building a permanent research station impractical. Increased space weather¶

observations in Antarctica over the next 20 years can improve our ability to predict¶ potentially catastrophic space weather events.

Serious space storms destroy energy grids, risk national security, and collapse the economy Hough 2010 (Andrew News Reporter “Nasa: Solar Flares From 'Huge Space Storm' Will Cause Devastation” 21 June 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html//RC)

Britain could face widespread power blackouts and be left without critical communication signals for long periods of time, after the earth is hit by a once-in-a-generation “space storm”, Nasa has warned. National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.¶ Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.¶ In a new warning, Nasa said the super storm would hit like “a bolt of lightning” and could cause catastrophic consequences for the world’s health, emergency services and national security unless precautions are taken.¶ Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.¶ Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.¶

“We know it is coming but we don’t know how bad it is going to be,” Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa's Heliophysics division, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.¶ “It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.¶ “Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”¶ Dr Fisher added: “Systems will just not work. The flares change the magnetic field on the earth that is rapid and like a lightning bolt. That is the solar affect.”¶ A “space weather” conference in Washington DC last week, attended by Nasa scientists, policy-makers, researchers and government officials, was told of similar warnings.

Grid collapse causes economic collapseCannon 13 [Paul- part-time Director of the Poynting Institute at the University of Birmingham and a Senior Fellow at QinetiQ, and Cannon is a leading figure in Radio Science and Systems. “Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure.” Royal Academy of Engineering. February 2013. http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Space_Weather_Full_Report_Final.PDF

] Dressler

Rarely occurring solar superstorms generate X-rays and solar radio bursts, accelerate solar particles to relativistic velocities

and cause major perturbations to the solar wind. These environmental changes can cause detrimental effects to the electricity grid, satellites, avionics, air passengers, signals from satellite navigation systems, mobile telephones and more.

They have consequently been identified as a risk to the world economy and society. The purpose of this report is to assess their impact on a variety of engineered systems and to identify ways to prepare for these low-probability but

randomly occurring events. The report has an emphasis on the UK, but many of the conclusions also apply to other countries. Extreme storm risks to space systems critical to social and economic cohesion of the country (which is likely to include navigation satellite systems) should be assessed in greater depth. Users of satellite services which need to operate through a superstorm should challenge their service providers to determine the level of

survivability and to plan mitigation actions in case of satellite outages (eg network diversification.) US space weather, transformer and modelling experts have recently produced conflicting reports analyzing the impact on a large space weather event

on the US system. In an influential report kappenman [2010] suggests that a one-in-100-year event could lead to catastrophic system collapse in the US taking many years and trillions of dollars to restore. However, a comprehensive February 2012 report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation [nerc, 2012], suggested that loss of reactive power and voltage instability would be the most likely outcomes. At a Federal GMD Technical Conference on 30 April 2012, it was clear that there was still more work required to agree a proportionate management of the risk. Ongoing work, prepared by National Grid on a severe space weather event for the UK, initially from June 2011, aligns more closely with the conclusions from the NERC paper. GNSS positioning, navigation and timing are ubiquitous to our lives and important in a number of

safety of life applications; and their unmitigated loss resulting from a superstorm would have severe social and economic repercussions.

Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.Auslin 9 [Michael, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, http://www.aei.org/article/100187] JBWhat do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse . The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs.

Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing

economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely . Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible

protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

Advantage – Science Diplomacy

US falling behind in Antarctic development – China, Brazil, India, and Latin America increasing Leighton 2/10 - (Paula Leighton, Consultant and correspondent at SciDev, science journalist based in Chile, Masters in electronic media, former editor for the science and health section of national newspaper, La Tercera and journalist for Enclaces, "Developing nations seek a share of Antarctica's spoils", SciDev, February 10, 2014, http://www.scidev.net/global/bioprospecting/feature/developing-nations-seek-a-share-of-antarctica-s-spoils.html) Wang

¶ Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the planet, tensions are quietly rising regarding sovereignty over the Antarctic continent and the resources on and around it.¶ ¶ Abundant fisheries and rich marine biodiversity, as well as unexplored mineral reserves including natural oil and gas deposits, may turn the Antarctic into another global frontier in the hunt for new raw materials. Just last December, for example, scientists writing in Nature

Communications identified a type of rock in Antarctica that is known to be a likely place to find diamonds.¶ ¶ A combination of climate change-driven ice melt and lower snowfall, together with new drilling technologies could open up this inhospitable continent to exploration.¶ ¶ Although the only form of exploration currently allowed in Antarctica is scientific — as the Antarctic Treaty, and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to this treaty, ban any other activities relating to the continent’s mineral resources — this may change in 2048 when the moratorium on exploration and exploitation is up for a review. [1,2]¶ ¶ Geopolitical manoeuvring¶ ¶ With that deadline in mind, more nations are keen to have a say in

international decisions on what happens in Antarctica.¶ Allocating a large budget to Antarctic research and hosting scientific facilities on the continent are considered suitable ways for a country to signal its presence in this territory, experts say such actions could aid future claims if access to fishing resources is expanded or access to mineral resources is ever granted.¶ ¶ “From 2048, only the consultative countries of the Antarctic Treaty will have the right to vote [on any proposed changes to the treaty],” says Marcello Melo da Gama, deputy secretary of Brazil’s Inter-ministerial Commission for the Resources of the Sea (CIRM), the national agency responsible for implementing the country’s Antarctic programme. Twenty-eight countries are consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty because they were original signatories or now conduct substantial research in Antarctica.¶ ¶ “And countries need to have a presence in Antarctica and carry out scientific research there and even have a research base in order to become a consultative party — that is one of the political and strategic reasons to have a base in Antarctica.”¶ ¶ As a result, several nations are building or hoping to build new research centres on the continent. This year, both Brazil and China will build research stations.¶ “The budgets for Antarctic science research are also geopolitical. They are not only for doing science, they are also a way to increase their presence, and that happens with all countries,” agrees José Retamales, director of the Chilean Antarctic Institute. ¶ “The Antarctic is a political issue that has its daily expression in science activity. In order for a country to sit down at a table to make decisions about Antarctica, it needs to have science activities on the continent,” he says.¶ ¶ Twenty-nine nations operate 82 research stations on the continent, according to figures from the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Around 1,100 people work in these year round, going up to 4,400 in the summer season.¶ ¶ South American plans¶

¶ Developing countries are no exception. Colombia is designing and implementing its National Antarctic Programme to deal with research, governance and environmental protection and plans an Antarctic expedition in

2014-2015.¶ ¶ Ecuador and Venezuela cooperate on Antarctic research and logistics, and share Ecuador’s

research station on the South Shetland Islands. Colombia and Venezuela both recently started seeking science partnerships with other nations that are already involved in the Antarctic with the aim of becoming consultant members of the Antarctic Treaty — and getting a say at the annual meeting.¶ ¶ Argentina has six permanent and seven seasonal research stations, and Brazil plans to reopen its base Comandante Ferraz, which was destroyed by a fire in

February 2012.¶ ¶ Chile’s science budget for Antarctic projects (around US$24 million in 2013) has been growing, with funds coming from several governmental agencies. ¶ “Chile has nine research stations and is an Antarctic research leader in South America. Almost all the eight Latin American countries with Antarctic programmes go there from Chile,” says Retamales.¶ ¶ Last month, Chile opened a base inside the Antarctic Circle, joining China and the United States as the only nations with one there.¶ ¶ Over the past ten years, eight other countries have built Antarctic research stations, and

several others, including China, India, Iran and South Korea, have expressed an interest in creating their own or increasing the number they already have. ¶ Reaping benefits¶ Chile may benefit from this growing interest in Antarctic science. Already, researchers from some 20 countries pass through the southern Chilean city of Punta Arenas each year on their way to the Antarctic Peninsula, where most research bases are.¶ ¶ Marcelo Leppe, head of the Chilean Antarctic Institute’s science department, says countries — particularly those far from the South Pole — could save money by working in partnership with Chile rather than having to send people and equipment over long distances.¶ ¶ “For the US Antarctic

programme for example, it is nine times more expensive to send a researcher to Antarctica than for the Chilean programme to do the same with a national researcher. China is now building icebreakers and South Korea has just launched one. Those countries have to bridge the same huge gaps to work in Antarctica. Tightening cooperation with Chile could reduce those gaps by saving money in logistics.Ӧ

Diplomacy in the Southern Ocean low now- CCAMLR being abused and countries doing whatever they want in the oceanKeenan 13 [Jillian, freelance writer, Are Antarctica’s South Ocean Ecosystems Doomed to Death by Diplomatic Paralysis?, Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/10/02/are-antarcticas-southern-ocean-ecosystems-doomed-to-death-by-diplomatic-paralysis/] JBThe story of Antarctic marine conservation efforts often feels like the myth of Sisyphus, the Greek king who was condemned to spend eternity struggling to roll a boulder up a hill. For more than 50 years, nations have successfully worked together under the Antarctic Treaty System to protect Antarctica as a peaceful forum for scientific research and environmental preservation. But the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica and is home to some of the most pristine marine ecosystems on earth, hasn’t been so lucky. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the organization responsible for managing and protecting the Southern Ocean, has struggled to fulfill the mission of its name and establish meaningful protections of Antarctic marine ecosystems. Like Sisyphus, eternally pushing his boulder towards the summit, the Antarctic marine preservation movement

seems doomed to repeat its campaign cycle forever, always in sight of the finish line but never able to cross it. Most recent concerns have focused on CCAMLR’s failed attempts to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in critical Southern Ocean regions. In 2002, The World Summit on Sustainable Development set the goal of establishing a global network of MPAs in Antarctica by 2012—a

deadline that CCAMLR formally adopted in 2009. After that deadline came and went without new protected zones, however, CCAMLR convened a special meeting in Bremerhaven, Germany, in July 2013, to consider two specific proposals for new MPAs: One in the Ross Sea area, which was proposed by New Zealand and the United States, and one in East Antarctica, which was concurrently proposed by Australia, France, and the European Union. CCAMLR operates on a consensus model, which means that any one of its 25 member states can unilaterally veto a proposal—and that’s exactly what happened in Bremerhaven, when Russia and the Ukraine stunned the international community by blocking the proposals with little explanation. In anticipation of CCAMLR’s upcoming meeting in Hobart, Tasmania, from October 23 to November 1, New Zealand and the United States released a revised (and, some argue, significantly reduced) version of their Ross Sea proposal, but hopes remain low that the forthcoming meeting will result in much meaningful action. The organization’s repeated failures to live up to its own name and mandate raise blunt but inevitable questions: Has CCAMLR’s paralytic consensus model transformed the conservation body into little more than a marginally effective fisheries management organization? If so, just what will it take to successfully and effectively protect Antarctica’s marine ecosystems? “Those are serious questions that CCAMLR will have to ask itself if things remain at this stalemate, especially if we have countries that seem increasingly willing to isolate themselves,” said Andrea Kavanagh, the director of the Southern Ocean Sanctuaries Campaign at Pew Charitable Trusts. “I don’t think it was ever envisioned that the consensus model would serve as a means for someone to block progress on something that everyone had already agreed was important. To use consensus against CCAMLR itself—well, it seems like bad faith negotiations.” The ingredients required to establish meaningful, effective protection of these fragile ecosystems are a complex cocktail of science and policy, Kavanagh said. She emphasized that for protections to be effective, the MPAs must be “permanent or indefinite”—that is, they cannot have a firm expiration date. (The current revised proposal has a “soft review” clause that would go into effect after 25 years, although Kavanagh expressed concerns that New Zealand has indicated a willingness to negotiate on that aspect of the proposal.) To be effective, she added that the protected areas must also be large enough to cover a diverse range of species and ecosystems—also cause for concern, since the newly revised proposal reduced the size of the proposed MPA by 40 percent, from roughly the size of Alaska to roughly twice the size of Texas. “When it comes to MPAs, size does matter,” said Kavanagh. “In the Ross Sea area, for example, you have a lot of different ecosystems: the shelf and slope, sea mounts, and an area they suspect is a breeding and spawning ground for toothfish. It was a disappointment to us that the revised proposal lost some of the diversity of ecosystems they had protected, especially when we still don’t know where Russia and the Ukraine stand. We have no idea if they’ll be satisfied by this.” But Evan Bloom, the head of the American delegation to the Antarctic conservation commission, defended the revised proposal, which he said is grounded in a critical mix of scientific recommendation and political considerations. “The United

States feels very strongly that you have to adhere to the best available science,” said Bloom. “This is a consensus-based organization, and we heard some important comments from scientists from other countries. We felt it was very important to acknowledge the concerns and views of those scientists, and to revise the proposal accordingly so it will be more attractive to a number of countries, and come closer to being adopted.” Bob Zuur, the manager of the World Wildlife Fund’s Antarctic and Southern Ocean initiative, added that despite the occasionally frustrating limitations of the consensus requirement, that model is often an unavoidable aspect of international law. “I think we need to recognize that CCAMLR is operating in the high seas, and in international law, the reality is that consensus is often required,” said Zuur. “If a country doesn’t agree with the rules, it can pull out and withdraw its commitment.” He added that it is important to make a distinction between the behavior of CCAMLR as an institution and the behavior of individual contrarian member states. But CCAMLR’s recent failure to establish protected areas in the Southern Ocean isn’t the first time the organization has been choked by the paralytic effect of its consensus model. In 2012, for example, after a South Korean fishing vessel illegally took more than half a million dollars worth of toothfish from the Southern Ocean, Korea was able to unilaterally stop CCAMLR from blacklisting that vessel. In 2003, the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO) presented CCAMLR with a report that identified 12 countries as being involved in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and poaching of protected toothfish—but since several CCAMLR member states were included on the list, no punitive action was taken. “This is a rather significant indicator of CCAMLR’s inability to deal effectively with the problem of IUU

fishing in the Convention Area,” concluded an Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition report after the 2003 incident. “The regime that is supposed to be responsible and capable of managing the marine living resources of Antarctica is failing through the constant undermining of a small group of parties to the Convention.” John Hocevar, the Oceans Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, said that although CCAMLR was founded on principles of biodiversity preservation, the rise of high-profit fishing industries, such as toothfish (which is often marketed as Chilean sea bass and informally known within the industry as “white gold”), transformed CCAMLR into something that is largely indistinguishable from any other fishery management organization. Hocevar added that several conservation organizations, including Greenpeace, have such serious doubts about CCAMLR’s potential to implement effective conservation proposals and they’ve begun working with the United Nations to adopt a new agreement under the Law of the Sea that would not require consensus. “The consensus model doesn’t just prevent things from being agreed upon, it prevents them from even being tried,” said Hocevar. “There are smart, forward-looking, science-driven policies that no one is going to introduce because it’s clear from the beginning that it wouldn’t get the support of every single member.” “We haven’t done as much damage in the waters around Antarctica as we have in other areas of the world, so we can still have some sense of what a relatively unimpacted ecosystem looks like,” Hocevar added. “We live on the water planet. The oxygen from every second breath we take is generated from algae that live in the ocean. Seafood provides protein for well over a billion people. Everything is connected—and this is the place for us to try to get it right.”

Antarctic cyber infrastructure increases science diplomacy – new tech, connectivity, and sensors NRC 11 – (National Research Council, organized by the National Academy of Sciences to further knowledge and advise the federal government, principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This article was sponsored by the Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the National Science Foundation, “Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean”, The National Academies Press, 2011, http://www.andrill.org/static/Resources/Publications/NAS%20Future%20Science%20Opportunities%20in%20Antarctica%20and%20the%20Southern%20Ocean.pdf) Wang Cyberinfrastructure ¶ ¶ Scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is already moving ¶ towards the deployment of extensive sensor networks that generate vast amounts of ¶ information.

Remote sensing is now an important element of astronomy, physics, climate, ¶ oceanography, and biology. The kinds of novel sensors discussed earlier in this section ¶ and later in this chapter

can usher in an era of “big data” for Antarctica and the Southern ¶ Ocean. Significant information processing capability would need to be

located directly on ¶ the Antarctic continent to provide preliminary analysis of these data and to clean and ¶ compress the data for efficient transmission to and analysis by researchers and U.S. ¶ government

agencies located in the United States and elsewhere. ¶ Cyberinfrastructure support for research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is ¶ currently limited. Some facilities (e.g., the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) are often ¶ beyond the range of major communication satellites in

geostationary orbit above the ¶ Equator because of the curvature of the earth. Intermittent satellite communication from ¶ such sites is provided from only those “failing” geostationary satellites that have gone

far ¶ enough out of position to allow access. Low-Earth-Orbiting communication satellites ¶ such as the Iridium System provide some data connectivity, but that connectivity is ¶

limited and expensive and will not provide the level of connectivity needed for future ¶ sensor networks. Future scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean would ¶ greatly benefit from “24/7” internet connectivity. High-bandwidth capability to and on ¶ the Antarctic continent would require improved terrestrial and satellite

communications ¶ infrastructure (Lazzara, 2004). Cyberinfrastructure support would also aid in deployment ¶ of new instruments with computer-controlled mechanics for positioning and sampling, as ¶ well as scientific instrumentation with on-board information processing and data ¶ management capability. Such advances would expand scientific activity without an ¶ equivalent expansion of costs. ¶ Given

the importance of sensing networks, it is vital that the cyberinfrastructure ¶ needs for such networks be understood in advance of design and deployment. ¶ Cyberinfrastructure is not merely a complementary asset for such systems; it is in many ¶ cases the core of such systems, and should not be left until it is too late to realize the ¶ essential needs it covers or the benefits it brings. As evidence of the emerging

importance ¶ of cyberinfrastructure to all areas of science and engineering, several years ago the ¶ National Science Foundation created an Office of Cyberinfrastructure under the Director. ¶ All polar research programs, and particularly those in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, ¶ would benefit from incorporation of cyberinfrastructure planning in their overall ¶ planning.

The Antarctic is a strategically key area for scientific diplomacy – Antarctic Treaty provesThe Royal Society 10 – (Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, a learned society for science, acts as the UK’s Academy of Sciences and funds research fellowships and scientific start up companies, “New frontiers in science diplomacy”, January 2010, http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf) Wang‘The [Antarctic] Treaty is a blueprint for the kind of international cooperation that will be needed more and more to address the challenges of the 21st century ... Governments coming together around a common interest and citizens, scientists, and institutions from different countries joined in scientific collaboration to advance peace and understanding.’¶ Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State (Clinton 2009b)¶ 2009 was the 50th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty. So it is timely to revisit the governance of the global commons—the ‘international spaces’ that exist beyond national jurisdictions, including Antarctica, the high seas, the deep sea and outer space. The governance of Antarctica sets a precedent for how the soft power of science can help to strike a balance between national and common interests, and could offer lessons for the peaceful governance of other international spaces and transnational resources.¶ The Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959 and came into force in 1961, represents a

milestone in global environmental governance, and was underpinned by science cooperation. A key military threat after World War II was the potential use of rockets to deliver nuclear weapons. In 1955, President Eisenhower proposed that the US and USSR conduct surveillance flights over each other’s territory for reassurance that¶ neither was preparing to attack. The USSR rejected this proposal. But both nations and their allies agreed to participate in the International Geophysical Year (IGY), which ran from July 1957 to December 1958, as the joint activities that this enabled in pursuit of upper atmospheric science, using rockets and satellite launches, provided a public and non-confrontational demonstration of technological capabilities.¶ By 1958, following successful satellite launches by the US and USSR, the pressure grew for control of ballistic missiles and the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space. But these issues were too sensitive to tackle directly. Antarctica, as a neutral space, therefore assumed strategic importance, as it allowed nations to carry out a surrogate dialogue about military controls and the inspection regimes necessary to verify them. It was anticipated from the outset that the Antarctic Treaty could set an institutional precedent for the peaceful governance of other international spaces.¶ By ‘not asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty’ signatories to the Antarctic Treaty transformed it into an international space, beyond national jurisdictions (Conference on Antarctica 1959). However, questions remained about how Antarctica should be governed. In the spirit of the International Geophysical Year, it was agreed that the answer was scientific cooperation. The most important¶ common interest articulated in the Treaty was the freedom of scientific research, including the exchange of data and people. This was crucial to inform management strategies to protect the Antarctic environment and ensure the sustainable use of its resources. The Treaty also forbids military activities, and by prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons and disposal of radioactive wastes in Antarctica, it became the first nuclear arms control agreement.

Antarctic infrastructure key to scientific advancement Augustine et al 12 – (Norman R. Augustine, Augustine is the former chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, the former undersecretary to the Army, member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the US Department of homeland

Security’s Advisory Council, won the National Medal of Technology and the AAS Philip Hauge Abelson Prize, Craig E. Dorman, Bart Gordan, Don Hartill, Louis J Lazerotti, Robert E Spearing, Thad Allen, Wugh W Ducklow, R Keith Harrison, Gerard Jugie, Duncan McNabb, Diana Wall, “More and better science in Antarctica through increased logistical effectiveness”, US Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel, July 2012, http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/antarctica_07232012.pdf) WangU.S. activities in Antarctica are very well man- aged but suffer from an aging infrastructure, lack of a capital budget, and the effects of operating in an extremely unforgiving environment. Construction of the new station at the South Pole, requiring all personnel, building materials and supplies to be transported by air, was a truly remarkable achievement, accomplished on schedule and nearly within the initially established budget.¶ The Panel concludes that by making changes to the logistics support system, such as those proposed, substantial cost savings can be realized using net present value as the basic financial metric. In some instances, more detailed analyses will be warranted prior to making substantial funding commitments—a consequence of the amount of time and the number of individuals available for this independent assessment. In some instances, achieving the savings identified will require front-end investments that could be supported with additional

funding, temporary reductions in research, or both. Funding derived solely from reductions in research, however, can support only a small fraction of the investments because of the scale of the logistical effort relative to science (Figure 2).¶ The Panel identifies the lack of a capital bud- get for the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) as the root cause of most of the inefficiencies observed—a situation that no successful corporation would ever permit to persist. If a formal, federally endorsed capital budget cannot be provided, then the National Science Foundation¶ (NSF) should, at a minimum, formulate a capital plan for U.S. activities in Antarctica that adapts to the needs of science and can be used as a basis for subsequent annual budgeting. The funding of maintenance would likewise benefit from more rigorous planning.¶ Under current practice, when NSF and its con- tractors must choose between repairing a roof or conducting science, science usually prevails. Only when the science is seriously disrupted because the roof begins to collapse will it be replaced; until then, it is likely only to be repaired. Examples of this phenomenon abound: a warehouse where some areas are avoided because the forklifts fall through the floor; kitchens with no grease traps; outdoor storage of supplies that can only be found by digging through deep piles of snow; gaps so large under doors that the wind blows snow into the buildings; late 1950s International Geophysical Year- era vehicles; antiquated communications; an almost total absence of modern inventory management systems (including the use of bar codes¶ in many cases); indoor storage inefficiently dispersed in more than 20 buildings at McMurdo Station; some 350,000 pounds (159,000 kilo- grams) of scrap lumber awaiting return to the U.S. for disposal; and more. The status quo is simply not an option; sooner or later the atrophying logistics infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced. Failure to do so will simply increase logistics costs until they altogether squeeze out

funding for science. A ten percent increase in the cost of logistics will consume 40 percent of the remaining science budget.

Science diplomacy solves nuclear terrorism and proliferation Lowenthal 11 – (Micah D. Lowenthal, director of the Nuclear Security and Nuclear Facility Safety Program in the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Research Council of the National Academies, Former researcher and lecturer at University of California at Berkeley, AB degree in physics and PhD in nuclear engineering from U.C. Berkeley, “Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security”, United States Institute of Peace, October 2011, http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf) Wang

Some important lessons were learned from the practice of science diplomacy in difficult times between the United States and

the Soviet Union/Russia over the past twenty-five years. Although the issues faced today are more complex, these lessons are still pertinent. The Cold War may be over, but the variety of threats has grown. Science diplomacy is needed now more than ever to address terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear and other potentially dangerous technologies, regional rivalries and conflicts, and a set of other critical matters. Some of these topics are quite sensitive and officials and scientists today may wonder how the topics can be discussed in bilateral or multilateral settings, but they have to remember what has already been accomplished. Because of nuclear weapons’ terrible destructive power, nations consider information about them and their potential use to be highly sensitive. But it is precisely this terrible destructive power that makes discussion including sharing of information and analyses—and that makes

science diplomacy—so important. Indeed, this destructive power is what motivated those practitioners quoted

in this report to succeed. This inspires practitioners of science diplomacy to continue to work together on the critical issues for nuclear security today and to find ways to reduce the threats that the world faces. All

parties owe that to future generations. Science diplomacy played such a key role in helping to bridge important gaps to bring an end to the Cold War; it is time to call upon this powerful tool to address the new and vexing security challenges the world faces in the twenty-first century.

Proliferation is the most realistic recipe for extinctionMiller 2 (James D. Miller, professor of economics, Smith College, NATIONAL REVIEW, January 23, 2002, p. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtml,)

The U.S. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. We should demand that countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. True, the world's cultural elites would be shocked and appalled if we took preventive military action against countries that are currently doing us no harm. What is truly shocking, however, is that America is doing almost nothing while countries that have expressed hatred for us are building weapons of mass destruction. France and Britain allowed Nazi Germany's military power to grow until Hitler was strong enough to take Paris. America seems to be doing little while many of our foes acquire the strength to destroy U.S. cities. We can't rely upon deterrence to prevent an atomic powered dictator from striking at us. Remember, the Nazi's killed millions of Jews even though the Holocaust took resources away from their war effort. As September 11th also shows, there exist evil men in the world who would gladly sacrifice all other goals for the opportunity to commit mass murder. The U.S. should take not even the slightest unnecessary chance that some dictator , perhaps a dying Saddam Hussein, would be willing to give up his life for the opportunity to hit America with nuclear missiles . Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U.S., or perhaps even a European city, with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons . His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons, for example, we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. What about the rights of those countries I have proposed threatening? America should not even pretend to care about the rights of dictators. In the 21st century the only leaders whom we should recognize as legitimate are those who were democratically elected. The U.S. should reinterpret international law to give no rights to tyrants, not even the right to exist. We should have an ethically based foreign policy towards democratic countries. With dictatorships, however, we should be entirely Machiavellian; we should deal with them based upon what is in our own best interests. It's obviously in our self-interest to prevent as many dictators as possible from acquiring the means to destroy us . We shouldn't demand that China abandon her nuclear weapons. This is not because China has proved herself worthy to have the means of mass annihilation, but rather because her existing stockpile of atomic missiles would make it too costly for us to threaten China. It's too late to stop the Chinese from gaining the ability to decimate us, but for the next ten years or so it is not too late to stop some of our other rivals. If it's politically impossible for America to use military force against currently non-hostile dictators then we should use trade sanctions to punish

nations who don't agree to our proliferation policy. Normal trade sanctions, however, do not provide the punishing power necessary to induce dictators to abandon their arms. If we simply don't trade with a nation other countries will sell them the goods that we used to provide. To make trade sanctions an effective weapon the U.S. needs to deploy secondary boycotts. America should create a treaty, the signatories of which would agree to: • only trade with countries which have signed the treaty, and • not trade with any country which violates our policy on weapons proliferation. Believe that if only the U.S. and, say, Germany initially signed this treaty then nearly every other country would be forced to do so. For example, if France did not sign, they would be unable to trade with the U.S. or Germany. This would obviously be intolerable to France. Once the U.S., Germany and France adopted the treaty every European nation would have to sign or face a total economic collapse. The more countries which sign the treaty, the greater the pressure on other countries to sign. Once most every country has signed, any country which violated America's policy on weapons proliferation would face almost a complete economic boycott. Under this approach, the U.S. and Germany alone could use our economic power to dictate the enforcement mechanism of a treaty designed to protect against Armageddon. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic, biological, and chemical weapons.

Terrorism leads to extinction. Sid-Ahmed 04 [Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, Extinction! http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Solvency

Compressive long-term physical and cyber infrastructure improvements are necessary to explore the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean. Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean occupy a vast territory, much of which is¶ inaccessible during Austral winter months. Even during summer months the conditions¶ prove challenging, with average temperatures below freezing and rapidly changing¶ winds. Infrastructure is essential to survival and is vital to the conduct of science. Two¶ kinds of infrastructure can provide opportunities to advance scientific research in¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean: physical systems infrastructure , including transport,¶ and

cyberinfrastructure. ¶ Physical Infrastructure¶ Science activity in the Antarctic region is dependent on facilities and on transport,¶ and as noted above in the energy section, successful science depends on adequate¶ provision of energy. Ships bring heavy cargo and fuel to support operations at Palmer¶ Station and McMurdo Station. Aircraft bring personnel and equipment from¶ Christchurch, New Zealand down the 170 meridian to McMurdo Station. From McMurdo¶

aircraft take personnel and equipment to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or other¶

locations, and supply materials and much of the fuel to those sites as well. The¶ McMurdo-South Pole overland traverse is starting, but is not yet established as a routine¶ and reliable supply strategy. Many waste materials are required to be taken away from¶ the inland sites, and eventually away from the continent.¶ Both transportation and facilities have improved dramatically over the past¶ decades; an improvement that is easy to see given the existence of well-preserved huts¶ left by the explorers of a century ago. It is reasonable to expect significant additional¶ improvements in infrastructure in the coming years, and these improvements represent¶ opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness. One of the most promising¶ examples is the installation of wind turbines for electric power generation at McMurdo¶ Station and New Zealand’s Scott Base, discussed earlier. Similarly, ongoing improvements in materials technology have resulted in better building materials, clothing¶ and outerwear, and scientific equipment.¶ One concern worth considering is the degree to which inherently harsh¶ environments such as Antarctica and the Southern Ocean should be made to resemble¶ settled areas elsewhere. A campsite does not necessarily require all the features of a¶ modern city, and temporary field facilities for scientific work may be reasonably safe¶ without meeting electrical and other code requirements for permanent buildings.¶ Anecdotal evidence suggests that imbalances along these lines are common, with¶ expectations for safety outweighing practicality. Similarly, safety protocols to protect¶ personnel from accidents of vanishingly small probability may go too far given that all¶ personnel are required to undergo rigorous physical examinations before they deploy, and¶ that the activities of Antarctic research are exempt from constraints imposed by the¶ Americans with Disabilities Act and similar legislation and rules. The health and safety¶ of personnel are important, but there are trade-offs that can be balanced inappropriately¶ given the objectives of scientific work. Over-zealous development and enforcement of¶ safety protocols can interfere with scientific work and add greatly to the costs of¶ supporting such work. A reasonable balance could be sought. The

Committee encourages¶ the Blue Ribbon Panel to examine these issues as part of its review of the logistical¶ support of science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.¶ The impacts of global human activity, such as increasing releases of greenhouse¶ gases into the atmosphere and the resulting global climate change, far outweigh the¶ impact researchers will have on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Yet stewardship of¶ this fragile environment will require continual vigilance. The “footprints” of stations such¶ as McMurdo or the South Pole station should be kept as minimal as possible and¶ researchers should strive to insure that exploration does not lead to irreversible changes¶ in the environment, such as possible contamination of subglacial lakes from drilling into¶ these fragile environments.¶ Cyberinfrastructure¶ Scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is already moving¶ towards the deployment of extensive sensor networks that generate vast amounts of¶ information. Remote sensing is now an important element of astronomy, physics, climate,¶ oceanography, and biology. The kinds of novel sensors discussed earlier in this section¶ and later in this chapter can usher in an era of “big data” for Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean. Significant information processing capability would need to be located directly on¶ the Antarctic continent to provide preliminary analysis of these data and to clean and¶ compress the data for efficient transmission to and analysis by researchers and U.S.¶ government agencies located in the United States and elsewhere.¶

Cyberinfrastructure support for research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is¶ currently limited. Some facilities (e.g., the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) are often¶ beyond the range of major communication satellites in geostationary orbit above the¶ Equator because of the curvature of the earth. Intermittent satellite communication from such sites is provided from only those “failing” geostationary satellites that have gone far¶ enough out of position to allow access. Low-Earth-Orbiting communication satellites¶ such as the Iridium System provide some data connectivity, but that connectivity is¶ limited and expensive and will not provide the level of connectivity needed for future¶ sensor networks. Future scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean would¶ greatly benefit from “24/7” internet connectivity. High-bandwidth capability to and on¶ the Antarctic continent would require improved terrestrial and satellite communications¶ infrastructure (Lazzara, 2004). Cyberinfrastructure support would also aid in deployment¶ of new instruments with computer-controlled mechanics for positioning and sampling, as¶ well as scientific instrumentation with on-board information processing and data¶ management capability. Such advances would expand scientific activity without an¶ equivalent expansion of costs.¶ Given the importance of sensing networks, it is vital that the cyberinfrastructure¶ needs for such networks be understood in advance of design and deployment.¶ Cyberinfrastructure is not merely a complementary asset for such systems; it is in many¶ cases the core of such systems, and should not be left until it is too late to realize the¶ essential needs it covers or the benefits it brings. As evidence of the emerging importance¶ of cyberinfrastructure to all areas of science and engineering, several years ago the¶

National Science Foundation created an Office of Cyberinfrastructure under the Director.¶ All polar research programs, and particularly those in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean,¶ would benefit from incorporation of cyberinfrastructure planning in their overall¶ planning.

Cyber technology infrastructure makes research in Antarctica more efficient Tedesco ’13 [Marco, Polar Cyberinfrastructure Program director at the National Science Foundation’s Division of Polar Programs, a part of a cross-foundation initiative called CIF21, NSF program seeks to promote technologies for polar regions, The Antarctic Sun, 4/5, http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2833] Yi4. How has polar research benefited in the past from advances in cyber technology?¶ Cyber

technologies have been positively impacting polar research in many ways: an increasing number of sophisticated

sensors have been deployed in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions; enhanced computational power has

allowed polar scientists to portray the present state of the polar regions, to unveil past trends and project future changes of process-driving quantities; and sharing of information, data, publications

through virtual networks has allowed interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research and has expanded the boundaries of education.¶ 5. What sort of advances in cyber technology and infrastructure do you see coming in the next five to 10 years?¶ I like to think that for modern-day scientists and engineers, cyberinfrastructure can be thought in the same way that we, as citizens, think about physical infrastructures providing us electricity, water, transportation, etc. I hope that over the next five to 10 years the program will be able to support innovation and education through the integration of updated computing, data management, information, networking, sensor and software technologies into polar research. Data-enabled discoveries, the storage and distribution of large complex data sets and the continuity to access long-lived publicly accessible data sets are some examples of potential long-term outcomes. The program will interact with other NSF ongoing cyberinfrastructure activities, such as EarthCube External Non-U.S. government site. I sincerely hope that the program will provide the basis for building an infrastructure that would be for polar science as revolutionary as the coming of water and electric power was for our cities.

Infrastructure can solve – NSF has knowledge and capacity National Science Foundation ’11 [an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…” Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation, April, http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/NSFstrat2011_entire.pdf] YiV. STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE GOALS¶ Three interrelated strategic goals—transform the frontiers, innovate for society, and perform as a model organization—grow from NSF’s mission and our expectations

for leadership and excellence in carrying out that mission. These goals provide the programmatic and operational underpinning for all NSF programs and activities, and they apply to the entire portfolio spanning research, education, and infrastructure. These strategic goals stem from important NSF-related legislation, national priorities, and NSB reports, including “Science and Engineering Indicators,” and are set in the context of the broad and balanced NSF portfolio that is critical to promoting the progress of S&E. In addition, numerous reports from NSF advisory committees, the¶ National Research Council, and others support the need for NSF to focus on these key areas. Each of the three strategic goals has a set of performance goals that provide NSF with a clear set of priorities over the life of the strategic plan. As required by the Government Performance and Results Act, these priorities are revisited every three years and updated as needed. The plan includes specific targets and actions NSF will take to address each target. In many instances, it will be necessary for NSF to establish specific measures and assessment methodologies to determine the extent to which the target has been met over the life of the plan. In addition to the actions

specifically identified in this plan, NSF will engage in numerous other actions to support each performance goal. NSF will seize opportunities to innovate, creating¶ a dynamic organization that advances our mission and is responsive to S&E community. The strategies and means for accomplishing these goals are discussed in Section VI. Our multipronged approach to evaluating and assessing the impact over the life of the plan is discussed in Section VII.

The U.S. is key - best technological capability Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

The United States is well positioned to continue as the preeminent research¶ presence in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean by virtue of having a large national¶ logistical support

program and an exceptional pool of scientific talent upon which to¶ draw . The South Pole Station, a major reconstruction project that required a significant¶ portion of available resources of the U.S. Antarctic Program for much of the past decade,¶ is completed. This reconstruction, along with the major effort required to construct the¶ IceCube project, led to an imbalance in

the resource allocation among the other areas of¶ science seeking support. Now that the United States has a state of the art research station¶ high on the Antarctic ice sheet to compliment the stations at McMurdo and Palmer, there¶ is an opportunity to strive to bring better balance in the support of all science and¶ logistics priorities. The proposed observing network described in this report (Section 4.4)¶ would facilitate some of that balance as many disciplines would benefit from the¶ realization of such a network.¶ In this report, the Committee has presented key science questions that the¶ Committee believes will drive research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the¶ coming decades, and the Committee has highlighted several key opportunities to be leveraged to address those questions most efficiently. In this final chapter, the Committee¶

outlines six overarching recommendations that they believe are necessary to ensure¶ success for the next generation of Antarctic science. The committee recommends that the¶ United States:¶ 1. Lead the development of a large scale inter-disciplinary observing network¶ and support a new generation of robust earth system models. A broad-based¶ observing system, including remote sensing as well as in situ instrumentation, is¶ needed that can collect data that will record ongoing changes in the Antarctic¶ atmosphere, ice sheets, surrounding oceans, and ecosystems. Such a large,¶ sustained, and international effort will require a robust planning process and will¶ likely require the leadership of at least one country; the United States could be the¶ leader in this effort. Within the United States, the National Science Foundation¶ (NSF) has the ability to take the lead in developing this observing network in¶ close collaboration with other Federal agencies having a fundamental interest in¶ the polar environment, e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Administration,¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological¶ Survey. The goals of the observing network should be to measure and record¶ ongoing changes, develop advanced understanding of the drivers of that change,¶ and provide input for climate models that will enable the United States to project¶ and adapt to the global impact evidenced by the changing Antarctic environment.¶ Earth system models will need to incorporate the unique (and often unknown)¶ conditions in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in order to better project future¶ changes to the planet more robustly.

Inherency Energy needs prevent successful Artic and Antarctic exploration projects Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Currently, most of the energy for Antarctic science is provided by combustion of¶ fossil fuels, primarily jet fuel and gasoline treated to withstand the low temperatures.¶ These fuels are consumed for transportation, electric power generation, space heating,¶ desalination and melting ice for potable water, washing, and other needs at both the field¶ camps and the permanent stations. The fuel pipeline for much of the continent starts at¶ McMurdo, where the station receives most of its annual 1.3 million gallons of fuel¶ delivered by ship. Fuel is then transferred from McMurdo to the Pegasus ice airport via a¶ pipeline. Aircraft annually move over 300,000 gallons of jet fuel and gasoline to¶ Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station to power diesel generators, provide heating, and fuel¶ vehicles. Palmer Station has no permanent fixed-wing landing facilities and receives all¶ its fuel via ship. In addition to cost, combustion of fossil fuels pollute the air, and storage¶ and transport can leak fuel into the water, ice, or ground.¶ Looking to the future, innovation in energy continues to be an active concern in¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. For example, a new overland traverse route using¶ tractors and sleds promises to reduce the cost of fuel transport from McMurdo to South¶ Pole Station. In another example, in 2008 Antarctica New Zealand and the U.S. Antarctic¶ Program worked together to install three 330 KW wind turbines on the ridgeline of Crater¶ Hill between McMurdo Station and Scott Base (Figure 4.3). The wind power generation¶ system was integrated with the McMurdo and Scott power distribution network, and has¶ proven highly reliable despite the extreme weather conditions at McMurdo.¶ Approximately 15% of McMurdo’s and nearly 90% of Scott Base’s electricity needs are¶ now provided by this system. Analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory¶ suggests that expansion of wind electric power generation at McMurdo and extension of¶ this capability to Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station could save as much as half a¶

million gallons of fuel per year and produce net savings of $20 million over 20 years¶ (Baring-Gould, 2005). It seems likely that adoption and adaptation of smaller, energyefficient¶

technologies will add significantly to energy savings in the region over time.¶ New science technologies discussed below will require energy. Remotely¶ operated or autonomous sensor networks will play a critical role in data collection across¶ a wide variety of scientific fields in Antarctic and Southern Ocean research. Energy is¶ required for materials and personnel transport, facilities operations, and data collection,¶ processing, storage, and transmission. A strategy that relies exclusively on fossil fuels¶ and combustion will probably not be efficient and cost-effective over the long run.¶ Innovations such as wind and solar power will likely play a role in many of the current¶ energy intensive activities, and battery technology, fuel cells, and other mechanisms for¶ energy generation and storage should be explored in the challenging conditions of the¶ Antarctic region. Overall the Antarctic and Southern Ocean region has the opportunity to¶ continue to be an important test bed for new energy concepts for other extreme climates,¶ such as the Arctic. This also offers a potential opportunity for public-private partnerships¶ in research and development.

New techs are necessary for exploration – require new investments Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

In addition to overcoming challenges, the emergence of new technologies can¶ open up new capabilities. One example is the emergence of miniaturized computers,¶ which has allowed small instruments to be attached to diving animals. These¶ instrumented animals have measured the conductivity, temperature, and depth of the¶ ocean in some areas where ice cover had previously impeded such measurements by ship¶ or mooring (mentioned in Section 3.2). This is one example out of many where the¶ exploitation of new technology has led to a scientific advancement in oceanography and¶ animal ecology and physiology. It is important to remember that new technologies often¶ appear “by surprise,” meaning that cost-effective deployment comes after a considerable¶ lag time from when the ideas behind the technology were first articulated and the proofof-¶ concept work was finished. A good example is the Internet. Work on what became the¶ Internet began in the late 1960s, but relatively few people knew about it until the mid-¶ 1990s when the network was officially named the Internet (Abbate, 1999). The cultures¶ of technical development are complicated, and one cannot simply expect new and useful¶ technologies to appear as needed. A theme throughout this discussion of technology is¶ that new capabilities—for energy, remote sensing, cyberinfrastructure, ice-breaking, or¶ any other activity important in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean—must be nurtured over¶ significant periods of time, sometimes decades, before they prove their worth in the field. Looking to the future, there are numerous emerging technologies that have the¶ potential to expand, and even revolutionize, science’s observational capacity. Three such¶

examples are Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), long duration balloons and air¶ ships, and mobile drilling capacity for rapid drilling; see Figure 4.3. AUVs allow¶ investigators to access difficult environments such as within cavities underneath ice¶ shelves. Long duration balloons and air ships allow instruments to access the upper¶ portion of the atmosphere for extended periods of time, even potentially years at a time.¶ Mobile drilling capacity, such as the FASTDRILL project, will allow for rapid drilling of¶ multiple holes that significantly improves information output. Examples of platforms like¶ these that provide access for measurements in more locations, with greater frequency, and¶ at more times of the year will help provide needed data to address the types of science¶ questions listed in Chapters 2 and 3. New technologies have the potential to affect all¶ aspects of science, and a fuller, but by no means complete, list of emerging technologies¶ is included in Appendix C. A continued effort to incorporate and adopt new technologies¶ can ensure increased efficiency in U.S. research efforts.

The Antarctic and southern Ocean are in dire need for technology—economy, logistic issuesCowing 12 [Keith, Astrobiologist, former NASA employee, author of NASA Watch, U.S. Antarctic program Infrastructure needs a major upgrade, 8-5-12,http://spaceref.com/onorbit/us-antarctic-program-infrastructure-needs-major-upgrades.html] Schloss

In the report, the 12-member panel, chaired by Norm Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. who led

a similar review of the USAP in the 1990s, identified deficiencies and areas for investment, as well as suggestions on how to pay for improvements in a tough fiscal environment.¶ "We will take this report extraordinarily seriously and work very hard so that our actions match the drive and goals that were behind producing this report by this distinguished group," said NSF Director Subra Suresh during the hour-long press

conference on July 23.¶ The Blue Ribbon Panel report on logistics and science support follows a 2011 National Research Council study, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, which identified some of the major research goals in Antarctica for the next couple of decades.¶ That group, chaired by Dr. Warren Zapol at Harvard Medical School, recommended a continued focus on climate change research with the development of an observation network capable of long-term monitoring of ice, ocean and atmospheric processes around Antarctica. [Link to previous article.]¶ John P. Holdren, director of OSTP, noted that research in Antarctica has already provided valuable scientific discoveries of the region and the planet.¶ "The work that U.S researchers have conducted in our Antarctic program has generated insights into atmospheric and ocean processes, the pace and consequences of climate change, the biology of ancient life, and the origins of the universe -- to mention just some of the areas involved. And, yet, clearly there is still much more we can learn from that frozen continent," he said Monday.¶ "It's our responsibility as explorers, curiosity-seekers and residents of this remarkably diverse planet to persevere despite the challenges, and do so in a manner that is both cost effective and environmentally responsible," he added.¶ In the report's executive summary, the Blue Ribbon Panel members said the lack of a long-term plan for investing in infrastructure has led to deterioration of Antarctic facilities.¶ The report stated, "The Panel identifies the lack of a capital budget for the [USAP] as the root cause of most of the inefficiencies observed -- a situation that no successful corporation would ever permit to persist. If a formal, federally endorsed capital budget cannot be provided, then NSF should, at a minimum, formulate a capital plan for U.S. activities in Antarctica that adapts to the needs of science and can be used as a basis for subsequent annual budgeting. The funding of maintenance would likewise benefit from more rigorous planning."¶ The panel members visited all three USAP research stations at McMurdo, Palmer and South Pole during the 2011-12 field season in Antarctica, as well as logistics facilities based in New Zealand, Chile and the United States. A new 152-person facility was dedicated in 2008 at the South Pole, partly the result of the Blue Ribbon Panel led by Augustine in the late 1990s.¶ "Today, the South Pole Station is in relatively good shape. Unfortunately, one can't say that for the facilities at McMurdo and at Palmer," Augustine said as he cited several examples during the press conference, such as inefficient warehousing at McMurdo and the deficient pier at Palmer. The former was established in the mid-1950s for the International Geophysical Year, while the latter was constructed in the 1960s.¶

Augustine noted that operating logistics in Antarctica, with a supply chain that stretches 10,000 miles around the globe, has consumed at least 85 percent of the USAP's budget over the last decade or more. The panel made it a priority to address infrastructure challenges while making efforts to free more dollars for research in the long-term, he said.¶ "If we don't address this issue at this time, and we wait until next year or the year after that, not only will the cost be much higher, but we'll reach the point where we're doing all logistics and very little science in Antarctica -- and that makes very little sense at all," Augustine said.

Solvency Compressive long-term physical and cyber infrastructure improvements are necessary to explore the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean. Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean occupy a vast territory, much of which is¶ inaccessible during Austral winter months. Even during summer months the conditions¶ prove challenging, with average temperatures below freezing and rapidly changing¶ winds. Infrastructure is essential to survival and is vital to the conduct of science. Two¶ kinds of infrastructure can provide opportunities to advance scientific research in¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean: physical systems infrastructure , including transport,¶ and

cyberinfrastructure. ¶ Physical Infrastructure¶ Science activity in the Antarctic region is dependent on facilities and on transport,¶ and as noted above in the energy section, successful science depends on adequate¶ provision of energy. Ships bring heavy cargo and fuel to support operations at Palmer¶ Station and McMurdo Station. Aircraft bring personnel and equipment from¶ Christchurch, New Zealand down the 170 meridian to McMurdo Station. From McMurdo¶

aircraft take personnel and equipment to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or other¶

locations, and supply materials and much of the fuel to those sites as well. The¶ McMurdo-South Pole overland traverse is starting, but is not yet established as a routine¶ and reliable supply strategy. Many waste materials are required to be taken away from¶ the inland sites, and eventually away from the continent.¶ Both transportation and facilities have improved dramatically over the past¶ decades; an improvement that is easy to see given the existence of well-preserved huts¶ left by the explorers of a century ago. It is reasonable to expect significant additional¶ improvements in infrastructure in the coming years, and these improvements represent¶ opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness. One of the most promising¶ examples is the installation of wind turbines for electric power generation at McMurdo¶ Station and New Zealand’s Scott Base, discussed earlier. Similarly, ongoing improvements in materials technology have resulted in better building materials, clothing¶ and outerwear, and scientific equipment.¶ One concern worth considering is the degree to which inherently harsh¶ environments such as Antarctica and the Southern Ocean should be made to resemble¶ settled areas elsewhere. A campsite does not necessarily require all the features of a¶ modern city, and temporary field facilities for scientific work may be reasonably safe¶ without meeting electrical and other code requirements for permanent buildings.¶ Anecdotal evidence suggests that imbalances along these lines are common, with¶ expectations for safety outweighing practicality. Similarly, safety protocols to protect¶ personnel from accidents of vanishingly small probability may go too far given that all¶ personnel are required to undergo rigorous physical examinations before they deploy, and¶ that the activities of Antarctic research are exempt from constraints imposed by the¶ Americans with Disabilities Act and similar legislation and rules. The health and safety¶ of personnel are important, but there are trade-offs that can be balanced inappropriately¶ given the objectives of scientific work. Over-zealous development and enforcement of¶ safety protocols can interfere with scientific work and add greatly to the costs of¶ supporting such work. A reasonable balance could be sought. The

Committee encourages¶ the Blue Ribbon Panel to examine these issues as part of its review of the logistical¶ support of science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.¶ The impacts of global human activity, such as increasing releases of greenhouse¶ gases into the atmosphere and the resulting global climate change, far outweigh the¶ impact researchers will have on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Yet stewardship of¶ this fragile environment will require continual vigilance. The “footprints” of stations such¶ as McMurdo or the South Pole station should be kept as minimal as possible and¶ researchers should strive to insure that exploration does not lead to irreversible changes¶ in the environment, such as possible contamination of subglacial lakes from drilling into¶ these fragile environments.¶ Cyberinfrastructure¶ Scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is already moving¶ towards the deployment of extensive sensor networks that generate vast amounts of¶ information. Remote sensing is now an important element of astronomy, physics, climate,¶ oceanography, and biology. The kinds of novel sensors discussed earlier in this section¶ and later in this chapter can usher in an era of “big data” for Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean. Significant information processing capability would need to be located directly on¶ the Antarctic continent to provide preliminary analysis of these data and to clean and¶ compress the data for efficient transmission to and analysis by researchers and U.S.¶ government agencies located in the United States and elsewhere.¶

Cyberinfrastructure support for research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is¶ currently limited. Some facilities (e.g., the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) are often¶ beyond the range of major communication satellites in geostationary orbit above the¶ Equator because of the curvature of the earth. Intermittent satellite communication from such sites is provided from only those “failing” geostationary satellites that have gone far¶ enough out of position to allow access. Low-Earth-Orbiting communication satellites¶ such as the Iridium System provide some data connectivity, but that connectivity is¶ limited and expensive and will not provide the level of connectivity needed for future¶ sensor networks. Future scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean would¶ greatly benefit from “24/7” internet connectivity. High-bandwidth capability to and on¶ the Antarctic continent would require improved terrestrial and satellite communications¶ infrastructure (Lazzara, 2004). Cyberinfrastructure support would also aid in deployment¶ of new instruments with computer-controlled mechanics for positioning and sampling, as¶ well as scientific instrumentation with on-board information processing and data¶ management capability. Such advances would expand scientific activity without an¶ equivalent expansion of costs.¶ Given the importance of sensing networks, it is vital that the cyberinfrastructure¶ needs for such networks be understood in advance of design and deployment.¶ Cyberinfrastructure is not merely a complementary asset for such systems; it is in many¶ cases the core of such systems, and should not be left until it is too late to realize the¶ essential needs it covers or the benefits it brings. As evidence of the emerging importance¶ of cyberinfrastructure to all areas of science and engineering, several years ago the¶

National Science Foundation created an Office of Cyberinfrastructure under the Director.¶ All polar research programs, and particularly those in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean,¶ would benefit from incorporation of cyberinfrastructure planning in their overall¶ planning.

Research in Antarctica is necessary to provide more compressive information to generate the knowledge to respond to growing environmental concerns Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

The Committee recommends four actions that are needed to advance prediction of¶ Antarctica’s contribution to sea level in the future:¶ Develop greater predictive capacity for the flow of ice into the ocean. Relative to¶ the ocean and atmosphere, the dynamics of the cryosphere are poorly understood.¶ This is partly because of difficulties inherent in observing and modeling ice flow:¶ it is difficult to make physical measurements deep within and beneath ice sheets¶ and ice shelves; many timescales of ice motion are longer than those afforded by¶

instrumental records; and ice is a non-Newtonian fluid, whose motion depends¶ sensitively upon its interactions with sediment or rock at its bed. As stated, the¶ 2007 IPCC report neglected the possibility of change in the rate at which Antarctic¶ ice is discharged into the ocean because not enough was known (IPCC, 2007),¶ underscoring the need for further theoretical and observational work on ice sheets.¶ Requisite work can be broken down according to ice interactions with the ocean,¶ atmosphere, and solid Earth and are described in separate bullets below. Improved¶ theoretical understanding and technical capacity is also needed, as detailed next.¶ Increase scientific and technical capacity to observe and model ice sheets. The¶ cadre of theoreticians and those making observations related to the Antarctic ice¶ sheet is small relative to the scope of the problem. Teams of collaborators would¶ need to include glaciologists, geologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists,¶ etc., and expansion of existing efforts across federal agencies and academia. Those¶ components of ice sheets that can change relatively rapidly, especially those¶ associated with ice streams and ice shelves, require particular attention.¶ Determine how the ocean transports heat to ice shelves and how this may change¶ in the future. Antarctica loses the vast majority of its ice via interactions with the¶

ocean. The amount of melting beneath ice shelves depends upon transport of heat¶ by the oceans, which is driven by a complex mix of wind stress and changes in¶ water density brought about by heating, cooling, and fluxes of salt or freshwater.¶ Recent modeling studies (Pollard and DeConto, 2009) highlight how an increase in¶ ocean heat flux could lead to rapid inward migrations of ice shelf grounding lines and loss of ice volume. Developing instrumentation and an observational program¶ with which to monitor the conditions beneath ice shelves is a high priority (see¶ Appendix C for enabling technologies). In conjunction with increasing observations, improved models capable of accurately representing the transfer of¶ heat from the ocean to the cryosphere need to be developed and tested (also see¶ Section 2.2).¶ Improve monitoring of surface temperature and ice accumulation. It is not¶ entirely certain whether the temperature of Antarctica is or is not increasing. A¶ general warming trend was reported for surface atmospheric temperatures, based¶ on surface and satellite observation (Steig et al., 2009). But a recent report, using¶ similar data but different statistical methods found little evidence of warming¶ (O’Donnell et al., 2011). At the heart of this discrepancy is the sparsity of the¶

international Antarctic observational network, which places heavy demand on¶ statistical methods for estimating temperature variations in regions where direct¶ observations are not being made. Nonetheless, there are both model analyses and¶ paleoclimate observations that strongly suggest that Antarctica will eventually¶ warm significantly more than the lower latitudes (Clark and Huybers, 2009). A¶ warming of several degrees Celsius could lead to significant summer melting atop¶ the ice shelves and cause their disintegration, as recently observed for the Larsen¶ ice shelf (MacAyeal, 2003; Mercer, 1978). Similar to the limited and widely¶ scattered Antarctic temperature observations (often obtained at international bases¶ around the continent), there are large gaps in monitoring snow accumulation over¶ Antarctica, as well as a significant partial evaporation of snowfall. Since satellite¶ observations of ice temperature and snow accumulation are not sufficiently¶ reliable, a comprehensive surface observing network is needed to define these¶ basic surface conditions. Improve mapping of conditions and structures beneath the ice sheet and¶ measuring uplift of underlying bedrock. Subglacial topography and

the¶ composition of the underlying rock are important determinants of glacial flow.¶ Determining which regions are below sea level is important for evaluating¶ instabilities in the ice. However, the subglacial topography and geology of¶ Antarctica is less well known than the topography of Mars (Gwinner et al., 2010).¶ Comprehensive radar mapping of Antarctica is required. Determining the rate of¶ uplift of the bedrock beneath Antarctica, which is still adjusting to the unloading¶ associated with the last major deglaciation (between 18,000 and 7,000 years ago),¶ is also critical for monitoring and assessing the changes of the mass of the ice¶ sheet. In particular, correct interpretation of gravitational anomalies monitored¶ from space requires measuring changes in the elevation of both the underlying¶ bedrock and the overlying ice sheets. Bedrock uplift rates can be assessed both¶ through Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements as well as models that¶ incorporate the geologic history of changes in the size of Antarctic ice sheets.¶ Lack of knowledge of the amount of bedrock uplift provides the largest source of¶

uncertainty in determining the rate that Antarctica is losing its ice (Chen et al.,¶ 2009). (Also see Section 2.4.)¶ It is only through observations made in Antarctica that scientists were alerted

to¶ such phenomena as the ozone hole, rapid disintegration of the Larsen B ice shelf,¶

acceleration of glaciers once the ice shelves were lost, and draining and filling of¶ subglacial

lakes. Given how limited direct observations of the Antarctic continent have¶ been and how

human actions are now prodding the climate system, many surprises seem¶ possible in the

future. In order to expect or learn from any surprises, t here will need to be¶ careful

monitoring of Antarctica, including its ice, overlying atmosphere, and peripheral¶ oceans.

Observations made in Antarctica can be likened to an early warning network that¶ when

adequately interpreted, analyzed, and placed into the context of a developed¶ theoretical

understanding, will alert society to acceleration of Antarctica’s ongoing¶ contribution to

changing sea level or, possibly, uncover new mechanisms by which¶ Antarctica can change

sea level .

Intensive research is key to collect data and create models that help us understand more about climate science Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

To document what is happening, the two key variables to measure are nearsurface¶ air temperature and snow precipitation/accumulation. An observing network for¶ both of these variables would benefit greatly if it were designed using computer¶ simulations of the observing system, and if robust observing platforms were widely¶ deployed and maintained. Strategic ice coring and borehole thermometry building upon¶ the successful achievements of the International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition¶ (ITASE) project can form the basis for establishing the changes of these variables during¶ past centuries. Vigorous research is

needed into the best methods to interpolate continentwide¶ estimates from sparse

scattered observations and for estimating the uncertainty.¶ Data recorded by the observing network over long periods would produce benchmarks to¶ test the performance of earth system

models. The paucity of direct stratospheric and¶ tropospheric measurements from weather balloons can be partially remedied by¶ incorporating new observing technologies and platforms, including satellite radiances,¶ observations from constant-level balloons equipped with dropsondes (Rabier et al.,¶ 2010), self sustaining blimps, and drones (see Appendix C). A second goal is to develop greatly improved earth system models. Major efforts¶ are necessary to develop earth system models that are optimized for understanding¶ climate change in the Antarctic. In order to usefully project future changes, these models¶ will need to skillfully simulate present and recent past climate conditions. At present,¶ limited efforts are put into optimizing the atmospheric components of models, such as for¶ the ubiquitous stable boundary layer over the continent that produces the katabatic winds¶ that blow largely downslope and dominate the near-surface climate of Antarctica, the¶ surrounding ocean, and the atmosphere above the continent. Antarctic cloud models and¶ precipitation predictions are based on midlatitude experiences and do not consider the¶ near-pristine conditions of the high southern latitudes nor the major biological¶ contributions to cloud condensation and ice nuclei. At present, most climate models have¶ crude representations of the stratosphere and specify only the effects of stratospheric¶ ozone depletion. Implementation of realistic stratospheric simulations along with¶ understanding and incorporating ozone and greenhouse gas chemistry into climate¶ models is needed to produce accurate simulations of the future behavior of the Southern Annular Mode, the leading mode of variability in the high latitude southern atmosphere.¶ All of these improvements will help improve the fidelity of models, which improves the¶ accuracy of projected future changes from those models.

Technology advances can support infrastructure in Antarctic regionZapol et al 20 [warren, chair of Harvard medical school & Massachusetts general hospital, “Future science opportunities in Antarctica and the southern ocean, no date, http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning/Antarctica_Report_US_NAS.pdf] Jia (part of a large article)

Advances in energy and technology can make scientific research in the Antarctic region more cost effective, allowing a greater proportion of funds to be used to support research rather than to establish and maintain infrastructure. For example, most of the energy required to power research stations and field camps and to transport people and materials comes from burning fossil fuels. In addition to the cost of the fuel, the combustion of fossil fuels pollutes the air, and fuel leaks during storage and transport have the potential to contaminate the surrounding environment. Innovations such as more cost effective overland transportation systems for fuel, or the use of wind power generators, promise to reduce the cost and pollution associated with fuel transport.

Cyber technology infrastructure makes research in Antarctica more efficient Tedesco ’13 [Marco, Polar Cyberinfrastructure Program director at the National Science Foundation’s Division of Polar Programs, a part of a cross-foundation initiative called CIF21, NSF program seeks to promote technologies for polar regions, The Antarctic Sun, 4/5, http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2833] Yi4. How has polar research benefited in the past from advances in cyber technology?¶ Cyber

technologies have been positively impacting polar research in many ways: an increasing number of sophisticated sensors have been deployed in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions; enhanced computational power has

allowed polar scientists to portray the present state of the polar regions, to unveil past trends and project future changes of process-driving quantities; and sharing of information, data, publications

through virtual networks has allowed interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research and has expanded the boundaries of education.¶ 5. What sort of advances in cyber technology and infrastructure do you see coming in the next five to 10 years?¶ I like to think that for modern-day scientists and engineers, cyberinfrastructure can be thought in the same way that we, as citizens, think about physical infrastructures providing us electricity, water, transportation, etc. I hope that over the next five to 10 years the program will be able to support innovation and education through the integration of updated computing, data management, information, networking, sensor and software technologies into polar research. Data-enabled discoveries, the storage and distribution of large complex data sets and the continuity to access long-lived publicly accessible data sets are some examples of potential long-term outcomes. The program will interact with other NSF ongoing cyberinfrastructure activities, such as EarthCube External Non-U.S. government site. I sincerely hope that the program will provide the basis for building an infrastructure that would be for polar science as revolutionary as the coming of water and electric power was for our cities.

Infrastructure can solve – NSF has knowledge and capacity National Science Foundation ’11 [an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…” Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation, April, http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/NSFstrat2011_entire.pdf] YiV. STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE GOALS¶ Three interrelated strategic goals—transform the frontiers, innovate for society, and perform as a model organization—grow from NSF’s mission and our expectations

for leadership and excellence in carrying out that mission. These goals provide the programmatic and operational underpinning for all NSF programs and activities, and they apply to the entire portfolio spanning research, education, and infrastructure. These strategic goals stem from important NSF-related legislation, national priorities, and NSB reports, including “Science and Engineering Indicators,” and are set in the context of the broad and balanced NSF portfolio that is critical to promoting the progress of S&E. In addition, numerous reports from NSF advisory committees, the¶ National Research Council, and others support the need for NSF to focus on these key areas. Each of the three strategic goals has a set of performance goals that provide NSF with a clear set of priorities over the life of the strategic plan. As required by the Government Performance and Results Act, these priorities are revisited every three years and updated as needed. The plan includes specific targets and actions NSF will take to address each target. In many instances, it will be necessary for NSF to establish specific measures and assessment methodologies to determine the extent to which the target has been met over the life of the plan. In addition to the actions

specifically identified in this plan, NSF will engage in numerous other actions to support each performance goal. NSF will seize opportunities to innovate, creating¶ a dynamic organization that advances our mission and is responsive to S&E community. The strategies and means for accomplishing these goals are discussed in Section VI. Our multipronged approach to evaluating and assessing the impact over the life of the plan is discussed in Section VII.

Energy solutions in the artic are possible - efficiency already take place, with overall positive resultsTin, et al. ‘09, [Tina, freelance environmental consultant who has been working on climate change, renewable energy and Antarctic environmental issues; Masters in Engineering and a Ph.D. in Geophysics, she started her career by writing scientific articles on climate change and the impacts of human activities on the Antarctic environment, Energy efficiency and renewable energy under extreme conditions: Case studies from Antarctica, Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 10/14, http://www.asoc.org/storage/documents/Meetings/ATCM/XXXIII/tin_et_al.pdf] Yi2. Energy efficiency and renewable energy at permanent stations¶ 2.1. Energy efficiency¶ Rothera is the largest of the UK’s research stations in Antarctica. It was built in 1975. The site is open throughout the year and has a maximum population of just over 100 people during the summer. In the winter, occupancy drops to 22. Temperatures at Rothera are likely to be between-5C and -20C in winter with possible lows of-40C. The site has developed since the 1970s with a range of different styles of buildings and structures to accommodate varying requirements. The energy efficiency of the earlier buildings is often poor and a

concerted effort has been made to replace these buildings where possible and when affordable, with newer designs and technologies. By enhancing the insulation within buildings, a reduction in energy budgets needed to operate the site has been achieved. Modern buildings also have building

management systems, improved boilers and other engineering equipment to maximize efficiency and reduce fuel burn. Solar collectors are used on newer buildings and have been a very useful addition for hot water production.¶ Perhaps the most effective and simplest of the energy efficiency measures that have

been taken is a cap on electricity use. Electricity continues to be produced primarily with fossil fuel based generators, but facility managers have slowly reduced the average electrical load from 280 kW in 2000 to 220 kW in 2007 and plan to reduce it further. To facilitate this reduction, space heating in several of the buildings was changed from electrical to hot water, reducing electrical power and improving the efficiency of heating via direct use of fossil fuels rather than via an electrical system. Lighting systems were retrofitted, freezers fitted with energy saving devices and staff encouraged to actively reduce the use of power.¶ When designing new buildings, care has also been taken to ensure that structures are optimized for minimum snowdrift. Winds blowing across a structure in polar regions carry snow which is then deposited either on the structure or on the down- wind side as the wind loses velocity while transiting the building. By developing a snow-blow model and making physical scale models, it has been possible to design the new buildings for minimum snow build-up. Snow clearance is a very energy intensive process. Reducing the need for snow clearance greatly reduces the energy needs of the station.¶ In comparison to Rothera, the Swedish station, Wasa, is smaller and newer. Built in 1989 to accommodate up to 30 people in the summer and closed during the winter, it was designed with energy conservation in mind. Walls and ceilings have 30–50 cm rock wool insulation, all windows are tripled glazed and there are no windows facing south. A heat exchange system distributes warm air generated by, for example, cooking or sauna from one part of the building to another. This system is very efficient and it is in the only early or late season that it is sometimes necessary to use external Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) heaters. Stoves, refrigerators, freezers and sauna also run on LPG.¶ Energy efficiency was also the main design parameter for the French–Italian Concordia station. Built in 1997 to accommodate up to 60 people in the summer and 13 in the winter, Concordia is located over 1000 km from the coast. All equipment is transported long distance by tractor trains then stored onsite. The quantity of fuel consumed at Concordia must be strictly limited both to limit local environmental impacts and limit the quantities of fuel to be transported. All space heating needs are met using diesel generator sets where waste heat is recovered from the jacket water cooling system and the exhaust. At full load, 155 kW of waste heat is recovered in the powerhouse and distributed inside the three station buildings through the heating circuit. Additional heat is generated within the buildings by all electrical appliances. The external insulation and ventilation system have been designed to ensure that heat loss will remain under 70 kW even under the most unfavorable conditions in order that the two main buildings can be sufficiently heated without the need for additional heat to be generated [7]. Annual consumption of diesel fuel remains low at 200 m3 and thermal cogeneration permits heating of the 1800 m2 covered space and preparation of the daily potable water ration of 250 l [8].¶ While improving energy efficiency and reducing fuel burn requires significant technical input, it is widely acknowledged that staff education and encouragement of behavioural change are a simple and effective way of reducing the use of fossil fuels at stations. New staff members working at the Australian stations undergo education and training programs alerting them to the costs of energy at the stations and suggesting ways they could conserve energy at their work, living and recreational places. For instance, the simple fact that the cost of energy in Antarctica could be at least five times its cost to a residential consumer in Australia made a noticeable difference to the attitude of many staff members. At Wasa station, most of the power at the station is generated by solar panels. Scientists and logisticians are very conscious about the limited power that they have at their disposal, and they get together to discuss their energy needs, energy conservation and alternatives prior to each summer field season. At Rothera, the opportunity was taken to encourage staff to be far more energy efficient; switching off lighting when not in use, using washing machines when electric cookers are not being used, encouraging energy saving wherever possible. Realizing that the sustainability of the site was crucial to maintaining the station in a cost effective way, the staff responded and the average load is now around 220 kW, including a new laboratory.¶ 2.2. Wind farms¶ Wind energy has, up to now, been the renewable energy that has been exploited at the largest scale in Antarctica. Two wind turbines of 300 kW have been able to provide much of the energy needs of Australia’s Mawson Station since 2003 (see Fig. 4). A new wind farm is being constructed on Ross Island with the eventual goal of providing 100% of the energy of New Zealand’s Scott Base and meeting part of the power requirements of US’s McMurdo station.¶ Wind energy has taken off in Antarctica in part because of favorable environmental conditions (such as strong winds all year- round), the availability of off-the-shelf wind units that can be easily adapted to the special technical conditions in Antarctica, and a readily available, highly educated workforce with a strong back- ground in science and engineering. However, technical challenges still need to be overcome in order to meet Antarctic conditions, such as extreme cold, extremely strong winds, and snow accumu- lation. In the case of the wind turbines at Mawson, after a decade of data collection and studies, the issues and solutions were reduced to:¶ Annual average wind speeds of 11.2 m/s (at 10 m), recorded wind gusts regularly exceeding 70 m/s and an annual average temperature of 12 C implied high risk of damage from strong¶ winds and cold temperatures.¶ Expected high grid penetration (up to 100%) demanded high¶ degree of turbine control. Consequently, variable speed, vari-¶ able pitch wind turbine design was preferred.¶ Experience

with a smaller machine at Casey station showed¶ that gearboxes/hydraulics/oil-seals were high maintenance items in Antarctica. Consequently, a gearboxless design was preferred.¶ Limited ice-free land at Mawson dictated a small number of ‘‘large’’ turbines, but turbine size was limited by the maximum size of mobile crane which could be shipped to Mawson.¶ Only one manufacturer was willing to consider the project and modify a standard design to meet the specifications.¶ Need to pour 65 m3 mass concrete foundations in sub-zero temperatures.¶ The Australian Antarctic Division worked closely with German turbine manufacturer, Enercon, and Australian company, Power- corp, to design a high penetration renewable energy solution for Mawson, sized to allow operation of the station, free of fossil fuels. The outcome was a wind farm based on three Enercon E-30, ‘‘off- the-shelf’’ 300 kW wind turbines modified as follows to meet the unusual Mawson conditions:¶ low temperature steel used in all tower sections, castings, and structural components;¶ 34 m tower which is shorter than normal due to high winds and crane restrictions;¶ control software modifications to ramp-down output power when the wind speed was in the range of 25 m/s to 34 m/s (a high proportion of winds at Mawson are above 15 m/s);¶ special cold-porch attachment at tower entrance to exclude snow; and¶ The need for de-icing systems eliminated due to the dry atmosphere.¶ A 100 tonne mobile crane was delivered to Mawson, along with foundation material and a concrete agitator truck. The turbines and powerhouse control system were installed and commissioned over a six-week period in early 2003 with minimal problems.¶ Since commissioning, wind penetration of the station energy load has consistently exceeded 90% when steady winds above 12 m/s have occurred. Annual wind penetration during the first six years of operation has averaged 35%, equating to fuel savings of around 32% per annum above the baseline year of 2002 (Table 1). Monthly fuel savings have been as high as 58% compared with the corresponding month in 2002.¶ Six years of successful operation of the Mawson wind farm has demonstrated that even in the world’s most hostile environment, well-engineered commercial-size wind turbines can make a substantial contribution to fuel and cost savings in Antarctic operations with the consequential environmental benefits. However for the Antarctic stations that are located on the (usually moving) continental ice-sheet or on ice-shelves, foundations required for large commercial wind turbines at those sites would be technically difficult and costly. As in the case of Germany’s Georg von Neumayer station on the Ekstro m ice shelf, engineers had to design special wind turbines with ̈lightweight and efficient materials that could be installed without using heavy cranes or heavy lifting gears.¶ Neumayer station accommodates up to 50 people in the summer and at most 10 people in the winter. As Fig. 5 depicts, the wind energy potential here is very high and is about 165 W/m2 with mean wind speeds of 10 m/s and a maximum wind speed between 30 and 40 m/s. Higher wind speed categories contribute significantly by more than 60% to the total wind speed. Fig. 6 shows a 20 kW prototype Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) that has been operating at Neumayer since 1991. It has been specially developed for minimum operating temperature of 55 C, to survive wind speeds of up to 68 m/s and withstand a snow accu- mulation rate of 70 cm/year. The rotor is rigid and there is no transmission gearbox between the rotor and generator. The foun- dation consists of three base frames. Several triangles in the structure provide high mechanical stability of the construction. The base frame can be raised according to the snow accumulation.¶ The performance of the VAWT exceeded expectations, and it operated with no mechanical damages or faulty functions except for the need to replace one control component. During the main operation period, the wind generator is providing, on average, about 4 kW daily of electrical power (35,000 kWh/year) which is directly fed into the energy supply system of the station. The mean fuel consumption was, on average, reduced by about 6%, or 12,000 l per year, with reductions of 10–13% in the winter (due to the lower energy demand associated with fewer staff) (See Fig. 7).¶ After more than 18 years of operation, a new special 30 kW horizontal axis wind turbine was designed in co-operation between Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), the Bremerhaven University of Applied Sciences (BUAS), and Enercon. A special ice foundation and a special mast construction were developed to meet the logistical requirements to lift the wind turbine by about 1 meter every year to compensate the snow accumulation, and the turbine was rated to provide about 120,000 kWh at a mean wind speed of 9 m/s (See Fig. 5). Another innovative feature of this wind turbine, apart from being con- structed without heavy machine and to operate on an ice shelf, is its ability to operate at wind speeds ranging from 2.5 m/s up to 40 m/s.¶ The success of these two turbines has convinced the operators of Neumayer to expand the supply of wind energy even further to create a base-load renewable energy system. Five separate 30 kW wind turbines coupled with a 160 kW diesel generator are being constructed to meet all of the electricity needs of the station. The diesel generator would only serve to backup the wind turbines, and it is expected that only 25% of its full output will be needed over the course of the year. The first wind turbine has been installed in February 2009 and the other four are due to be completed by the end of 2011.¶ 2.3. Solar energy and combined systems¶ Solar energy is increasingly being used to increase the renewable content of energy supply at research stations as well as at smaller seasonal field camps. In most cases, solar power is combined with wind turbines and diesel generators to meet energy needs. In a few cases, such as in the one below for Wasa station, solar panels can meet the bulk of the energy demands. Solar thermal energy is also often used to provide air and water heating.¶ At Wasa station, 48 solar panels

manufactured by Neste/Fortum, each with a nameplate capacity of 55 W produce the power to meet most of the operational power needs of the station. The solar panels are backed up by a bank of Fiber Nickel Cadmuim (FNC)

batteries manufactured by Hoppecke which can each store 1160 Ah. A diesel generator may need to be switched on very early or late in the summer season to provide supplementary energy. The heavy Antarctic winds cause the solar panels to be blasted by ice and gravel which degrades the panels’ performance and shatter their outer protective glass. Despite the harsh conditions, overall the solar panels have worked well.¶ Japan’s Syowa station is a larger facility, built to accommodate up to

110 people in the summer and 28 people in the winter, and subsequently has higher energy demands. 55 kW of solar panels produce an annual output of 44,000 kWh and displace about 3–5% of fossil fuel used by the facility, despite the long winters. The solar panels are complemented with air-type solar collectors that capture heat from sunlight and then transfer it to the walls of the facility. The solar heat collector consists of an intake fan that is powered by a 22 W photovoltaic and a collector panel of 1.1 m2. The energy obtained from this system also displaces fossil fuel use, and produces about 86,318 MJ/year. A solar hot water system that uses evacuated glass tubes to heat water in a tank was also installed, in¶ order to accommodate the hot water needs of the facility during the summer. The capacity of the system is 324,000 kcal/day and can heat water from 0 C to 30 C within one minute (see Fig. 8).¶ Belgium’s Princess Elisabeth station opened in 2009 and was designed to be run on 100% renewable energy with diesel generators as emergency backup. Nine 6 kW wind turbines provide 65% of the estimated 140 MWh of electricity needed each year [11]. The rest is generated from nearly 300 m2 of solar panels installed on stations walls and on rocks around the station. 18 m2 of thermal solar panels are installed on the station roof to provide heating for the kitchen, bathroom and water treatment unit. An additional 6 m2 of panels on top of the garages provide heat to melt snow for drinking water. The building’s layout and wind arrangement have been designed so that passive solar gain would provide sufficient heating during the summer months. Princess Elisabeth is currently functioning as a summer station that is open only from November to February with space for up to 48 people. However, it has been designed to function year

Cyberinfrastructure is critical to researchNational Science Foundation No date (National Science Foundation, government agency that is devoted to

non-medical scientific research, “Arctic Infrastructure and Sensor”, accessed July 15, 2014

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13469) King

¶ The goal of the Arctic Cyberinfrastructure and Sensors (CIS) emphasis area is to enable the development of both sensors and links in an arctic-wide network of multidisciplinary, integrated sensors, connecting to potential users via the Internet.¶ ¶ CIS will focus on the research required to create new, more capable sensors of physical, biological or chemical variables in the ocean, ice and air, as well as the methodologies to enable such measurements to be made from fixed arrays or autonomous platforms. Because of a wide range of cyberinfrastructure efforts at NSF, CIS will tend to focus on arctic-specific issues in the areas of communications and software as, for example, methodologies for data transmission from under an ice pack as opposed to data transmission protocols in general.¶ ¶ A natural tie exists between the CIS emphasis area and the Arctic Research Support and Logistics (RSL) Program. As a rule of thumb, CIS should be the recipient of proposals that address forefront research issues in the development of novel sensors or instruments. Conversely, proposals for long-term observations in the Arctic using more established means should be submitted to the RSL Program. Because development efforts may be a part of proposals to the Arctic Natural Sciences, Arctic Social Sciences, and Arctic System Science programs, such proposals will be jointly reviewed, and joint funding may result for successful proposals.

Antarctic infrastructure key to preventing contamination the environmentZapol et al ’11 (Warren Zapol, chair of committee on Future Science Opportunities in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean at Harvard Medical School, “Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean” http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning/Antarctica_Report_US_NAS.pdf) - King

¶ Opportunities to Enhance Research in ¶ ¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean¶ ¶ Conducting research in the harsh environmental ¶ ¶ conditions of Antarctica is logistically challenging. ¶ ¶ Substantial resources are needed to establish and ¶ ¶ maintain the infrastructure needed to provide heat, ¶ ¶ light, transportation, and drinking water, while at the ¶ ¶ same time minimizing pollution of the environment ¶ ¶ and ensuring the safety of researchers. The Committee ¶ ¶ identified several opportunities to sustain and ¶ ¶ improve the science program in Antarctic and ¶ ¶ Southern Ocean in the coming two decades. ¶ ¶ Collaboration¶ ¶ Over the past half century, collaborations between ¶ ¶ nations, across disciplinary boundaries, between ¶ ¶ public and private sector entities, and between science ¶ ¶ and logistics personnel have helped research in ¶ ¶ Figure 7: Telescopes can exploit the extraordinary transparent and stable ¶ ¶ atmosphere of Antarctica to map the intensity and polarization of cosmic ¶ ¶ microwave background radiation.

Source: Edward Dunlea¶ ¶ Antarctica become a large and successful international ¶ ¶ scientific enterprise. The International Polar Year, held ¶ ¶ from 20072008, demonstrated how successful inter ¶ ¶ national collaboration can facilitate research that no ¶ ¶ nation could complete alone This report examines ¶ ¶ opportunities to enhance each of these types of collab ¶ ¶ oration, with the overall conclusion that by working ¶ ¶ together, scientists can reach their goals more

quickly ¶ ¶ and more affordably. ¶ ¶ Energy, Technology, and Infrastructure¶ ¶ Advances in energy and technology can make ¶ ¶ scientific research in the Antarctic region more cost ¶ ¶ effective, allowing a greater proportion of funds to ¶ ¶ be used to support research rather than to establish ¶ ¶ and maintain infrastructure.¶ ¶ For example, most of the energy required to ¶ ¶ power research

stations and field camps and to ¶ ¶ transport people and materials comes from burning ¶ ¶ fossil fuels. In addition to the cost of the fuel, the ¶ ¶ combustion of fossil fuels pollutes the air, and fuel ¶ ¶ leaks during storage and transport have the potential ¶ ¶ to contaminate the surrounding environment. ¶ ¶ Innovations such as more cost effective overland ¶ ¶ transportation systems for fuel, or the use of wind ¶ ¶ power generators, promise to reduce the cost and ¶ ¶ pollution associated with fuel transport

Ocean infrastructure is critical for research and to address urgent issues in coming yearsOcean Studies Board ’11 (Ocean Studies Board, “Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030 “ http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Critical-Infrastructure-Ocean-Research/13081) King

U.S. ocean research depends on a broad range of ocean infrastructure assets—the national inventory of ships and other platforms, sensors and samplers, computational and data systems, supporting facilities, and trained personnel. In order to ensure that essential infrastructure is available for both fundamental research and issues of social importance in 2030, a coordinated national plan for making future strategic investments is necessary. A growing suite of infrastructure will be needed to address urgent societal issues in coming years, such as climate change, offshore energy production, tsunami detection, and sustainable fisheries. This report identifies major ocean science questions anticipated to be significant

in 2030, defines the categories of infrastructure needed to support such research over the next two decades, identifies criteria that could help prioritize infrastructure development or replacement, and suggests ways to maximize investments in ocean infrastructure.¶ Key Messages¶ Establishing and maintaining a coordinated national strategic plan for shared ocean infrastructure investment and maintenance is essential to build the comprehensive range of ocean infrastructure that will be needed in coming years. Such a plan would focus on trends in scientific needs and advances in technology, while taking into account factors such as costs, efficient use, and the capacity to cope with unforeseen events.¶ Using input from the worldwide scientific community, a range of recent government plans, task force documents, research planning assessments, and a review of primary literature, the committee identified compelling research questions anticipated to be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030. These research questions fall under four themes: enabling stewardship of the environment; protecting life and property; promoting economic vitality; and increasing fundamental scientific understanding.¶ Based on trends in the use of ocean infrastructure over the last two or more decades and on the major research questions forecast for 2030, the committee identified overarching infrastructure needs. For example, the committee anticipates research vessels that allow scientists to go to sea will continue to be the most essential piece of ocean infrastructure; and that expanding the current network of 3000 Argo floats will allow further study of the ocean's physical, biological, and chemical processes.¶ Continued developments in ocean infrastructure increasingly depend on innovations in other fields, including engineering and computer science. This is in part due to decreases in funding for high risk, high reward research and development of novel ocean research technologies. To foster innovation and technological advancements in the ocean sciences, federal agencies will need to encourage a risk-taking environment for the development of new infrastructure, which is difficult under the current systems of research funding.¶ The committee devised criteria that could help agencies prioritize investments, taking account of issues such as whether the infrastructure can help address more than one research question, the quality of the data collected using the infrastructure, and future technology trends. The committee concluded that the development, maintenance, and replacement of ocean research infrastructure should be prioritized in such a way to maximize the benefits from the infrastructure. This type of economic optimization includes consideration of factors such as: 1) Usefulness of the infrastructure for addressing important science questions; 2) Affordability, efficiency, and longevity of the infrastructure; and 3) Ability to contribute to other missions or applications.¶ Federal agencies can maximize the value of ocean infrastructure by following a number of best practices, including efficiently managing resources, providing broad access to data and facilities, fostering collaboration at many levels, and enabling the transition from research to broader use. Conducting formal reviews of ocean infrastructure assets

approximately every 5-10 years would help ensure the infrastructure remains useful across the full range of ocean science research needs.

The U.S. is key - best technological capability Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

The United States is well positioned to continue as the preeminent research¶ presence in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean by virtue of having a large national¶ logistical support

program and an exceptional pool of scientific talent upon which to¶ draw . The South Pole Station, a major reconstruction project that required a significant¶ portion of available resources of the U.S. Antarctic Program for much of the past decade,¶ is completed. This reconstruction, along with the major effort required to construct the¶ IceCube project, led to an imbalance in the resource allocation among the other areas of¶ science seeking support. Now that the United States has a state of the art research station¶ high on the Antarctic ice sheet to compliment the stations at McMurdo and Palmer, there¶ is an opportunity to strive to bring better balance in the support of all science and¶ logistics priorities. The proposed observing network described in this report (Section 4.4)¶ would facilitate some of that balance as many disciplines would benefit from the¶ realization of such a network.¶ In this report, the Committee has presented key science questions that the¶ Committee believes will drive research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the¶ coming decades, and the Committee has highlighted several key opportunities to be leveraged to address those questions most efficiently. In this final chapter, the Committee¶

outlines six overarching recommendations that they believe are necessary to ensure¶ success for the next generation of Antarctic science. The committee recommends that the¶ United States:¶ 1. Lead the development of a large scale inter-disciplinary observing network¶ and support a new generation of robust earth system models. A broad-based¶ observing system, including remote sensing as well as in situ instrumentation, is¶ needed that can collect data that will record ongoing changes in the Antarctic¶ atmosphere, ice sheets, surrounding oceans, and ecosystems. Such a large,¶ sustained, and international effort will require a robust planning process and will¶ likely require the leadership of at least one country; the United States could be the¶ leader in this effort. Within the United States, the National Science Foundation¶ (NSF) has the ability to take the lead in developing this observing network in¶ close collaboration with other Federal agencies having a fundamental interest in¶ the polar environment, e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Administration,¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological¶ Survey. The goals of the observing network should be to measure and record¶ ongoing changes, develop advanced understanding of the drivers of that change,¶ and provide input for climate models that will enable the United States to project¶ and adapt to the global impact evidenced by the changing Antarctic environment.¶ Earth system models will need to incorporate the unique (and often unknown)¶ conditions in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in order to better project future¶ changes to the planet more robustly.

Infrastructure beneficial – scientific community can collaborateNational Science Foundation ’12 [an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and

welfare; to secure the national defense…”Cyberinfrastucture Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering, May, http://www.nsf.gov/cise/aci/cif21/CIF21Vision2012current.pdf] YiThis example is by no means unique. Across the full range of NSF-supported fields increasingly sophisticated instrumentation and expanded computational resources are opening new windows onto phenomena from the universe to the human brain, from the largest scales to the smallest. Across all domains, data play the key role in a profound transformation of the culture and conduct of science and society. Scores of petabytes of data per year emerge from the Large Hadron Collider, used by thousands of scientists; similar data rates are seen in an individual biologist’s laboratory. Citizens, scientists and educators alike now communicate by sharing data, not only raw data, but in the form of email, software, publications, reports, simulations and visualizations. Coupled with appropriate policy and infrastructure development, these kinds of networked activities can create new capabilities for collaborations at multiple scales, from individuals to communities, to address far more complex problems of science and society than previously possible. This revolution will transform research, practice, and education in science and engineering, as well as advance innovation in society.¶ This vision of the near future shows clearly the urgent need for a comprehensive, scalable, cyberinfrastructure that bridges diverse scientific communities and integrates high-performance computing, data, software, and facilities in a manner that brings theoretical, computational, experimental, and observational approaches together to advance the frontier. Seizing these¶ opportunities and meeting these challenges is the fundamental purpose of NSF’s Cyberinfrastructure Framework for the 21st Century (CIF21).¶ 2. Vision, Goals and Strategies¶ CIF21 contributes to NSF’s overall strategic objectives,1 by supporting the creation of advanced cyberinfrastructure, including high performance computing¶ systems, data storage systems and repositories, advanced¶ instruments, and visualization systems, enabling researchers¶ to gain new insights and investigate ever broader and more¶ complex research challenges. CIF21’s cross-community and¶ multipronged approach will direct those investments along a¶ new path toward a comprehensive, integrated, sustainable,¶ and secure cyberinfrastructure (CI) that will accelerate¶ research and education and new functional capabilities in¶ computational and data-enabled science and engineering ¶ (CDS&E ). CIF21 also addresses the engagement and education of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in science: African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and indigenous people, persons with disabilities, and women.¶ The overarching goals of CIF21 are:¶ 1. Develop a deep symbiotic relationship between science and engineering users and developers of cyberinfrastructure to simultaneously advance new research practices and open transformative across opportunities all science and engineering fields.¶ 2. Provide an integrated and scalable

cyberinfrastructure that leverages existing and new components across all areas of CIF21 and establishes a national data infrastructure and services capability.¶ 3. Ensure long-term sustainability for cyberinfrastructure, via community development, learning and workforce development in CDS&E and transformation of practice¶ To balance the need for both singular and integrated advances, CIF21 employs five strategies.¶ • First, NSF will foster scientific discovery and innovation and build communities capable of leveraging state-of-the-art CI to advance science. This strategy will support activities that gather and manage collective requirements, identify common CI needs across a broad range of scientific domains, and develop trust through community building.¶ • Second, infrastructure will be deployed in a coordinated way to ensure integration, balancing current and future needs.¶ • Third, developing advanced CI will require foundational research in both the core CI components and the science related to their use.¶ • Fourth, CIF21 will ensure the long-term sustainability of CI by supporting development of a trained diverse workforce able to maintain and leverage innovations.¶ 1 See “Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: The National Science Foundation Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016” at http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/index.jsp¶ ¶ • Fifth, CIF21 will transform the conduct of science by influencing norms and incentives related to community management of CI resources, recognition of the role of CI development in scientific research, and the development of career paths for computational scientists.¶ 3. The way forward¶ 3.1 Scientific discovery, innovation and community building through CI¶ Scientific discovery and innovation through cyberinfrastructure, referred

to as computational and data enabled science and engineering (CDS&E)2, enables extensions of both theoretical science through computational modeling and simulation, and experimental and observational science through data intensive computing. Complex transformational science and engineering problems often cannot be adequately addressed by small groups, without CI investments to facilitate the smooth functioning of intellectually diverse, geographically dispersed teams. Also,

NSF will foster change enabling career paths for within the academic research enterprise as part of CDS&E.¶ In the spirit of CDS&E, CIF21 programs will use the requirements of scientists, engineers and educators to drive the development of new CI, balancing long-term goals against short-term needs. In particular, programs will focus on the use of complex and visionary end-to-end scientific use cases in different disciplines to drive innovation in cyberinfrastructure development and use, with particular emphasis on the involvement of early stage researchers. These efforts will be supported through community building activities, for instance, by bringing together scientists to identify common cross-disciplinary requirements for CI to enable innovative science. These

activities will develop lasting mechanisms for interaction and engagement with processes that funnel defined requirements into research funding streams.¶ 3.2 Building Infrastructure¶ Fostering innovation requires cyberinfrastructure spanning multiple levels (national, community, campus) as well as multiple infrastructure lifecycle stages. CI should be managed efficiently and equitably, particularly in the allocation of resources (e.g. computing cycles) and with well-established mechanisms to ensure sustainability.¶ As articulated in the Advanced Computing Infrastructure Vision and Strategic Plan3, CIF21 will continue to invest in high performance computing (HPC) hardware. It will also enhance support for services, including integration with campus and other national computational resources, including cloud systems and services.¶ For both data and software, infrastructure investments will focus on the full lifecycle. For data, this includes early stage challenges in acquisition, arising for example from innovations in scientific instruments, to later stage challenges in modeling and visualization. Instruments and facilities, from individual labs to MREFC-scale international facilities, will be considered integral to a national data capacity. Similarly, for software, support will be provided for creating new tools and services in priority areas identified by multi-disciplinary teams as well as standardization and maintenance of existing tools spanning multiple research domains. Policy will also be developed to enable greater sharing and¶ 2 For further description see http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/taskforces/TaskForceReport_GrandChallenges.pdf 3 http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12051¶ ¶ discoverability of data, software, and scientific literature, accelerating discovery and innovation while enabling communities to work more effectively together to address complex problems.¶ To ensure a reliable and trusted end-to-end CI, CIF21’s Campus Bridging portfolio will support using the campus environment to try out and experimentally deploy cybersecurity innovations as well as enhance access to CI by establishing sustainable models of pairing under-resourced campuses with more advanced neighbors. These investments will also foster integration of campus and national distributed computing environments.¶ 3.3 Foundational Research¶ CIF21’s foundational research in advanced cyberinfrastructure and its applications to all areas of science and engineering will support both technological and scientific advances together.¶ The need to handle the data that will be involved in individual and Grand Challenge-scale problems alike will require algorithms and software architectures capable of handling both small and extreme-scale data systems. For software, foundational research investments will target programming paradigms, addressing the use of massively parallel computers, highly distributed computer systems (including private, public, and hybrid clouds), complex file systems (both parallel and distributed), new accelerator architectures and the potentially hybrid systems that will be built from them. These systems also require tools and services for gateways/portals/hubs as well as middleware for dynamic data-driven workflows. Investments will also target domain-specific programming to establish paradigms for verification, validation, uncertainty quantification, and provenance to ensure trustworthy and reproducible scientific findings. Software must also support collaborative science (technologies for teams, data, and computing).¶ The combination of improved software and enhanced data availability creates opportunities for foundational research in CDS&E targeting enhancements both at the platform and tool levels. At the platform level, NSF will support development of new algorithms to exploit massively parallel and distributed platforms for complex and/or data-intensive computational tasks. NSF will also support development of a wide array of advanced methods and algorithms in discretization, nonlinear solvers, sub-continuum models, statistical methods and theory, language processing, combinatorial computing, optimization, compressed sensing, uncertainty quantification, and integrated sensing-assimilation simulation-prediction-control.¶ 3.4 Workforce Development¶ CIF21 investments in workforce development will target the range from data and software literacy for the public, including policymakers, to training and new curricula for providers and developers of data and software services. CIF21 will also support advanced training and education for IT professionals in scientific fields, particularly those who can “harden,” support, maintain, evolve, and ensure access to software and data. At all levels, from K-16 and beyond, CIF21 investments, partnered with others across the foundation, will support new data-enabled approaches to education, introducing scientific data from NSF programs and facilities directly into teaching, as illustrated in the introduction. Data-enabled approaches will also allow for much better evaluation and assessment of both student/teach performance and NSF programs alike.¶ In addition, CIF21 will support broadening participation by underrepresented groups, enhancing curricula, training and internship experiences at the undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral levels for¶ domain scientists, cyberinfrastructure developers and interdisciplinary students with the goal of producing a diverse scientific workforce capable of developing and using cyberinfrastructure.¶ In campus environments, education and training will take advantage of the broader campus cyberinfrastructure, explicitly exposing and leveraging those resources in the education process. Such goals are likely best achieved through courses designed for multiple sections of the CI workforce, bringing together domain scientists, computational, mathematical and statistical scientists, and campus IT professionals responsible for research into, delivery of, and support of production CI. Such efforts should also seek to build from these campus level Learning and Workforce Development (LWD) investments to a regional and national network of expertise in order to share knowledge and best practices, educational resources, advocacy networks, outreach and engagement programs, and forums that increase the awareness, access, engagement and inclusion of all students.¶ CI workforce development will leverage existing programs targeting both the IT workforce in general and those promoting diversity in STEM. Examples include Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF), Postdoctoral Research Fellowships, and CAREER awards that are targeted toward training and research in CDS&E and the use of existing and future CI. CIF21 projects also further the NSF goal of preparing tomorrow's innovation workforce that is enriched by the assets of diverse participants from a range of groups and communities. This STEM workforce will engage diverse teams that can offer new ways to solve problems and provide unique perspectives to improve performance and outcomes. To this end, a key feature of projects will be a program strategy and plan for recruitment, mentoring, retention, and graduation of U.S. students (U.S. citizens, nationals, and permanent residents) in NSF-supported STEM fields, with specific efforts aimed at members of groups underrepresented in science and engineering, including women, minorities and persons with disabilities. Where appropriate, CIF21 projects should engage K-12 students through the development of appropriate curricula for CDS&E.¶ In addition, CIF21 will catalyze a reexamination of the university curriculum by introducing new approaches to teaching and research through CDS&E, in all disciplines, through Expeditions in Education and other new programs, as well as through Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (TUES) and Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT). To the extent possible, these efforts will also be coordinated with those underway in other federal agencies and take into account

programs promoted by the nation’s IT and science industries.¶ 3.5 Transforming Practice¶ The success of CIF21’s technical and educational investments will rely, to a large extent, on evolution in the scientific community. Accordingly, CIF21 will aim to transform practice by targeting norms and incentives related to community management of CI resources, the role of CI development in scientific research, and career paths for computational scientists.¶ NSF is an important partner in cyberinfrastructure development; however the sustainability of CI relies in large part on its ongoing management by scientific communities. CIF21 will foster community management by identifying collective and sustainable funding models and policies. Such policies include those encouraging open, sharable data services as well as those addressing lifecycle management, such as support for data centers, repositories, open source models enhancing software reuse, and policies defining public-private partnerships to share the burden of long-term data and software stewardship.¶ Policies can also influence the role of CI research and development in scientists’ careers. NSF will endeavor to influence norms of citation for new forms of publication and scientific expression, including data sets, so that researchers are able to ensure their work is citable, and others are able to discover and access it. The outcomes should target mechanisms for citation of software and datasets as distinct products of scholarship, promoting standards of academic credit and rigor for these CI components. CIF21 will also promote the development and use of metrics that measure software and data usage and their subsequent impact on science, engineering and education.¶ In summary, CIF21 is driven by science, engineering and education needs, providing opportunities for new discoveries and innovation enabled by new cyberinfrastructure. It lays a foundation for future innovations,

providing a platform for communities to come together to address grand challenges through multi-disciplinary approaches; shared cyberinfrastructure; software across disciplines; data management, access, curation, standardization, sharing and policies; advanced computing infrastructure; computational and data-enabled science and engineering research, and training a diverse workforce to address national needs. It addresses the infrastructure and research needs in all scientific and engineering domains through advances in foundational research and infrastructure deployment, while ensuring sustainability through workforce development and transforming the practice of science.

Lab environment promising -- will allow for collaborationPolar research Board ’11 [a committee of experts convened by the National Academies most often in the name of the National Research Council to study a specific scientific or technological issue of national importance. These experts bring the range of expertise and balance of perspectives to address the issue. They serve pro bono and are screened for conflicts of interest to ensure that the committee is able to provide impartial and objective advice, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean: Expert Report, National Academies, http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Future-Science-Opportunities-Antarctica/13169] Yi

Although the icy landscape of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean may seem distant, scientific research in this region can yield insights on changes that are important to the entire planet. The Antarctic region also holds the promise of novel discovery: ice and sediment records hold clues to Earth’s history, the region’s living organisms may hold genetic secrets to surviving in extreme environments, and the Antarctic plateau offers an unparalleled platform for observing the solar system and the Universe beyond. Looking out over the next couple of decades, this report identifies key questions that will drive scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, and presents opportunities to be leveraged to sustain and improve the science program. The development of a large-scale observing network and a new generation of models has the potential to expand scientific understanding and ensure the continuing success of research in the Antarctic region. ¶ Key Messages¶ The Antarctic region is both an important influence on Earth’s processes and a unique environment from which to monitor global changes. In this report, the Committee highlighted several areas of scientific research in the Antarctic region that will be important over the next two decades. These include work to better understand changes in the ice sheets of Antarctica that can contribute to global sea level rise, the contributions of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to the global climate system, the response of Antarctic biota and ecosystems to change, and the role of Antarctica in past change.¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean provide a natural laboratory for scientific discovery. The Committee highlighted several areas that will be important in discovery-driven scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the next two decades. These include understanding what records preserved in the Antarctic region reveal about past and future climate,

learning how life adapted to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean environments, using the Antarctic platform to reveal interactions between the Earth and the space environment, and

answering fundamental questions about the origins and evolution of the Universe.¶ Conducting research in the harsh environmental conditions of the Antarctic region is logistically challenging. Substantial resources are needed to establish and maintain infrastructure while at the same time minimizing the pollution of the environment and ensuring the safety of

researchers. The Committee identified several opportunities that could be leveraged to sustain and improve the science program in Antarctica and Southern Ocean in the coming two decades. These include:¶ - Building collaborations between nations, across disciplinary boundaries, and between public and private sector entities, and between science and logistics personnel¶ - Taking advantage of advances in energy and technology can make scientific research in the

Antarctic region more efficient¶ - Supporting educational efforts to spark interest in polar science¶ - Developing a coordinated network of observing systems that can collect and record data on the ongoing changes in the Antarctic region. Improvements in the collection, management, archiving, and exchange of information will allow data to be used for multiple purposes by a variety of stakeholders. Improving scientific models will allow for better synthesis and understanding of the observations. 4¶ The Committee suggested specific actions that would help the United States achieve success in the next generation of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean science. These include:¶ - Lead the development of a large-scale, interdisciplinary observing network and support a new generation of robust earth system models¶ - Continue to support a wide variety of basic research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to yield a new generation of discoveries¶ - Design and implement improved mechanisms for international collaboration¶ - Exploit the host of emerging technologies including cyberinfrastructure and novel and robust sensors¶ - Coordinate an integrated polar educational program¶ - Continue strong logistical support for Antarctic science. The Committee encourages the National Science Foundation-led Blue Ribbon Panel to develop a plan to support Antarctic science in the next two decades that includes the following goals:¶ - Improve the efficiency of the support provided by the contractors and enhance the oversight and management of contractors by the scientific community¶ - Increase the flexibility and mobility of the support system to work in a continent- and ocean-wide manner, utilizing as much of the year and continent as possible, and fostering innovative “cutting-edge” science¶ - Maintain and enhance the unique logistical assets of the U.S., including the research stations, aircraft, and research vessels and icebreakers.

Automated research (CI) useful for models, dataElzinga ’93 [Aant, Studied theoretical physics and applied mathematics, B.A. (1960) University of Western Ontario, history and philosophy of science MSc (1964)University College London (UCL), specialized in the history and politics of polar research in Antarctica. Also concerned with "climate as research and politics", The Functional Role of Science in the Antarctic Treaty System, Springer Science & Business Media, 1/1, http://books.google.com/books?id=iSq63KMFJdcC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=automated+antarctica+research&source=bl&ots=AgKXPwDKi1&sig=h26UCkPeFBZjFqrgFiVYimuoVlo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CdvFU_fEHsyZyATNooKwCA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=automated%20antarctica%20research&f=false] YiSeveral participants agreed with Karlqvist that new technology was an important driving force in Antarctic science. Jan Stel saw a "technology push" at work (remote sensing, for example), and maintained that scientists in the 1990's will

need new tools.¶ At the same time there is a difficulty here, because some of the new tools generate more data than computers and the human beings can handle scientifically. This technology push consequently increases the need for focused research and theoretical or model-driven work.¶

The tendency of Antarctic science going high tech was not unanimously accepted as either good or necessary. Several participants objected to the picture of an automated Antarctic science with researchers sitting at their computer desks in their home countries reading printouts of data via satellite transmissions.

Barry Heywood insisted that modelling is only a tool for science. It does not reduce the need for field scientists. On the contrary

these are crucially important in order to determine baseline data. Moveover the discovery of the ozone hole should be a lesson. It shows the need of field research, creative individuals who can come up with new angles on things. The human individual is the irreplaceable factor in Antarctic science. Another example is the fact that ships are needed down in Antarctica to see what happens to the krill; a satellite can't tell you that.¶ Another point that came up in the same vein was the need of scientists to change the programs for formatting data of other areas, for example in the study of the movements of krill in order to determine stocks. Automatic data collection generally only takes parameters that have been programmed for; this is a sore point behind some of the controversies surrounding general circulation models in climatology, because there are disagreements concerning what parameters to ignore or how to scale down or up when moving between specific and more general models.¶ Those who were more enthusiastic about the possibility of automation in

Antarctic research made a comparison with the situation in space, where robots do a lot of the work in space observation platforms. This analogy was immediately criticized and rejected by others who pointed out how first of all the space effort in many cases was much less science and more a question of technology development or commercial ventures. Secondly, the point remains that there are a lot of things one can't do via instruments, and also simple technical faults can create havoc unless one has a scientist "down there" (or "up there" in the case of fixing the space telescope, for example) who can change the program of research so that one can still get a lot of scientific value out of a modified program. Why would one otherwise send technicians down to Antarctica, if it were not for the fact that a lot of unforeseen things happen, instruments have to be fixed, trouble shooting has to be performed on the spot. Failing this, Antarctica science would be much less cost effective.¶ Also, of course there are differences between different fields of science. What goes for marine science, for example, may not work for geology. In geology one still has to go out into mountain ranges with a simple hammer. Moreover scientists must always determine the relevance of data. As for automation, it should be steered by hypotheses and modeling work - this was a view around which there was consensus.¶ Anders Karlqvist ended this part of the discussion by clarifying his position. He had only meant to emphasize one point, viz., that we are faced with a future where priority setting will be more technology-driven than ever before. This is not the same as glorifying the role of high tech.

Southern Ocean infrastructure will work-Hofmann et al 9 (Eileen Hofmann et al,” A U.S. Southern Ocean Carbon, Ecosystems¶ and Biogeochemistry Science Plan” 6/8/9, http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/SOWorkshop_Report_Final_61243.pdf)In the past two decades the U.S. has developed and conducted a number of large programs ¶ in the Southern Ocean. Among them are the Southern Ocean JGOFS (US JGOFS, or AESOPS; ¶ Smith et al.,

2000; Anderson and Smith, 2001; Smith and Anderson, 2003) and the Southern ¶ GLOBEC program (SO GLOBEC;

Hofmann et al., 2004, 2008). Both were driven by broad ¶ community consensus and within an international framework of research, and both ¶ represented substantial advances in our knowledge of specific regional systems and of ¶ processes that are critical to biogeochemical cycles and food webs in the Southern Ocean. ¶ Brief discussions and highlights from these programs follow. ¶ Southern Ocean JGOFS ¶ The Southern Ocean JGOFS project was (and still is) the largest coordinated oceanographic ¶ program conducted in Antarctic waters. The purpose of the project was to better constrain ¶ the fluxes of carbon in the Southern Ocean, to identify the factors and processes that ¶ regulate the magnitude and variability of productivity and flux, and to gain an ¶ understanding in order to model past and present carbon fluxes in order to predict their ¶ response to future global changes. It involved 13 independent cruises to two research ¶ areas, five deep water moorings with current ‐ meters and sediment traps, and a series of ¶ rate process cruises to investigate the processes involved in controlling carbon fluxes. ¶ Additionally, modeling studies were completed both before and after the field effort. Two ¶ regions were intensively sampled: the southern Ross Sea and the Antarctic Polar Front in ¶ the Pacific sector. Cruises involved both icebreakers and UNOLS vessels. The results were ¶ published in a variety of journals and broadly disseminated, and the data were used by ¶ numerous non JGOFS investigators in additional publications and ‐ analyses. The major ¶ findings of the experiment included the following: ¶ The seasonal progression of phytoplankton growth (and coupling to both grazers and ¶ secondary producers) is characterized by a unimodal peak, which controls many of the ¶ ecosystem processes and biogeochemical cycles; ¶ Carbon export was temporally delayed after the production maximum and reflected both ¶ the accumulation of biomass in the surface layer and processes responsible for the flux, ¶ such as aggregation and grazer mediated export; ‐ ¶ Summer growth of the entire phytoplankton assemblage as well as individual species in the ¶ Ross Sea is strongly regulated by iron concentrations and fluxes; Nutrient drawdown in the Polar front region is regulated by seaice melt, ‐which creates a ¶ strongly stratified layer and optimal conditions for phytoplankton growth. This area of ¶ enhanced phytoplankton growth moves with the ice retreat; areas of stability have a short‐¶ lived bloom due to iron limitation; ¶ Vertical fluxes in the Polar Front region were substantial, and the composition of the ¶ material exhibited substantial temporal variations; and ¶ Surface layer biotic composition has a significant impact on the quantity and quality of ¶ material exported to depth. ¶ The data from the U.S. JGOFS program provides a baseline of carbon dynamics on which to ¶ build further, more detailed investigations into biogeochemical and ecosystem carbon ¶ fluxes. ¶ Southern Ocean GLOBEC ¶ The SO GLOBEC program took a broad view of the Antarctic marine ecosystem that ¶ included studies of the habitat, prey, predators, and competitors of Antarctic krill, as well ¶ as studies specifically focused on Antarctic krill biology and physiology. Overwintering ¶ strategies were highlighted as an important and largely unknown component of the ¶ Antarctic ecosystem. The U.S. SO GLOBEC program field studies focused in the western ¶ Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) region. The field studies consisted of 11 cruises, mostly in the ¶ austral fall and winter, and two year long current meter array ‐deployments. The U.S. field ¶ studies include an extensive top predator component which involved passive acoustic ¶ arrays for tracking cetaceans and deployment of satellite tags on marine mammals and ¶ penguins. Additional SO GLOBEC field studies were undertaken by the Australia Antarctic ¶ Division (east Antarctica), the British Antarctic Survey (South Georgia), the Alfred Wegner ¶ Institute for Polar and Marine Research (WAP and Lazarev Sea), and the Korean Antarctic ¶ Program (Bransfield Strait). These

programs used complementary techniques, thereby ¶ allowing comparative analyses. Circulation, ecosystem, and coupled modeling studies were ¶ undertaken before and during the SO GLOBEC field studies and are continuing as part of ¶ the synthesis phase of the program. ¶ The extensive multidisciplinary data sets acquired as a result of the SO GLOBEC ¶ studies have provided important new insights into the workings of Antarctic marine ¶ ecosystems. Highlights from the U.S. SO GLOBEC program are: ¶ The role of Circumpolar Deep Water in determining heat, salt, and nutrient fluxes, and in ¶ structuring biological production and habitat along the WAP, was defined. ¶ The Antarctic Peninsula coastal current was described for the first time. ¶ Seasonal upper water column variability was described using hydrographic data collected ¶ by instrumented seals, demonstrating the importance of marine mammals as data ¶ collectors. ¶ Variability in winter sea ice concentration and extent results in important difference in ¶ nutrient fluxes and chlorophyll distributions in the following austral summer, which affect ¶ Antarctic krill growth and reproduction. ¶ Antarctic krill use a variety of mechanisms to survive the austral winter that include body ¶ shrinkage, reduced metabolism, ingestion of sea ice algae, carnivory, and combustion of ¶ lipid stores. 9¶ Significant advances were made in understanding relationships between predators, from ¶ fish to seals, to habitat and prey distribution. ¶ The first winter observations of predator condition, distribution and habitat use were made ¶ and highlighted the importance of crabeater seals as winter krill predators. ¶ Cetacean presence in the austral winter was documented using a passive acoustic array and ¶ surveys. ¶ Results from the SO GLOBEC studies are providing new conceptual understanding of how ¶ Southern Ocean marine ecosystems work, which in turn is the basis for the ongoing ¶ synthesis, modeling, and integration studies. These studies provide a baseline for ¶ ecosystem processes that can be used to develop more extensive studies of Southern Ocean ¶ food webs and feedbacks to biogeochemical cycles.

Infrastructure is possible in the Southern Ocean- it has already been tested for research Hofmann et al 9 (Eileen Hofmann et al,” A U.S. Southern Ocean Carbon, Ecosystems¶ and Biogeochemistry Science Plan” 6/8/9, http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/SOWorkshop_Report_Final_61243.pdf)¶ The SOCEB program outlined in this report will require research vessels that are capable of ¶ ¶ navigating and working in sea ice conditions; furthermore, the proposed regional studies ¶ ¶ will require platforms that can support process studies and that are capable of long ¶ ¶ duration efforts. Also, development of partnerships with other nations with Antarctic ¶ ¶ seagoing capability (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, Korea) is a priority, ¶ ¶ especially in the short term (3 5‐ years). Many of the projected changes will occur on the continental shelf and in regions that are ¶ ¶ difficult to access and are not routinely visited as part of national programs or scientific ¶ ¶ base resupply routes (e.g. Amundsen Sea). The establishment of autonomous sensor arrays ¶ ¶ in these regions is a clear need. This will allow continuous measurements at times and in ¶ ¶ regions that are not accessible. Moreover, these arrays will allow development of seasonal ¶ ¶ and interannual descriptions of basic processes, such as changes in the surface ocean ¶ ¶ structure. An additional measurement system that is showing considerable promise for ¶ ¶ sampling the upper ocean and continental shelf environments is deployment of satellite ¶ ¶ tags containing CTD sensors on marine mammals. Continued use of this technology and ¶ ¶

expansion of existing tagging programs has the potential off providing valuable data that ¶ ¶ are not possible to obtain otherwise. Autonomous gliders are now being tested in Antarctic ¶ ¶ waters, and continued development of this technology should be a priority; further ¶ ¶

development of sensors that will provide measurements of carbon and biological processes ¶ ¶ is essential. Fleets of gliders have the promise of being able to sample large areas in a ¶ ¶ quasi‐ synoptic mode.

Advantages and Add-Ons

Warming Advantage

Uniqueness

Warming happening now – greenhouse gasses are increasing Beillo 4/13/14 (David, Editor at Scientific American, How to Solve Global Warming: It's the Energy Supply, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-solve-global-warming-its-the-energy-supply/) Yousuf

Climate change is an energy problem. Burning fossil fuels to produce electricity or heat is responsible for roughly half of global warming pollution. Tacking on industry in general, including producing cement, steel, plastics and chemicals, accounts for 78 percent of greenhouse gases, which invisibly accumulate in the atmosphere and trap extra heat. Such climate changing pollution continues to increase—in 2010, the world emitted some 49 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, thanks largely to increased coal burning in countries such as China. The number has continued to increase in recent years. In fact, human society added half of the global warming pollution that is in the atmosphere in just the last 40 years.¶ ¶ Restraining global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius will require changing how the world produces and uses energy to power its cities and factories, heats and cools buildings, as well as moves people and goods in airplanes, trains, cars, ships and trucks, according to the IPCC. Changes are required not just in technology, but also in people's behavior. "We can reduce through substantial behavioral change and lifestyle change the demand for energy and the consumption of energy," noted Ramon Pichs-Madruga, economist at Cuba's Center for the Investigation of the Global Economy and co-chair of the Working Group III report. And that change "allows for greater flexibility when we come to [choose] technology options. If we leave it all up to technology the costs and risks will be much greater."¶ ¶ The initial IPCC report in this series, released last September, noted that the atmosphere could bear only 800 to 1,000 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, in order to restrain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by century's end. The world has already emitted in total roughly 515 billion metric tons. At present rates of pollution then, human society would blow through its carbon budget in the next decade or so.¶ ¶ Such pollution has already doubled just since 1970 and the rates of pollution have been increasing by roughly 1 billion metric tons per year in recent years, a pace that must slow and stop soon. To hold global warming in check requires reducing current emission levels by as much as 70 percent by 2050, compared with 2010 levels, and nearly eliminating such pollution by 2100. Instead, "over the last decade, we have seen increasing use of coal," the fossil fuel that when burned results in the most CO2, Edenhofer noted.¶ ¶ That pace of pollution now needs to slow and then reverse, likely requiring technologies that could pull CO2, the primary greenhouse gas, back out of the atmosphere. Such geoengineering could include technologies ranging from burning trees or grasses and capturing and storing the resulting CO2 from smokestacks to artificial trees that suck CO2 out of the sky directly for storage or re-use. "This Increases in temperature will likely change how much energy we consume, as well as our ability to produce electricity and deliver it reliably.

Warming is anthropogenic-99% of Scientists agreeJogalekar 1-10 [Ashutosh, computational chemist, studies history and philosophy of science, About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees, 1-10-14, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees] Mittal

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly

deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text

bodies of the relevant papers.¶ It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone

else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing

a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.¶ Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.¶ Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence.¶ This chart should tell us why we need to move the debate beyond the fundamental fact of global warming, from disputing the basic science and effects of the process to disputing the details of consequences and the proposed solutions.

Global Warming is at the tipping point-some effects are already being causedThe Guardian, 5-17 [British national daily newspaper, combined print and online editions reach nearly 9 million readers, Climate change is upon us and we must act, 5-17-14 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/climate-change-global-warning-calamity-floods-observer-editorial] Mittal

It is often claimed by those who deny the reality of climate change that scientific forecasts about the impact of global warming are far too uncertain to

merit taking action. There is no reason to suffer the inconvenience of leaving the planet's fossil fuels unburned when the current analyses of meteorologists, oceanographers and geophysicists will probably turn out to be false alarms ,

they argue.¶ Such contention is dangerously false. For a start, scientists' warnings about future weather patterns are certainly not overreactions to the evidence they have gathered. In most cases, observed climate changes – the slump in summer sea ice coverage in the Arctic in recent years is a good example – have turned out to be far more drastic than researchers had originally predicted. Their views of the future – melting icecaps, spreading deserts and acidifying oceans – are cautious evaluations that most probably underestimate the likely impact of global warming.¶ There is another, more straightforward

reason to repudiate deniers' claims about scientists' "false alarms", however. The impact of climate change is not an issue that is going to be determined in far-off years for the simple reason that it is already happening. This is a point made clear by Nasa glaciologist Eric Rignot who reveals that his observations show that a large part of the West Antarctica ice sheet has now begun to disintegrate and that the entire sheet appears today to be in irreversible retreat.¶ "One of the feared tipping points of the climate system appears to have been crossed," says Stefan Rahmstorf, an expert on the physics of the ocean at Potsdam University. Certainly the consequences of this massive destabilisation of ice cover at the south pole are going to be considerable, scientists now argue¶ The last assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put a modest figure of one to three feet as the likely rise in sea levels that will be experienced this century. The disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice shelf extends that forecast drastically. A figure of 10 feet is now a more than likely option over the coming centuries. Vast tracts of heavily populated coastline around the world face inundation. Millions are likely to

lose their homes. It may take more than a century for this devastation to occur. Nevertheless, it now looks to be inevitable, says Rignot. Nor will the

residents of low-lying regions such as Bangladesh or Florida be surprised at this forecast. They are already experiencing the consequences of rising sea levels triggered by melting icecaps.¶ A useful example is provided by Miami. The city is built on top of porous limestone and its foundations are now absorbing water from rising seas at an alarming rate. Water now bubbles up through pipes and drains and taints fresh water supplies while seawater regularly flows out of drains into streets, which become flooded.¶ Civil

engineers currently estimate that the cost of putting right the damage to Miami could rise to billions of dollars and that, please note, is the price that a single city will have to pay to deal with just one aspect of global warming. Repeat it across the globe and you get a notion of the vast cost we now face for having failed to deal with climate change for the past two decades and for faltering in our commitment to agree to curb emissions of carbon dioxide

from our factories, power plants and cars.¶ The result of this continued inaction has been straightforward: climate change – once a far-off threat – is now upon us and is already bringing alarming change to our planet, as the citizens of Miami are now experiencing, along with those living near spreading deserts in Africa, in the far north where tundras are melting, and in high mountain areas in the Andes and Himalayas whose glaciers are now disappearing. As Leonard Berry, director of the Florida Centre for Environmental Studies at Florida Atlantic University puts it: "Climate change is not a future thing, it's a 'happening now' thing."¶ After a week that has seen several UK newspapers give wild and inordinate coverage to false claims that some scientists have tried to suppress inconvenient climate research, this point needs emphasising. A world bedevilled by climate change is not a remote, questionable prospect. It is a reality that has already arrived and is destined to have increasingly profound impacts until we wake up to the threat and act coherently.

Global Warming on the Brink, we need to act now-Temperature Rise provesDoshi 2-14 [Jigar, co-founder of Cheeni Labs, a Chennai based Indian startup, which creates web products targeted at India, Global Warming: A Looming Danger, 2-14-14, http://theviewspaper.net/global-warming-a-looming-danger/] Mittal

We live in a world where things are accepted, looked into, discussed, strategized, only after they become a large problem. None of us are interested to either think or talk about the latent problem which is soon turning into a patent one—our dying environment. It is a gift that we received from our creator but alas we have repeatedly (ab)used it and now its dying a silent death.¶ It was widely believed that Earth was going to end in the year 2012. While it has been an year since and we are still alive, it doesn’t mean that the prediction was entirely inevitable. The way we humans, have been living our life, the day doesn’t seem far when mother Earth rebels and unleashes its fury upon us.¶ Although various governments have been trying to educate their people about the dying condition of the environment and the repercussions of their ignorance and indifference towards

the dying environment, they have continued to be in the stage of denial. People don’t want to believe that it might be true and that they have exhausted almost all the natural resources available to them. Well, that’s where they are wrong, because not only have the minerals and fuels exhausted but many animals are on the verge of extinction.¶ The nature is not what it used to be. The beauty, the charm and the peacefulness of the nature is all lost. I agree that change is inevitable, but at what cost—the lives of the future generation?¶ One of the major problems harming our planet Earth is global warming. The term “global warming” was first used in its modern sense on Aug. 8,1975 in a science paper by Wally Broecker called “Are We On The Brink Of A Pronounced Global Warming?”¶ Global warming refers to an unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s climate. Over the time, scientific understanding of the cause of global warming has been increasing. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90 percent certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities.¶ People have been cutting down forests for constructing new roads, buildings, city expansion and making furniture. But what they don’t realise is that these trees absorb a large amount of solar energy and in turn sustain the animal-life in the forests. What’s worse is that they never think of planting new saplings, let alone trees and forests. This kind of deforestation and imbalance in animal-life cycle is one of the major causes of global warming and has had some adverse effects.¶ Environmental Effects:¶ Temperatures have been rising rapidly. The highest rise in the temperature was witnessed in the past decade when people experienced the warmest months of April, May, and June. In the year 2010, Pakistan hit its record high 129 degrees and so did Russia with 111 degrees.¶ Similarly, overall rainfall has also decreased in many countries while the others have been destroyed by repeated floods. Even the winters have ceased to be cold as the lowest recorded temperature has been steadily declining.¶ Not to mention that the number of natural calamities has increased, leading to mass destruction of human capital and financial capital. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, glaciers gliding and melting, tsunamis, floods, severe draught and famines have increased in various countries causing great economic problems for the middle-class and lower-middle class people.

Warming is anthropogenic and action needs to be taken now- History shows UCS 13 [Union of Concerned Scientists non-profit working to help the environment, Global Warming: Confronting the Realities of Climate Change, 9-27-13, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/] Mittal

Sea level rise is accelerating. The number of large wildfires is growing. Dangerous heat waves are becoming more common. Extreme storm events are increasing in many areas. More

severe droughts are occurring in others. ¶ These are just some of the consequences of global warming, which are already having significant and harmful effects on our health, our environment, and our communities.¶ Unless we take immediate action to address global warming,

these consequences will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly, and increasingly affect the entire planet — including you, your community, and your family.¶ Every one of the past 37 years has been warmer than

the 20th century average. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded for the contiguous United States.¶ Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than

one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.¶ We are the cause.¶ We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy — coal, natural gas, and oil — plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.¶ The scientific evidence is clear.¶ Within the scientific community, there is no debate: An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.¶ This broad consensus — and the extensive scientific evidence that supports it — is often downplayed or distorted by a small but vocal minority of special interests that have a vested interest in delaying action on climate change.¶ We have a choice.¶ We can act now to reduce our carbon emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and pass on a safer, healthier

world to our children. Or we can choose to do nothing, continue pumping massive amounts of carbon into an already overloaded atmosphere, and suffer the increasingly costly consequences.¶ At UCS, we believe the choice is clear: We must take steps now to reduce our global warming emissions. ¶ Together we can tackle global warming.¶ We have the practical solutions and technologies at hand to substantially reduce our emissions, create a clean energy economy, and establish the United States as a global leader in innovation.

Action needs to be taken now- Waiting worsens the impacts NASA 07 [National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The current and future consequences of global change, November 2007, http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/] Mittal

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.¶ Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.¶ Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.¶ According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.¶ The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.¶ "Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." 1

The time to act against global warming is now-new technologies are neededFreedman 4-7 [Andrew, Senior Climate Reporter for Mashable. Prior to working at Mashable, Freedman was a Senior Science writer for Climate Central, We are running out of time to stop

global warming, UN says, 4-7-14, http://mashable.com/2014/04/13/global-warming-un-report/] MittalThe window of opportunity to avoid an amount of global warming that global leaders have ¶

agreed would be “dangerous” is rapidly closing, with just a decade left for the world to begin undertaking sweeping technological and governmental actions to rein in emissions of global-warming gases such as carbon dioxide, according to a new United Nations report released Sunday in Berlin. After that, it becomes far more difficult and expensive to cut emissions sufficiently to avoid dangerous amounts of warming.¶ Given recent emissions and temperature trends, the world is on track to see an increase in global average surface temperatures of up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century, the report

says. This could have disastrous consequences by dramatically raising global sea levels, melting land-based ice sheets, and leading to more heat waves and extreme precipitation events, among other impacts.¶ The report, the third and final installment of the latest comprehensive review of climate science from the Nobel Prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change’s (IPCC), analyzes more than 1,000 scenarios of potential economic growth and environmental changes to determine how to minimize global warming.¶ The report is simultaneously optimistic and grim in tone, since it concludes there is time and pre-existing technological knowledge available to meet the goals that leaders set out in a non-binding agreement in 2009, yet lays bare the sheer scope of the challenges that lie ahead.¶ The central task for scientists, engineers and policymakers is to figure out how to facilitate continued economic and population growth, without also causing emissions to skyrocket at the same time, the report says.¶ Figuring out how to do that gets at the core of global-development issues and the sharp climate-policy divide between industrialized and developing nations. Government representatives meeting in Berlin last week to approve the report, objected to language in the widely read summary for policymakers that suggested developing countries have to do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, according to the New York Times. However, such language remained in the lengthy technical report. Text discussing transfers of funding to developing countries to assist them in growing their economies without boosting emissions was also removed from the summary,¶ The IPCC’s fifth assessment provides the foundation for upcoming rounds of negotiations to craft a new global climate

treaty, starting with a high-level climate summit in New York this September, and culminating in another summit in Paris next year. The next treaty is supposed to be enforced by 2020.¶ U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the report underscores the need for action by 2015.¶ “So many of the technologies that will help us fight climate change are far cheaper, more readily available and better performing than they were when the last IPCC assessment was released less than a decade ago,” Kerry said in a statement. “This report makes very clear we face an issue of global willpower, not capacity.”

Now is key time to stop warming-It is at its peakBannon 4-21 [Brad, president of Bannon Communications Research, Needed Now: Action to Stop Climate Change, 4-21-14, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brad-bannon/2014/04/21/take-action-to-stop-global-warming-on-earth-day] Mittal

Tuesday is Earth Day. For a day or so, there will be much talk about the need to reduce global warming followed by complete government indifference to the problem.¶ Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel

created by the United Nations, issued a report which detailed the environmental dangers that threaten Mother Earth. The chairman of the commission, economist Ottmar Enderhofer, said, “If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.” In layman’s terms, if we don’t get off our butts soon to take action, we’re screwed.¶ Fortunately, Gallup national surveys conducted in March of this year and last, indicate Americans are coming around. In March 2013, Americans indicated that economic growth (49 percent) was a bigger priority than environmental protection (41 percent). But last month Americans reversed themselves and said that the environment (50 percent) is a higher priority than the economy (41 percent).¶ Like the overwhelming majority of scientists, most Americans believe that global warming is already happening (54 percent) and that human activity is the cause (57 percent). The problem is that only one in three (36 percent) people consider global warming a serious threat.¶ Americans aren’t as fired up about global warming as most of the residents of the planet, according to a worldwide survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Internationally, a majority of of people said that global warming was a serious threat. Two in three residents of Latin America felt that way. Unfortunately residents of the United States (40 percent) and China (39 percent), the two largest producers of greenhouse gases, do not consider global warming to be a serious problem. Internationally, there was more concern about global warming than there was about nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran.¶ American indifference to the threat may exist because Americans feel they have less to lose. Worldwide, millions of people live in coastal communities that are seriously threatened by rising ocean levels. The big question is how to

convince Americans that global warming is an immediate threat. It already is, based on the loss of life and property that occurred on the Jersey shore because of Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012 and on the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It’s tragic that it takes a disaster and loss of lives to bring attention to the problem.¶ Arctic ice is melting at alarming rates and ocean levels are rising with them. If you left the water running in your bathtub and didn’t care enough to turn the faucet off, eventually all that water will ruin your home and possessions.

That’s what’s happening today with global warming. The ocean is rising and governments aren’t concerned enough to take the steps necessary to stop it.¶ It’s time for the two most powerful nations in the world, the United States and China, to step up and take action. The two world powerhouses will get their chance soon. The United Nations wants to approve an ambitious treaty next year to take drastic action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If we don’t act soon, there won’t be enough time to act.

Warming already causing extinction- the sooner we act the betterHoag 06 [Hannah, an environmental journalist that has won honors for excellence in health research journalism. Global Warming Already Causing Extinctions, Scientists Say 11-28-06 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061128-global-warming.html] Mittal

No matter where they look, scientists are finding that global warming is already killing species—and at a much faster rate than had originally been predicted. "What surprises me most is that it has happened so soon," said biologist Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas, Austin, lead author of a new study of global warming's effects.Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020. But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said. Scientists were right about which species would suffer first—plants and animals that live only in narrow temperature ranges and those living in cold climates such as Earth's Poles or mountaintops. "The species dependent on sea ice— polar bear , ring seal, emperor penguin , Adélie penguin —and the cloud forest frogs are showing massive extinctions," Parmesan said. Her review compiles 866 scientific studies on the effects of climate change on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater species. The study appears in the December issue of the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. Global Phenomenon Bill Fraser is a wildlife ecologist with the Polar Oceans Research Group in Sheridan, Montana. "There is no longer a question of whether one species or ecosystem is experiencing climate change. [Parmesan's] paper makes it evident that it is almost global," he said. "The scale now is so vast that you cannot continue to ignore climate change," added Fraser, who began studying penguins in the Antarctic more than 30 years ago. "It is going to have some severe consequences." Many species, for example, have shifted their ranges in response to rising temperatures.

Global Warming is real and anthropogenic Cohen 7/6 (Richard Cohen , Washington post writer“How to tell global warming is real: Use your eyes” 7/6/14 http://www.columbiatribune.com/opinion/columnists/how-to-tell-global-warming-is-real-use-your-eyes/article_03091768-1d87-5b90-816e-d4caed50f429.html)KingA friend of mine worked for a small-town newspaper years ago and had to write the weather report. The county fair was approaching, but the prediction was for rain. The editors, fearing the wrath of local merchants, ordered my friend to change “rainy” to “sunny.” That was the newspaper’s policy. It has since been adopted by much of the Republican Party.¶ It is a stunning thing, when you think about it — GOP conservatives adopting a position of studied ignorance or, to put it more humorously, a version of what Chico Marx said in “Duck Soup”: “Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” My own eyes see rising ocean levels. They see the Arctic ice cap shrinking. They see massive beach erosion, homes toppling into the sea and meteorological records indicating steadily increasing temperatures. The Earth, our dear little planet, just had the hottest May on record.¶ My eyes read projections that are even direr — drought, stifling heat, massive and more frequent storms, parts of coastal cities underwater and, in the American Southeast, an additional 11,000 to 36,000 people dying per year from the extreme heat. These and other ghoulish statistics are taken from a report on global warming funded by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer.¶ Paulson has been the point man on this. He served under George W. Bush, and he is, of course, a Republican. As such, he is the very epitome of the Republican establishment so loathed by the tea party. Good Republican that he is, Paulson has pointed out that global warming is bad for business (also for human beings), and steps should be taken to modify it. Among other things, the U.S could reduce carbon emissions (mostly from coal-fired plants) that have contributed so much to global

warming. Paulson believes, purely from the evidence, that human beings have contributed to the coming crisis.¶ Not so, cries the tea party. Not so, echoes most of the GOP’s potential presidential candidates. The list of deniers includes Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum. (“Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” Santorum once said.) It’s not clear where Paul Ryan is on the subject, and while Jeb Bush has conceded that global warming is real, he has hardly been adamant that it’s at least partly manmade.¶ Politics, not science, may firm up both sides of the debate. A Pew poll last November found that 67 percent of Americans think the planet is indisputably getting warmer. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, however, the figure is 84 percent, but among tea party types it’s 25 percent. Maybe more to the point, only 9 percent of tea party members think “human activity” has contributed to global warming. For their own sake, they ought to get out of the sun.¶ The tea party has taken a licking in the recent Republican primaries — the defeat of Eric Cantor being the exception. Still, its sway over congressional conservatives is considerable. For instance, the incoming House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, has suddenly seen the wisdom in tea party opposition to the hitherto noncontroversial Export-Import Bank. With climate change ranking low in urgency in a different Pew poll, there’s not much percentage in moderate Republicans standing up for science and common sense. Paulson et al. are to be commended for their effort, but they are — as Mike Bloomberg found out years ago — in the wrong party.¶ What possesses the tea party on climate change? Some of it has to do with traditional anti-establishment sentiment. If the elite say it’s getting hot, then it must be getting cold. Mostly, though, their position is rooted in a raging antipathy toward (hiss!) big government. Climate change is hardly a local problem. Strictly speaking, it isn’t even a national problem. (China and India are now major polluters.) It will take national and international agreements to deal with global warming and tea party types would rather — almost literally — burn in a kind of hell than submit to Washington or, God forbid, the United Nations.¶ So, reports will be issued and the Obama administration will pump for a reduction in carbon emissions and much of the Republican Party will deny the undeniable. But the waters will rise and the country will bake. Years from now, people gasping for air will ask how we let this happen, and the GOP, sticking to its plan, will deny anything is happening at all. Have an iced tea, y’all

Humans are the dominant cause for Climate Change

Griffiths 2/3 (Sarah Griffiths Science &Tech Reporter for Mail Online “Global warming is 'almost definitely' caused by

humans, UN report claims” 2/3/14, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2550951/Global-warming-definitely-caused-humans-UN-report-claims.html) King

Global warming is unequivocal and human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).¶ The IPCC's full and final findings on the state of the planet’s climate have been published and the report, which was put together for the UN, says that limiting climate change will require ‘substantial and sustained’ reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.¶ The findings of the report, which includes the comment that global warming is 'almost definitely' caused by humans, were approved by the member governments of the IPCC in September. ¶ The final version has now been released to provide detailed information to policymakers and the scientific community.¶ The Working Group I Fifth Assessment Report has 1,500 pages of text, 600 diagrams, cites 9,000 scientific publications and claims to offer a comprehensive understanding of the physical science basis of climate change.¶ ‘The report provides information about what has changed in the climate system, why it has changed, and how it will change in the future,’ said Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I. ¶ It says that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, already at levels not seen in at least 800,000 years, will persist for many centuries and ‘continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system’.¶ Enlarge ¶ Sea temperature¶ The IPPC reported revealed that it is 'extremely likely' that human activity is the dominant cause for global warming. It claims a rise in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere (right) will cause snow cover to decrease by 25 per cent by the end of the 21st century. But the report failed to conclusively explain why the rise in global average surface temperatures had largely 'paused' over the past two decades (left)¶ Average precipitation¶ The high latitudes and the equatorial Pacific Ocean are likely to experience an increase in annual mean precipitation by the end of this century (right). In many midlatitude and subtropical dry regions, mean precipitation will likely decrease from the 1986-2005 period (left)¶ BUT 23% OF AMERICANS DO NOT BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING¶ Since the publication of the IPCC report, more Americans than ever before believe that global warming isn't happening.¶ The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication study, which was published last month, found the number has risen to 23 percent, up seven percentage points since April 2013.¶ The latest survey, taken in November 2013, finds that the majority of Americans — 63 percent — do believe in climate change, and 53 percent are 'somewhat' or 'very' worried about the consequences.¶ The researchers also say Americans believe that even if it exists, global warming is not their problem.¶ 'Over years of research, we have consistently found

that, on average, Americans view global warming as a threat distant in space and time – a risk that will affect far away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,' the report says.¶ 'We still find this same pattern, in which fewer than half of Americans (38%) believe they personally will be harmed a 'moderate amount' or a 'great deal' by global warming.¶ The report highlights a number of doomsday scenarios, including extreme storms, heat waves, rising sea levels and the melting of Greenland.¶ Among its findings are that sea levels have risen by 19cm since 1901 and are expected to rise a further 26-82cm by the end of the century.¶ The Isle of Man's star-studded skies: Amazing time-lapse video reveals stellar displays on the British island¶ The death of the Great Barrier Reef? Dredge dumping near fragile coral is approved¶ But it concedes that world temperatures have barely risen in the past 15 years, despite growing amounts of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere.¶ Temperature rises have dropped from 0.12°C per decade since 1951 to just 0.05°C per decade since 1998.¶ This slowdown has been seized upon by climate sceptics who claim carbon dioxide is not as damaging as has been suggested.¶ IPCC scientists, however, believe the pause is temporary and a return to 'substantial warming' is expected in coming decades.¶ Perhaps most controversially, the report it says that humans are between 95 per cent and 100 per cent to blame for the warming of the planet since the mid 20th Century and this level of certainty among scientists is a boost from the 2007 report, which said that global warming was ‘very likely’ to have been caused by humans.¶ ‘Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes,’ says the report.

Internal Links

Research is necessary to generate policy changes to deal with climate change. Consortium for Ocean Leadership 7/11/14 (“Happy Feet III: Adélie Penguin Population Actually on the Rise” http://oceanleadership.org/happy-feet-iii-adelie-penguin-population-actually-rise/ //RC)

(From ScienceDaily) – By using high-resolution satellite imagery, Stony Brook University ecologist Heather Lynch, PhD, and conservation biologist Michelle LaRue, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, have applied a new method that permits regular monitoring of Adélie penguins across their entire breeding range, and by extension the health of the Southern Ocean ecosystem.¶ Their findings are published in The Auk, Orinthological Advances.¶ Ecologists have been tracking Adélie penguin population declines on the Antarctic Peninsula for decades but have found conflicting trends elsewhere in their breeding range. Lynch and LaRue’s new paper, titled “First global census of the Adélie Penguin,” finally puts all of these scattered pieces of information into a global perspective, finding that Adélie populations at the global scale appear to be growing. Key to identifying the colonies — including the discovery of 17 populations not known to exist — was use of satellite imagery to pinpoint the spectral characteristics of the excrement (called guano) of Adélies, a way to clearly identify the species’ breeding grounds. The research has implications to better inform policy makers and scientists regarding Marine Protected Areas and climate change.¶ “We believe this is a landmark study with data that provides not only information on the population dynamics of Adélie penguins but injects critically needed information into the ongoing negotiations regarding the implementation of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean,” said Dr. Lynch, Assistant Professor of Ecology & Evolution at Stony Brook University and a leading researcher using the increasingly popular technique of high-resolution satellite imagery to map the presence and abundance of Antarctic seabirds.¶ Over the past several years, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has discussed the establishment of a series of Marine Protected Areas surrounding Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic islands. Dr. Lynch explained that Adélie penguins are not only themselves a species of conservation concern, but their distribution and abundance globally also reflect the distribution of their marine prey — primarily krill and fish.¶ “Our finding of a 53 percent increase in Adélie penguin breeding abundance compared to 20 years ago suggests that estimates of krill consumption by this species may be seriously underestimated. Leaving enough prey for natural krill predators is an important element in ensuring fisheries proceed sustainably, and for the first time we have a global map of Adélie abundance that can be used by CCAMLR,” added Dr. Lynch. “Not only do we have a comprehensive baseline that can be updated and improved in the future, but we’ve identified a method for monitoring this important species at a global scale.”¶ Other key findings from the global census include:¶ High-resolution satellite imagery can be effectively used to get near real-time information about penguin populations and their distribution.¶ The 53 percent increase in known abundance is roughly equally divided between genuine growth of known colonies and the discovery of, or first population estimates at, previously unknown or unsurveyed colonies.¶ Stable or growing populations of Adélie penguins in Eastern Antarctica and the Ross Sea more than offset the rapid declines witnessed on the Antarctic Peninsula, where climate change has significantly changed the timing and decreased the extent of sea ice.¶

The researchers discovered 17 previously unknown Adélie colonies. The survey did not find 13

previously known colonies, 8 of which were declared extirpated.¶ While we celebrate the news that Adélie penguin populations are thriving, learning of these population booms reinforces the need to protect the Antarctic food web,” said Andrea Kavanagh, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ global penguin conservation campaign. The project’s aim is to restore and protect penguin breeding and feeding grounds in coastal waters throughout the Southern Hemisphere, and to create large no-take marine reserves in the Southern Ocean. “We call on CCAMLR to implement a strong ecosystem management plan for the Antarctic krill, so that all penguin species have access to abundant protein and can continue to thrive.”¶ Drs. Lynch and LaRue used high-resolution satellite imagery, recent ground counts and other techniques to identify Adélie Penguin colonies over the 5,500 kilometer Antarctic coastline in the lowest regions of the Antarctic Ocean, or Southern Ocean — a distance 40 percent longer than from New York to Los Angeles.¶ There has been an exploding interest among scientists internationally in using satellites to survey Antarctic species such as penguins, seals and whales. The relative simplicity of the landscape makes satellite-based surveys an exciting way to look at Antarctic biology at scales not previously thought possible, paving the way for Antarctica to become an unlikely hotbed of discovery for understanding the population dynamics of seabirds and marine mammals.

Research in the Antarctic region is necessary for further understanding of climate change patterns Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

The climate system of the Antarctic region is inextricably linked to that of the rest¶ of the planet. The strong westerly winds that circle the Antarctic continent influence¶ global atmospheric circulation. To improve projections of future changes in atmospheric¶ circulation, enhanced observations and modeling capacity are needed to understand the¶ role of the

Antarctic ozone hole and the influence of global climate change .¶ Similarly, the Southern Ocean circulation is central to the global ocean¶ circulation, affecting not only the Southern Hemisphere but also the circulation of the¶ North Atlantic Ocean, with impacts on the climate of Europe and North America. In¶ addition, understanding the carbon dioxide exchange between the Southern Ocean and¶ the atmosphere is a fundamental part of understanding the global carbon cycle and¶ climate change. Again, improved observational and modeling capabilities are needed to¶ improve the understanding of the role of the Southern Ocean in the global ocean system.¶ Changes in the patterns of sea ice in the Southern Ocean strongly affect¶ atmospheric and oceanic circulations as well as carbon dioxide uptake; therefore¶

improved monitoring and modeling of sea ice will be important in the next two decade s.¶ There is also an urgent need to better understand the dynamics of the ocean-glacial ice¶ interaction beneath floating ice shelves, which will contribute to better projections of¶ future sea level rise caused by melting of glacial ice in Antarctica.¶ More information on Antarctica’s

influence over globally interacting systems will¶ allow scientists to better understand the

global climate system and predict how it will¶ change in the future. A systems approach,

with increased observations and improved¶ modeling, is critical to further the understanding

of all of aspects of the climate system¶ over the next 20 years .

Warming threatens Antarctic ecosystems – research in the region is necessary to better understand the problem and develop solutions Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Furthermore, Antarctic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to change. The¶ marine and land-based ecosystems of this region evolved in isolation from the rest of the¶ planet, but now factors such as the global transport of pollutants, the introduction of¶ invasive species, and increases in UV radiation are altering these communities.¶ Increasing human presence, due to tourism and research, has brought concerns about¶ habitat destruction, overfishing, pollution, and other toxic effects on the environment. Of all the human influences, the impact of human-induced climate change may¶ prove to be the largest. On land and sea, warming and ice melt will increase the area of¶ surfaces exposed to the elements, providing new habitats for colonization by organisms—¶ with the potential to change the functioning and structure of ecosystems. As warming¶ continues, biotic factors such as predation, competition, and pathogens will likely have a¶ greater influence on ecosystem ecosystem change elsewhere.functioning than the physical processes that have, until¶ now, dominated the region’s ecosystems. Changes in the ecosystems of the Antarctic¶ region may be a harbinger of larger changes to come, and therefore monitoring Antarctic¶ change could allow scientists to predict future ecosystem change elsewhere.

Better research is necessary to predict future trends of climate change Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean provide a natural laboratory for scientific¶ discovery. The tiny air bubbles trapped within the ice hold a record of the planet’s¶ atmosphere through time; the living things in the ocean and on land can teach scientists¶ about survival strategies in extreme environments; and Antarctica provides an excellent¶ platform for looking out to the solar system and the Universe beyond. The Committee¶ highlighted several areas of science that will be important in discovery-driven scientific¶ research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the next two decades. Records of the Antarctic region’s past conditions come from drilling into rocks,¶ sediments, and ice, and from examining geological features. This information has¶ allowed scientists to reconstruct past climatic conditions, an important step toward¶

understanding present climate and predicting future climate change.¶ The fossil records in rocks and sediments can tell scientists the geographical range¶ of an organism’s habitat and the timeline of its existence. Physical and chemical analyses¶ of cores drilled into the sediments at the bottom of the Southern Ocean can provide¶ records of ocean temperatures, salinity, circulation, and biological productivity through¶ time. Studying the composition of ice cores and the impurities and gases trapped in ice¶ sheets has yielded information on past climate

conditions and atmospheric greenhouse¶ gas concentrations. Better understanding of the regular cycles and processes that affect¶ Earth’s climate will continue to accumulate from these analyses, and details of abrupt¶ climate change events in Earth’s history may provide insight on how rapidly Earth’s¶ climate could change in the future.

Research is needed to equip us with knowledge to deal with environmental and warming problems Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are intimately involved in global processes¶ that provide the key to understanding those changes. Formation of the deepest water in¶ the global ocean circulation occurs in the Southern Ocean, as does upwelling to the sea¶ surface of all the deep waters from other oceans. The Southern Ocean is an extremely¶ important region of the globe for air-sea exchange of carbon dioxide, second only to the¶ northern North Atlantic. The strong westerly winds that circle the Antarctic continent¶ influence global atmospheric circulations. The Antarctic continental plate played a¶ central role in the history of the formation of the continents and the resulting oceanic and¶ atmospheric circulation patterns observed today. Understanding processes in Antarctica¶ and Southern Ocean is critically important to understanding processes in the global¶ system.¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean comprise an unparalleled natural laboratory in¶ which to study a multitude of constantly changing conditions. Short-term changes happen¶ within lunar and annual cycles and within the context of longer-term oscillations of years¶ to decades. In recent decades, changes to the global climate from human activities have¶ been superimposed upon these natural variations, and the Poles reflect these changes.¶ Indeed, the Arctic has experienced large temperature changes already. The Southern¶ Ocean has also experienced significant warming, with oceanic fronts being pushed 60¶ miles closer to the continent, but the situation in Antarctica is complicated by the¶ influence of the Antarctic ozone hole, another human induced change that has uniquely¶

affected this region. These complex environmental forces need to be studied in order to¶

understand how they affect global processes, and also to measure their impact on life,¶ from

bacteria to worms, micro-arthropods, fish, birds, and marine mammals. Antarctica¶ and the

Southern Ocean are critically important locations for observing physical,¶ chemical, and

biological changes that are happening on a global scale (National Research¶ Council, 2010b).

Antarctic and Southern ocean infrastructure is necessary for research on climate change and observation Rejcek 12 ((Peter Rejcek, editor of the Antarctic Sun website, “U.S. Antarctic Program Infrastructure Needs Major Upgrades” 8/5/12, http://spaceref.com/onorbit/us-antarctic-program-infrastructure-needs-major-upgrades.html) King

¶ By Peter Rejcek, Antarctic Sun Editor - An independent committee charged with assessing the logistics requirements for the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) to support research into the 21st century has urged the National Science Foundation (NSF) and White House to invest heavily in infrastructure improvements over the next five years.¶ ¶ The call to action came during a press conference

held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., during which a Blue Ribbon Panel, established by the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and NSF, discussed the results of its report, More and Better Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical Effectiveness.¶ ¶ In the report, the 12-member panel, chaired by Norm Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. who led a similar review of the USAP in the 1990s, identified deficiencies and areas for investment, as well as suggestions on how to pay for improvements in a tough fiscal environment.¶ ¶ "We will take this report extraordinarily seriously and work very hard so that our actions match the drive and goals that were behind producing this report by this distinguished group," said NSF Director Subra Suresh during the hour-long press conference on July 23.¶ ¶ The Blue Ribbon Panel report on logistics and science support follows a 2011 National Research Council study, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, which identified some of the major research goals in Antarctica for the next couple of decades.¶ ¶ That group, chaired by Dr. Warren Zapol at Harvard Medical School, recommended a continued focus on climate change research with the development of an observation network capable of long-term monitoring of ice, ocean and atmospheric processes around Antarctica. [Link to previous article.]¶ ¶ John P. Holdren, director of OSTP, noted that research in Antarctica has already provided valuable scientific discoveries of the region and the planet.¶ ¶ "The work that U.S researchers have conducted in our Antarctic program has generated insights into atmospheric and ocean processes, the pace and consequences of climate change, the biology of ancient life, and the origins of the universe -- to mention just some of the areas involved. And, yet, clearly there is still much more we can learn from that frozen continent," he said Monday.¶ ¶ "It's our responsibility as explorers, curiosity-seekers and residents of this remarkably diverse planet to persevere despite the challenges, and do so in a manner that is both cost effective and environmentally responsible," he added.¶ ¶ In the report's executive summary, the Blue Ribbon Panel members said the lack of a long-term plan for investing in infrastructure has led to deterioration of Antarctic facilities.¶

¶ The report stated, "The Panel identifies the lack of a capital budget for the [USAP] as the root cause of most of the inefficiencies observed -- a situation that no successful corporation would ever permit to persist. If a formal, federally endorsed capital budget cannot be provided, then NSF should, at a minimum, formulate a capital plan for U.S. activities in Antarctica that adapts to the needs of science and can be used as a basis for subsequent annual budgeting. The funding of maintenance would likewise benefit from more rigorous planning."¶ ¶ The panel members visited all three USAP research stations at McMurdo, Palmer and South Pole during the 2011-12 field season in Antarctica, as well as logistics facilities based in New Zealand, Chile and the United States. A new 152-person facility was dedicated in 2008 at the South Pole, partly the result of the Blue Ribbon Panel led by Augustine in the late 1990s.¶ ¶ "Today, the South Pole Station is in relatively good shape. Unfortunately, one can't say that for the facilities at McMurdo and at Palmer," Augustine said as he cited several examples during the press conference, such as inefficient warehousing at McMurdo and the deficient pier at Palmer. The former was established in the mid-1950s for the International Geophysical Year, while the latter was constructed in the 1960s.¶ ¶ Augustine noted that operating logistics in Antarctica, with a supply chain that stretches 10,000 miles around the globe, has consumed at least 85 percent of the USAP's budget over the last decade or more. The panel made it a priority to address infrastructure challenges while making efforts to free more dollars for research in the long-term, he said.¶ ¶ "If we don't address this issue at this time, and we wait until next year or the year after that, not only will the cost be much higher, but we'll reach the point where we're doing all logistics and very little science in Antarctica -- and that makes very little sense at all," Augustine said.¶ ¶ The panel recommended maintaining McMurdo as the USAP's logistics hub while replacing some aging facilities. (It would cost about $220 million in 2012 dollars to entirely replace McMurdo as it currently exists, according to the report.)¶ ¶ Topping the list of cost savings was a recommendation to cut logistics staffing both on the Ice and at other locations by 20 percent. That's the equivalent of funding 60 new research projects at the median annual award size of $125,000, Augustine said, noting that such a reduction would be feasible with the introduction of new technologies and short-term investments.¶ ¶ The panel also suggested that the NSF increase the USAP operating budget by 6 percent for the next four years, which amounts to about $16 million per year, and diverting 6 percent of the planned science expenditures over the next four years to upgrades of the science support system.¶ ¶ "They're not without pain," Augustine said of the panel's recommendations.¶ ¶ Among other suggestions:¶ ¶ - Shifting re-supply operations for South Pole Station from the LC-130 aircraft to land-based traverses, which use tractors to haul fuel and cargo from McMurdo Station, and to introduce robotics. That would allow the NSF to eliminate four of the 10 New York Air National Guard airplanes that are needed to operate on the continent while freeing aircraft for deep-field support. The panel also recommended construction of a hard surface ice runway at South Pole Station, which would allow the larger, more efficient wheeled C-17 to land there.¶ ¶ - Improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of alternative energy. Specifically, the panel suggested expanding the use of wind energy at McMurdo Station, which shares a three-turbine wind farm with New Zealand's Scott Base. It also recommended that the NSF invest in technology for converting trash-to-energy and burning waste oil so that it does not have to be returned to the United States.¶ ¶ - Pursuing new ships for research and ice-breaking support. The United States has been without a heavy icebreaker for several years. Icebreakers are needed to open a channel through the sea ice to McMurdo Station each year, a task once taken up by the U.S. Navy and then Coast Guard before the heavy icebreakers Polar Sea and Polar Star became inoperable. In recent years, the NSF has chartered icebreakers from Sweden and Russia. The Polar Star may be back in service by next year, but Augustine said the United States should invest in a new ship. President Barack Obama has requested $8 million in the fiscal year 2013 budget to initiate survey and design for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker, which could take up to a decade to build and cost nearly $1 billion.¶ ¶ Suresh said NSF would develop a point-by-point response to the Blue Ribbon Panel report, as well as an action plan before the end of the year. He quoted from the executive summary before concluding his remarks:¶ ¶ "'Overcoming these barriers requires a fundamental shift in the manner in which capital projects and major maintenance are planned, budgeted, and funded,'" Suresh said. "'Simply working harder doing the same things that have been done in the past will not produce efficiencies of the magnitude needed in the future."¶ ¶ He added, "I couldn't agree more."

Technological infrastructure is key to advance science---- manage ocean observations in multiple ways Committee on an Ocean Infrastructure Strategy for U.S. Ocean Research ’11 [ 2011, Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13081] Schloss

Infrastructure that can be used to address fundamental research questions need targeted observation, analysis, and modeling capabilities at specific spatial and temporal scales, which can

be embedded in a larger dynamical context. Increases in fundamental understanding are built upon the global and regional infrastructure described in previous sections, but very often also enable the ability to address societal concerns. Needs highlighted in this section will not only sup - port the fundamental science questions but will also help to achieve societal objectives discussed elsewhere in the report. ¶ Sampling needs include novel biogeochemical sensors that

are resistant to biofouling and adaptable for multiple platforms (e.g., ships, drifters, floats, AUVs, moorings) to study changes in ocean properties (e.g., acidification); advanced biological and genomic sensors to identify and quantify organisms from microbes to marine mammals (e.g., optical and acoustical techniques for zooplankton biomass and community structure); sensors that can sample the deep ocean biosphere to inform origin of life studies and to understand how life responds to various kinds of stresses; high-resolution analytical tools that enable detailed analysis of carbon components in the ocean; the capability to inves-tigate sensory systems and organism communication in the ocean with advanced chemical, acoustic, and optical sensors on scales from microbes to whales; and satellite or airborne capabilities to study ocean-atmosphere fluxes (e.g., heat, radiative, mass,

chemical, biological).¶ Other infrastructure required for fundamental understanding includes marine geospatial

planning tools that are coupled to assimilative models in order to manage a variety of ocean observations; ¶ sustained observations of coastal seafloor boundary changes and fluxes via mapping, seismic, geomagnetic, drilling, borehole, and sediment-water interface observation; advanced downhole remote sensing tools to understand fluxes, processes, and reservoirs related to the formation of Earth’s lithosphere; creation of subsurface acoustic positional networks; development of advanced forecasting models with petascale or exascale3 computing capabilities to address specific processes that require high spatial resolution computations; and seafloor cabled observatories, which provide a continuous high bandwidth and

power for sampling a full range of geophysical variables, benthic communities, and the overlying water column. ¶ Recommendation: To ensure that the United States has the capacity in 2030 to undertake and benefit from knowledge and innovations possible with oceanographic research, the nation should ¶ Implement a comprehensive, long term research fleet plan to retain access to the sea.¶ Recover U.S. capability to access fully and par tially ice-covered seas. ¶ Expand abilities for autonomous monitoring at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales with greater sensor and platform capabilities.¶ Enable sustained, continuous time-series

measurements.¶ Maintain continuity of satellite remote sens ing and communication capabilities for oceano graphic data and sustain plans for new satellite platforms, sensors, and communication systems.

Support continued innovation in ocean infrastruc ture development . Of particular note is the need to develop in situ sensors, especially biogeochemical sensors.

Arctic research depends on technological infrastructure --- it is the core to power and accelerate their researchCommittee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean 2011 [National Research Council, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and

the Southern Ocean, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13169&page=126, pages pages 126-128] Schloss

Science activity in the Antarctic region is dependent on facilities and on transport, and as noted above in the energy section, successful science depends on adequate provision of energy. Ships bring heavy cargo and fuel to support operations at Palmer Station and McMurdo Station. Aircraft bring personnel and equipment from Christchurch, New Zealand, down the 170 meridian to McMurdo Station. From McMurdo, aircraft take personnel and equipment to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or other locations, and supply materials and much of the fuel to those sites as well. The McMurdo-South Pole overland traverse is starting but is not yet established as a routine and reliable supply strategy. Many waste materials are required to be taken away from the inland sites, and eventually away from the continent.¶ Both transportation and facilities have improved dramatically over the past decades; an improvement that is easy to see given the existence of well-preserved huts left by the explorers of a century ago. It is reasonable to expect significant additional improvements in infrastructure in the coming years, and these improvements represent opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness. One of the most promising examples is the installation of wind turbines for electric power generation at McMurdo Station and New Zealand’s Scott Base, discussed earlier. Similarly, ongoing improvements in materials technology have resulted in better building materials, clothing and outerwear, and scientific equipment.¶ One concern worth considering is the degree to which inherently harsh environments ¶ such as Antarctica and the Southern Ocean should be made to resemble settled areas elsewhere. A campsite does not necessarily require all the features of a modern ¶ city, and temporary field facilities for scientific work may be reasonably safe without meeting electrical and other code requirements for permanent buildings. Anecdotal evidence suggests that imbalances along these lines are common, with expectations for safety outweighing practicality. The health and safety of personnel are important, but overzealous development and enforcement of safety protocols can interfere with scientific work and add to the costs of supporting such work. A reasonable balance could be sought. The committee encourages the Blue Ribbon Panel to examine these issues as part of its review of the logistical support of science in Antarctica and the Southern

Ocean.¶ The impacts of global human activity, such as increasing releases of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the resulting global climate change, far outweigh the impact researchers will have on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Yet stewardship of this fragile environment will require continual vigilance. The “footprints” of stations such as McMurdo or the South Pole Station should be kept as minimal as possible and researchers should strive to ensure that exploration does not lead to irreversible changes in the environment, such as possible contamination of subglacial lakes from drilling into these fragile environments.¶ Cyberinfrastructure¶

Scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is already moving toward the deployment of extensive sensor networks that generate vast amounts of information. Remote sensing is now an important element of astronomy, physics, climate, oceanography, and biology. The kinds of novel sensors discussed earlier in this section and later in this chapter can usher in an era of “big data” for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Significant information processing capability would need to be located directly on the Antarctic continent to provide preliminary analysis of these data and to clean and compress the data for efficient transmission to and analysis by researchers and U.S.

government agencies located in the United States and elsewhere.¶ Cyberinfrastructure support for research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is currently limited. Some facilities (e.g., the Amundsen-

Scott South Pole Station) are often beyond the range of major communication satellites in geostationary orbit above the equator because of the curvature of the Earth. Intermittent satellite communication from such sites is provided from only those “failing” geostationary satellites that have gone far enough out of position to allow access. Low-Earth-orbiting communication satellites such as the Iridium System provide some data connectivity, but that connectivity is limited and

expensive and will not provide the level of connectivity needed for future sensor networks. Future scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean would greatly benefit from “24/7” Internet connectivity. High-bandwidth capability to and on the Antarctic continent would require improved terrestrial and satellite communications infrastructure (Lazzara and Stearns, 2004). Cyberinfrastructure support would also aid in deployment of new instruments with computer-controlled mechanics for positioning and sampling, as well as scientific instrumentation with on-board information processing and data management capability. Such advances would expand scientific activity without an equivalent expansion of costs.¶ Given the importance of

sensing networks, it is vital that the cyberinfrastructure needs for such networks be understood in advance of design and deployment. Cyberinfrastructure is not merely a complementary asset for such systems; it is in many cases the core of such systems

and should not be left until it is too late to realize the essential needs it covers or the benefits it brings. As evidence of the emerging importance of cyberinfrastructure to all areas of science and engineering,

several years ago NSF created an Office of Cyberinfrastructure under the Director. All polar research programs, and

particularly those in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, would benefit from incorporation of cyberinfrastructure planning in their overall planning. ¶ The scientific evidence that the world’s climate is changing is clear and extensive. Nevertheless we need further research to refine our understanding of how the climate system works and how climate will change in coming decades. ¶ Efforts to understand the climate system in detail are an important part of our climate change policy objectives.

Research is critical to better understand climate change--- helps figure out its risks and adaptDepartment of Energy and Climate Change ’13 [ November 2013,Supporting international action on climate change, Gov.Uk, https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/taking-international-action-to-mitigate-climate-change/supporting-pages/scientific-evidence-to-help-us-understand-climate-change] Schloss

To save energy with the Green Deal and support vulnerable consumers, we need to understand better what the climate will be like over the lifetime of the policies we set so our measures are as effective as possible. ¶ To maintain energy security and increase the use of low carbon technologies, we need to be able to predict the renewable energy resources that will be available to us in the future. This helps us deploy the right quantity of renewable energy sources, like wind turbines, in the best places. ¶ To reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate international climate change, we must be able to demonstrate why action against climate change is important and what the risks are if we take no action. We must be able to back up our position with good evidence from real-world data and scientific analysis, and assess the benefits that different levels of action and investment will have. ¶ To manage our energy legacy responsibly and cost-effectively, we need to know about potential risks posed by the climate in the future and adapt our energy systems accordingly. For example, future sea level rise and the probability of flooding are important considerations when siting major energy infrastructure and changing climate may change the availability of wind energy. ¶

Research in the southern ocean will help us understand global warming--- mapping, satellites, and projections¶

Marinov 14 [Irina, Professor of Earth and environmental sciences, The Link Between the Southern Ocean and Climate Change, May 9, University of Penn., http://www.upenn.edu/spotlights/link-between-southern-ocean-and-climate-change] Schloss¶

Though sometimes overlooked by scientists, the Southern Ocean below the 30th parallel takes up more than 60 percent of the anthropogenic heat produced on Earth and 40 to 50 percent of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide penetrating into the oceans. ¶ “The Southern Ocean is emerging as being very, very important for regulating climate,” Marinov says.¶ In a recent line of work, Marinov and colleagues focused on one of the ocean’s deepest currents, called the Antarctic Bottom Waters. Acting as a conveyer belt around 6,500 feet below the surface, these bottom waters channel heat, carbon, oxygen, and nutrients from the Southern Ocean to oceans around the globe. The massive current has been shrinking in recent decades. Because the current “hides” heat and carbon from the atmosphere, climate scientists have feared that its slow-down could have repercussions for global warming.¶ Marinov and colleagues found that the surface of the Southern Ocean has become less salty over the last 60 years. And whereas the ocean has always been somewhat stratified, with deeper waters being saltier and denser, they found that these gradients had become more extreme over time.¶ Marinov explains that increased precipitation around Antarctica—a consequence of climate change—has made the ocean surface waters fresher, and thus less dense. These lighter waters are less prone to move down through the water column and mix with deeper waters.¶ The researchers’ models also point to some concerning implications for the future. A handful of the models indicate that growing levels of Southern Ocean fresh water could stop convection from occurring at all by 2030, and most of the models suggest convection will slow, reducing formation of the Antarctic Bottom Waters.¶ “This is worrisome,” Marinov says, “because if this is the case, we’re likely going to see less uptake of human-produced, or anthropogenic, heat and carbon dioxide by the ocean, making this a positive feedback loop for climate

change.”¶ Marinov is involved with a new endeavor that will hopefully facilitate data collection from the farthest reaches of the Southern Ocean, allowing for more informed climate projections.¶ In this project, researchers will add special sensors to small, remotely controlled floats that dive deep into the ocean and resurface, transmitting information about the ocean’s conditions to scientists working thousands of miles away via

satellite. In another effort, Marinov and colleagues hope to better understand how phytoplankton—tiny

organisms that live at the ocean’s surface—figure into the ocean-climate picture.¶ “These new techniques will allow us to get essentially a global map of ocean biology and help us answer some important questions about how phytoplankton responds and contributes to fluctuations in climate,” she says. “Right now our models are way ahead of our ability to collect data, but we’re starting to catch up.

Infrastructure is necessary to have a greater understanding of the environment in the Southern ocean Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Over the next twenty years, the Committee anticipates the deployment of a¶ comprehensive observation system to monitor the changing state of the Southern Ocean¶ carbon system, including pH sensing packages to follow acidification at the scale of¶ individual organisms. Accompanying the new data streams from the observational¶ infrastructure would be new

information management capabilities, new models, and¶ sophisticated physiological studies

to understand the responses of biota to chemical and¶ physical changes in the ocean

environment.¶ Intensive study of the components of the Southern Ocean carbon system will¶ require sustained, year-round observations from moorings, floats, gliders, and¶ autonomous underwater vehicles (see Appendix C) that can sample under sea ice as well¶ as in open water. These observations will need to include chemical (e.g., pH, alkalinity,¶ dissolved inorganic CO2, PCO2) and biological measurements, as well as physical¶ measurements (velocity, temperature, salinity). Some of these measurements will require¶ novel and robust sensors. The response of the carbon system to changes in the strength of¶ westerly winds,

increasing temperature, and freshwater influx needs to be documented as¶ the climate changes. Targeted experiments for key polar species should document their¶ response to calcium carbonate under-saturation associated with ocean acidification.¶ Changes in interactions between species, food-webs, and ecosystems need to be¶ documented. Climate change will bring changes in seasonal sea-ice cover, warming, and¶ southward expansion of the range of lower latitude species, which should be documented.¶ The SOOS implementation plan (Rintoul, 2011a) presents a detailed proposal for¶ observing the chemical, biological, and physical components of these interacting systems.

Still large amounts of research is needed in Antarctica Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

The mechanisms of ecosystem response to global change remain controversial¶ (Trivelpiece et al., 2011), but there is a growing consensus that climate change generally¶ affects ecosystems by destroying existing habitats or enabling new ones (see above) and¶ by disrupting the trophic and other phenological connections among prey and predator¶ populations. Evidence for the effects of climate change on the structure and function of¶ marine, freshwater, and terrestrial systems is still based on a few observational ecological¶ studies and even fewer laboratory and field manipulation experiments (National Research¶ Council, 2011d). Advances in

knowledge of the structure and function of Antarctic¶ ecosystems have been substantial, yet

researchers are still unsure of the spatial and temporal variability of ecosystem responses to

climate change and other global change s.¶ Major questions related to environmental change include:¶ How vulnerable or resilient are marine, freshwater, and terrestrial food webs to¶ changes such as warming, enhanced water availability, habitat disturbance,¶ ocean acidification, pollutant accumulation, and loss of sea ice?¶ What are the functions of Antarctica’s diverse ecosystems in biogeochemical¶ cycling and how will they change?¶ Are the marine and terrestrial ecosystems of Antarctica organized differently¶ than ecosystems elsewhere on the globe? And does this temper their responses¶ to change?¶ Could Antarctic ecosystems switch to an unknown, alternative state with¶ different structure and functioning?¶ Is the Peninsula a harbinger of larger-scale changes to come? Will ecosystems¶ of the continental interior follow the lead of the Peninsula?

Impacts

Responses to climate change are needed now – the failure to respond leads to positive feedback loops that speed up warmings affects Elliott 2005 (K. NOAA “Climate Change at the Poles” Hidden Ocean 2005 http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/climate-change-poles//RC)

At the ends of the Earth, life thrives despite extreme conditions. In the Arctic and Southern Oceans, organisms have evolved adaptations to cope with year-round cold and six months of darkness. But the tough critters living in these harsh climates belie the delicate balance that holds the ecosystem together—a balance that human activities are disrupting in alarming ways.¶ Among the biggest threats to the poles is rapid climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising for more than a century, with hefty contributions from the fossil fuels used to power our homes, businesses, and cars. The increasingly dense blanket of greenhouse gases is trapping heat and taking its toll on the planet, especially at the poles. Global temperatures have increased since the 1800s with models predicting their continued rise, and sea ice has been decreasing in extent and thickness. By 2040, Arctic sea ice may disappear altogether during summer months.¶ The warming of polar oceans has powerful implications for organisms living there—and for us. Polar sea ice helps regulate Earth's climate. White ice reflects more of the Sun's energy back into space than does dark water. Without sea ice, Earth would absorb more solar radiation—and our climate would be even warmer.¶ Many animals also depend directly on sea ice. Polar bears, for instance, hunt seals from the ice and gain most of their weight in winter. But with ice declining and breaking up earlier, bears have less time to hunt. Because their habitat is melting, the bears were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in May of 2008. Pacific walruses, which usually plow a large area of the ocean floor while looking for clams and other prey, have started congregating near the shore and on land because the sea ice is beyond their reach. Ringed seals, ivory gulls, and ice algae are just some of the other species that rely on the ice to survive.¶ In polar waters, tiny swimming snails called pteropods will feel the changes in another way. In addition to warming, the ocean is becoming more acidic as it absorbs more carbon dioxide from the air. Scientists predict that during this century, parts of the Southern Ocean will be so acidic that the shells of pteropods and other organisms will begin dissolving. Since they are an essential food source for larger animals such as herring, cod, and, and baleen whales, the problems pteropods face could disrupt the entire ecosystem. Their plight also spells trouble for corals and other marine animals that build their shells or skeletons from calcium.¶ Other species, such as caribou, are changing their migration patterns and ranges as seasons and weather patterns shift. For people who live near the poles, like the Inuvialuit people of Sachs Harbour, Canada, weather and hunting grounds are becoming more unpredictable. Knowledge of the environment that has served generations is being defied by a changing climate. Many northern communities have also observed coastal erosion and watched the permafrost—ground that is frozen most of the year—melting and buckling under their homes and roads. While not common, some communities like Kivalina and Shishmaref, both in Alaska, are planning to entirely relocate, with costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Warming causing species extinction now---- must act now to solveHoag 06 (Hannah, journalist with a masters in biology from McGill University, Global Warming Already Causing Extinction Scientist say, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061128-global-warming.html) Yousuf

No matter where they look, scientists are finding that global warming is already killing species—and at a much faster rate than had originally been predicted . "What surprises me most is that it has happened so soon," said biologist Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas, Austin, lead author of a new study of global warming's

effects. Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020. But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said.¶ Scientists were right about which species would suffer first—plants and animals that live

only in narrow temperature ranges and those living in cold climates such as Earth's Poles or mountaintops. "The species dependent on sea ice—polar bear, ring seal, emperor penguin, Adélie penguin—and the cloud forest frogs are showing massive extinctions , " Parmesan said. Her review compiles 866 scientific studies on the effects of climate change on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater species. The study appears in the December issue of the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. Bill Fraser is a wildlife ecologist with the Polar Oceans Research Group in Sheridan, Montana. "There is no longer a question of whether one species or ecosystem is experiencing climate change. [Parmesan's] paper makes it evident that it is almost global," he said. "The scale now is so vast that you cannot continue to ignore climate change," added Fraser, who began studying penguins in the Antarctic more than 30 years ago. "It is going to have some severe consequences."¶ ¶ But many species have run out of suitable habitat or fallen prey to pests and disease, while others are suffering from extreme weather events such as El Niños—global climate disruptions that have increased in intensity and severity since the early 1900s. One El Niño in 1997-1998 caused 16 percent of global corals to go extinct, which in turn threatened many fish species. "Fish depend on the structure coral reefs provide," said biologist Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. For species such as coral, the extreme swings in temperature that can be caused by global warming are more of a concern than the rising average temperatures, Worm said. Harlequin frogs native to the cloud forests of Costa Rica have been hit especially hard. In January J. Alan Pounds, a resident scientist at Costa Rica's Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, reported that about two-thirds of the 110 known harlequin frog species had been killed off by a disease-causing fungus. (Related: "'Frog Hotel' to Shelter Panama Species

From Lethal Fungus" [November 2, 2006].) The fungus thrives in warmer temperatures, which also make frogs more susceptible to infection. In the Antarctic, three decades of declining sea ice have led to a reduction of ice algae. This, in turn, has reduced the number of krill, an essential food for many fish, marine mammals, and seabirds, including penguins. "We've predicted that the Adélie penguin will soon be locally extinc t ," Fraser, of the Polar Oceans Research Group, said.

The species has already nearly disappeared from its northernmost sites in the Antarctic. The population on Anvers Island, for example, has declined more than 70 percent, from 16,000 breeding pairs 30 years ago to 3,500 today (map of

Antarctica). And this year the Adélie population on Litchfield Island disappeared. "It is the first time in 700 years that the island does not have penguins on it," Fraser said. Arctic polar bears living in Canada's Hudson Bay, at the southern end of the species' range, are fewer in number and scrawnier because they lack the ice they require to feed from. "The arctic ice is

reducing in area and thickness—some places are just too thin to support a polar bear," the University of Texas's

Parmesan said. Such animal woes may hint at hard times ahead for humans, Fraser added. "The planet has warmed and cooled in the past, but never have we seen the type of warming that is occurring now, accompanied by the presence of 6.5 billion people who depend on these ecosystems," he said.

"Whether we want to admit it or not, we are completely and totally dependent on them."

Warming will cause extinction---- sea level rise and severe weather events no one can escapeCasper 10 (Julia Kerr, has been an Earth scientist for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for nearly 30 years. BLM is one of the leading agencies in the U.S. dealing with environmental and natural resource issues. Besides job experience, she also has B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Earth science applications, Effects og global warming, http://books.google.com/books?id=ZnUl4onKLs8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=global+warming+on+humans&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-sfEU9eiBJaryATD44DICg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=global%20warming%20on%20humans&f=false?) YousufNatural global warming occurs overtime due to factors such as the relationships between the Earth’s rotation, axis, position, and revolution around the sun, as well as a result of major volcanic eruptions (what has traditionally been small increments of change over thousands of years). These types of gradual changes allow most species to survive be

migration or adaption. However, warming has increased dramatically during the last century at an unnatural rate, making specialists believe that the real cause of global warming today is human induced

Many activities humans are involved in – such as burning fossil fuels for energy and massive deforestation—are contributing to the atmosphereric warming at an alarming rate. Experts believe that in the future enough human-induced damage will have been done to create severe problems in the distribution of species and their critical habits, to increase the occurrence of severe weather events, to contribute to sea-level rise, and to trigger a host of health and quality-of-life issues that will affect everyone on earth. Unfortunately, no ecosystem will escape the impact of human induced global warming.

Krill are in danger now--- Acidity and temperatures from climate changeRejcek 14 [Peter, Antarctic Sun Editor, July 3, Stressed Out, The Antarctic Sun, http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=4040] Schloss

Krill are a favorite food of penguins and whales. Humans harvest the tiny, shrimplike crustaceans for omega-3-boosting supplements. Climate change around the Antarctic Peninsula is reducing sea ice extent and duration in certain regions, robbing the dominant species Euphausia superba of a key habitat.That would seem to be enough trouble for one of the Southern Ocean’s keystone species in the food web. But some scientists are wondering if Antarctic krill will face even more stress in the future, as the climate warms and changes. How will lower water pH and higher ocean temperatures affect their physiology and growth?A small team of marine biologists has a grant from the National Science Foundation’s Division of Polar Programs External U.S. government site to begin to answer that question.The researchers worked out of the U.S. Antarctic Program’s Palmer Station External U.S. government site for more than two months earlier this year to begin their analyses. They’ll return again in 2015 to complete a series of experiments that will test how krill will respond to more acidic waters and higher temperatures that are projected by the end of the century.The current project is based on some preliminary work Grace Saba External Non-U.S. government site performed as a post-doctoral fellow at Rutgers University External Non-U.S. government site, as part of the Palmer Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) External Non-U.S. government site program about three years ago.Her studies on the krill – one of the main subjects of the two-decade-long-plus Palmer LTER program –

found that under conditions of elevated carbon dioxide, which lowers the pH of ocean water, the animals had higher feeding rates and higher nutrient excretion rates. “I believe the krill had to work harder under these more stressful conditions which increased their need for food,” explained Saba, now an assistant research professor at Rutgers and principal investigator on the newly funded project to investigate krill stress in an acidifying, warmer ocean.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) External Non-U.S.

government site, based on hundreds of scientific studies and climate models, projects that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the

atmosphere may be as high as 800 parts per million by 2100 – double current levels today – under “middle of the

road” scenarios for CO2 emissions. For the Southern Ocean, which circles the entire Antarctic continent, that could mean surface water temperatures may rise about 3 degrees Celsius and subsurface water pH might drop from about 8.1 to about 7.7, according to Saba.The pH level, measured in units, is a calculation of the balance of a liquid’s acidity and alkalinity. The lower a liquid’s pH number, the higher its acidity. As CO2 dissolves in the water, it lowers the pH, which shrinks the pool of

carbonate ions in the ocean that marine organisms such as sea urchins and corals use to build skeletons and shells.While krill are not calcifying organisms, lower ocean pH could affect their physiology in other ways.For example, Saba and co-principal investigator Brad Seibel External Non-U.S. government site at the University of Rhode Island External Non-U.S. government site, discovered that Antarctic krill have a pH-sensitive oxygen-binding protein, which means they might have to work harder to get the oxygen they need or to maintain their metabolism.Blood and tissue samples extracted from the krill, which were subjected to various temperature and pH conditions in some experiments at Palmer Station, may offer insights into possible physiological problems that might arise in a 22nd century climate.In fact, preliminary results from the blood work found that krill exposed to lower pH treatments had higher pH levels in their blood than those swimming in ambient conditions, according to Saba.“Something is happening physiologically where they have to compensate for changes in seawater pH,” she said, adding that results pending from the tissue samples may fill in more pieces of the puzzle.“We’ll be able to determine on an whole body scale how the krill are responding to the changes in the carbon dioxide levels,” she said.Saba said the team is already preparing for the next field deployment, which will coincide with the annual Palmer LTER research cruise in January. The research vessel Laurence M. Gould External U.S. government site will trawl for the specimens the scientists need for their experiments and analyses.“We had a very successful field season this past year,” Saba noted. “We were able to do quite a lot of different experiments with multiple krill life stages this year.”In 2015, the team plans a few new experiments, including one that will test the upper limits to the krill’s

tolerance to acidic waters and another that will try to isolate the influences between pH and temperature.In the latter case, changes

in pH alone didn’t result in a physiological response. However, when combined with a spike in temperature, the krill responded with marked increases in respiration rates.

Global Warming is an existential impact--- controls most scenarios for extinction Plait 14 [Phil, Astronomer, public speaker, author, Climate change is a threat to national security, July 8, http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/08/climate_change_a_threat_to_national_security.html] SchlossGlobal warming is real, and we’re starting to feel the physical effects now. It’s difficult to pin any one event on a warming world; it’s like playing craps with a pair of loaded die. That 12 you rolled may have been random, or it may have been because the dice are very slightly weighted. You have to throw a lot of rolls before the effects are seen with any certainty.¶ But these physical effects on our planet are just the start. Droughts, fires, more extreme weather, sea level rise, ocean acidification … these are just the primary, direct consequences as our planet gets hotter. ¶ But these will have further effects. Starvation, mass migration, rise of disease, species extinction, and collapse of infrastructure follow these primary effects. These will profoundly affect people, and that means politics will play its role, from the local, tribal level all the way up to nations. ¶ David Titley was a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, and an expert in climate change and national security. He served on the CNA Corp.'s Military Advisory Board, which recently issued a strongly worded report calling global warming a threat to national security. ¶ Titley wrote an op-ed published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reiterating the need to take this threat seriously. It’s actually pretty simple to understand: A changing world environment means a changing political environment. If some regions stand to lose in the crap shoot of climate change, then they will see the need to take action. Furthermore, as the geophysical landscape literally changes, nations will move to capitalize on it (such as melting Arctic ice opening up shipping lanes, and, ironically, more places to drill for

oil). These are things our government must pay attention to, and must make plans for. ¶ Of course,

as I’ve written about before, Republicans in Congress added an amendment to a Department of Defense funding bill specifically forbidding money be spent on looking into global warming. Ironically, for all their nationalistic claims, their actions put our nation in very real jeopardy. ¶ Once you deny reality, the fantasy you spin can be very dangerous. ¶ And, of course, they are cheered on by the Noise Machine. The latest is by perennial reality-stomper David Rose, who would probably deny the Earth was warming up when the Sun turns into a red giant and fills half the sky. In the Daily Mail (I know, wrapping a fish in the Mail is an insult to the fish, but it’s sadly widely read) he penned his usual nonsense, this time a ridiculous piece about there being more Antarctic sea ice than usual, so how can global warming possibly be real?¶ In situations like this, I picture deniers with their backs to a raging forest fire, looking at one tree off to the side that’s not yet aflame, claiming that everything’s OK.¶ Everything is most certainly not OK. We’re changing the planet, and that’s changing the shape of geopolitics. We need to face that fact, and the sooner the better.

Climate Change leads to extinction--- loss of keystone species Brown 14 [Desmond, Lead environment correspondent in the Caribbean, April 2014, Caribbean Fears Loss of “Keystone Species” to Climate Change, http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/04/caribbean-fears-loss-keystone-species-climate-change/] Schloss

CODRINGTON, Barbuda, Apr 26 2014 (IPS) - A marine biologist has cautioned that the mass deaths of starfish along the United States west coast in recent months could also occur in the Caribbean region because of climate change, threatening the vital fishing sector. ¶ Since June 2013, scientists began noticing

that starfish, which they say function as keystone species in the marine ecosystem, have been mysteriously dying by the millions.¶ "It’s a fight that the world has to win if it is to survive because if the small states don’t win, it means that the globe as a whole does not win ." -- John

Mussington ¶ “The cause of the starfish die-off which is taking place in the Pacific Ocean is not known at this time but it

could turn out to be from a number of factors including climate change,” John Mussington told IPS.¶ “If it turns out that

climate change factors such as ocean warming are indeed implicated in the starfish die-off, then there is the possibility that the same thing could happen in the Atlantic and affect Caribbean species. ¶ “We are living in an era when the predicted consequences of climate change are now reality. Large scale die-off of can therefore happen to us in the Caribbean,” Mussington added.¶ Starfish play a key role in marine ecosystems. They eat mussels, barnacles, snails, mollusks and other smaller sea life so their health is considered a measure of marine life on the whole in a given area. Starfish are in turn eaten by shorebirds, gulls, and sometimes sea otters. ¶ Mussington explained that something similar to what’s happening in California has happened in the region before.¶ He told IPS that in 1983 there was a Caribbean-wide die-off of the black sea urchin, spreading from as far north as The Bahamas right down the chain of islands to the south.¶ “The long-spined sea urchin was a kestone species in the Caribbean marine ecosystem, similar to the affected starfish in the Pacific-California ecosystem. The designation as ‘keystone’ is due to the fact that if there is anything affecting their large populations, then this can be interpreted as a reliable indication of problems in the entire ecosystem that will likely affect other species,” Mussington said.¶ “Something went very wrong with our Caribbean marine ecosystem in 1983 and the black sea urchin was wiped out – the species is considered today to be functionally extinct. With the decline of this keystone species, the Caribbean has seen significant decline in its coral reefs and the marine communities they support, including economically important commercial species.”¶ Mussington said the spiny urchin grazes on algae and it is important to control the number of algae on coral reefs.¶ Habitat degradation, specifically of coral reefs, has been cited by numerous studies as the primary cause of ongoing fish declines of Caribbean fish populations.

Warming leads to extinction—rising sea level Hannam 14 [ Peter, The Sydney Herald writer, Environment editor, July 2014, Bad news about rising sea levels as quickening Antarctic winds lead to faster ice melt, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bad-news-about-rising-sea-levels-as-quickening-antarctic-winds-lead-to-faster-ice-melt-20140707-zsz3o.html] Schloss

Sea levels may rise much faster than predicted because climate models have failed to account for the disruptive effects of stronger westerly winds, Australian-led research has found. ¶ Recent studies of Antarctica have suggested the giant glaciers of West Antarctica may have begun an irreversible melting that will raise sea levels by as much as 3 metres over 200-500 years.¶

That estimate, though, may prove optimistic because models had failed to account for how strengthening westerly winds in the Southern Ocean would start to impinge coastal easterlies, upsetting a delicate balance of warm and cold waters close to the Antarctic ice sheets, said Paul Spence, an oceanographer at the University of NSW’s Climate Change Research Centre.¶ “It’s the first time that I looked at my science and thought, 'Oh my god, that is very concerning'!”, he said. “You hope it’s wrong and you hope it doesn’t happen.¶ “If you were buying land in Australia and wanting to pass it down to your kids or your grandchildren, I suggest it’s a couple of metres above sea-level,” Dr Spence said.¶ The research, published in Geophysical Research Letters, found that the coastal temperature structure was more sensitive to global warming, particularly the changes to winds,

than previously identified.¶ “The dynamic barrier between cold and warm water relaxes, and this relatively warm water just offshore floods into the ice-shelf regions, increasing the temperatures by 4 degrees under the ice shelf,” he said.¶ “If you look at how sensitive the coastal ocean is to these changing winds, you could put a lot more heat under these ice shelves than people have previously thought,” Dr Spence said.¶ A study released earlier this year by UNSW’s Matt England – also an

author on this new research – found westerly winds in the Southern Ocean had quickened 10-15 per cent over the past 50 years, and shifted 2 to 5 degrees closer to the South Pole.¶ The ozone hole over Antarctica is one factor contributing to the changing winds, along with greenhouse gas emissions, Professor England’s paper found. While the recovery of the ozone layer in coming decades – as fewer ozone-depleting chemicals are released – will slow the wind, any slack would likely be taken up by rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.¶ Dr Spence said his team’s study was based on more than 30 models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and turned up results that shocked the researchers.¶ The new modelling shows it doesn’t take much additional wind to the system “to really, dramatically upset" conditions, he said. “It’s a system really dramatically ripe for change.”¶ Tas van Ommen, a principal research

scientist at the Australian Antarctic Division, said the research helped explain the mechanism that is causing the rapid melting of the West Antarctic glaciers now being observed.¶ “This paper is a necessary first step to actually closing some the understanding gaps,” Dr van Ommen said.¶ While predictions of future sea-level rise were difficult to make, “adding a few tenths of a metre from ice instability this century is a significant concern”, he said. ¶ Even 10 centimetres of sea-level rise tripled the flooding frequency of the world’s coastal regions, he said.

Global Warming is anthropogenic--- global industrialization in natural habitatsSchuster and Gruber 14 [ Ruth and Ben, Senior editors for Haaretz, June 2014, A great extinction is on the brink, thanks to mankind, Haaretz, http://www.haaretz.com/life/nature-environment/1.599802] Schloss

Planet Earth is on the brink of a mass extinction event comparable in scale to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, a landmark study by an international group of scientists has concluded. It would be the sixth major extinction event in the history of the planet - but this time, the cause is man, and there's precious little time to reverse the trend. ¶ Part is the human predilection for hunting for its own sake, but the greater part is man-made climate change. ¶ The researchers found that extinction rates are currently 1,000 times higher than normal due to deforestation, global climate change, as well as over-fishing, which is killing off not only the fish that people like to eat, but a lot of other species as well. ¶ Duke

University biologist and conservation expert Stuart Pimm says planet Earth's time is running out. And since man is to blame, Pimm and other scientists from around the world say in their landmark study that unless humans change their behavior immediately, Earth as we know it today will soon cease to exist.¶ Immediately means now, not whenever mankind gets around to it.¶ "When you look at the range of unsustainable things that we are doing to the planet, changing the atmosphere, global warming, massively depleting fisheries, driving species to extinction, we realize that we have a decade or two," says Pimm. "If we keep on doing what we are doing, by the end of the century our planet will really be a pretty horrendous place."¶ Man the bounty hunter¶ Man has been killing animals for food and fun since prehistory, the evidence categorically shows. This February the remains of a woolly mammoth clearly bearing spear wounds on its back, dating some 13,700 years ago, was found in Siberia.¶ Last month scientists decided that primitive man bore greater responsibility than climate change for the extinction of the giant mammals, not only the mammoth but the giant sloth, giant ancient (and other extinct) kangaroos in Australia, the woolly rhinocerous and many more.¶ The scientists gauged change in climate using ice cores from the Antarctic. Then they investigated the timing of modern man's arrival at various areas around the world, compared with the timing of extinction events there. Thusly, the scientists reached a stark conclusion: humans did it.¶ However, while man has been responsible for killing off the big mammals and decimating fish stocks, it is man-induced climate change that is behind the looming great extinction of which scientists are now warning.¶ Yes, man can affect the whole planet ¶ Pimm was lead author of a study that compared historical extinction rates to those of today. They analyzed data taken from every region of the planet, on land and at sea.¶ They then compared that to historical data.¶ "We can compare that to what we know from the fossil data and incidentally what we know from the DNA data, because data on DNA, differences between species give us some idea of the timescale at which species are born and die," says Pimm. "And when we make those two comparisons, we find that species are going extinct one thousand times faster than they should be."¶ The reason, he avers, is global industrialization and human encroachment into natural habitats over the last 200 years.¶ People prefer to think that the planet is so big that mere mortals

couldn't possibly change it substantially, let alone irreversibly. That proves not to be true.¶ Global warming and ocean acidification are just two effects that scientists now agree, almost to a man, are being caused by human activity.

Global Warming Leads to extinction---habitat destruction, bio d loss, ecosystem lossRound ’14 [Christopher, The International environmental editor, June 2014, The International, http://www.theinternational.org/articles/561-the-earth-faces-a-new-global-extinction] Schloss

A recent paper published in the journal Science claims the current rate of extinction is 1000 times higher than normal. ¶ Recent studies have clarified where the species most vulnerable to extinction live. When combined with knowledge on how humanity changes the planet and how this can drive extinction, it becomes possible to calculate the kind of impact taking place

on biodiversity worldwide. How many species die off in the century largely depends on what actions humanity takes to save them, though other factors like how well a species tolerates climate change matter as well.¶ In determining what the current rate of extinction is, scientists worked to determine the background rate of extinction before humans began having a large scale impact on our environment. Scientists utilized the fossil record, molecular biology, and species diversification rates to determine the background extinction rate.¶ Human activities have largely eliminated top predators and other large-bodied species across most continents. The oceans have become depleted of large predatory fish (and in general suffer from over fishing).¶ By March 2014, the International Union for Conservation of Nature had assessed 71,756 species (mostly terrestrial and freshwater species). Of these species, 860 were extinct, 17000 were threatened, and 4286 were deemed critically endangered.¶ Habitat destruction threatening the world’s ecosystems ¶ Much of the world’s biodiversity is focused on regions close to the equator. This is due to a general lack of extreme seasons such as what is seen in more northern and southern regions. ¶ These regions include ecosystems such as tropical rain forests, which hold most of the world’s biodiversity. Habitat destruction is the single worst drivers of extinction. As habitats are disappear, so do the species that rely on them. ¶ Habitat destruction is also tied to climate change. Rain forests are responsible for absorbing large sums of CO2 out of the air (a major greenhouse gas that is largely responsible for global warming).¶ Examples include the widespread destruction of peat rain forests in Indonesia to make room for palm oil plantations. While palm oil plantations themselves sequester large amounts of CO2, peat forests sequester much larger amounts. When the peat forests are burned to make room for the plantations, large amounts of CO2 are released back into the atmosphere and the plantations are incapable of reabsorbing it.¶ Climate change exacerbate extinction ¶ Climate change poses a unique and more insidious impact on biodiversity. A growing number of species have relatively small home ranges, which increases their vulnerability for extinction. ¶ Species evolve to occupy a specific niche within their ecosystem. Fluctuating temperatures change the availability of their niche. While many species will be able to “move” with their niche, many others (such as species trapped on islands or reliant on mountain habitats) will be unable to move as well and will be expected to die out. ¶ Climate change impacts marine ecosystems alongside terrestrial systems. As the oceans absorb CO2 (a process known as sequestration), the acidity of the ocean rises due to a chemical reaction that occurs. This process is responsible for the destruction of coral reefs, which weakens coral exoskeletons. Coral reefs worldwide are seriously threatened by ocean acidification. ¶ Coral reef ecosystems are home to a stunning number of fish and other marine organisms; their loss would doom many of these species to extinction. ¶

Extinction is coming soon--- the time to stop it is now

The Week 14 [ News magazine and Website, Earth 'on brink of mass extinction event', June 20, http://www.theweek.co.uk/environment/59058/earth-on-brink-of-mass-extinction-event] Schloss¶ Earth is on the brink of a "mass extinction event" which could be equivalent in scale to the one that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, a landmark study by an international group of scientists has concluded. ¶ Researchers warned that deforestation, climate change, and overfishing have driven extinction rates to 1,000 times their normal level, Reuters reports.¶ Duke University biologist and conversation expert Stuart Pimm says that "time is running out" to avert the threat of mass extinction. ¶ If the crisis is to be avoided, humans need to make large scale changes immediately, Pimm says.¶ "When you look at the range of unsustainable things we are doing to the planet – changing the atmosphere, global warming, massively depleting fisheries, driving species to extinction – we realise we have a decade or two," Pimm warned. "If we keep on doing what we are doing by the end of the century our planet will really be a pretty horrendous place."¶ The study compared historical extinction rates with contemporary data collected from around the world.¶ "We can compare [modern data] to what we know from fossil data and what we know from DNA data… DNA differences between species give us some idea of the time scale over which different species are born and die. When we make those two comparisons we find that species are going extinct a thousand times faster than they should be." ¶ According to Pimm, the last time the planet faced such a significant extinction event was 65 million years ago, when, he says, a third to a half of all animal species on Earth died. "If we continue on our present course, that's how much we will lose," Pimm said.¶ The report notes that with the right intervention, the crisis could yet be averted. Conservation, education and "targeted preservation efforts" could slow down extinction rates, the report concludes. ·

We need to solve bio diversity now—climate change is causing species to go extinct Pinedai 14 [Leonard, Phillipine information agency writer, Public help needed to protect biodiversity, http://news.pia.gov.ph/index.php?article=2421405328555] Schloss

Active public participation and raising people’s environmental awareness are necessary to conserve and protect biodiversity.¶ In an edition of the radio program on climate change "Panahon, Hibaluon, Handaan, Aksyunan", Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-6 Regional Technical Director Alicia Lustica said that it is necessary that people should be aware of the importance of biodiversity so they would know what they can do for its conservation and protection. ¶ Biodiversity is the huge variety of animals and plants on our planet, together with the places where found, according to the World Wildlife Fund.¶ Lustica said that the Philippines is one of the 17 megadiverse countries in the world in terms of terrestrial and aquatic resources where 70 – 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity can be found.¶ “At present, Western Visayas is still blessed to have 37 types of fauna or animals and 33 types of flora or plants,” she said.¶ However, Lustica said that the country is considered a “hot spot” where a significant reservoir of biodiversity and natural resources are under threat from humans.¶ She stressed that a number of these flora or fauna in the region are considered threatened species which are critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. ¶ The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies threatened species into different categories, depending on their relative risk of extinction. Critically endangered (CR) are those species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild; endangered (EN) are species facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild; and vulnerable (VU) are species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.¶ The DENR official said that fortunately the region is still home to threatened species including the spotted dear, the dugong, and the warty pig (baboy-talunon).¶ “We are thankful that there are institutions such as the Western Visayas State University in Lambunao where there are rescue centers for animals and there are also private institutions which have helped protect animal conservation,” she said.¶ She also said that climate change is the driver why these species are threatened to be endangered.¶ She added that these species are sensitive to the effects of climate change especially to their habitat. ¶

Health experts agree warming will cause extinction--- human induced climate change poses a big threat to humansSnow 3/31/14 (Deborah, senior writer with The Sydney Morning Herald and a former federal political reporter for the Australian Financial Review, Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html#ixzz37W9u7OP6) Yousuf

¶ The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned.¶ Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today.¶ ''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our

extinction eventually.''¶ Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael, of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on Monday. The three warn that the adverse effects on population health and social stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change.¶ ''Human-driven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, health and perhaps even to human survival,'' they write.¶ They predict that the greatest challenges will come from undernutrition and impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of infectious diseases.¶ They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs.¶ Projecting to an average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work productively, in the hottest parts of the year''.¶ They say that action on climate change would produce ''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth.¶ A leaked draft of the IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat extremes. Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven degrees higher than pre-industrial times, the report said.¶ While some adaptive measures are possible, limits to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in the warmest months by 40 per cent by 2100.¶ Body temperatures rising above 38 degrees impair physical and cognitive functions, while risks of organ damage, loss of consciousness and death increase sharply above 40.6 degrees, the draft report said.¶ ¶ Farm crops and livestock will also struggle with thermal and water stress. Staple crops such as corn, rice, wheat and soybeans are assumed to face a temperature limit of 40-45 degrees, with temperature thresholds for key sowing stages near or below 35 degrees, the report said.¶

Global Warming leads to extinction-risk intensifiesWalsh 13 [Bryan, senior writer of energy and environment for TIME magazine, Why a Hotter World Will Mean More Extinctions, 5-13-13, http://science.time.com/2013/05/13/why-a-hotter-world-will-mean-more-extinctions/] Mittal

The end of last week saw the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere finally pass the 400-part-per-million threshold. That means carbon levels are higher now than they’ve been for at least 800,000 years, and most likely far longer. There’s nothing special per se about 400 parts per million — other than giving all of us a change to note it in

article like this one — but it’s a reminder that we are headed very fast into a very uncertain future.¶ Parts per million and global temperature change, though, are just numbers. What matters is the effect they will have on life — ours, of course, but also everything else that lives on the planet earth. I’ve written before that while I certainly worry and fear the impact that unchecked climate change will have on humanity, I also feel relatively — relatively — confident that we will, in some ways, muddle through. Human beings have already proved that they are extremely adaptable, living — with various degrees of success — from the hottest desert to the coldest corner of the Arctic. I don’t think a future where temperatures are 4˚F or 5˚F or 6˚F warmer on average will be an optimal one for humanity, to say the least. But I don’t think it will be the end of our species either. (I’ve always favored asteroids for that.)¶ But the plants and animals that share this planet with us are a different story. Even before climate change has really kicked in, human expansion had led to the destruction of habitat on land and in the sea, as we crowd out other species. By some estimates we’re already in the midst of the sixth great extinction wave, one that’s largely human caused, with extinction rates that are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the background rate of species loss.¶ So what will happen to those plants and animals if and when the climate really starts warming? According to

a new study in Nature Climate Change, the answer is pretty simple: they will run out of habitable space, and many of them will die.¶ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that 20% to 30% of species would be at increasingly high risk of extinction if global temperatures rise more than 2˚C to 3˚C above preindustrial levels. Given that temperatures have already gone up by nearly 1˚C, and carbon continues to pile up in the atmosphere, that amount of warming is almost a certainty.¶ But Rachel Warren and her colleagues at the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, wanted to know more precisely how that extinction risk intensifies with warming — and whether we might be able to save some species by mitigating climate change. In the Nature Climate Change paper, they found that almost two-thirds of common plants and half of animals could lose more than half their climatic range by 2080 if global warming continues unchecked, with temperatures increasing 4˚C above preindustrial levels by the end of the century. Unsurprisingly, the biggest effects will be felt near the equator, in areas like Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Amazon and Australia, but biodiversity will suffer across the board.¶ In statement, Warren said:¶ Our research predicts that climate change will greatly reduce the diversity of even very common species found in most parts of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would significantly impoverish the biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides.¶ We looked at the effect of rising global temperatures, but other symptoms of climate change such as extreme weather events, pests, and diseases mean that our estimates are probably conservative. Animals in particular may decline more as our predictions will be compounded by a loss of food from plants.¶ The good news is that a much hotter future isn’t a certainty. If global greenhouse-gas emissions peak within the next few years and begin to decline afterward, the UEA researchers suggest that we can preserve many species that would otherwise be lost. Even if the peak is delayed until 2030, fewer species will go extinct. Mitigation will also buy us time to figure out adaptation strategies for some species that are being displaced by climate change.¶ Of course, there’s virtually no chance that global emissions will peak within the next few years — and odds aren’t much better even if we give ourselves another 15 years. Even if we can curb warming, an expanding and (hopefully) richer human population is going to put more and more pressure on what we once quaintly called the natural world. The future is going to be difficult for a lot of nonhumans — and tough for a lot of humans too. But a crowded world is a better bet than a hot and crowded one.

Global Warming causes mass extinction by 2050- New study provesHandwerk 06 [Brian, freelance writer currently working with National Geographic, Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050, Study Says, 4-12-06 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0412_060412_global_warming.html] Mittal

A new study suggests that global warming could threaten one-fourth of the world's plant and vertebrate animal species with extinction by 2050.¶ The report's authors reached their conclusion after estimating potential changes to habitats—and the resulting loss of species—in 25 biodiversity "hot spots" around the world.¶ ¶ The ecologically rich hot spots include South Africa's Cape Floristic Region, the Caribbean Basin, and the tropical regions of the Andes Mountains. These territories compose only a small fraction of the planet's land area but contain large numbers of Earth's flora and fauna.¶ "These [hot spots] are the crown jewels of the planet's biodiversity," lead author Jay Malcolm of the University of Toronto told the Canadian Press.¶ "Unless we get our act together soon, we're looking at committing ourselves to this kind of thing."¶ The report appears in the current issue of the journal Conservation Biology.¶

Many Threats Seen¶ Global warming projections are by nature uncertain, and the report includes many variables that significantly affect species' survival rates both for good and for ill.¶ Changes to the rate and degree of warming, as well as the ability of species to migrate or adapt, altered the estimates of species' extinction risk.¶ Climate change is also only one threat to species diversity. Many plants and animals are already feeling the effects of habitat destruction and invasions by non-native species. It is difficult for scientists to take all such factors into account.¶

Still, the study's worst-case scenarios are sobering.¶ They include a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels (as predicted by many climatologists) and rising temperatures that could potentially eliminate 56,000 plant and 3,700 animal species in the 25 hot spot regions.¶

Warming causes extinction-Agriculture will become unusable and ecosystems will collapseEAN 12 [The, EurActiv Network, EU political news network providing policy information and current events throughout several countries in 15 languages, citing the Royal Society’s findings, EU Climate Broker: World Faces 4 Degrees of Warming, 3-20-12 http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/eu-climate-broker-world-faces-4-degrees-warming-news-511586] Mittal

Existential risk A report by the Royal Society last year found that with planetary warming of four degrees or more, the limits for human and environmental adaptation “are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world”. The London-based Royal Society report estimated that at four degrees of global warming, half the world’s current agricultural land would become unusable, sea levels would rise by up to two metres, and around 40% of the world’s species would become extinct. Meanwhile droughts and wildfires would ravage the globe. “The ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be preserved,” the authors contended. “I would be interested to hear from the US and Japan what they intend to bring to the table in the negotiations this year to at least start bridging that gap [between two and four degrees],” Runge-Metzger said.

Warming Leads to biodiversity extinctionButler, 07 [Rhett, founder of mongabay.com, a leading environmental science website, Global warming may cause biodiversity extinction, 3-21-07, http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0322-extinction.html] Mittal

Extinction is a hotly debated, but poorly understood topic in science. The same goes for climate change. When scientists try to forecast the impact of global change on future biodiversity levels, the results are contentious, to say the least. ¶ While some argue that species have managed to survive worse climate change in the past and that current threats to biodiversity are overstated, many biologists say the impacts of climate change and resulting shifts in rainfall, temperature, sea levels,

ecosystem composition, and food availability will have significant effects on global species richness. ¶ There is little doubt that climate has played a critical role in past fluctuations of biodiversity levels. Among the five recognized mass extinction events -- the Ordovician, the Devonian, the Permian, the Triassic and

the Cretaceous -- at least four are believed to have some correlation to climate change. ¶ Peter Ward, a paleontologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, says there is evidence that most mass extinctions were caused by gradual climate change. Specifically he cites the Triassic and Permian extinctions of 200 million and 251 million years ago, respectively. ¶ ¶ Historic mass

extinctions "The Triassic event isn't something that happened overnight," said Ward, noting that

carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere then were up to 100 times what they are today. ¶ In the case of the Permian, rising temperatures may have caused the greatest mass extinction on record, according to a study published in the September 2005 issue of Geology. Global warming, which may have produced

temperatures 10 to 30 degrees Celsius (18-54 degrees F) higher than today, is believed to have wiped out 95% of life forms in the world's oceans and almost 75% of terrestrial species

Loss of biodiversity causes extinction-Spillover effect Diner, 93 [David, Ph.D., Planetary Science and Geology, The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?, April 1993, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456541.pdf] Mittal

To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save humankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to humans in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it.

75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Global warming collapses the economyRice 12 [Stanley, Professor of Biological Sciences at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, “GLOBAL WARMING,GLOBAL DISRUPTION”, 5-17-12 http://stanleyrice.com/presentations/Global_Warming_May_2012.pdf] Mittal

Our national and world economy is precariously based on the assumption that climatic conditions will remain the same in the future as they have been in the past. Global warming is going to negate that assumption. Even a little bit of climate change can cause disruption to our economy and to the natural world. [Slide 4] Global warming is not the only process that threatens to disrupt our

economy in the future. Population growth is also a threat. For example, the rapid population growth in the American southwest is already putting strain on water supplies. Global climate change may reduce snowpack in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada and encourage the spread of deserts. The intersection of rapid population growth and global-climate-change-induced water shortages may prove disastrous for the American economy. A similar situation is developing in the Himalayas, Andes, and Africa.

Global Warming is killing species in Ross Sea- Key to Antarctic ecosystemMalmquist 2-26 [David, the Director of Communications at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Study projects big thaw for Antarctic sea ice, 2-26-14, http://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/ross_sea_thaw.php ] Mittal

Antarctica’s Ross Sea is one of the few polar regions where summer sea-ice coverage has increased during the last few decades, bucking a global trend of drastic declines in summer sea ice across the Arctic Ocean and in two adjacent embayments of the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.¶ Now, a modeling study led by Professor Walker Smith of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that the Ross Sea’s recent observed increase in summer sea-ice cover is likely short-lived, with the area projected to lose more than half its summer sea ice by 2050 and more than three quarters by 2100.¶ These changes, says Smith, will significantly impact marine life in what is one of the world’s most productive and unspoiled marine ecosystems, where rich blooms of phytoplankton feed krill, fish, and higher predators such as whales, penguins, and seals.¶ Smith, who has been conducting ship-based fieldwork in the Ross Sea

since the 1980s, collaborated on the study with colleagues at Old Dominion University. Their paper, “The effects of changing winds and temperatures on the oceanography of the Ross Sea in the 21st century,” appears in the Feb. 26 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Smith’s co-authors are Mike Dinniman, Eileen Hofmann, and John Klinck.¶ Smith says “The Ross Sea is critically important in regulating the production of Antarctica’s sea ice overall and is biologically very productive, which makes changes in its physical environment of global concern. Our study predicts that it will soon reverse its present trend and experience major drops in ice cover in summer, which, along with decreased mixing of the vertical column, will extend the season of phytoplankton growth. These changes will substantially alter the area’s pristine food web.”¶ Researchers attribute the observed increase in summertime sea ice in the Ross Sea—where the number of days with ice cover has grown by more two months over the past three decades—to a complex interplay of factors, including changes in wind speed, precipitation, salinity, ocean currents, and air and water temperature.¶ But global climate models agree that air temperatures in Antarctica will increase substantially in the coming decades, with corresponding changes in the speed and direction of winds and ocean currents. When Smith and his colleagues fed these global projections into a high-resolution computer model of air-sea-ice dynamics in the Ross Sea, they saw a drastic reduction in the extent and duration of summer sea ice.¶ The modeled summer sea ice concentrations decreased by 56% by 2050 and 78% by 2100. The ice-free season also grew much longer, with the mean day of retreat in 2100 occurring 11 days earlier and the advance occurring 16 days later than now.¶ Also changed was the duration and depth of the “shallow mixed layer,” the zone where most phytoplankton live. “Our model projects that the shallow mixed layer will persist for about a week longer in 2050, and almost three weeks longer in 2100 than now,” says Smith. “The depth of the shallow mixed layer will also decrease significantly, with its bottom 12% shallower in 2050, and 44% shallower in 2100 than now.”¶ For Smith, these changes in ice, atmosphere, and ocean dynamics portend major changes in the Antarctic food web. On the bright side, the decrease in ice cover will bring more light to surface waters, while a more persistent and shallower mixed layer will concentrate phytoplankton and nutrients in this sunlit zone. These changes will combine to encourage phytoplankton growth, particularly for single-celled organisms called diatoms, with ripples of added energy potentially moving up the food web.¶

But, Smith warns, the drop in ice cover will negatively affect several other important species that are ice-dependent, including crystal krill and Antarctic silverfish. A decrease in krill would be particularly troublesome, as these are the major food source for the Ross Sea’s top predators—minke whales, Adélie and Emperor penguins, and crabeater seals.¶ Overall, says Smith, “our results suggest that phytoplankton production will increase and become more diatomaceous. Other components of the Ross Sea food web will likely be severely disrupted, creating significant but unpredictable impacts on the ocean’s most pristine ecosystem.”

Global Warming killing keystone species of Antarctica-key to whole ecosystemClark 12 [Douglas, Worked at The Designory, Attended Iowa State University, The Keystone Species of the Southern Ocean, 9-17-12, http://weeklysciencequiz.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-keystone-species-of-southern-ocean.html ] Mittal

Worldwide there are about 85 species of krill, the largest of which is the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) which averages about five centimeters in length. Antarctic krill live in dense concentrations in the cold Southern Ocean. At any given time there are four or five billion individuals, and when they congregate for spawning they create a pink swarm so large that it

can be seen from space. ¶ Krill are crustaceans like crabs, shrimp and lobsters. But unlike their cousins that are bottom-feeders, krill are pelagic—they make their living in the open ocean. And unlike the plankton they feed on, krill are nektonic—they are able to swim independent of the ocean currents. ¶ Antarctic krill feed on algae and phytoplankton that are suspended in the water column. They are preyed upon by nearly every Antarctic predator that exists. And if a predator doesn't eat krill, it feeds on the ones that do. A penguin's diet consists of nearly 100 percent krill. Blue whales rely on krill for almost all of their dietary requirement. During the summer months, an adult blue whale eats up to 40 million krill in a single day to fulfill its 1.5 million kilocalorie nutritional needs. Antarctic krill is the keystone species in the Southern Ocean, and without it, the ecosystem would collapse.¶ Antarctic krill use intensive searching and rapid feeding techniques to take advantage of high plankton concentrations. Krill form dense schools that move horizontally in the water column when feeding. Krill spend their days avoiding predators in the cold depths of the Southern Ocean. At night, they drift up toward the surface to search for phytoplankton.¶ Recent studies show Antarctic krill stocks have dropped by as much as 80 percent since the 1970s. Scientists attribute this decline in part to ice cover loss caused by global warming. This ice loss removes ice algae from the Southern Ocean which is a primary source of food for krill. NASA satellite data reveals that there has been continuous ice loss from Antarctica since 2002—more than 100 cubic kilometers of ice per year.

Global Warming causes human extinction before 2040- oil drilling and fossil fuels are the underlying causesOwens 13 (Eric Owens, staff writer for the LAtimes “Doomsday professor: WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE BY 2040 (from global warming”10/23/13, http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/23/doomsday-professor-were-all-gonna-die-by-2040-from-global-warming/)King

Well, humans of the world, your species has enjoyed a nice run but it’s all going to be over within 30 years.¶ In a speech last week at the University of Colorado Boulder Guy McPherson, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, said humans are “about as special as bacteria,” reports The College Fix. He forecasted the demise of human civilization and, in fact, most human beings by 2040.¶ The professor was speaking to a crowd of about 80 people. The CU Environmental Center, which is funded by mandatory student fees, co-sponsored the talk. As the Daily Caller News Foundation reported in September, McPherson regularly prophesies doom for all earthlings. (Related: Univ. of Colorado asks, Is human extinction nigh?)¶ The dour guest professor’s speech did not disappoint his gloomy acolytes. McPherson blamed massive, rapid climate change for the impending doom of the planet and the human species. The underlying causes of warming are oil drilling, which produces too much methane, and the burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels.¶ “Warming of the planet will remove habitat,” he predicted, “Without plankton in the ocean, there goes half of the food supply.”¶ Citing a 2012

report on climate change, McPherson counseled: “Global warming is unavoidable unless there is massive geo-engineering.”¶ “There are 12 self-reinforcing feedback loops in 2013 and acceleration is fully underway,” McPherson said, according to The Fix. “In 2040, there will be little to no humans.”¶ The warming prophet also proclaimed that humans must reject materialism and wealth. Instead, he said, people should model their lives after the Greek philosopher Socrates—just like he claims to be doing except, of course, when he rambles around the country giving speeches.¶ The University of Colorado’s website suggests that McPherson takes regular junkets around the country telling people that the use of fossil fuels is rapidly leading to human extinction. He speaks on topics “such as authenticity, Socratic lives of excellence, and the role and responsibility of our species in the world.”¶ It’s unclear how McPherson traveled from somewhere in New Mexico, where he apparently homesteads, to Boulder—or what kind of carbon footprint he left in the process. Boulder is about 500 miles from Albuquerque, the biggest city in New Mexico. McPherson also has an office in Tucson, according to the University of Arizona.

Global Warming Inevitable Advantage

Uniqueness

Warming is past the tipping point – it is only a matter of time until we witness the melting of all of Antarctica which would increase sea levels drastically – scientific consensus – new data can reveal more about the status of antartica Rignot 2014 (Eric a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He is the lead author of last week's landmark scientific paper on West Antartica 17 May 2014 “Global warming: it's a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next?” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa//RC)

Last Monday, we hosted a Nasa conference on the state of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which, it could be said, provoked something of a reaction. "This Is What a Holy Shit Moment for Global Warming Looks Like," ran a headline in Mother Jones magazine.¶ We announced that we had

collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector

of West Antarctica was unstoppable , with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels

will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse

of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.¶ Two centuries – if that is what it takes – may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to

stop this process. Reversing the climate system to what it was in the 1970s seems unlikely; we can barely get a grip on emissions that have tripled since the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to hit reduction targets. Slowing down climate warming remains a good idea, however – the Antarctic system will at least take longer to get to this point.¶ The Amundsen sea sector is almost as big as France. Six glaciers drain it. The two largest ones are Pine Island glacier (30km wide) and Thwaites glacier (100km wide). They stretch over 500km.¶ Many impressive scientists have gone before us in this territory. The concept of West Antarctic instability goes back to the 1970s following surveys by Charles Bentley in the 1960s that revealed an ice sheet resting on a bed grounded well below sea level and deepening inland. Hans Weertman had shown in 1974 that a marine-based ice sheet resting on a retrograde bed was unstable. Robert Thomas extended his work to pursue the instability hypothesis. Terry Hughes suggested that the Pine Island sector of West Antarctica was its weak underbelly and that its retreat would collapse the West Antarctic ice sheet. Considerable uncertainty remained about the timescale, however, due to a lack of observation of this very remote area.¶ Things changed with the launch of the ERS-1 satellite which allowed glaciers in this part of antartica to be observed from space. In 1997, I found that the grounding line (where the glacier detaches from its bed and becomes afloat) of Pine Island glacier had retreated five kilometres in the space of four years, between 1992 and 1996. Stan Jacobs and Adrian Jenkins had found a year earlier that the glacier was bathing in unusually warm waters, which suggested the ocean had a major influence on the glacier. Duncan Wingham and others showed that the glacier was thinning. In 2001, I found that Thwaites glacier was retreating too .¶ At that point, the scientific community took a different look at the region. Work by the British Antarctic Survey, Nasa and Chile led to more detailed observations, a monitoring programme was initiated, instruments were placed on the ice, in

the ocean and scientific results started to pile up from a variety of research programmes. From that point, we all sought to find out whether this was really happening. Now, two decades after this process started, we have witnessed glacier grounding lines retreat by kilometres every year, glaciers thinning by metres every year hundreds of kilometres inland, losing billions of tons of water annually, and speeding up several percent every year to the flanks of topographic divides.¶ Thwaites glacier started to accelerate after 2006 and in 2011 we detected a huge retreat of the glacier grounding lines since 2000. Detailed reconstructions of the glacier bed further confirmed that no mountain or hill in the back of these glaciers could act as a barrier and hold them up; and 40 years of glacier flow evolution showed that the speed-up was a long story.¶ All these results indicate a progressive collapse of this area. At

the current rate, a large fraction of the basin will be gone in 200 years, but recent modelling

studies indicate that the retreat rate will increase in the future. How did this happen? A clue is that all the glaciers reacted at the same time, which suggested a common force that can only be the ocean. Ocean heat is pushed by the westerly winds and the westerlies have changed around Antarctica in response to climate warming and the depletion of the ozone. The stronger winds are caused by a world warming faster than a cooling Antarctica. Stronger westerlies push more subsurface warm waters poleward to melt the glaciers, and push surface waters northward.¶ Nerilie Abram and others have just confirmed that the westerlies are stronger now than at any other time in the past 1,000 years and their strengthening has been particularly prominent since the 1970s as a result of human-induced climate warming. Model predictions also show that the trend will continue in a warming climate.¶ What this means is that we may be ultimately responsible for triggering the fast retreat of West Antarctica. This part of the continent was likely to retreat anyway, but we probably pushed it there faster. It remains difficult to put a timescale on it, because the computer models are not good enough yet, but it could be within a couple of centuries, as I noted. There is also a bigger picture than West Antarctica. The Amundsen sea sector is not the only vulnerable part of the continent. East Antarctica includes marine-based sectors that hold more ice. One of them, Totten glacier, holds the equivalent of seven metres of global sea level.¶

Sea levels are rising at more rapid speeds than ever Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Earth’s geologic history provides some insight on Antarctica’s relationship with¶ global sea levels. During the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly 20,000 years ago,¶ atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were 180 parts per million by volume (ppmv),¶ one-third lower than pre-industrial values (Sigman and Boyle, 2000), Earth was colder on¶ average by about 5 C, and larger ice sheets caused global sea level to be more than 130¶ m lower than today (Fairbanks, 1989). Through a combination of rising atmospheric¶ carbon dioxide levels, changes in Earth’s orientation and orbit around the sun, and¶ instabilities inherent to large ice sheets, a massive deglaciation occurred that caused sea¶ level to rise at an average rate of 10 mm per year for more than 10,000 years (Figure 2.1).¶ Coral records indicate that the sea level increased at a rate in excess of 40 mm (about 1.6¶ in) per year during one interval around 15,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). Antarctica¶ and its ice sheets contributed about 20 m to the overall 130 m rise in sea level and it¶ appears to have been at least partially responsible for the rapid rise noted

15,000 years¶ ago (Clark et al., 2002).¶ Following the transition from the last glacial period, sea level was relatively¶ stable for a period of approximately 7,000 years (Figure 2.1). However, increasing¶ atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and warming since the advent of the Industrial¶ Revolution raise concerns of significant sea level rise in the future. Presently, sea level is¶ rising at approximately 3.5 mm per year as a combined result of thermal expansion of the¶ oceans and melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets (note that sea ice disappearance does¶

not contribute to sea level rise as it is already part of the ocean volume) (Beckley et al.,¶ 2007; National Research Council, 2010b). Sea level rise has been measured by a¶ combination of tidal gauges and satellites, including altimetric data from the Jason¶ satellites1. Since 2001, ice mass loss has also been measured from gravity field¶ measurements from the GRACE2 (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) satellites (Ward, 2004). Starting from being nearly in balance during the early 1990s, Antarctica¶ has been losing ice at an increasing rate and now contributes more than 0.5 mm to sea¶ level rise each year (Rignot et al., 2011).

Humans do not have the capacity to deal with warming-adaption is needed nowLilico 2-17 [Andrew, the managing director of Europe Economics, an economics consultancy, We have failed to prevent global warming, so we must adapt to it, 2-17-14, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10644867/We-have-failed-to-prevent-global-warming-so-we-must-adapt-to-it.html] Mittal

There are many interesting questions one can raise about how climate scientists and economists model both climate change and the human contribution to it. But I’m not going to discuss any of those here. I’m going to take as a given that global warming does exist and has many accepted, worrying effects – and try to argue that we should not be attempting to prevent it, but instead be looking to adapt to it.¶ It is interesting to enquire initially just whose job is it to tell us how to respond if we believe climate change is happening and materially human-induced. When various clever non-scientists raise concerns about climate change models they are waved away by specialists in the area, told that these are proper scientific questions for proper scientists. Yet all too often scientists fail to apply the same rules to themselves. The issue over whether there is global warming and what the human contribution to it might be is – at least to a material extent – a scientific question. But whether we should do anything about it and, if so, which of the available technical options is best to adopt, is emphatically not a question for scientists. Instead, it is a question for economists, which then puts you very much in my world.¶ For any ongoing event, there are at least five kinds of potential policy responses: ignore, accelerate, prevent, reverse or adapt. Assuming we do not wish to accelerate or ignore global warming, the three relevant options are reversal, prevention (called “mitigation” in the climate change

jargon) or adaptation.¶ For 25 years the main approach politicians have discussed has been prevention. Margaret Thatcher led the way, with her November 1989 speech to the UN General Assembly. Later we had Kyoto and Al Gore and the Stern Review and David Cameron with the huskies, and now Philip Hammond and Ed Miliband arguing about who sees climate change as the greater “national security threat”.

Warming is irreversible, but adaptions can be madeMcGrath 3-31 [Matt, Environment correspondent, BBC News, Climate impacts 'overwhelming' – UN, 3-31-14, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559] Mittal

The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.¶ Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world .¶

Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability.¶ Humans

may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.¶ An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.¶ Natural systems are currently bearing the brunt of climatic changes, but a growing impact on humans is feared.¶ Members of the UN's climate panel say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of these effects.¶ Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the summary says.¶ The report was agreed after almost a week of intense discussions here in Yokohama, which included concerns among some authors about the tone of the evolving document.¶ This is the second of a series from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due out this year that outlines the causes, effects and solutions to global warming.¶ This latest Summary for Policymakers document highlights the fact that the amount of scientific evidence on the impacts of warming has almost doubled since the last report in 2007.¶ Be it the melting of glaciers or warming of permafrost, the summary highlights the fact that on all continents and across the oceans, changes in the climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems in recent decades.¶ In the words of the report, "increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts".¶

"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,'' IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at a news conference in Yokohama.¶ Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."¶ Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance".¶ "Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said.¶ Mr Jarraud said the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. He said this document was "the most solid evidence you can get in any scientific discipline".¶

US Secretary of State John Kerry commented: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice."

Climate change is irreversible-New study provesHarris 09 [Richard, Award-winning journalist, has reported on a wide range of topics in science, medicine and the environment since he joined NPR in 1986, Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says, 1-26-09, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903] Mittal

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.¶ As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists.¶ "We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."¶ That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming.¶ "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says.¶ This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat — and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for many hundreds of years.¶ Solomon is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her new study looked at the consequences of this long-term effect in terms of sea level rise and drought.¶ If we continue with business as usual for even a few more decades, she says, those emissions could be enough to create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.¶ "The sea level rise is a much slower thing, so it will take a long time to happen, but we will lock into it, based on the peak level of [carbon dioxide] we reach in this century," Solomon says.¶ The idea that changes will be irreversible has consequences for how we should deal with climate change. The global thermostat can't be turned down quickly once it's been turned up, so scientists say we need to proceed with more caution right now.¶ "These are all ... changes that are starting to happen in at least a minor way already," says Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. "So the question becomes, where do we stop it, when does all of this become dangerous?"¶ The answer, he says, is sooner rather than later. Scientists have been trying to advise politicians about finding an acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new study suggests that it's even more important to aim low. If we overshoot, the damage can't be easily undone. Oppenheimer feels more urgency than ever to deal with climate change, but he says that in the end, setting acceptable limits for carbon dioxide is a judgment call.¶ "That's really a political decision because

there's more at issue than just the science. It's the issue of what the science says, plus what's feasible politically, plus what's reasonable economically to do," Oppenheimer says.¶ But despite this grim prognosis, Solomon says this is not time to declare the problem hopeless and give up.¶ "I guess if it's irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it," she says. "Because committing to something that you can't back out of seems to me like a step that you'd want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse."

Climate Change is Irreversible-Preparedness is keyInsurance Journal 3-31 [delivers the latest business news for the Property & Casualty insurance industry, IPCC Concludes Climate Change is Irreversible, Effective Responses Needed, 3-31-14, http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2014/03/31/324799.htm] Mittal

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued its latest report, which states bluntly that “the effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate.”¶ On a more positive note the report also concludes that “there are opportunities to respond to such risks, though the risks will be difficult to manage with high levels of warming.”¶ The report, titled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group II of the IPCC, details the impacts of climate change to date, the future risks from a changing climate, and the opportunities for effective action to reduce risks.¶ The IPCC’s press bulletin noted: “A total of 309 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors, drawn from 70 countries, were selected to produce the report. They enlisted the help of 436 contributing authors, and a total of 1,729 expert and government reviewers.”¶ The report concludes that responding to climate change “involves making choices about risks in a changing world. The nature of the risks of climate change is increasingly clear, though climate change will also continue to produce surprises.”¶ The report spells out the populations most vulnerable people to the effects of climate change, as well as the “industries and ecosystems” around the world that will be affected.¶ The report also concludes that the “risk from a changing climate comes from vulnerability (lack of preparedness) and exposure (people or assets in harm’s way) overlapping with hazards (triggering climate events or trends). Each of these three components can be a target for smart actions to decrease risk.”¶ Vicente Barros, Co-Chair of Working Group II, said: “We live in an era of man-made climate change. In many cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face. Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future.”¶ Adaptation to reduce the risks from a changing climate is now starting to occur, “but with a stronger focus on reacting to past events than on preparing for a changing future,” according to Chris Field, Co-Chair of Working Group II.¶ “Climate-change adaptation is not an exotic agenda that has never been tried. Governments, firms, and communities around the world are building experience with adaptation,” Field added. “This experience forms a starting point for bolder, more ambitious adaptations that will be important as climate and society continue to change.”¶ How serious the risks produced by changes in the world’s climate patterns, foreseen in the near future, may turn out to be “depend strongly on the amount of future climate change. Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe and pervasive impacts that may be surprising or irreversible,” the report concludes.¶ Field said: “With high levels of warming that result from continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions, risks will be challenging to manage, and even serious, sustained investments in adaptation will face limits.¶ The study of the changing climate has progressed significantly since the establishment of the IPCC by the World Meteorological Organization in 1988. The IPCC’s mandate is to “provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

Internal Links

Antarctica is rapidly changing because climate change – we have to have continued research and data to understand how to respond to climate changeCommittee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Antarctica is an international laboratory for studies of global change and¶ ecosystem responses to environmental variability. In the coming decades Antarctica will¶ continue to undergo significant changes due to human activities. Climate change has¶ already altered the ecosystems of the Peninsula and its impacts may well reach across the¶ continent in the coming century. Increased tourism, overfishing, and other human¶ activities will impose new burdens on the management of Antarctica. Moving forward in¶ the coming two decades, it will be increasingly necessary to come to terms with these¶ possible realities. Yet because of the unity of purpose imposed by the Antarctic Treaty,¶ Antarctica provides the world with the only example of an entire continent reserved¶ primarily for scientific research. A continental-scale, interdisciplinary, observationprediction-¶ management system will be needed to provide timely data to support decisionmaking,¶ adaptive management, and governance of the continent as the press of human¶ intervention on its climate, natural resources, ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycles¶ becomes ever more intense.¶ The Committee’s vision for science in Antarctica in the next two decades is an¶ integrated observing, information, and modeling effort enhanced by powerful new¶ genomic tools, geochemical tracers, and increased modeling efforts to build a predictive¶ understanding of ecosystem response to rapid climate change.

A warning system to help predict the effects of climate change is crucial to surviving Associated Press ’14 [Collaboration of scientists, Aljazeera America, Report: Early warning system needed for abrupt climate changes, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/3/climate-change-reportnew.html] Schloss

Hard-to-predict sudden changes to Earth's environment are more worrisome than climate change's bigger but more gradual impacts, a panel of scientists advising the U.S. government concluded Tuesday.¶

The 200-page report by the National Academy of Sciences looked at warming problems that can occur in years instead of centuries. ¶

The report repeatedly warns of potential "tipping points" where the climate passes thresholds, beyond which "major and rapid changes occur." And some of these quick changes are happening now, said study chairman James White of the University of Colorado.¶ The study says abrupt changes like melting ice in the Arctic Ocean and mass species extinctions have already started and are worse than predicted. ¶ The panel of scientists called on the government to create an early warning system. ¶ "The time is here to be serious about the threat of tipping points so as to better anticipate and prepare ourselves for the inevitable surprises," said the report by the Academy,

a research arm of the federal government that enlists independent scientists to look at major issues. ¶ It says thousands of species are changing their ranges, seasonal patterns or, in some cases, are going extinct because of human-caused climate change. Species in danger include some coral, pika, a rabbit-like creature, polar

bears and the Hawaiian silversword plant.¶ At the bottom of the world in Antarctica, the melting ice in the

west could be more of a wild card than originally thought. If the massive ice sheet melts, it may happen relatively rapidly and could raise world sea levels by 13 feet. But researchers aren't certain how soon that may occur.¶ However, the report had what researchers called "good news." It said two other abrupt climate threats that worried researchers likely won't be so sudden, giving people more time to prepare and adapt. Those two less-imminent threats are giant burps of undersea and frozen methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and the slowing of deep ocean currents. That slowdown is a scenario that would oddly lead to dramatic coastal cooling.¶ Study co-author Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University compared the threat of abrupt

climate change effects to the random danger of drunk drivers.¶ "You can't see it coming, so you can't prepare for it. The faster it is, the less you see it coming, the more it costs," Alley told The Associated Press. "If you see

the drunk driver coming, you can get out of the way."¶ The scientists said the issue of sudden changes is full of uncertainties, so the world can better prepare by monitoring places like the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets more. ¶ But because of budget cuts and aging satellites, researchers have fewer measurements of these crucial indicators than they did a few years ago, and they will have even fewer in upcoming years, said study co-author Steven Wofsy of Harvard University.¶ Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois climate scientist who wasn't part of the academy study, called it important, especially the call for better warning systems. However, outside scientist Michael Mann of Penn State said he doesn't see the need for a new warning system.¶ "The

warning is already there, loud and clear," Mann said in an email. "The changes we are seeing in the Arctic are unprecedented in thousands of years, and they are already having a catastrophic impact on human civilizations, animals, and ecosystems there."

The Arctic is the ideal place to create and establish an early warning system NSF 2002 [ National Science Foundation, Ozone Hole over Antarctica, Science on the edge Arctic and Antarctic Discoveries, https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozonehole.htm July 1, 2002] Schloss

Life at the margins may be extreme, but it is also fragile. The British Antarctic Survey's first documentation of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 and subsequent NSF-funded study of the phenomenon alerted the world to the danger of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. That research team, led by 1999 National Medal of Science winner, Susan Solomon, conducted observations that have significantly advanced our understanding of the global ozone layer and changed the direction of ozone

research.¶ Stratospheric ozone protects against ultraviolet radiation. The breakdown of this ozone layer by CFC molecules can have harmful effects on a range of life forms, from bacteria to humans. The long, cold, dark Antarctic winters allow the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, the particles of which form an ideal surface for ozone destruction. The returning sunlight provides energy to start the complex chemical reaction that results in ozone destruction . The ozone hole above Antarctica typically lasts about four months, from mid-August to late November.¶ During this period, increased intensity of ultraviolet radiation has been correlated with extensive DNA damage in the eggs and larvae of Antarctic fish. Embryos of limpets, starfish, and other invertebrates do not grow properly. Other species have developed defenses. The Antarctic pearl wort, a mosslike plant on rocky islands, developed a pigment called flavenoid that makes it more tolerant of ultraviolet radiation.¶ In the northern polar regions, ozone levels in the early 1990s measured ten percent lower than those estimated in the late 1970s. The Arctic does experience ozone depletion, but to a lesser degree than the Antarctic. Unlike the Antarctic, large-scale weather systems disturb the wind flow in the Arctic and prevent the temperature in the stratosphere from being as cold. Therefore fewer stratospheric clouds are formed to provide surfaces for the production of ozone-depleting compounds. Some clouds do form, however, and allow the chemical reactions that deplete ozone. Ozone depletion has a direct effect on human inhabitants, but research has only just begun on the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and societies and settlements in the Arctic.¶ The good news is that countries around the world have agreed to

ban the manufacture of CFCs through the Montreal Protocol. The contributions of Antarctic researchers led to swift policy action and because of that the ozone layer should recover in the future. In the meantime, however, NSF-funded research continues to monitor the level of the CFCs still lingering in the atmosphere. The Polar Regions will continue to play an important role as early warning systems for the rest of the globe

Adaptation to Climate Change is possible--- we need an early warning system to help EPA 13 [ Environmental Protection Agency, 9/13, Adaptation Overview, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/adapt-overview.html] Schloss

“Adaptation” refers to efforts by society or ecosystems to prepare for or adjust to future climate change. These adjustments can be protective (i.e., guarding against negative impacts of climate change), or opportunistic (i.e., taking advantage of any beneficial effects of climate change).¶ Adaptation to changes in climate is nothing new. Throughout history, human societies have repeatedly demonstrated a strong capacity for adapting to different climates and environmental changes--whether by migration to new areas, changing the crops we cultivate, or building different types of shelter. [1] However, the current rate of global climate change is unusually high compared to past changes that society has experienced. In an increasingly interdependent world, negative effects of climate change on one population or economic sector can have repercussions around the world. [2]¶ Ecosystems will also be faced with adaptation challenges. Some species will be able to migrate or change their behavior to accommodate changes in climate. Other species may go extinct.

Society's ability to anticipate some of the impacts of climate change on ecosystems can help us develop management programs that help ecosystems adapt.¶ Even if current climate changes seem readily absorbed today, governments and communities are beginning adaptation planning. Many greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for 100 years or more after they are emitted. Because of the long-lasting effects of greenhouse gases, those already

emitted into the atmosphere will continue to warm Earth in the 21st century, even if we were to stop emitting additional greenhouse gases today. Earth is committed to some amount of future climate change, no matter what. Therefore, steps can be taken now to prepare for, and respond to, the impacts of climate change that are already occurring, and those that are projected to occur in the decades ahead. [2]¶ There are limits to the ability to adapt, so actions to mitigate climate change must continue. For example, the relocation of communities or infrastructure may not be feasible in many locations, especially in the short term. Over the long term, adaptation alone may not be sufficient to cope with all the projected impacts of climate change. [3]

Adaptation will need to be continuously coupled with actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Adapting to climate change takes social discipline--- it is needed to survive Tomkins and adjer 03 [ Emma and Neil, Doctors at the university of South Hampton, Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, November 2003, http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp39.pdf] Schoss

Developing climate policy is riddled with difficulty as its remit is to influence all sectors : ¶

transport, construction, agriculture, shipping, utilities, tourism, and so on. Each sector, while ¶ pursuing its own internal objectives, can be encouraged through regulation or social pressure ¶ to mitigate the impacts of climate change as well as adapt. As Keeney and

McDaniels (2001) ¶ point out, ‘the first step is for governments to understand what they want to achieve with ¶ climate change policy choices ’, (p.989). Locking into their values and their preferred states of 14¶

the world at a given time is critical to developing consistent horizontally integrated climate ¶ policy. ¶ The interdependence between mitigation and adaptation is clear in the context of sustainable ¶ development, both are driven by the availability and penetration of new technology and the ¶ ability of society to change. But it should also be recognised that the existing constituencies ¶ (particularly in government) of adaptation and mitigation are only marginally overlapping. ¶ Energy planning and the carbon intensity of economic growth, for example, are usually high ¶ in the priorities of industry sectors, government and by consumers who are interested in ¶ security of energy. Adaptation within government will primarily be dealt with by spatial ¶ planners, different (non-energy) sectors of the economy. It will also involve different ¶ consumption and production decisions by households from those about energy use. ¶ The divergence between

the parties responsible for adaptation and mitigation poses a problem ¶ for policy integration. Yet the pre-conditions for

enhancing adaptive capacity are similar to ¶ those that can lead to enhanced mitigation. Adaptive capacity and mitigative capacity jointly ¶ describe the ability to make use of the spectrum of options that is available in responding to ¶ climate change. The capacities are at present only hypothesised, though we have pointed to ¶ some key issues in this paper. They are driven by technology and societal factors in the form ¶ of individual or group behaviour, economic markets and institutions. Both sets of factors can ¶ expand or constrain the set of response options that exist, and both have implications for ¶ sustainable development. Experience in social justice and in economic development suggests ¶ that the capability to be adaptive, to be able to learn and to grow through that learning ¶ process, are beneficial for more than instrumental reasons. Social learning is a complex

issue ¶ that itself is an evolving subject. A joint response capacity can be elaborated in terms of ¶ resource needs; the distribution of risk; and the institutions required for the social learning ¶ processes that enable ability to adjust to climate change.

There are many uncertainties about the effects of climate change--- We need new tech and cyber infrastructure to help us adaptFAO 07 [ Food and agriculture administration of the United Nations, 2007, Building adaptive capacity to climate change, http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1115e/a1115e00.pdf] Schloss

Although there is increasing awareness of the potential risks of climate change to the fisheries

sector and to the¶ livelihoods of the poor in fishing-dependent areas, and there are documented examples of change, many uncertainties ¶ remain regarding the nature and scale of future impacts. ¶ More detailed predictions of climate change effects on specific fisheries systems will be needed to determine net¶ changes for fisheries in countries identified as

vulnerable. This requires increased spatial resolution of both ocean and ¶ land temperature forecasts . Regional rainfall forecasts would help planning and management in river basins.¶ Understanding the potential impact of climate change on poverty will require a better understanding of the contribution¶ of fisheries to poverty reduction, and better data on the number of people reliant on small-scale fisheries.¶ Not all climate change impacts will necessarily be negative. Redistribution of fish stocks may mean that one country’s¶ loss is another’s gain. The world’s fishing fleet is mobile, markets for many fishery products are global and management¶ systems such as access agreements and internationally traded quotas increasingly facilitate adaptation. In this dynamic¶ context, countries and firms with

greater resources and adaptive capacity will gain most from positive changes. Poorer ¶ countries and people might still be vulnerable – to missing out on benefits of positive change.

A warning system to help predict the effects of climate change is crucial to surviving Associated Press ’14 [Collaboration of scientists, Aljazeera America, Report: Early warning system needed for abrupt climate changes, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/3/climate-change-reportnew.html] Schloss

Hard-to-predict sudden changes to Earth's environment are more worrisome than climate change's bigger but more gradual impacts, a panel of scientists advising the U.S. government concluded Tuesday.The 200-page report by the National Academy of Sciences looked at warming problems that can occur in years instead of

centuries. The report repeatedly warns of potential "tipping points" where the climate passes thresholds, beyond which "major and rapid changes occur." And some of these quick changes are happening now, said study chairman James White of the University of Colorado. The study says abrupt changes like melting ice in the Arctic Ocean and mass species extinctions have already started and are worse than predicted. The panel of scientists called on the government to create an early warning system. "The time is here to be serious about the threat of tipping points so as to better anticipate and prepare ourselves for the inevitable surprises," said the report by the Academy,

a research arm of the federal government that enlists independent scientists to look at major issues. It says thousands of species are changing their ranges, seasonal patterns or, in some cases, are going extinct

because of human-caused climate change. Species in danger include some coral, pika, a rabbit-like creature, polar

bears and the Hawaiian silversword plant. At the bottom of the world in Antarctica, the melting ice in the west could be more of a wild card than originally thought. If the massive ice sheet melts, it may happen relatively rapidly and could raise world sea levels by 13 feet. But researchers aren't certain how soon that may occur. However, the report had what researchers called "good news." It said two other abrupt climate threats that worried researchers likely won't be so sudden, giving people more time to prepare and adapt. Those two less-imminent threats are giant burps of undersea and frozen methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and the slowing of deep ocean currents. That slowdown is a scenario that would oddly lead to dramatic coastal cooling. Study co-author Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University compared the threat of abrupt

climate change effects to the random danger of drunk drivers. "You can't see it coming, so you can't prepare for it. The faster it is, the less you see it coming, the more it costs," Alley told The Associated Press. "If you see

the drunk driver coming, you can get out of the way." The scientists said the issue of sudden changes is full of uncertainties, so the world can better prepare by monitoring places like the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets more. But because of budget cuts and aging satellites, researchers have fewer measurements of these crucial indicators than they did a few years ago, and they will have even fewer in upcoming years, said study co-author Steven Wofsy of Harvard University. Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois climate scientist who wasn't part of the academy study, called it important, especially the call for better warning systems. However, outside scientist Michael Mann of Penn State said he doesn't see the need for a new warning system. "The

warning is already there, loud and clear," Mann said in an email. "The changes we are seeing in the Arctic are unprecedented in thousands of years, and they are already having a catastrophic impact on human civilizations, animals, and ecosystems there."

The Arctic is the ideal place to create and establish an early warning system NSF No date [ National Science Foundation, Ozone Hole over Antarctica, Science on the edge Arctic and Antarctic Discoveries, https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozonehole.htm] Schloss

Life at the margins may be extreme, but it is also fragile. The British Antarctic Survey's first documentation of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 and subsequent NSF-funded study of the phenomenon alerted the world to the danger of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. That research team, led by 1999 National Medal of Science winner, Susan Solomon, conducted observations that have significantly advanced our understanding of the global ozone layer and changed the direction of ozone

research. Stratospheric ozone protects against ultraviolet radiation. The breakdown of this ozone layer by CFC molecules can have harmful effects on a range of life forms, from bacteria to humans. The long, cold, dark Antarctic winters allow the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, the particles of which form an ideal surface for ozone destruction. The returning sunlight provides energy to start the complex chemical reaction that results in ozone destruction . The ozone hole above Antarctica typically lasts about four months, from mid-August to late November. During this period, increased intensity of ultraviolet radiation has been correlated with extensive DNA damage in the eggs and larvae of Antarctic fish. Embryos of limpets, starfish, and other invertebrates do not grow properly. Other species have developed defenses. The Antarctic pearl wort, a mosslike plant on rocky islands, developed a pigment called flavenoid that makes it more tolerant of ultraviolet radiation. In the northern polar regions, ozone levels in the early 1990s measured ten percent lower than those estimated in the late 1970s. The Arctic does experience ozone depletion, but to a lesser degree than the Antarctic. Unlike the Antarctic, large-scale weather systems disturb the wind flow in the Arctic and prevent the temperature in the stratosphere from being as cold. Therefore fewer stratospheric clouds are formed to provide surfaces for the production of ozone-depleting compounds. Some clouds do form, however, and allow the chemical reactions that deplete ozone. Ozone depletion has a direct effect on human inhabitants, but research has only just begun on the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and societies and settlements in the Arctic. The good news is that countries around the world have agreed to ban the manufacture

of CFCs through the Montreal Protocol. The contributions of Antarctic researchers led to swift policy action and because of that the ozone layer should recover in the future. In the meantime, however, NSF-funded research continues to monitor the level of the CFCs still lingering in the

atmosphere. The Polar Regions will continue to play an important role as early warning systems for the rest of the globe

Adaptation to Climate Change is possible--- we need an early warning system to help EPA 13 [ Environmental Protection Agency, 9/13, Adaptation Overview, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/adapt-overview.html] Schloss

“Adaptation” refers to efforts by society or ecosystems to prepare for or adjust to future climate change. These adjustments can be protective (i.e., guarding against negative impacts of climate change), or opportunistic (i.e., taking advantage of any beneficial effects of climate change). Adaptation to changes in climate is nothing new. Throughout history, human societies have repeatedly demonstrated a strong capacity for adapting to different climates and environmental changes--whether by migration to new areas, changing the crops we cultivate, or building different types of shelter. [1] However, the current rate of global climate change is unusually high compared to past changes that society has experienced. In an increasingly interdependent world, negative effects of climate change on one population or economic sector can have repercussions around the world. [2] Ecosystems will also be faced with adaptation challenges. Some species will be able to migrate or change their behavior to accommodate changes in climate. Other species may go extinct.

Society's ability to anticipate some of the impacts of climate change on ecosystems can help us develop management programs that help ecosystems adapt. Even if current climate changes seem readily absorbed today, governments and communities are beginning adaptation planning. Many greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for 100 years or more after they are emitted. Because of the long-lasting effects of greenhouse gases, those already

emitted into the atmosphere will continue to warm Earth in the 21st century, even if we were to stop emitting additional greenhouse gases today. Earth is committed to some amount of future climate change, no matter what. Therefore, steps can be taken now to prepare for, and respond to, the impacts of climate change that are already occurring, and those that are projected to occur in the decades ahead. [2] There are limits to the ability to adapt, so actions to mitigate climate change must continue. For example, the relocation of communities or infrastructure may not be feasible in many locations, especially in the short term. Over the long term, adaptation alone may not be sufficient to cope with all the projected impacts of climate change. [3]

Adaptation will need to be continuously coupled with actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Adapting to climate change takes social discipline--- it is needed to survive Tomkins and adjer 03 [ Emma and Neil, Doctors at the university of South Hampton, Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, November 2003, http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp39.pdf] Schoss

Developing climate policy is riddled with difficulty as its remit is to influence all sectors : transport, construction, agriculture, shipping, utilities, tourism, and so on. Each sector, while pursuing its own internal objectives, can be encouraged through regulation or social pressure to mitigate the impacts of climate change as well as adapt. As Keeney and

McDaniels (2001) point out, ‘the first step is for governments to understand what they want to achieve with climate change policy choices’, (p.989). Locking into their values and their preferred states of 14 the

world at a given time is critical to developing consistent horizontally integrated climate policy. The interdependence between mitigation and adaptation is clear in the context of sustainable development, both are driven by the availability and penetration of new technology and the ability of society to change. But it should also be recognised that the existing constituencies (particularly in government) of adaptation and mitigation are only marginally overlapping. Energy planning and the carbon intensity of economic growth, for example, are usually high in the priorities of industry sectors, government and by consumers who are interested in security of energy. Adaptation within government

will primarily be dealt with by spatial planners, different (non-energy) sectors of the economy. It will also involve different consumption and production decisions by households from those about energy use. The divergence between the parties responsible

for adaptation and mitigation poses a problem for policy integration. Yet the pre-conditions for enhancing adaptive capacity are similar to those that can lead to enhanced mitigation. Adaptive capacity and mitigative capacity jointly describe the ability to make use of the spectrum of options that is available in responding to climate change. The capacities are at present only hypothesised, though we have pointed to some key issues in this paper. They are driven by technology and societal factors in the form of individual or group behaviour, economic markets and institutions. Both sets of factors can expand or constrain the set of response options that exist, and both have implications for sustainable development. Experience in social justice and in economic development suggests that the capability to be adaptive, to be able to learn and to grow through that learning process, are beneficial for more than instrumental reasons. Social learning is a complex issue that itself is an evolving

subject. A joint response capacity can be elaborated in terms of resource needs; the distribution of risk; and the institutions required for the social learning processes that enable ability to adjust to climate change.

There are many uncertainties about the effects of climate change--- We need new tech and cyber infrastructure to help us adaptFAO 07 [ Food and agriculture administration of the United Nations, 2007, Building adaptive capacity to climate change, http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1115e/a1115e00.pdf] Schloss

Although there is increasing awareness of the potential risks of climate change to the fisheries

sector and to the livelihoods of the poor in fishing-dependent areas, and there are documented examples of change, many uncertainties remain regarding the nature and scale of future impacts. More detailed predictions of climate change effects on specific fisheries systems will be needed to determine net changes for fisheries in countries identified as

vulnerable. This requires increased spatial resolution of both ocean and land temperature forecasts . Regional rainfall forecasts would help planning and management in river basins. Understanding the potential impact of climate change on poverty will require a better understanding of the contribution of fisheries to poverty reduction, and better data on the number of people reliant on small-scale fisheries. Not all climate change impacts will necessarily be negative. Redistribution of fish stocks may mean that one country’s loss is another’s gain. The world’s fishing fleet is mobile, markets for many fishery products are global and management systems such as access agreements and internationally traded quotas increasingly facilitate adaptation. In this dynamic context, countries and firms with

greater resources and adaptive capacity will gain most from positive changes. Poorer countries and people might still be vulnerable – to missing out on benefits of positive change.

Antarctica is key hotspot for global warming researchPBS 14 [Public broadcasting service, Under Antarctic Ice, Antarctic Research, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/under-antarctic-ice/antarctic-research/5108/] Mittal

Antarctica has long been a magnet for scientists due to its size, location, weather, and isolation from the rest of world. It is among the most pristine places on earth, making it a perfect spot to study how pollutants travel through the atmosphere. Sadly, polar researchers have found that even deadly toxins, such as mercury, can travel vast distances and end up in Antarctic snow, plants, and animals. And in the 1980s, they realized that chlorine compounds routinely used in aerosol sprays, air conditioners and other products were carried to Antarctic skies, where they ate a hole in the protective ozone layer, letting in dangerous ultraviolet light. Such studies led directly to an international agreement to reduce the use of ozone-eating compounds.¶ Today, Antarctica is a key outpost for global warming studies. Cores taken from its thick ice sheet hold tiny air bubbles that have allowed scientists to track the historical buildup of the global warming gas carbon dioxide, formed by burning fossil fuels. In essence,

the cores are time capsules that reach back thousands of years, to a time when there was less carbon dioxide in our skies. And the continent’s massive sea ice sheets may act as an early warning system for warming’s arrival: Some scientists say the recent collapse of several major sheets signals the beginning of a potentially dangerous warming period. Water locked in polar ice, for instance, could be released, helping raise sea levels and flood coastal cities.¶

Impacts

Lack of capacity to deal with warming results in devastating impacts – threatens displacing populations and naval readiness Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Globally, rising sea level is expected to threaten the homes and livelihoods of¶ hundreds of millions of people by the second half of this century (see Box 2.2). In an¶ assessment of exposure to coastal flooding by 2070, Miami and New York City ranked¶ 6th and 17th, respectively, in threatened impacts to the world’s major cities (Nicholls,¶ 2007). In particular, rising sea level threatens to cause more frequent flooding by¶ increasing the height of storm surges and the peak level of tidal cycles. Overtopping¶ coastal levees on even a single occasion can have dire consequences, as evidenced by the¶ results of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. Higher sea level also threatens¶ wetland habitats, as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program reported (Titus, 2009),¶ namely that most of the mid-Atlantic coastal wetlands would be lost in the next century if¶ local sea level rises by as much as one meter. The U.S. Navy has taken steps to examine the potential impacts of climate change, including those from sea level rise, on future¶ naval operations and capabilities (National Research Council, 2011e).¶ Global average sea level is, of course, less relevant than how much sea level will¶ rise in specific locations—primarily where the sea meets where people live and work—¶ and here lies a poignant wrinkle. Loss of ice weakens the local gravitational attraction¶ that the ice sheet exerts on the ocean, leading to a reduction in sea level at the margin of¶ the ice sheet. Further afield from where the ice loss occurs, sea level rises by more than¶ its global average, with the specific locations of maximal rise depending upon the¶ rotation of Earth and the geometry of the ocean basins. Local variations in sea level also¶ depend upon changes in ocean circulation and storm activity. As it happens, loss of ice¶ from West Antarctica would cause about a 15 percent greater sea level rise along the¶ Eastern and Western United States than the global average, with the largest increase¶ centered approximately at Washington, D.C., highlighting how the United States is¶ uniquely exposed to the fate of West Antarctica and the Antarctic ice sheet (Mitrovica,¶ 2009) (Figure 2.2).

And Naval power is key to deter conflicts and to maintain global stability A Cooperative Strategy¶ for 21st Century Seapower 2007¶ (October U.S. Navy http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf//RC)

Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western¶ Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital¶ interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment¶ to regional security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and¶ peer competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly¶ repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces¶ will be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives:¶ Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime¶ power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area¶ of conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders,¶ pandemics, and the interruption of vital

resources are all possible when¶ regional crises erupt. While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of¶ networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we cannot¶ act to mitigate all regional conflict.¶ Where conflict threatens the global system and our national

interests,¶ maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of¶ national

and multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of¶ options for deterrence,

escalation and de-escalation. Maritime forces¶ that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the Nation’s¶ primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they¶

provide the means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises.¶ Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime¶ forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure friends and¶ allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while working¶ to sustain the global order.¶ Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleet—ships,¶ aircraft, Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activities—capable of¶ selectively controlling the seas, projecting power ashore, and protecting¶ friendly forces and civilian populations from attack. Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous¶ to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and¶ extension of this

Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key¶ component of deterring major power

war. While war with another great¶ power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous¶ effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national¶ power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality,¶ global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access,¶ and operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range¶ of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that¶ includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors¶ conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.¶ Win our Nation’s wars. In times of war, our ability to impose local sea¶ control, overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project and¶ sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an indispensable¶ element of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage¶ must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force¶ commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a robust sealift¶ capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power¶ projection enable extended campaigns ashore.

Sea level rises devastate the U.S. economy – kills infrastructure for business Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

High rates of economic and demographic growth during the past century have¶ multiplied populations and the infrastructure placed along coastlines worldwide. This¶ leads to not only local communities and commercial centers being placed at great risk¶ from rising sea levels, but to nations being faced with extremely high economic, societal,¶ and security challenges . Examples of problems already being faced in the United States¶ from rising seas include shoreline retreat along most U.S. exposed shores and intrusion of¶ sea water into freshwater aquifers in coastal areas, which threatens fresh water supplies¶ (National Research Council, 2010a). More than a third of U.S. residents live near a coast¶ and more than $1 trillion is

contributed annually to the nation’s economy from activities¶ that occur on or along a coast

(USGCRP, 2009). Future sea level rise poses risks to U.S.¶ communities, coastlines, and infrastructure along much of the eastern and southern¶ United States, the west coast, and Alaska.

Climate change will create chaotic disasters---- could lead to extinction without preparationNasa 13 [ Nasa Earth observatory, The Impact of Climate change on natural disasters, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php] Schloss Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters, but it is very likely that it will impact future catastrophes. Climate models provide a glimpse of the future, and while they do not agree on all of the details, most

models predict a few general trends. First, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will probably boost temperatures over most land surfaces , though the exact

change will vary regionally. More uncertain—but possible—outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, a wetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms. (For more information, see Global Warming: Potential Effects of Global Warming) Changes in climate not only affect average temperatures, but also extreme temperatures, increasing the likelihood of weather-related natural disasters. If global climate change causes the global average temperature to rise (top), there will be less cold weather, and a greater probability of hot and record hot weather. An increase in temperature variability will extend the extremes of temperature, both cold and hot. An increase in average temperature combined with increased variance will have little effect on cold weather, but hot weather will be more common and record hot weather will increase greatly. (Figure adapted from Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis) Global warming could affect storm formation by decreasing the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. That temperature difference fuels the mid-latitude storms affect the Earth’s most populated regions. Warmer temperatures could increase the amount of water vapor that enters the atmosphere. The result is a hotter, more humid environment. At the equator, where conditions are already hot and humid, the change isn’t expected to be large. At the poles, however, the air is cold and dry; a little extra heat and water vapor could raise temperatures greatly. As a result, global warming may cause the temperature difference between the poles and the equator to decrease. and as the difference decreases, so should the number of storms, says George Tselioudis, a research scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University. But even as a warming climate might decrease the overall

number of storms that form, it could increase the number of intense storms. As temperatures continue to rise, more and more water vapor could evaporate into the atmosphere, and water vapor is the fuel for storms. “If we are creating an atmosphere more loaded with humidity, any storm that does develop has greater potential to develop into an intense storm,” says Tselioudis. The combined result of increased temperatures over land, decreased equator-versus-pole temperature differences, and increased humidity could be increasingly intense cycles of droughts and floods as more of a region’s precipitation falls in a single large storm rather than a series of small ones. A warmer, wetter atmosphere could also affect tropical storms (hurricanes), but changes to tropical storms are harder to predict and track. Some scientists have speculated that a warmer climate that allows more intense storms to develop would also spawn more hurricanes. Warmer temperatures may also heat ocean waters farther from the Equator, expanding the reach of large tropical storms. But there is little evidence to support the either of these theories, says Kerry Emanuel, a professor of tropical meteorology and climate in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate. The one way in which global warming could impact hurricanes is by making them more intense. More heat and water in the atmosphere and warmer sea surface temperatures could provide more fuel to increase the wind speeds of tropical storms. Warming that has already occurred since 1980 has increased sea surface temperatures 0.3 degrees Celsius, which should increase the maximum potential wind speed of hurricanes by 1 knot, according to hurricane intensity models. But increases that small could not have been observed yet. “At present, hurricane intensity is measured only to an accuracy of plus or minus five knots, so it is not possible to discern any change that might have occurred owing to warming that has already taken place,” says Emanuel. Even if tropical storms don’t change significantly, other environmental changes brought on by global warming could make the storms more deadly. Melting glaciers and ice caps will likely cause sea levels to rise, which would make coastal flooding more severe when a storm comes

ashore. In their 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that global warming should cause sea levels to rise 0.11 to 0.77 meters (0.36 to 2.5 feet) by 2100.

Warming causes extinction- warmer temperature, heat waves, and rising sea levels are only the beginning Henderson ’06[Bill, Environmental Scientist, Runaway Global Warming – Denial, 8-19-06http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm] Mittal

The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public -¶ still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ¶ ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If ¶ impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the ¶ atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several ¶ million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

Keystone species of Antarctica being threatened by Warming-New study provesAustralian Department of the Environment 13 [Key Antarctic species under threat from ocean acidification, 7-8-13, http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2013/key-antarctic-species-under-threat-from-ocean-acidification] Mittal

New research, led by the Australian Antarctic Division, indicates serious challenges facing Antarctic krill - the primary food source for whales, seals and penguins - due to acidification in the Southern Ocean.¶ In the first study of its kind to explore impacts of acidification on Antarctic krill across the whole of the

Southern Ocean, scientists paint a grim picture for the future of the species if carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions are unmitigated.¶ The study, ‘Risk maps for Antarctic krill under projected acidification’ has been

published in the distinguished international journal Nature Climate Change and shows that, if predictions are realised, vast areas of the krill habitat will become uninhabitable for reproduction.¶ Dr So Kawaguchi, lead author and krill biologist, said that Antarctic krill are the keystone species in the Southern Ocean and their fate is closely linked to the entire Antarctic ecosystem.¶ “A substantial decline in krill numbers would have disastrous implications not only for the health of the ocean environment but also on the future survival of the mammals and sea birds that rely on them.¶ “Antarctic krill are already experiencing changing climate stressors such as temperature rise, productivity change and declining sea ice.¶ “Now, our latest investigations clearly highlight the likely further impact that ocean acidification will have on these important crustaceans,” Dr Kawaguchi said.¶ For the past five years, Dr Kawaguchi and his colleagues have been looking at the effects of various stressors on Antarctic krill reproduction and development.¶ This new research identifies the consequences under four atmospheric CO2 scenarios, ranging from no emission mitigation to strong mitigation, on krill populations in the Southern Ocean.¶ The work has involved experiments in the Australian Antarctic Division’s krill aquarium, the only facility of its kind in the world.¶ “Disturbingly, our findings predict that krill will be unable to hatch or develop in vast areas of the Southern Ocean by the year 2300 if CO2 emissions continue to be released at the current rate,” Dr Kawaguchi said.

Science Diplomacy Advantage

Uniqueness

US falling behind in Antarctic development – China, Brazil, India, and Latin America increasing Leighton 2/10 - (Paula Leighton, Consultant and correspondent at SciDev, science journalist based in Chile, Masters in electronic media, former editor for the science and health section of national newspaper, La Tercera and journalist for Enclaces, "Developing nations seek a share of Antarctica's spoils", SciDev, February 10, 2014, http://www.scidev.net/global/bioprospecting/feature/developing-nations-seek-a-share-of-antarctica-s-spoils.html) Wang

¶ Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the planet, tensions are quietly rising regarding sovereignty over the Antarctic continent and the resources on and around it.¶ ¶ Abundant fisheries and rich marine biodiversity, as well as unexplored mineral reserves including natural oil and gas deposits, may turn the Antarctic into another global frontier in the hunt for new raw materials. Just last December, for example, scientists writing in Nature

Communications identified a type of rock in Antarctica that is known to be a likely place to find diamonds.¶ ¶ A combination of climate change-driven ice melt and lower snowfall, together with new drilling technologies could open up this inhospitable continent to exploration.¶ ¶ Although the only form of exploration currently allowed in Antarctica is scientific — as the Antarctic Treaty, and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to this treaty, ban any other activities relating to the continent’s mineral resources — this may change in 2048 when the moratorium on exploration and exploitation is up for a review. [1,2]¶ ¶ Geopolitical manoeuvring¶ ¶ With that deadline in mind, more nations are keen to have a say in

international decisions on what happens in Antarctica.¶ Allocating a large budget to Antarctic research and hosting scientific facilities on the continent are considered suitable ways for a country to signal its presence in this territory, experts say such actions could aid future claims if access to fishing resources is expanded or access to mineral resources is ever granted.¶ ¶ “From 2048, only the consultative countries of the Antarctic Treaty will have the right to vote [on any proposed changes to the treaty],” says Marcello Melo da Gama, deputy secretary of Brazil’s Inter-ministerial Commission for the Resources of the Sea (CIRM), the national agency responsible for implementing the country’s Antarctic programme. Twenty-eight countries are consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty because they were original signatories or now conduct substantial research in Antarctica.¶ ¶ “And countries need to have a presence in Antarctica and carry out scientific research there and even have a research base in order to become a consultative party — that is one of the political and strategic reasons to have a base in Antarctica.”¶ ¶ As a result, several nations are building or hoping to build new research centres on the continent. This year, both Brazil and China will build research stations.¶ “The budgets for Antarctic science research are also geopolitical. They are not only for doing science, they are also a way to increase their presence, and that happens with all countries,” agrees José Retamales, director of the Chilean Antarctic Institute. ¶ “The Antarctic is a political issue that has its daily expression in science activity. In order for a country to sit down at a table to make decisions about Antarctica, it needs to have science activities on the continent,” he says.¶ ¶ Twenty-nine nations operate 82 research stations on the continent, according to figures from the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Around 1,100 people work in these year round, going up to 4,400 in the summer season.¶ ¶ South American plans¶

¶ Developing countries are no exception. Colombia is designing and implementing its National Antarctic Programme to deal with research, governance and environmental protection and plans an Antarctic expedition in

2014-2015.¶ ¶ Ecuador and Venezuela cooperate on Antarctic research and logistics, and share Ecuador’s

research station on the South Shetland Islands. Colombia and Venezuela both recently started seeking science partnerships with other nations that are already involved in the Antarctic with the aim of becoming consultant members of the Antarctic Treaty — and getting a say at the annual meeting.¶ ¶ Argentina has six permanent and seven seasonal research stations, and Brazil plans to reopen its base Comandante Ferraz, which was destroyed by a fire in

February 2012.¶ ¶ Chile’s science budget for Antarctic projects (around US$24 million in 2013) has been growing, with funds coming from several governmental agencies. ¶ “Chile has nine research stations and is an Antarctic research leader in South America. Almost all the eight Latin American countries with Antarctic programmes go there from Chile,” says Retamales.¶ ¶ Last month, Chile opened a base inside the Antarctic Circle, joining China and the United States as the only nations with one there.¶ ¶ Over the past ten years, eight other countries have built Antarctic research stations, and

several others, including China, India, Iran and South Korea, have expressed an interest in creating

their own or increasing the number they already have. ¶ Reaping benefits¶ Chile may benefit from this growing interest in Antarctic science. Already, researchers from some 20 countries pass through the southern Chilean city of Punta Arenas each year on their way to the Antarctic Peninsula, where most research bases are.¶ ¶ Marcelo Leppe, head of the Chilean Antarctic Institute’s science department, says countries — particularly those far from the South Pole — could save money by working in partnership with Chile rather than having to send people and equipment over long distances.¶ ¶ “For the US Antarctic

programme for example, it is nine times more expensive to send a researcher to Antarctica than for the Chilean programme to do the same with a national researcher. China is now building icebreakers and South Korea has just launched one. Those countries have to bridge the same huge gaps to work in Antarctica. Tightening cooperation with Chile could reduce those gaps by saving money in logistics.Ӧ

US scientific domination over oceans is declining, budget becoming too much of a burdenMcCoy 10 [Alfred- Alfred W. McCoy is the J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He earned his B.A. from Columbia College, and his Ph.D from Yale University. “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire.” The Nation. 12/6/10. http://www.thenation.com/article/156851/decline-and-fall-american-empire# ] Dressler

Significantly, in 2008, the US National Intelligence Council admitted for the first time that America's global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its periodic futuristic reports, Global Trends 2025, the Council cited “the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way, roughly from West to East" and "without precedent in modern history,” as the primary factor in the decline of the “United States' relative strength—even in the military realm.” Like many in Washington, however, the Council’s analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the US would long “retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally” for decades to come.¶ No such luck. Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world's second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation. ¶ By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire. It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington's last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China's global network of communications satellites, backed by the world's most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe. ¶ Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the US was still number two behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400% increase since 2000. A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the US hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to “change” in “global innovation-based competitiveness” during the previous decade. Adding substance to these statistics, in October China's Defense Ministry unveiled the world's fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said one US expert, that it “blows away the existing No. 1 machine” in America. ¶ Add to this clear evidence that the US education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank to 12th place in 2010 . The World Economic Forum ranked the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the US are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened. By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists. ¶ Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge US dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace . Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a

continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues. Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.

Other countries increasing science diplomacy now- America is falling behindHam 7/11/14 [Becky, Ph.D. in biological anthropology at New York University, At Euro science Forum, AAAS Urges International Partnerships to Foster Global Science Community, AAAS, http://www.aaas.org/news/euroscience-forum-aaas-urges-international-partnerships-foster-global-science-community] Science is becoming a more collaborative enterprise, but it must "function in a coherent global way" if it is to meet massive challenges such as climate change and managing energy and water resources, AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner said at the Euroscience Open Forum in Copenhagen. In a 25 June presentation, Leshner stressed that it will not be enough for countries to focus only on their own national scientific infrastructure or pursue limited international collaborations. Instead, efforts should be directed at a coherent global scientific community that can function in a much more integrated way, he suggested. These efforts will need to include both collaboration with and scientific capacity-building in developing countries. The diversity that comes from building a global scientific enterprise will bring new ideas and much-needed innovation to bear on significant societal challenges, he suggested. "We need more ways to bring actors in as full partners and find ways to deal with uneven quality of different scientific communities." Groups such as the Heads of International Research Organizations (HIROs) and the Global Research Council have brought together national research agencies to foster collaboration and discuss international standards for data sharing and research ethics, he noted. AAAS has joined top representatives from science organizations around the world, including the Brazilian Association for the Advancement of Science (SBPC), the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Euroscience and the Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA), to

promote a larger role for science in national and global policies. Following a session at the AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago earlier this year, the group also convened at ESOF to explore new ways to continue the partnership. Other AAAS speakers at ESOF included AAAS Chief International Officer Vaughan Turekian, who participated in a session on resolving health challenges through science diplomacy. Governments have been the traditional practitioners of diplomacy, but many cross-border issues from disease outbreaks to energy exploration contain a strong scientific component. Researchers and scientific societies will be increasingly important as science diplomats "as economic progress and societal well-being become more interdependent with advances in science and technology," Turekian suggested. The Euroscience Open Forum, held every two years in a different city, is Europe's largest general science meeting. The meeting is a showcase for the latest advances in science and technology and features vibrant discussions about the role of science and science communication in public policy. This year's events also included a "Science in the City" festival with public lectures, experiments, art installations and hands-on activities taking place throughout Copenhagen. Leshner also spoke at the meeting about AAAS' commitment to a good relationship between scientists and the public, noting that the relationship has experienced some "significant turbulence" in recent years. A two-way conversation between the public and scientists is especially important, he said, as scientific findings in cosmology, stem cell research and other fields touch on core values. Good communication is critical to this conversation, and to building support for science as an international enterprise, Leshner said 24 June at the launch of The Technologist, a new popular science publication from the EuroTech Universities Alliance. "More and more countries are investing in science, in the belief that they can and will build their economies on their brains. So they are investing in science and science education, and this has had the result of fostering, for the first time in history, the beginnings of a truly global

scientific community-something I applaud greatly," Leshner said. "Science is everywhere in our lives, and so good science should be going on everywhere around the world."

Plans improves science program in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean giving the US the leading role and increasing its science diplomacyScar 2011 [Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National Academy Of Sciences, National Academy Of Engineering, Institute Of Medicine, National Research Council, http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning/Antarctica_Report_US_NAS.pdf

Conducting research in the harsh environmental conditions of Antarctica is logistically challenging. Substantial resources are needed to establish and maintain the infrastructure needed to provide heat, light, transportation, and drinking water, while at the same

time minimizing pollution of the environment and ensuring the safety of researchers. The Committee identified several opportunities to sustain and improve the science program in Antarctic and Southern Ocean in

the coming two decades. Collaboration Over the past half century, collaborations between nations, across disciplinary boundaries, between public and private sector entities, and between science and logistics personnel have helped research in Antarctica become a large and successful international scientific enterprise. The International Polar Year, held from 20072008, demonstrated how successful inter national collaboration can facilitate research that no nation could complete alone. This report examines opportunities to enhance each of these types of collab oration, with the overall conclusion that by working together, scientists can reach their goals more quickly and more affordably. Energy, Technology, and Infrastructure Advances in energy and technology can make scientific research in the Antarctic region more cost effective, allowing a greater proportion of funds to be used to support research rather than to establish and maintain infrastructure. For example, most of the energy required to power research stations and field camps and to transport people and materials comes from burning fossil fuels. In addition to the cost of the fuel, the combustion of fossil fuels pollutes the air, and fuel leaks during storage and transport have the potential to contaminate the surrounding environment. Innovations such as more costeffective overland transportation systems for fuel, or the use of wind power generators, promise to reduce the cost and pollution associated with fuel transport. Education Antarctica and the Southern Ocean offer great opportunities for inspiring popular interest in science in much the same way as space exploration did in the latter half of the 20th century. The National Science Foundation has supported a broad range of educational efforts to spark interest in polar science, including television specials, radio programs, and a multimedia presentation that toured U.S. science centers, museums, and schools. These efforts not only increase public awareness and understanding of the research taking place in Antarctica, but can help to inspire future generations of polar scientists. Building upon existing educational activities to develop a more integrated polar educational program, which would encompass all learners including K12, under graduates, graduate students, early career investigators, and lifelong learners, would help engage the next generation of scientists and engineers required to support an economically competitive nation and foster a scientifically literate U.S. public. Observing Network with Data Integration and Scientific Modeling To better predict future conditions, scientists need a network of observing systems that can collect and record data on the ongoing changes in the Antarctic region’s atmosphere, ice sheets, oceans, and ecosystems. This network should be able to measure and record ongoing changes to develop an understanding of the causes of change and to provide inputs for models that will enable U.S. scientists to better project the global impacts of a changing Antarctic environment. The envisioned observing network shares many characteristics of previous initiatives, such as the

Arctic Observing Network (AON) or the proposed PanAntarctic Observing System (PAntOS). There is also an inherent need for improved sharing of data and information. Improvements in the collection, management, archiving, and exchange of information will allow data to be used for multiple purposes by a variety of stakeholders. In addition, improvements in scientific models of the Antarctic region are

urgently needed to strengthen the simulation and prediction of future global climate patterns. These initiatives will require inter disciplinary approaches at the system scale that would be best addressed with a coordinated, long term, international effort. Given the scope of the research program and support infrastructure in the Antarctic region, the United States has the opportunity to play a leading role in developing a large scale, interdisciplinary observing network and robust earth system models that can accurately simulate the conditions of the Antarctic region.

Australia leading in Southern ocean monitoring – IMOS moorings IMOS 12 – (Integrated Marine Observing System, IMOS is a Australian national system designed to observe ocean basins and regional areas, operated by the National Innovation System, Led by University of Tasmania in partnership with the Australian marine & climate science community, supported by the Australian Government, “Australia leads on Southern Ocean carbon dioxide monitoring”, July 11, 2012, http://imos.org.au/newsitem.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=372&cHash=3e769db9d78cc5e5ddfa14de2fd5b6fc) WangAustralia’s Marine National Facility research vessel, Southern Surveyor, returned to the Southern Ocean in July to deploy three IMOS deep water moorings anchored at a depth of nearly five kilometres, about 580km south-west

of Tasmania.¶ The moorings are an important part of the IMOS system and provide enhanced monitoring of the Southern Ocean. The moorings include the Air-Sea Flux Station, the Pulse biogeochemical sensor mooring and a deep sea

sinking particle flux mooring. With the Education Investment Funding IMOS received in 2009, IMOS was able to invest in a second Air-Sea Flux Station mooring to allow the moorings to be hot-swapped. Prior to this the single mooring would have been deployed for a year at a time, then retrieved and taken back to land for servicing and then deployed several months later, creating gaps in the time series. This voyage deployed the new Air-Sea Flux station for the first time, enabling IMOS

to provide a continuous time series of meteorological information in the Southern Ocean.¶ The leader of the Deep Water Mooring IMOS Facility, Professor Tom Trull, said the project was the only one of its type in the Southern Ocean.¶ “While the Southern Ocean plays a significant role in the global climate system, there is a paucity of sustained

observations in this harsh and remote region. These high quality observations are a valuable contribution to understanding ocean processes that contribute to climate variability.¶ “The ability of the ocean to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and remove it to ocean depths is a natural process but the rate of that exchange and its influence on other chemical and biological properties in the ocean is now a central climate science question.¶ “We know the sub-Antarctic ocean is a hotspot for uptake of carbon dioxide and deployment of these mooring systems over the next 18 months will give us an insight into changes occurring from day-to-day and season-to-season in the upper ocean and at the sea surface.¶ “The results we obtain will be of interest around the world to climate and carbon cycle scientists,” Professor Trull said.

US loosing it’s lead in science – 11 percent federal spending decrease NSF 3/25 – (National Science Foundation, independent federal agency that supports research and education in science and engineering, “Federal science and engineering obligations to universities and colleges dropped by 11 percent in FY 2011”, March 25, 2014, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130888&org=NSF&from=news) WangIn fiscal year (FY) 2011, federal agencies obligated $31.4 billion to 1,134 academic institutions for science and engineering activities, according to a new report from the National Science Foundation's National Center for

Science and Engineering Statistics.¶ The FY 2011 obligations represent an 11 percent decrease in current dollars from federal obligations to academic institutions for science and engineering activities in FY 2010. In FY 2010, federal obligations were $35.3 billion to 1,219 academic institutions. The decrease reflects the absence of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 stimulus funds in FY 2011.¶ The last

ARRA funds were obligated in FY 2010 and accounted for $5.1 billion, or 14.5 percent, of FY 2010 science and engineering obligations to academic institutions. If ARRA obligations are excluded from FY 2010 totals, FY 2011 science and engineering obligations to academic institutions increased $1.2 billion or 4.1 percent.

The need for science diplomacy is growingTwas-no date [TWAS is a global science academy based in Trieste, Italy, working to advance science and engineering for sustainable prosperity in the developing world. Science Diplomacy, Science policy, http://www.twas.org/science-diplomacy] Thomas

Science diplomacy takes many forms: When nations come together to negotiate cooperative agreements on fisheries management or infectious disease monitoring, they need scientific expertise. When scientists come together for complex multi-national projects in astronomy or physics, their nations devise diplomatic agreements on management and financing. And when political relations between two nations are strained or broken, joint research efforts can give them a way to keep talking – and to build trust. Today, the need for science diplomacy is growing. In collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), TWAS is leading a programme that includes lectures, workshops and courses to build a bridge between the worlds of science and diplomacy.

Diplomacy in the Southern Ocean low now- CCAMLR being abused and countries doing whatever they want in the oceanKeenan 13 [Jillian, freelance writer, Are Antarctica’s South Ocean Ecosystems Doomed to Death by Diplomatic Paralysis?, Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/10/02/are-antarcticas-southern-ocean-ecosystems-doomed-to-death-by-diplomatic-paralysis/] JBThe story of Antarctic marine conservation efforts often feels like the myth of Sisyphus, the Greek king who was condemned to spend eternity struggling to roll a boulder up a hill. For more than 50 years, nations have successfully worked together under the Antarctic Treaty System to protect Antarctica as a peaceful forum for scientific research and environmental preservation. But the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica and is home to some of the most pristine marine ecosystems on earth, hasn’t been so lucky. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the organization responsible for managing and protecting the Southern Ocean, has struggled to fulfill the mission of its name and establish meaningful protections of Antarctic marine ecosystems. Like Sisyphus, eternally pushing his boulder towards the summit, the Antarctic marine preservation movement

seems doomed to repeat its campaign cycle forever, always in sight of the finish line but never able to cross it. Most recent concerns have focused on CCAMLR’s failed attempts to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in critical Southern Ocean regions. In 2002, The World Summit on Sustainable Development set the goal of establishing a global network of MPAs in Antarctica by 2012—a

deadline that CCAMLR formally adopted in 2009. After that deadline came and went without new protected zones, however, CCAMLR convened a special meeting in Bremerhaven, Germany, in July 2013, to consider two specific proposals for new MPAs: One in the Ross Sea area, which was proposed by New Zealand and the United States, and one in East Antarctica, which was concurrently proposed by Australia, France, and the European Union. CCAMLR operates on a consensus model, which means that any one of its 25 member states can unilaterally veto a proposal—and that’s exactly what happened in Bremerhaven, when Russia and the Ukraine stunned the international community by blocking the proposals with little explanation. In anticipation of CCAMLR’s upcoming meeting in Hobart, Tasmania, from October 23 to November 1, New Zealand and the United States released a revised (and, some argue, significantly reduced) version of their Ross Sea proposal, but hopes remain low that the forthcoming meeting will result in much meaningful action. The organization’s repeated failures to live up to its own name and mandate raise blunt but inevitable questions: Has CCAMLR’s paralytic consensus model transformed the conservation body into little more than a marginally effective fisheries management organization? If so, just what will it take to successfully and effectively protect Antarctica’s marine ecosystems? “Those are serious questions that CCAMLR will have to ask itself if things remain at this stalemate, especially if we have countries that seem increasingly willing to isolate themselves,” said Andrea Kavanagh, the director of the Southern Ocean Sanctuaries Campaign at Pew Charitable Trusts. “I don’t think it was ever envisioned that the consensus model would serve as a means for someone to block progress on something that everyone had already agreed was important. To use consensus against CCAMLR itself—well, it seems like bad faith negotiations.” The ingredients required to establish meaningful, effective protection of these fragile ecosystems are a complex cocktail of science and policy, Kavanagh said. She emphasized that for protections to be effective, the MPAs must be “permanent or indefinite”—that is, they cannot have a firm expiration date. (The current revised proposal has a “soft review” clause that would go into effect after 25 years, although Kavanagh expressed concerns that New Zealand has indicated a willingness to negotiate on that aspect of the proposal.) To be effective, she added that the protected areas must also be large enough to cover a diverse range of species and ecosystems—also cause for concern, since the newly revised proposal reduced the size of the proposed MPA by 40 percent, from roughly the size of Alaska to roughly twice the size of Texas. “When it comes to MPAs, size does matter,” said Kavanagh. “In the Ross Sea area, for example, you have a lot of different ecosystems: the shelf and slope, sea mounts, and an area they suspect is a breeding and spawning ground for toothfish. It was a disappointment to us that the revised proposal lost some of the diversity of ecosystems they had protected, especially when we still don’t know where Russia and the Ukraine stand. We have no idea if they’ll be satisfied by this.” But Evan Bloom, the head of the American delegation to the Antarctic conservation commission, defended the revised proposal, which he said is grounded in a critical mix of scientific recommendation and political considerations. “The United States feels very strongly that you have to adhere to the best available science,” said Bloom. “This is a consensus-based organization, and we heard some important comments from scientists from other countries. We felt it was very important to acknowledge the concerns and views of those scientists, and to revise the proposal accordingly so it will be more attractive to a number of countries, and come closer to being adopted.” Bob Zuur, the manager of the World Wildlife Fund’s Antarctic and Southern Ocean initiative, added that despite the occasionally frustrating limitations of the consensus requirement, that model is often an unavoidable aspect of international law. “I think we need to recognize that CCAMLR is operating in the high seas, and in international law, the reality is that consensus is often required,” said Zuur. “If a country doesn’t agree with the rules, it can pull out and withdraw its commitment.” He added that it is important to make a distinction between the behavior of CCAMLR as an institution and the behavior of individual contrarian member states. But CCAMLR’s recent failure to establish protected areas in the Southern Ocean isn’t the first time the organization has been choked by the paralytic effect of its consensus model. In 2012, for example, after a South Korean fishing vessel illegally

took more than half a million dollars worth of toothfish from the Southern Ocean, Korea was able to unilaterally stop CCAMLR from blacklisting that vessel. In 2003, the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO) presented CCAMLR with a report that identified 12 countries as being involved in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and poaching of protected toothfish—but since several CCAMLR member states were included on the list, no punitive action was taken. “This is a rather significant indicator of CCAMLR’s inability to deal effectively with the problem of IUU

fishing in the Convention Area,” concluded an Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition report after the 2003 incident. “The regime that is supposed to be responsible and capable of managing the marine living resources of Antarctica is failing through the constant undermining of a small group of parties to the Convention.” John Hocevar, the Oceans Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, said that although CCAMLR was founded on principles of biodiversity preservation, the rise of high-profit fishing industries, such as toothfish (which is often marketed as Chilean sea bass and informally known within the industry as “white gold”), transformed CCAMLR into something that is largely indistinguishable from any other fishery management organization. Hocevar added that several conservation organizations, including Greenpeace, have such serious doubts about CCAMLR’s potential to implement effective conservation proposals and they’ve begun working with the United Nations to adopt a new agreement under the Law of the Sea that would not require consensus. “The consensus model doesn’t just prevent things from being agreed upon, it prevents them from even being tried,” said Hocevar. “There are smart, forward-looking, science-driven policies that no one is going to introduce because it’s clear from the beginning that it wouldn’t get the support of every single member.” “We haven’t done as much damage in the waters around Antarctica as we have in other areas of the world, so we can still have some sense of what a relatively unimpacted ecosystem looks like,” Hocevar added. “We live on the water planet. The oxygen from every second breath we take is generated from algae that live in the ocean. Seafood provides protein for well over a billion people. Everything is connected—and this is the place for us to try to get it right.”

Australia stepping up science in the Southern Ocean- US is falling behindIMOS 12 [Australia leads on Southern Ocean carbon dioxide monitoring, IMOS, http://imos.org.au/newsitem.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=372&cHash=3e769db9d78cc5e5ddfa14de2fd5b6fc] JBThe moorings are an important part of the IMOS system and provide enhanced monitoring of the Southern Ocean. The moorings include the Air-Sea Flux Station, the Pulse biogeochemical sensor mooring and a deep sea sinking particle flux mooring. With the Education Investment Funding IMOS received in 2009, IMOS was able to invest in a second Air-Sea Flux Station mooring to allow the moorings to be hot-swapped. Prior to this the single mooring would have been deployed for a year at a time, then retrieved and taken back to land for servicing and then deployed several months later, creating gaps in the time series. This voyage deployed the new Air-Sea Flux station for the first time, enabling IMOS to provide a continuous time series of meteorological information in the Southern Ocean.The leader of the Deep Water Mooring IMOS Facility, Professor Tom Trull, said the project was the only one of its type in the Southern Ocean.“While the Southern Ocean plays a significant role in the global climate system, there is a paucity of sustained observations in this harsh and remote region. These high quality observations are a valuable contribution to understanding ocean processes that contribute to climate variability.“The ability of the ocean to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and remove it to ocean depths is a natural process but the rate of that exchange and its influence on other chemical and biological properties in the ocean is now a central climate science question.“We know the sub-Antarctic ocean is a hotspot for uptake of carbon dioxide and deployment of these mooring systems over the next 18 months will give us an insight into changes occurring from day-to-day and season-to-season in the upper ocean and at the sea surface.“The results we obtain will be of interest around the world to climate and carbon cycle scientists,” Professor Trull said.

Science in the US low now- budget cutsNational Science Foundation 14 [Federal science and engineering obligations to universities and colleges dropped by 11 percent in FY 2011, National Science Foudation, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130888&org=NSF&from=news] JB

In fiscal year (FY) 2011, federal agencies obligated $31.4 billion to 1,134 academic institutions for science and engineering activities, according to a new report from the National Science Foundation's National Center

for Science and Engineering Statistics. The FY 2011 obligations represent an 11 percent decrease in current dollars from federal obligations to academic institutions for science and engineering activities in FY 2010. In FY 2010, federal obligations were $35.3 billion to 1,219 academic institutions. The decrease reflects the absence of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 stimulus funds in FY 2011. The last ARRA funds were obligated in FY 2010 and accounted for $5.1 billion, or 14.5 percent, of FY 2010 science and engineering obligations to academic institutions. If ARRA obligations are excluded from FY 2010 totals, FY 2011 science and engineering obligations to academic institutions increased $1.2 billion or 4.1 percent.

US is behind on science- top science research and facilities not in the United StatesStine 09 [Deborah, Specialist in science and technology policy, Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34503.pdf] JBFor the United States to be competitive, according to Bush Administration witnesses, it needs to know where the frontier of science is occurring. As other countries increase their investment in higher education and R&D, the top science and engineering research and facilities may not be in the United States, but in other countries. This increases the importance of U.S. investment in international S&T diplomatic activities, said Bush Administration witnesses, including federal programs that support U.S. scientists’ collaborations with foreign scientists, and access to the best research facilities in the world, as well as enhancing the international connections of U.S. science and engineering students and leaders. In addition, U.S. science and engineering higher education and research helps developing countries by enhancing their human resource capacity, and as a result, their ability to achieve long-term development. These international connections can be important, said Bush Administration witnesses, not just for those countries, but in helping the U.S. respond to global challenges such as infectious diseases such as avian flu. Further, according to a Bush Administration witness, international cooperative activities at their agency in almost all instances are conducted on a “no exchange of funds” basis with U.S. funding supporting U.S. scientists and engineers, not those in the cooperating country.28 The degree to which the Obama Administration agrees with this position is not known at this time.

Immediate Needs to maintain US science leadershipRichard O Lempert 08 (Richard O Lempert, the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology at The University of Michigan Law School and a Research Professor in the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, http://scienceprogress.org/2008/03/maintaining-us-scientific-leadership/071414) AW

It has been so long since the United States had to look up to any country in science that we Americans have come to regard science leadership as a birth right. When children in other countries score better on science tests than American youngsters or our production of Ph.D.’s and engineers or share of patent applications declines relative to other countries, we act as if the United States is slipping rather than other countries advancing, and we see a

crisis emerging. Perhaps the field we have truly fallen behind in is history. We forget that in the early 20th century German

was the lingua franca of science. Germany was where young scientists went to study, and where top scientists presented, and often had

done, their cutting edge work. U.S. science leadership is not natural and inevitable, but the loss of that leadership may be. Far from

being natural or inevitable, the United States’ science leadership is an offshoot of this country’s preeminence in the system of world

governments that emerged after the defeat of Germany in World War II. This system was built on the rewards to science innovation in

a vibrant capitalist economy, and on WWII- and Cold War-impelled needs to develop our science and engineering capacity. It

uniquely benefited from immigration, especially from Europe in the Nazi era and immediate post-war period. And it could not have happened without the wealth and vision that allowed the United States to not only generously subsidize basic science but also to establish an educational system that was broad-based at the bottom and unparalleled in availability and quality at the top. If these advantages were not enough, the competition for science leadership was weak thanks to the devastation that Europe suffered in two world wars and the slow rebuilding of European economies in the post-war era. The upshot: U.S. science leadership is not natural and inevitable, but the loss of that leadership may be. Countries much larger than the United States, most notably India and China, are experiencing economic growth that outstrips ours, and as they grow in wealth they are rapidly improving their educational systems and basic science infrastructures. Moreover, as globalization leads companies born in the United States to move research and production capacity abroad, market demand for trained scientists and engineers is increasing elsewhere while it is being dampened here. Even if the United States retains a per capita education and investment advantage over India and China, population differences alone mean that the number of trained scientists and engineers in these countries will soon dwarf the number in America, with differences in the quantity and quality of science innovation likely to follow. Added to the Asian challenge is a Europe that can no longer be seen as a set of discrete countries when it comes to science. Rather, cross-border research teams are being encouraged, and European Union-wide funding mechanisms are being established. In short, several decades from now we may find that we are not the world’s number one country when it comes to science, however measured, but perhaps no. 4 behind China, India, and the EU. We may also find that being in fourth place is not altogether bad. When children in China are vaccinated against polio, they are not worse off because the vaccine was invented in the United States. When an Indian inventor draws on two decades of U.S. government-funded research to achieve a technological breakthrough, her accomplishment will not be lessened because it would not have happened had research in the United States not paved the way. As the world no. 1 in science, U.S. science investments have had substantial spillover effects, improving the quality of life in other countries and enabling scientific, technological, and medical accomplishments that have benefited people abroad. As other countries improve their science, the progress of American science and the lives of our people will increasingly benefit from educational and infrastructure investments made elsewhere and from research supported by currencies other than the dollar. Thanks to the preeminence of U.S. science for more than half a century, English is second only to mathematics as the universal language of science. Acknowledging the inevitable and seeing a bright side does not, however, mean we should regard what is happening as an unalloyed blessing and passively allow American science to slip. There are substantial

costs should U.S. science capacity sink absolutely, and real costs even if slippage is only relative. Scientific advances create intellectual property, and wealth creation through intellectual property has become an increasingly important part of the U.S. and world economies. What’s more, the world remains a dangerous place, and it may become more so should countries like China develop expansionist ambitions. Science for security must remain a high national priority, and although we may not be able to keep other nations from catching up, we do not want to be surprised by their achievements or surpassed. In devising policies to maximize the strength of U.S. science, our nation has two unique resources it must not squander. The first is English. Thanks to the preeminence of U.S. science for more than half a century, English is second only to mathematics as the universal language of science. Scientists around the world speak and write English. This gives American scientists a leg up in communicating with scientists across national boundaries and makes many of the most important writings of foreign scientists easily and immediately accessible to Americans. Additionally, American students are not dissuaded from pursuing science careers nor do they have their science studies delayed because of the need to master a foreign language. Short of eliminating federal science funding, nothing, I venture to guess, would harm American science as much as a need to read Chinese to keep up with the latest science developments. One goal of our national science policy should be to maintain English as the global language of science. This might entail subsidies or other incentives to promote the publication of English-language online science journals, aid to enable the acquisition of English-language science materials (including print journals) by universities and libraries abroad, and programs to train foreign scientists in English, either in their own countries, online, or by bringing them to the United States or Britain for science internships or language instruction. The high subscription price of leading English-language science journals is a particular threat because it means that for financial rather than science reasons market forces are likely to promote a proliferation of lower priced foreign-based journals in languages other than English. These journals, started for reasons of cost, may become science journals of record in their home countries, meaning that cutting-edge overseas research may become less easily or immediately available here. The short-run solution may be U.S. subscription subsidies for foreign scholars and institutions, but the only viable long-term solution is to bring costs down, most likely by electronic distribution that through competition reins in the profit-oriented publishers who now mediate between the creation and distribution of science knowledge. Students who had planned on doing their advanced science studies in the United States went instead to Europe, Australia, Japan, or Canada. The United States’ second great advantage is our system of higher education. We are still the preeminent nation when it comes to science training, and we benefit from this in many ways. Foreigners who come to study here learn English, and they build relationships with U.S. scientists that endure after they return home, if they return home. Study here can also lead to an appreciation for the United States and its values, including especially the values of democracy and free inquiry. Perhaps most beneficial of all are the foreign-born scientists who stay to take jobs here or who return periodically to work collaboratively with U.S. scientists. They add to our science workforce and scientific

productivity and go a long way to make up for inadequacies in the production of U.S. born scientists. Ironically, the threat to U.S. science dominance is in part due to our willingness to educate the world. Some of the foreign scientists trained here have returned home to become leading researchers or educators in countries such as India and China, while others have returned to Western Europe and reinvigorated their graduate science education. Thus, our leadership in science education, although not as vulnerable as our overall science leadership, is also ripe for challenge. Rather than rise to the challenge, however, we have aided the challengers. Short-term political and security concerns have trumped longer-term interests in science strength along with longer-term wealth and security. Responding viscerally to the attacks of 9/11, we made entering this country more difficult for foreigners whatever the reason. One result was that students who had planned on doing their advanced science studies in the United States went instead to Europe, Australia, Japan, or Canada . Or they pursued advanced degrees in their home countries. More recently, the Iraq war and attitudes toward immigration have made the United States less attractive to educated foreigners . Difficulties in entering the United States have also affected the location of and attendance at scientific conferences as well as the ability of universities and companies to employ foreign researchers. Although the U.S. government has become sensitive to the harms that some of its post 9/11 policies caused and has tried to ameliorate problems, it could be doing much more—including proactively encouraging more foreign students to study science here and making it easier for them to work here when their studies are concluded. The downside of replenishing our science workforce with the foreign born is that it diminishes pressure on industry and government to stimulate domestic science training. Yet few dispute that improving domestic education must remain a high priority, especially as opportunities for science workers abroad grow sufficiently attractive as to not only lure foreign-born U.S. science workers back to their home countries, but also to entice native-born American scientists to work abroad. A virtue of science progress is that it cannot help but create free riders. Essays, and indeed books, can and have been written on what stimulating domestic science training will take, and I shall not attempt to canvass the suggestions that people more knowledgeable than I have made. But I will reiterate one point. We cannot afford to leave undeveloped the talents of minorities and the poor by failing to provide the nutrition, health care, preschool training, and later education that will allow these youth to realize their potential. It is no longer just personal accomplishments we are talking about; it is the national well being. A virtue of science progress is that it cannot help but create free riders. New discoveries and inventions fuel other new discoveries and inventions and raise everyone’s quality of life. Even if intellectual property laws allow innovators to secure fortunes for themselves, exclusive rights last only for period of time, and rarely can all profits be captured. We, along with other nations, are made better off by new vaccines discovered in Britain, cell phone technologies born in Finland, robotics breakthroughs from Japan, and the development of disease-resistant plant varieties in the United States. Americans love to rank things, whether it is football teams, law schools, or most livable cities, and we love to identify with or be “Number One.” For many it is a matter of national pride that the United States is acknowledged as the world’s leader in

science. Hence it is a matter of great national concern when it appears other nations are catching up or that we may be slipping. But the two ways of reducing disparities in the rankings are quite different. If other nations are doing better in supporting science and producing more scientific breakthroughs, then we are likely to benefit from their successes. But if our lead is slipping because we are losing capacity and failing to invest in the physical and human capital that produces outstanding science, then there is substantial cause for concern; not only the United States but the world will be worse off as a result. In short, we should focus more on how we are doing and spend less time worrying about whether other nations are catching up to us in science. If our youth are well-educated in science, if our science workforce has the highly trained staff it needs, if we facilitate the international exchange of scientific knowledge, and if our educational establishments and industry remain fountains of innovation, then we need not worry whether other nations are doing as well or better than we are. We will be strong. But if our lead is lost because we squander our advantages and fail to educate our youth, then slippage in the ranks of nations doing science may indeed signify crisis.

American science in decline The Washington Times 05 (is a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C., United States. It was founded in 1982 by the founder of the Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jul/17/20050717-093342-2847r/) AW

Is the American science and engineering dynamo slowing down? Indications have emerged in recent years that our comparative advantage over Europe and Asia is slipping. In an insightful paper published last month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Harvard economist Richard B. Freeman compiled the evidence of the United States’ relative decline from its position of unparalleled leadership in the second half of the 20th century. The United States is still a world leader in science and engineering, but a relative decline is surely in evidence . One indication of the trend is that the share of papers U.S. scientists publish in major journals is falling. According to the National Science Foundation, American scientists published 31 percent of all scientific papers in 2001, down from 38 percent in 1988. The share of papers in the Chemical Abstract Service dropped precipitously, from 73 percent in 1980 to 40 percent in 2003. Meanwhile, the number of federal grants that younger scientists receive has plummeted, as has the United States’ relative share of total doctoral students worldwide. Perhaps most tellingly, the proportion of science and engineering doctorates awarded in Asia and Europe is rising, but numbers in the United States are flat lining. The problem isn’t a “shortage” of scientists and engineers in the United States, Mr. Freeman points out. In fact, the opposite is the case. The United States happily imports scientists and doctoral candidates from elsewhere to create an unattractive glut of low-income, low-prospect career paths which native-born Americans are increasingly avoiding, opting instead for lucrative opportunities in business, law or medicine. About 60 percent of all scientists and engineers with doctorates in the United States today are foreign-born, Mr. Freeman reports. Many of these do not stay in the country. In the short term, this poses no problem for the United States: Labs are manned, biotech firms are staffed and

innovation proceeds apace. But outsourcing our own scientific expertise to willing foreigners is a losing proposition in the long run, and the flight of U.S. expertise elsewhere can pose grave national-security problems. The U.S. military advantage cannot last if our best scientists and engineers are nationals of competitor nations like China. That nation’s record over the last decade is astonishing. China produced few or no doctorates in the mid-1970s, but it now awards something like 10,000 science and engineering doctorates annually. Fifty-two percent of all academic degrees in China are in science or engineering. It’s not immediately clear what the United States can do to remedy the situation. Closing the borders to foreign scientists isn’t an option. Economists who theorize that “convergence” governs modern economies suggest that competitors inevitably close in on leaders. Even if that is true, it hardly removes the need for the United States to devise innovative ways to sustain its leadership position.

US will no longer dominate science and research, expert predictsScience Daily 2011, Penn State (Penn State. "US will no longer dominate science and research, expert predicts." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110218132310.htm (accessed July 15, 2014). AW

A shift in the global research landscape will reposition the United States as a major partner, but not the dominant leader, in science and technology research in the coming decade, according to one researcher. However, the US could benefit from this research shift if it adopts a policy of knowledge sharing with the growing global community of researchers.

A shift in the global research landscape will reposition the United States as a major partner , but not the dominant leader, in science and technology research in the coming decade, according to a Penn State researcher. However, the U.S. could benefit from this research shift if it adopts a policy of knowledge sharing with the growing global community of researchers. "What is emerging is a global science system in which the U.S. will be one player among many," said Caroline Wagner, associate professor of international affairs, who presented her findings Feb. 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. The entrance of more nations into global science has changed the research landscape. From 1996 to 2008, the share of papers published by U.S. researchers dropped 20 percent. Wagner attributes much of this output shift not to a drop in U.S. research efforts, but to the exponentially increasing research conducted in developing countries, such as China and India. China has already surpassed the U.S. in the output of research papers in the fields of natural science and engineering. Based on current trends, China will publish more papers in all fields by 2015. Although China still lags in quality, according to Wagner, that gap is closing, too. As enrollments in Chinese universities swell, there will also be more researchers in China than there are in the U.S., she noted. Typical recommendations to spur U.S. research, such as spending more money on research, may not restore American preeminence in science and technology. "Some consider America's loss in the 'numbers game' in research to be a scary scenario, but the answer may not be in spending more money," said Wagner. "The system may be operating at full capacity -- and the law of diminishing returns exists in science, just as it does in other sectors." Instead of this low return-on-investment strategy, Wagner recommended that the U.S. rely on a more efficient knowledge-sharing strategy by tapping experts from other countries who have developed more knowledge and better skills than U.S. researchers in certain fields. Other nations would, in turn, have access to U.S. scientists to conduct research in fields where they are most proficient. Wagner refers to the possibility of a global research community as the new "invisible college," a term coined in the 17th century to describe the connections among researchers from

diverse disciplines and places who created the world's first scientific society. One fallacy is that the Internet will naturally create this global research community, said Wagner. Despite the presence of global communication systems, such as the Internet and mobile phone technology, research remains a difficult network to navigate, especially for scientists in developing countries. "The Internet helps speed up the rate of communication, but doesn't necessarily improve access for developing countries," Wagner said. "Since face-to-face contact is still the preferred way to connect with fellow researchers, participants can still be blocked by the cost of travel and access to research papers, for example."

United States Looks to the Global Science, Technology, and Innovation Horizon E. William Colglazier and Elizabeth E. Lyons - 07.08.2014 (E. William Colglazier is the science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state., Elizabeth E. Lyons is a senior adviser in the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Science and Technology Adviser and its Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. She is on detail with support from the National Science Foundation to the Department of State , http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/united-states-looks-global-science-technology-and-innovation-horizon 071414) AW

U.S. STI (science, technology, and innovation) excellence and leadership are essential for national interests, e.g., economy, health, security, and environment. It is also important to U.S. diplomacy, its soft power, and efforts to advance peace, prosperity, and security around the world. Therefore, the U.S. STI enterprise will need to adapt to new opportunities and changes in the current landscape of global science. To be most effective, the response should include embracing a strategy of international STI research cooperation and utilizing STI knowledge strategically by looking out, up, around, and forward. This can empower the U.S. STI enterprise, especially its decentralized academic components, to engage globally.1 We discuss a knowledge framework that could facilitate strategic international STI cooperation. Embracing a National Strategy of International STI Research Cooperation The overwhelming U.S. dominance in scientific research in the last half of the twentieth century is being replaced by a more multipolar landscape2 of science, technology, and innovation, with the United States remaining a very strong force. The new data presented in the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 confirms what we already know—the United States is becoming less dominant in STI and there are substantial and increasing STI investments, linkages, and capacities now dispersed around the world. While the United States saw 4.9 percent growth from 2009 to 2011 in total research and development (R&D) expenditures, worldwide R&D spending increased over the same period by 15 percent. The U.S. share of worldwide R&D expenditures continued its decline; in 2000 it was 38 percent and in 2011 it stood at 30 percent. These changes and others, for example in the global distribution of research excellence and STI infrastructure, have brought the United States to a challenge that can be converted into an opportunity. Numerous U.S. national reports3 have lamented the decreasing dominance of U.S. STI. A recommendation shared by these reports is to increase domestic STI spending, but national fiscal constraints are likely to limit such increases for the immediate future. Sustaining American STI leadership will need to involve vigorous STI international collaboration across the new dynamic landscape. If the United States can no longer be assured of leadership in STI through sheer dominance of size and resources, it will need to maintain leadership through synergistic partnerships. Such partnerships will yield mutual benefit for America and its partners by tapping great U.S. strengths, e.g., world-class scientists, students, and institutions and their immense creative capacity, entrepreneurial orientation, idealism, and generosity of spirit.4 If the United States can

no longer be assured of leadership in STI through sheer dominance of size and resources, it will need to maintain leadership through synergistic partnerships. Therefore international STI research cooperation, where it accelerates scientific progress and serves individual scientists, teams, and their institutions, should be embraced as a valuable national strategy, as advocated by the National Science Board in 2008.5 Such a strategy will enable the nation to leverage scientific expertise, facilities, and funding around the world; continue to attract the “best and brightest”; train a globally engaged workforce; find new research and industrial partners and new markets; build strong international relationships; and drive innovative solutions for international development. While national security concerns will necessarily restrict international collaboration on some topics, the Department of Defense has embraced an international science and technology strategy that includes unclassified basic research to strategically partner with allies to leverage their scientific portfolios and shared infrastructure, stay at the frontier of advanced scientific fields and technologies, train a globally engaged workforce, scan the horizon for emerging developments, and use science as a tool of diplomacy.6 As the global economy becomes increasingly interconnected, there is stronger competition for technological outputs of STI. Rather than viewing such interactions as a zero-sum game, U.S. scientists and institutions should sustain the free exchange of ideas and enter collaborations with strong agreements that articulate the mutual benefits for all participants and the arrangements for sharing outputs and benefits. U.S. companies are actively engaging and embracing new approaches to open international collaboration. The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors—which for decades has teamed government, industry, and universities from around the world to direct the burgeoning information technology industry—is an example of a pre-competitive platform for cooperation that benefits all. Ideas embraced by the private sector (e.g., “open innovation” and “collaboration is the new competition”) provide valuable lessons to the U.S. science enterprise as it seeks to find global “collaborative advantage.”7 The United States takes seriously the responsibilities that come with STI leadership, and works to bring the power of its large STI enterprise to bear on cooperative global efforts to tackle the hardest problems that the world faces. STI can address global challenges and create sustainable and inclusive economic growth in countries at all stages of development. STI can address global challenges and create sustainable and inclusive economic growth in countries at all stages of development. The value of scientific knowledge dispersed across the world can increasingly be captured by those who build networks to take the local to global scale and bring the global back for local impact.8 The opportunity lies in being able to develop the global STI knowledge infrastructure and tools to support global knowledge networks and partnerships. The United States has the opportunity to exercise leadership in catalyzing the development of a more global STI knowledge commons. U.S. STI institutions will need to be at the center of rich global alliances and networks that can benefit the United States and its partners and can help address global challenges. American Universities Looking Out, Up, Around, and Forward to the Global STI Horizon Fostering increased strategic international collaboration in any nation requires rich information sources and tools; a diversity of models and mechanisms; a facilitative policy environment at national, state, and institutional levels; sufficient funding from international, national, state, private, and philanthropic sources; and an enabling legal and regulatory climate. A critical first step for the United States is to identify and address the knowledge needs of U.S. STI leaders—particularly universities given their strengths in education, research, service, and innovation—as they plan strategic international engagement. We use the phrase “looking to the horizon” to encapsulate the strategic gathering of such knowledge with needed resources and

tools. Looking out: To reap the diplomatic, development assistance, scientific, and economic benefits of collaboration, the United States needs to look out at the rest of the world for mutually beneficial opportunities for collaboration. Many universities are striving to do just this, facilitating curiosity-driven international research by faculty members, providing students with well-mentored international research experiences, and investing in international partnerships to add value and strategic focus at the university level. Leaders at U.S. universities are striving to define their institutions’ “value proposition” in a more international context by considering strengths and potential beyond the local and U.S. domestic playing fields. There are many examples of international institution-level STI partnerships, including international branch campuses, dual degree programs, and research and education centers, involving one or more U.S. institutions and one or more foreign institutions within a country or region. U.S. universities are keenly interested in the strategies and strengths of foreign universities and in the STI opportunities of different countries.9 Outside of collaborative opportunities in the European Union and in a few individual countries, we find that information on the STI policies of other countries is not well known in the United States, and there are few mechanisms to share it with the U.S. STI enterprise. Such insights could help U.S. institutions build strong, productive, and sustainable STI partnerships. Multiple opportunities for international cooperation are close at hand. As the first U.S. stop for many foreign governments and institutions, the Department of State regularly receives requests for help in partnering with the U.S. STI community. Because the United States has more than four thousand degree-granting institutions of higher education, such matchmaking is a daunting task. Therefore, as the United States looks to engage internationally in STI, it is essential that potential partners be able to readily access information about the many American STI-relevant institutions and activities. Looking up: Global challenges increasingly include complex phenomena. These require that those in the United States STI enterprise look up from single fields and institutions and identify where to best enlist broader approaches that span disciplines. The United States and many other nations are building such cross-disciplinary connections, for example in nanotechnology10 and “convergence science,” where nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognition intersect.11 Sharing lessons learned from such efforts could facilitate building the strong and varied networks of expertise and new technologies required to address issues such as sustainable development, rapid urbanization, climate change, water security, and public health. International collaboration can accelerate progress in cross-disciplinary areas because, as global knowledge mapping has shown,12 weak connections among a set of scientific domains in one country can be strong in another. Universities are increasingly building capacity that is not so discipline- or institution-bound and strengthening their abilities to sustain long-term international STI partnerships by leveraging their legacy of teaching, research, and international collaboration in culture, language, and international relations. A 2010 National Research Council report, “S&T Strategies of Six Countries: Implications for the United States,” emphasized the importance of culture in whether and how countries become knowledge-based and innovative societies. Looking around: The new global landscape of science is more distributed and networked—the United States needs to look around at such linkages. Many scientific advances are now propelled not just by individuals working within individual labs, but increasingly by overlapping, fluid, and largely self-organizing networks of scientists, engineers, technologists, and entrepreneurs. These networks frequently extend across and beyond research intensive institutions. Networks of scientists are already being supported, for example, by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Coordination Networks and through initiatives such as the Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN) undertaken by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). HESN is building

diverse, often international, teams to tackle significant development challenges, making more information on development projects available domestically and internationally, and tying together people and results for stronger impact. Thousands of U.S. scientists are currently conducting excellent collaborative STI research projects overseas and generating tremendous goodwill toward the United States. We have discovered that many leaders of U.S. universities do not readily know where their faculty members conduct research overseas. Because most international networks of scientists are self-organizing, many U.S. universities lack effective means to capture and communicate information about such international research linkages. No national clearinghouse exists to showcase these assets for science engagement and diplomacy. Moreover, many U.S. universities do not immediately think of U.S. embassies and consulates as a resource and share their foreign activities with these potential linkage points. Some universities, however, are starting to build the capacity to map their international networks with a range of tools (e.g., the UCosmic Consortium—an international open-source software initiative). Looking forward: The rapid pace at which science expands across the global landscape suggests that the U.S. STI enterprise also needs to look forward, to work to shape the way STI advances and to understand and potentially mitigate adverse impacts. Many unclassified reports—ranging from U.S. NGO (nongovernmental organizations) and academic efforts (e.g., Science and Technology Outlook 2005-205513 and SciCast14) to assessments of the transformational potential and disruptive impacts posed by new technologies,15 horizon-scanning business activities,16 and various kinds of STI scenario-building and priority setting undertaken by regional and national entities17—are regularly produced to examine global scientific trends and look forward. Such studies can perform an essential national function by focusing on how global STI trends might influence U.S. strategy. We find that many of these national and international reports are little known in the United States outside of Washington, DC. But a recent survey18 suggests university leaders desire such information as they maneuver in the globally competitive academic arena to position their institutions close to science frontiers that match their strengths. University leaders ask for our insights into global STI trends and we share what we know about forward-leaning activities undertaken by many countries.19 A Platform to Help Looking to the Horizon Information on national and international science priorities, forward-looking activities, and knowledge mapping needs to be organized, synthesized, and made more widely available across the decentralized American STI enterprise. This includes information to identify trends in cross-disciplinary connections,20 in innovators and agents of change,21 or in geographic STI distributions and linkages.22, 23, 24 So too does information on activities of U.S. academe, to put American institutions a few clicks away from potential partners, be they domestic or international. Such information would establish a solid base from which to nourish and grow global knowledge networks.25 There are already dozens of programs for research profiling and analytics being undertaken by business (e.g., Elsevier’s SciVal, Thomson Reuters’ InCites Research Analytics, Academic Analytics, and ResearchGate) and academic consortia26 on behalf of STI-related institutions and state and federal governments. These frameworks are being developed for multiple purposes, e.g., to derive metrics for science policy, to evaluate the effectiveness of STI activities, and to find synergies via research collaboration, coordination, and leveraging. Now that STI is so global, knowledge platforms should also be designed to help facilitate broad, long-lasting international STI partnerships between institutions. Now that STI is so global, knowledge platforms should also be designed to help facilitate broad, long-lasting international STI partnerships between institutions. As more U.S. and foreign institutions invest in different data frameworks to visualize productivity and connectivity, there can be a cascade of increased participation and utility by stakeholders. We envision a socio-technical knowledge

platform and associated visual interfaces that would describe many facets of global STI portfolios. A key function would be to accelerate matchmaking between institutions, thus benefitting U.S. institutions and their partners, many of whom have resources for supporting international STI projects. Having rich and robust databases and state-of-the-art knowledge mapping algorithms and tools that can elucidate science distributions and networks should inform strategic decision making at many levels. Such a platform has the tremendous potential to catalyze discussion, convene stakeholders, and encourage implementation. The stakeholders include universities, university associations, companies, foundations, science organizations, and science funding entities. They would shape, implement, and own the envisioned knowledge platform.27 Essential Properties of a Platform To function best at facilitating institutional partnerships, the important properties of such a knowledge platform should incorporate the following: Wide Inclusion: The platform should make available information about the full range of U.S. institutions of higher education, starting with the largest. Also included should be information about a wide set of institutions in other countries, including countries with small academic footprints. It is essential that a global platform narrow, not widen, any digital divide between developed and less developed nations, so that partners and solutions can be found at any level. Rich Content: The platform should build upon research analytics frameworks and also capture information about teaching, training, facilities, business partnerships, and existing international engagement across scientific and nonscientific disciplines. Because institutional partnerships are about people, we expect they will thrive when there are compatibilities across multiple dimensions. Broad Access: The platform should be accessible to all who want to use it in the United States and abroad. Easy-to-use online interfaces as well as programmatic access to data will make it maximally useful. Interoperable structure: To weave together the many strands of relevant information, the platform should add value to and link many existing programs. The idea is not to create a monolithic structure, but to find common definitions, standards, and programs to interlink existing frameworks, for example in different countries, states, universities, and disciplines (e.g., Brazil’s Lattes Platform, North Carolina’s ReachNC, Duke University’s Scholars@Duke, and the Neuroscience Gateway). The platform’s structure should enable analysis across sectors and at national, institutional, and individual scales. High Incentives and Low Barriers: The incentive for an institution’s participation is to see and be seen in the vibrant knowledge networks and partnerships that increasingly span the globe. The platform requires highly visible “early adopters” to use it and demonstrate its value. Once enough institutions participate, the value to all would grow. Adoption of the platform should minimize for an institution both the cost and the time required for data entry (especially by science faculty). This is likely if the platform takes advantage of existing databases at universities and in the government (e.g., MEDLINE, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Search for Patents, NSF Award Search, and the National Institutes of Health RePORT) and information extracted from them, national research networking data platforms that make university data accessible (e.g., VIVO Consortium, Harvard Profiles), programs that track an institution’s international footprint (e.g., the UCosmic Consortium and moveon28), and, if needed, data harvested from websites by appropriate “smart” tools such as search engines (e.g., Google Scholar and Citeseer) and pre-populated scholar profiling systems (e.g., Pivot). The platform should support easy addition of new and updated datasets and interfaces, and the plug-and-play of value-adding services such as search, data mining, analysis, and visualization tools. Contextual Insights: In addition to data and tools, the platform would provide information on different models of collaboration, “lessons learned” and effective practices from different geographic areas, and information about science and technology priorities, strengths, facilities, and programs in countries and regions around the

world. Foresight Capacity: The platform would provide access to the products of forward-looking activities—such as technology assessments, roadmaps, foresight reports, and projections—to point to new opportunities on the horizon. Going Forward The number and diversity of U.S. universities and the strength of their faculty, students, alumni, facilities, and industry alliances are an integral part of the United States’ national STI fabric and creative genius. When arrayed alongside the many foreign institutions and their strengths, there is a huge matrix of potential partnerships. A platform that elucidates this multidimensional matrix and provides information and tools to explore STI strengths and trends around the world would enable leaders of U.S. and foreign universities to more effectively find partners, respond to changes in the STI landscape, and nimbly engage in strategic international cooperation. Filling that matrix could also allow institutions to find their unique international “value proposition,” reduce competition among institutions, and enrich the nation’s international STI portfolio. This, in turn, would strengthen international relationships, enable the United States to sustain its STI excellence and leadership , and bring U.S. talents to bear on global challenges, thus advancing knowledge, peace, and prosperity around the world. The challenge is how to build such a platform and to create the consensus to make it happen.

Us science diplomacy at riskBarnard 13 (john , United States at risk of losing research leadership, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2013/10/20/1-united-states-at-risk-of-losing-research-leadership.html)YousufI recently had the pleasure of hearing Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, speak at a research conference. One of Leshner’s major themes was the increasing globalization of research. The epicenter of scientific research and innovation used to be in North America and Europe, but it is steadily moving from the West to Asia. This movement can be quantified. For example, research-and-development expenditures in Asia now exceed spending in the United States. And the gap is widening. From 2012 to 2013, U.S. research-and-development spending decreased by 5 percent while expenditures in China increased by 15 percent. The annual number of research publications is growing faster in Asia than elsewhere in the world. Simply put, U.S. dominance is fading after a decade of federal research funding stagnation. Growth of research funding by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry also lags other countries. With the national debate about the government shutdown, these collective observations got me thinking about the implications if the United States loses its leadership position in research. Is the loss of U.S. eminence, which will certainly happen if trends continue, so terribly bad? Subra Suresh, former director of the National Science Foundation, recently wrote that “good science anywhere is good for science everywhere.” From a humanitarian viewpoint, this seems true. Humankind benefits from an expanding global-research enterprise. In support of this optimistic interpretation of trends, Leshner pointed out in his speech that authors of nearly half of the research published in the journal Science are from more than one country. This implies that the world’s best research involves collaborative teams comprised of the top scientific minds on the planet. My view is this: Even though the world benefits from globalization of research and development, there is certain harm in the United States’ losing its dominant position as a research-and-development leader. A significant fraction of the U.S. scientific work force includes trainees and career scientists from the international community. Historically, these talented scientists come to the United States to train with the best and the brightest. And they remain in U.S. industry and at our universities because our facilities and resources are currently the most advanced in the world. But should

recent trends continue, foreign scientists will not have to come to the United States to realize their career dreams, and established American scientists will move abroad. In fact, most of us know colleagues who have moved abroad or have strongly considered doing so. The result is a vicious cycle of brain drain that will unwind a U.S. innovation economy that has dominated the global scene for more than a century. At the time this column was written, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal research programs had been closed for more than two weeks. This adds insult to injury and hardly seems the right path to restore U.S. global leadership in research and innovation. As a society, we should celebrate and embrace global progress in research. At the same time, Congress should aggressively reinvigorate our country’s investment in research so that we lead the world as we have for so long. Our economic future depends on it.

Internal Links

Antarctic cyber infrastructure increases science diplomacy – new tech, connectivity, and sensors NRC 11 – (National Research Council, organized by the National Academy of Sciences to further knowledge and advise the federal government, principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This article was sponsored by the Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the National Science Foundation, “Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean”, The National Academies Press, 2011, http://www.andrill.org/static/Resources/Publications/NAS%20Future%20Science%20Opportunities%20in%20Antarctica%20and%20the%20Southern%20Ocean.pdf) Wang Cyberinfrastructure ¶ ¶ Scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is already moving ¶ towards the deployment of extensive sensor networks that generate vast amounts of ¶ information.

Remote sensing is now an important element of astronomy, physics, climate, ¶ oceanography, and biology. The kinds of novel sensors discussed earlier in this section ¶ and later in this chapter

can usher in an era of “big data” for Antarctica and the Southern ¶ Ocean. Significant information processing capability would need to be

located directly on ¶ the Antarctic continent to provide preliminary analysis of these data and to clean and ¶ compress the data for efficient transmission to and analysis by researchers and U.S. ¶ government

agencies located in the United States and elsewhere. ¶ Cyberinfrastructure support for research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is ¶ currently limited. Some facilities (e.g., the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) are often ¶ beyond the range of major communication satellites in

geostationary orbit above the ¶ Equator because of the curvature of the earth. Intermittent satellite communication from ¶ such sites is provided from only those “failing” geostationary satellites that have gone

far ¶ enough out of position to allow access. Low-Earth-Orbiting communication satellites ¶ such as the Iridium System provide some data connectivity, but that connectivity is ¶ limited and expensive and will not provide the level of connectivity needed for future ¶ sensor networks. Future scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean would ¶ greatly benefit from “24/7” internet connectivity. High-bandwidth capability to and on ¶ the Antarctic continent would require improved terrestrial and satellite

communications ¶ infrastructure (Lazzara, 2004). Cyberinfrastructure support would also aid in deployment ¶ of new instruments with computer-controlled mechanics for positioning and sampling, as ¶ well as scientific instrumentation with on-board information processing and data ¶ management capability. Such advances would expand scientific activity without an ¶ equivalent expansion of costs. ¶ Given

the importance of sensing networks, it is vital that the cyberinfrastructure ¶ needs for such networks be understood in advance of design and deployment. ¶ Cyberinfrastructure is not merely a complementary asset for such systems; it is in many ¶ cases the core of such systems, and should not be left until it is too late to realize the ¶ essential needs it covers or the benefits it brings. As evidence of the emerging

importance ¶ of cyberinfrastructure to all areas of science and engineering, several years ago the ¶ National Science Foundation created an Office of Cyberinfrastructure under the Director. ¶ All polar research programs, and particularly those in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, ¶ would benefit from incorporation of cyberinfrastructure planning in their overall ¶ planning.

Antarctica development key to increasing scientific diplomacy Berkman et al 9 – (Paul Arthur Berkman, Berkman is a researcher in the NSF program on Governance for Sustainable Development, former chair of the Sustainability Standing Committee for the National Space Digital Library program, Fulbright scholarship to plan and coordinate the Antarctic Treaty Summit, Works at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, Michael A. Lang, David W.H. Walton, and Oran R. Young, “Scientific Diplomacy – Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces”, NOAA and Smithsonian Institution, 2009, http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_related_docs/antarctica_1959_treaty.pdf) WangIndeed, science can drive technology and technology¶ can drive science.¶ Looking at the broad sweep of Antarctic science, several trends are discernable. Antarctica, as a geographic focus for science, is unique in that the community of scientists that conduct research in the region come from almost all scientific disciplines. In the twenty-first

century, Antarctic science will be increasingly called upon to address complex questions that require sophisticated and diverse technologies. In the twenty-first century, an Earth system science approach is

fundamental to understanding Antarctica’s past, present, and future, and in most instances, Antarctic science will be pursued within an interdisciplinary framework. Understanding the Earth system, its components, connections and feedbacks is a major endeavor of contemporary Antarctic science and research. Antarctic research will generate large and complex volumes of diverse data and information, require transcontinental or at least region-wide investigations to address scientific questions, and entail greater access to all areas of the continent.¶ On the basis of a review of the International Polar Year (IPY) project database, a wide range of planning documents, and conferring with leaders in Antarctic science, several major scientific themes are apparent:¶ • Antarctica and global climate;¶ • deciphering paleoclimate;¶ • organisms, ecosystems, and biodiversity;¶ • subglacial aquatic environments;¶ • exploration beneath the ice;¶ • cryospheric observing and modeling;¶ • ice sheet dynamics and sea level;¶ • Southern Ocean observing and modeling; and • the poles as a vantage point.¶ Life Sciences. Although thought of as a cold and isolated environment, Antarctica is undergoing significant change due to regional climate warming, ozone depletion, non-native species introductions, global transport of contaminants, increased scientific and tourist

visits, and natural resource exploitation and extraction. Biologically, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are centers of evolutionary divergence and adaptation to environmental extremes. Antarctic life

sciences research focuses on understanding the effect of past, current, and predicted environmental change on biodiversity, adaptation, organism functioning, ecosystem structure/function and the effects of cold, darkness,

and isolation on organisms and ecosystems, both on the continent and in the Southern Ocean.¶ Geosciences. The Antarctic continent and surrounding oceans have been key elements of the Earth system throughout the history of the planet. The basement of Antarctica is built of a suite of crustal blocks that were parts of various supercontinents and the continent contains outcrops that provide insight into Earth processes in the distant past. Sedimentary records on and around Antarctica provide glimpses of paleohistory and variations in the Earth’s environment over the eons, harboring clues to the evolution of Antarctica. Geodetic and geophysical observatories document the geodynamics of the continent. Antarctic geosciences research focuses on continental crustal structure and composition, geodynamical processes, the record of life in a warmer Antarctica, the effects of geological processes on Antarctic biota and understanding the controls on ice sheet evolution and stability.¶ Physical Sciences. Processes at the interfaces between ice, ocean, land and atmosphere are key to understand- ing climate dynamics and predicting future climate. The nearly pole centered continent of Antarctica gives it a unique place in the global climate system. The role of, and the impact upon, the polar regions in climate processes are a focus of Antarctic physical sciences research. This research aims to understand ice sheet dynamics, climate records from ice cores, changes in sea ice distribution and ocean circulation, atmospheric dynamics and chemistry,¶ oceanic upwelling and melting ice shelves and the impact of the ozone hole on Antarctic climate. The Antarctic continent is also a unique place for astronomical and solar- terrestrial observations of phenomena such as interactions between the Sun and the Earth.

The Antarctic is a strategically key area for scientific diplomacy – Antarctic Treaty provesThe Royal Society 10 – (Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, a learned society for science, acts as the UK’s Academy of Sciences and funds research fellowships and scientific start up companies, “New frontiers in science diplomacy”, January 2010, http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf) Wang‘The [Antarctic] Treaty is a blueprint for the kind of international cooperation that will be needed more and more to address the challenges of the 21st century ... Governments coming together around a common interest and citizens, scientists, and institutions from different countries joined in scientific collaboration to advance peace and understanding.’¶ Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State (Clinton 2009b)¶ 2009 was the 50th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty. So it is timely to revisit the governance of the global commons—the ‘international spaces’ that exist beyond national jurisdictions, including Antarctica, the high seas, the deep sea and outer space. The governance of Antarctica sets a precedent for how the soft power of science can help to strike a balance between national and common interests, and could offer lessons for the peaceful governance of other international spaces and transnational resources.¶ The Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959 and came into force in 1961, represents a

milestone in global environmental governance, and was underpinned by science cooperation. A key military threat after World War II was the potential use of rockets to deliver nuclear weapons. In 1955, President Eisenhower proposed that the US and USSR conduct surveillance flights over each other’s territory for reassurance that¶ neither was preparing to attack. The USSR rejected this proposal. But both nations and their allies agreed to participate in the International Geophysical Year (IGY), which ran from July 1957 to December 1958, as the joint activities that this enabled in pursuit of upper atmospheric science, using rockets and satellite launches, provided a public and non-confrontational demonstration of technological capabilities.¶ By 1958, following successful satellite launches by the US and USSR, the pressure grew for

control of ballistic missiles and the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space. But these issues were too sensitive to tackle directly. Antarctica, as a neutral space, therefore assumed strategic importance, as it allowed nations to carry out a surrogate dialogue about military controls and the inspection regimes necessary to verify them. It was anticipated from the outset that the Antarctic Treaty could set an institutional precedent for the peaceful governance of other international spaces.¶ By ‘not asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty’ signatories to the Antarctic Treaty transformed it into an international space, beyond national jurisdictions (Conference on Antarctica 1959). However, questions remained about how Antarctica should be governed. In the spirit of the International Geophysical Year, it was agreed that the answer was scientific cooperation. The most important¶ common interest articulated in the Treaty was the freedom of scientific research, including the exchange of data and people. This was crucial to inform management strategies to protect the Antarctic environment and ensure the sustainable use of its resources. The Treaty also forbids military activities, and by prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons and disposal of radioactive wastes in Antarctica, it became the first nuclear arms control agreement.

Antarctic infrastructure key to scientific advancement Augustine et al 12 – (Norman R. Augustine, Augustine is the former chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, the former undersecretary to the Army, member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the US Department of homeland Security’s Advisory Council, won the National Medal of Technology and the AAS Philip Hauge Abelson Prize, Craig E. Dorman, Bart Gordan, Don Hartill, Louis J Lazerotti, Robert E Spearing, Thad Allen, Wugh W Ducklow, R Keith Harrison, Gerard Jugie, Duncan McNabb, Diana Wall, “More and better science in Antarctica through increased logistical effectiveness”, US Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel, July 2012, http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/antarctica_07232012.pdf) WangU.S. activities in Antarctica are very well man- aged but suffer from an aging infrastructure, lack of a capital budget, and the effects of operating in an extremely unforgiving environment. Construction of the new station at the South Pole, requiring all personnel, building materials and supplies to be transported by air, was a truly remarkable achievement, accomplished on schedule and nearly within the initially established budget.¶ The Panel concludes that by making changes to the logistics support system, such as those proposed, substantial cost savings can be realized using net present value as the basic financial metric. In some instances, more detailed analyses will be warranted prior to making substantial funding commitments—a consequence of the amount of time and the number of individuals available for this independent assessment. In some instances, achieving the savings identified will require front-end investments that could be supported with additional

funding, temporary reductions in research, or both. Funding derived solely from reductions in research, however, can support only a small fraction of the investments because of the scale of the logistical effort relative to science (Figure 2).¶ The Panel identifies the lack of a capital bud- get for the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) as the root cause of most of the inefficiencies observed—a situation that no successful corporation would ever permit to persist. If a formal, federally endorsed capital budget cannot be provided, then the National Science Foundation¶ (NSF) should, at a minimum, formulate a capital plan for U.S. activities in Antarctica that adapts to the needs of science and can be used as a basis for subsequent annual budgeting. The funding of maintenance would likewise benefit from more rigorous planning.¶ Under current practice, when NSF and its con- tractors must choose between repairing a roof or conducting science, science usually prevails. Only when the science is seriously disrupted because the roof begins to collapse will it be replaced; until then, it is likely only to be repaired. Examples of this phenomenon abound: a warehouse where some areas are avoided because the forklifts fall through the floor; kitchens with no grease traps; outdoor storage of supplies that can only be found by digging through deep piles of snow; gaps so large under doors that the wind blows snow into the buildings; late 1950s International Geophysical Year- era vehicles; antiquated communications; an almost total absence of modern inventory management systems (including the use of bar codes¶ in many cases); indoor storage inefficiently dispersed in more than 20 buildings at McMurdo Station; some 350,000 pounds (159,000 kilo- grams) of scrap lumber awaiting return to the U.S. for disposal; and more. The status quo is simply not an option; sooner or later the atrophying logistics infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced. Failure to do so will simply increase logistics costs until they altogether squeeze out

funding for science. A ten percent increase in the cost of logistics will consume 40 percent of the remaining science budget.

Expansion of Antarctic infrastructure increase scientific diplomacy, because international collaborations allow for achievements of scientific goals Holdren et al 12 [John- Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Executive Office of the President of the United States. “Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness.” 7/23/12. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/antarctica_07232012.pdf ] Dressler

Exchanges of scientists and other cooperative research practices have taken place among nations for many decades; however, integrated scientific and logistics collaborations have enabled the achievement of major scientific goals that were previously not possible. The International Geophysical Year (IGY) was a major milestone in collaborative activities by providing an opportunity for wide-scale international cooperation in the physical sciences. Published international Antarctic papers with coauthors from two or more nations increased from 15 papers in 1980 to 41 papers in 2007, the start of IPY. International collaborations during IPY were also extensive—with NSF funded researchers collaborated with colleagues in 28 other countries. The bibliographic record also shows that other scientists cite international papers more often than they cite single nation papers, offering further evidence that Multinational projects in Antarctica are particularly effective when nations share access to their national infrastructure and logistics pipelines. There are many such examples: The USAP’s new Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station hosts researchers from

around the world in the tradition of partnership that characterizes Antarctic activity. Clearly, Antarctica itself, with its unique treaty and its long heritage of scientific research, remains a model of international cooperation, one with lessons for international science and perhaps other activities everywhere. At the same time, much more will be accomplished through future international cooperation, particularly with regard to logistical support. Scientists from one or more nations working together can perform some forms of research at the frontier of science. But when complicated logistics partnerships are required, as is the case for much of the research in the huge and distant Antarctic, a legal framework such as that provided by the Antarctic Treaty and the intellectual framework provided by IPY are essential. Together, these frameworks enable partnerships to develop and flourish over the several years required for planning, the conduct of fieldwork, and follow through in laboratories on other continents.

Increasing science diplomacy is key to maintaining a hegemonic stateColetta 09 [Damon-Duke University , Ph.D. in Political Science, Harvard University , Master in Public Policy, Stanford University , Master in Electrical Engineering, Stanford University , B.S.E.E. “Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence.” United States Air Force Academy. September 2009. http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/Research%20Papers/2009/09%20Coletta%20Science%20and%20InfluenceINSS(FINAL).pdf ] Dressler

After the industrial revolution, science leadership has been associated with increased national capability through superior commercial and military technology. With the rising importance of soft power and transnational bargaining, when America‘s hard power cannot be deployed everywhere at once, maintaining leadership in basic science as the quest to know Nature may be key to curbing legitimate resistance and sustaining America‘s influence in the international system. The catch is that American democracy imposes high demands on the relationship between science, state, and society. Case studies of the Office of Naval Research and U.S. science-based relations with respect to Brazil, as telling examples of U.S. Government science policy via the mission agency, reveal how difficult it is for a democratic power to strike the right balance between applied activities and fundamental research that establishes science leadership.¶ To discover sustainable hegemony in an increasingly multipolar world, American policy makers will need more than the Kaysen list of advantages from basic science. Dr. Carl Kaysen served President John Kennedy as deputy national security adviser and over his long career held distinguished professorships in Political Economy at Harvard and MIT. During the 1960s, Kaysen laid out a framework with four important reasons why a great power, the United States in particular, should take a strategic interest in the basic sciences. ¶ 1. Scientific discoveries provided the input for applied research, which in turn produced technologies crucial for wielding economic and military power. ¶ 2. Scientific activity educated a cadre of operators for leadership in industries relevant to government such as health care and defense. ¶ 3. Science proficiency generated the raw elements for mounting focused,

applied efforts such as the Manhattan Project during World War II to build the first atomic bomb. ¶ 4. Scientific progress built a basic research reserve that when necessary could move quickly to shore up national needs. ¶ These arguments underscored science‘s contribution to new products and services that provided market or military advantages. The pursuit of physics, chemistry, and biology at the frontiers of knowledge could have direct effects on national excellence. ¶ In order to capitalize on a scientific lead, the most obvious strategy for sustaining hegemony would maximize the information flowing between basic research labs and the parties responsible for each of the mechanisms discussed, above. These mechanisms, or factors, in a state‘s appropriation of science broke down into two categories: the Kaysen list, which emphasized direct pathways to products and operations that overwhelmed economic or military competition, and the spillover list, which conveyed benefits to the hegemon through the broad appeal and accommodatingly neutral, man-versus-nature visage of scientific discovery.

Science Diplomacy key to sustainable hegemonyColetta, 09 “ [Damon, Ph.D. in Political Science, Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence, http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/Research%20Papers/2009/09%20Coletta%20Science%20and%20InfluenceINSS(FINAL).pdf]On the one hand, leaders of both political parties in the United States recognize the traditional links between scientific progress and international leadership. The President has found broad support in an era of tight budgets for research that can prompt technological development for ground units of the Army or Marines scrambling to solve counterinsurgency problems or for U.S. carmakers urgently redesigning their products in a volatile global market. With respect to its military crisis and its economic crisis, the most powerful nation-state reserves space in its accounts for science to help innovate its way out. Less appreciated is how scientific progress facilitates diplomatic strategy in the long run, how it contributes to Joseph Nye‘s soft power, which translates to staying power

in the international arena. One possible escape from the geopolitical forces depicted in Thucydides ‘history for all time is for the current hegemon to maintain its lead in science, conceived as a national program and as an enterprise belonging to all mankind. Beyond the new technologies for projecting military or economic power, the scientific ethos conditions the hegemon‘s approach to social-political problems. It effects how the leader organizes itself and other states to address well-springs of discontent—material inequity, religious or ethnic oppression, and environmental degradation. The scientific mantle attracts others ‘admiration, which softens or at least complicates other societies ‘resentment of power disparity. Finally, for certain global problems—nuclear proliferation, climate change, and financial crisis—the scientific lead ensures robust representation in transnational epistemic communities that can shepherd intergovernmental negotiations onto a conservative, or secular, path in terms of preserving international order. In today‘s order, U.S. hegemony is yet in doubt even

though military and economic indicators confirm its status as the world‘s lone superpower. America possesses the material wherewithal to maintain its lead in the sciences, but it also desires to bear the standard for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, patronage of basic science does not automatically flourish with liberal democracy. The free market and the mass public impose demands on science that tend to move research out of the basic and into applied realms. Absent the lead in basic discovery, no country can hope to pioneer humanity‘s quest to know Nature. There is a real danger U.S. state and society could permanently confuse sponsorship of technology with patronage of science, thereby delivering a self-inflicted blow to U.S. leadership among nations. Perhaps all these observations reflect Thucydides‘ cycle—the rise and fall of great powers—and nothing can be done. Yet, such pessimism ignores the successful record of the United States in negotiating comparable dilemmas, notably the contradiction between capitalism, an economic system that concentrates wealth, and democracy, a political system that diffuses the vote. 32 Fareed Zakaria, editor at Newsweek magazine and author of rare books that travel across highbrow international relations theory and popular culture, offered some room for maneuver when he characterized the current crisis in capitalism as a crisis in professions for American democracy.84 Adam Smith‘s laissez-faire market could not survive without Adam Smith‘s theory of moral sentiments. Today‘s sophisticated global economy will not create wealth without professions that are both technically competent and socially conscious. A growing literature in American politics applies principal-agent dynamics to explain how democracies respond to policy challenges demanding technical expertise.85 Typically, the agents are professionals responsible for conveying expert knowledge to politician principals

representing the public interest. Whether the professionals are military officers, intelligence agents, or diplomats, American democracy faces a dilemma of control. Too much monitoring or intervention politicizes the agents, binds them from speaking truth to power and guts their value as expert professionals. Too little direct involvement means the experts can use their information advantage to manipulate the principal: technocracy replaces government by the people. The social science literature recognizes that the best practical solution is somewhere in between, and anticipating Zakaria, that the dilemma is less acute if the professionals develop Adam Smith‘s moral sentiments, that is, if the expert advisers see themselves as officers with a stake in the larger system. The more seriously professionals take this moral code to serve the principal and not game the system by exploiting asymmetric knowledge for their individual benefit, the more autonomy they can be granted, and the more the republic can gain from expertise in military affairs, intelligence analysis, or economic strategy. Particularly after the U.S. government‘s dramatic expansion of patronage for science through the Office of Naval Research in 1946, science is home to one of those professions vital for maintaining national power and position in the international system. Furthermore, a familiar principal-agent dilemma confounds democratic attempts to strike the balance between technocratic virtuosity and public accountability.86 At present, the difficulties mission-oriented bureaucracies like ONR have in detecting and nurturing Nobel quality work in the basic sciences suggest that democratic constraints are set too tight. To regain the reputation abroad for outstanding American Science, government sponsors will have to grant scientists more autonomy at home, especially in the field of basic research. Program directors and scientist beneficiaries at university will garner more freedom from politicians and policymakers if they can embrace a professional ethos both patriotic and moral. If these professionals internalize social benefits to science, to mankind, and to America‘s international influence from fulfilling the public trust, American democracy can scale back its regulations. It can also subdue 33 debilitating demands for timely material results without fretting over the loyalty of experts serving on the remote frontiers of science.

Science diplomacy in the Antarctic allows for huge leaps in global scienceErb 09 [Karl- Director, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation. “International collaboration in the Antarctic for global science.” National Science Foundation. December 2009. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/ke_speeches/at50_summit.jsp ] Dressler

This paper highlights several recent exemplars of the international research in Antarctica that, in practical terms, a single nation could not have undertaken on its own. Much of this science is currently helping to explain the Antarctic region’s involvement in global change, a central research question of our age. This research echoes the themes of this conference: science interacting with diplomacy, science as a source of policy issues, science as an early warning, and science as a quest for fundamental knowledge. ¶ Countries are working together to describe current, and potential future, events impacting the Antarctic ice sheet. Only through such a broad effort involving China, the UK, France, the USA, and other countries can we hope to reduce uncertainties in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of long-term global sea level rise. The goal is to determine the rates of loss of ice from the main drainage basins (Fig 3) and how the rates

depend on bed lubrication, topography and ocean temperature.¶ Twenty-eight countries are collaborating in the Polar Earth Observing Network (PoleNet) to map uplift of the Antarctic crust resulting from a decreased mass of the covering ice sheet. Data from new GPS and seismic stations spanning much of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are used to model how much ice was lost over the 10,000 years since the last major ice age. These data, taken with information gathered by satellites, help in determining where, and at what rate, the ice sheets are changing in response to recent climate change. The measurements are critical in refining estimates of future global sea level rise. The collaborations have led to new technology for continuous measurement at autonomous observatories operating in polar conditions and have provided a legacy framework for ongoing international geophysical observations. ¶ Implementing these

multinational projects is possible only because nations share access to their national infrastructures and logistics in Antarctica. The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP), which brings operational expertise to bear in all aspects of Antarctic support, is of particular importance in facilitating the range of logistic support needed in Antarctica to carry out these studies in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. COMNAP members work closely with each other, with other governmental agencies in their nations, and with SCAR to match international logistic infrastructure to the needs of these international science collaborations.¶ Research at the frontier of science certainly can be performed and organized solely by individual scientists in two or more nations. But when complicated logistics partnerships are required, as are in supporting

research in the huge and distant Antarctic, the legal framework provided by the Antarctic Treaty and the intellectual framework provided by the International Polar Year enable partnerships to develop and flourish over the several years required for planning, fieldwork, and follow-through in laboratories back home. The scientific value of the Antarctic will continue to increase as its role in Earth System Science is more fully realized and it is only through international collaboration that many of these pressing questions will be answered

Science research in the southern ocean is key to overall science Zapol et al 20 [warren, chair of Harvard medical school & Massachusetts general hospital, “Future science opportunities in Antarctica and the southern ocean, no date, http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning/Antarctica_Report_US_NAS.pdf] Jia (part of a large article)

Although the icy landscape of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean may seem distant, scientific research in this region can yield insights on changes that are important to the entire planet. The Antarctic region also holds the promise of novel discovery: ice and sediment records contain clues to Earth’s history, the region’s living organisms may hold genetic secrets to surviving in extreme environments, and the Antarctic plateau offers an unparalleled platform for observing the solar system and the Universe beyond. Looking out over the next couple of decades, this report identifies key questions that will drive scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, and presents opportunities to be leveraged to sustain and improve the science program. The development of a large-scale observing network and a new generation of models has the potential to expand scientific understanding and ensure the continuing success of research in the Antarctic region.

US STI leadership essential for international and national interestsLYONS,COLGLAZIER-7/18 [ E. WILLIAM COLGLAZIER, ELIZABETH E. LYONS, Colglazier is the science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state, Lyons is a senior adviser in the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Science and Technology Adviser and its Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. She is on detail with support from the National Science Foundation to the Department of State, The United States Looks to the Global Science, Technology, and Innovation Horizon,Science and diplomacy ,7/18/2014, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org /authors /elizabeth-e-lyons]Thomas

U.S. STI (science, technology, and innovation) excellence and leadership are essential for national interests, e.g., economy, health, security, and environment. It is also important to U.S. diplomacy, its soft power, and efforts to advance peace, prosperity, and security around the world. Therefore, the U.S. STI enterprise will need to adapt to new opportunities and changes in the current landscape of global science. To be most effective, the response should include embracing a strategy of international STI research cooperation and utilizing STI knowledge strategically by looking out, up, around, and forward. This can empower the U.S. STI enterprise, especially its decentralized academic components, to engage globally.1 We discuss a knowledge framework that could facilitate strategic international STI cooperation.

Impacts

Science diplomacy key to solve for military and environmental threats – empirics from Cold WarThe Royal Society 10 – (Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, a learned society for science, acts as the UK’s Academy of Sciences and funds research fellowships and scientific start up companies, “New frontiers in science diplomacy”, January 2010, http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf) Wang

Cooperation on the scientific aspects of sensitive issues may sometimes be the only way to initiate a wider political dialogue. The soft power of science, and the universality of scientific methods, can be used to diffuse tensions even in ‘hard power’ scenarios, such as those relating to traditional military threats. For example, technologies to verify nuclear arms control agreements were a rare focus of joint working between the US and USSR during the Cold War.¶ Lessons from the Cold War are once again

highly pertinent. In the run-up to the May 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear disarmament is firmly back on the international agenda. However, the timescale for disarmament is long, as illustrated by the history of negotiations over the Chemical Weapons Convention. After the Geneva Convention banned the use of chemical weapons in 1925, negotiations for a treaty banning their production and stockpiling did not start until the 1980s, and the convention entered into force only in 1997. Even now, stockpiles of chemical weapons in the US and Russia have yet to be destroyed.¶ So focusing in 2010 on the challenges of the final stages of a nuclear disarmament¶ process may be premature. A more practical next step could be to establish the scientific requirements for the

verification regime necessary to support future stages of negotiation (Pregenzer 2008). In 2008, the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that a high-level Intergovernmental Panel on Nuclear Disarmament could be established (based on the model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This panel could begin by identifying the scientific and technical aspects of disarmament, and then set out a research agenda necessary to achieve them. International cooperation would be essential, both between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, as all would need to have confidence that¶ Figure 2. Multiple stress zones.¶ reductions are taking place. The recent initiative between the UK and Norwegian governments on disarmament verification sets a precedent here, and could be expanded to include additional States (VERTIC 2009).¶ However, security threats now

extend beyond the military domain, with environmental security attracting particular attention (Abbott C, Rogers P & Sloboda S 2007). Essential resources, such as freshwater, cultivable land, crop yields and fish stocks, are likely to become scarcer in many parts of the world, increasing the risk of competition over resources within and between states (UNEP 2009). This could intensify as previously inaccessible¶ regions, such as the Arctic Ocean, open up as a consequence of climate change and ice melt. Substantial parts of the world also risk being left uninhabitable by rising sea levels, reduced freshwater availability or¶ declining agricultural capacity. Many of the regions that are vulnerable to the impacts of these multiple stresses are already the locus of existing instability and conflict (see Figure 2).

Solves nuclear terrorism – nuclear forensics and joint activities Lowenthal 11 – (Micah D. Lowenthal, director of the Nuclear Security and Nuclear Facility Safety Program in the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Research Council of the National Academies, Former researcher and lecturer at University of California at Berkeley, AB degree in physics and PhD in nuclear engineering from U.C. Berkeley, “Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security”, United States Institute of Peace, October 2011, http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf) Wang

It has been noted that the knowledge of how to build a crude nuclear explosive is within the reach of many,

and that the difficulty in acquiring the fissile material for the nuclear explosive is the main obstacle to nuclear terrorism. Little progress has been made on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), and even this measure would only stop future production of fissile material, not address nuclear material already in existence. In discussing disposition of HEU and plutonium, Ahearne expressed his view that the sheer quantity of HEU and plutonium in storage is a

hazard. Some aspects of verification of an FMCT and declarations of existing stocks are difficult, but for those who share Dr.

Ahearne’s concern about stocks, the challenges cannot be avoided. D’Agostino and Gottemoeller both highlighted additional joint activities, such as nuclear forensics, which could work to curb nuclear terrorism.

Science diplomacy solves nuclear terrorism and prolif Lowenthal 11 – (Micah D. Lowenthal, director of the Nuclear Security and Nuclear Facility Safety Program in the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Research Council of the National Academies, Former researcher and lecturer at University of California at Berkeley, AB degree in physics and PhD in nuclear engineering from U.C. Berkeley, “Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security”, United States Institute of Peace, October 2011, http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf) Wang

Some important lessons were learned from the practice of science diplomacy in difficult times between the United States and

the Soviet Union/Russia over the past twenty-five years. Although the issues faced today are more complex, these lessons are still pertinent. The Cold War may be over, but the variety of threats has grown. Science diplomacy is needed now more than ever to address terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear and other potentially dangerous technologies, regional rivalries and conflicts, and a set of other critical matters. Some of these topics are quite sensitive and officials and scientists today may wonder how the topics can be discussed in bilateral or multilateral settings, but they have to remember what has already been accomplished. Because of nuclear weapons’ terrible destructive power, nations consider information about them and their potential use to be highly sensitive. But it is precisely this terrible destructive power that makes discussion including sharing of information and analyses—and that makes science diplomacy—so important. Indeed, this destructive power is what motivated those practitioners quoted

in this report to succeed. This inspires practitioners of science diplomacy to continue to work together on the critical issues for nuclear security today and to find ways to reduce the threats that the world faces. All

parties owe that to future generations. Science diplomacy played such a key role in helping to bridge important gaps to bring an end to the Cold War; it is time to call upon this powerful tool to address the new and vexing security challenges the world faces in the twenty-first century.

Science diplomacy solves US North Korea relations – empirics prove Park 12 – (Madison Park, Digital news producer at CNN, former health writer/producer at CNN Digital, former at Baltimore Sun, formerly worked on CNN’s health sector reporting on healthcare reform, outbreaks, HIV/AIDs, and gender identity issues, BS in Journalism and History from Northwestern, “Using science to bring enemies together”, CNN, April 18, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/health/north-korea-science-diplomacy/) Wang

(CNN) -- While tensions remain high between the United States and North Korea, the relationship is more

cordial between their scientists.¶ Scientists from both nations are collaborating via nongovernmental

organizations and universities on projects ranging from tuberculosis research and deforestation issues to digital information technology.¶ The idea behind science diplomacy is to build bridges and relationships through research and academics despite political tensions. This month, a delegation of North Korean economic experts visited Silicon Valley to see various American businesses and academic institutions such as Stanford University. It may seem like a bizarre concept that two countries, at odds with each other, would share scientific knowledge.¶ But science diplomacy existed between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, as researchers cooperated on nuclear issues, space missions and technology. And this practice continues, with U.S. scientists working with academics and researchers from adversarial states like Iran, Cuba and North Korea.¶ North Korea's Kim Jong Un speaks North Korea hears from Kim Jong Un Fireworks mark North Korean anniversary How NK leaders reacted to launch

failure¶ "A group of us who believe in science diplomacy, believe that it is useful to find people in those

countries with whom you can find something in common, with whom you can discuss and can perhaps

cooperate in areas not strategic, military or defense-related," said Dr. Norman Neureiter, senior adviser to the Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy, which is part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science.¶ U.S. scientists, backed by a scientific engagement consortium that includes AAAS, Korea Society, U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation, Syracuse University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have worked with North Korean scientists and technical universities since 2007 to deliver lectures and share resources and knowledge about subjects such as reforestation, river reclamation, soil quality and agriculture. The U.S. government does not sponsor these activities.¶ The visits are heavily supervised by North Korean minders. Also, scientists cannot collaborate in areas related to weapons or the military.

US hegemony loss causes extinctionDyer 04 [Gwynne-BA in history from Memorial University of Newfoundland and MA in military history from Rice University and PhD in military and Middle Eastern history at King’s College London, senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. "The End of War.” Common Dreams. 12/30/04. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1230-05.htm ] DresslerWar is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future. ¶ The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well

over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries

much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation.¶ Add in the huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population.

Science Diplomacy is key to cooperation- needed to improve relations with other countriesLijesevic 10 [Jasmina, PhD Candidate in Politics at Swansea University. She is conducting her doctoral research on the political rationale for US-Russian cooperation on the Shuttle-Mir programme. She holds a BA from the University of Salford, an MSc from Cranfield University, and has previously worked for EADS, the Labour Party, and United Airlines, Science Diplomacy at the heart of international relations, E-International Relations, http://www.e-ir.info/2010/04/01/science-diplomacy-at-the-heart-of-international-relations/ Science diplomacy is a move away from the development of hard power capabilities of technological development in the military, and on to soft power[1], using science as an asset to further mediation and cooperation between nations. According to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,

“Science diplomacy and science and technology cooperation between the United States and other countries is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations and creating real bridges between the United States and counterparts.”[2] In a recent report, The Royal

Society concluded that the still fluid concept of science diplomacy could be applied in three ways: Informing foreign policy objectives with scientific advice (science in diplomacy), Facilitating international science cooperation

(diplomacy for science), Using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy.)[3] There has been a surge in recent years of an interest in science and its potential uses in foreign policy. There are two primary groups that currently have a stake in the development of science as a tool in international relations: foreign policy advocates and the scientific community itself. For the foreign policy advocates, science policy is used to further wider goals, whilst for scientists the primary aims are the desire to collaborate with the best people in their field, to work in the best research facilities, and to secure further sources of funding. Scientific organisations are currently pushing science cooperation and diplomacy higher up the political agenda. With the aim of making science policy a key element of foreign policy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) now has a dedicated Centre for Science Diplomacy[4], and the

organisation already cooperates closely with its EU counterparts on issues such as nuclear arms monitoring.[5] Possibly the most high profile example of scientific cooperation across Europe is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), which was one of Europe’s first joint ventures and it now includes 20 Member States. Key to the discovery and development of the internet, CERN’s business is fundamental physics, finding out what the universe is made of and how it works.[6] A major, international flagship project, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, is funded by various organisations from a number of different countries. In terms of diplomacy, the organisation can list some of the first post-Second World War contracts between German and Israeli scientists, and cooperation between the USSR and other Iron Curtain countries in among its historical achievements. While still in the discussion stage, the EU intends to create the position of Chief Scientific Advisor, although it is presently unclear whether the structure of the body will be similar to that of the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).[7] However, it does point to the fact that EU leaders firmly acknowledge the important of science at the heart of their organisation, although there is no escaping the fact that great difficulty still arises as a result of 90% of R&D funding coming from national budgets. With many issues, including environment policy and security, being transnational in nature, surely it is imperative to effectively tackle these issues on a transnational basis? [8] In a recent Huffington Post article, Jared Cohen discusses the U.S. government led delegation of high-technology CEOs to Russia to engage with Russian government stakeholders, civil society, students, academic leaders, and private sector entities from a cross-section of Russian society with the aims of forging partnerships on education, health, anti-trafficking, anti-corruption, and e-governance. He argues that during the Cold War, such dialogue would not have been possible as both the Russians and the US viewed innovation as a zero-sum game, and that whereas now innovation is perhaps the most important shared resource between the two nations. “Much more than government-to-government meetings on START and Iran; it also entails government officials engaging non-governmental actors, including NGOs, entrepreneurs, students, and professors. At the core of this policy is the creation of linkages between non-governmental Americans and their Russian counterparts, and with Russian government interlocutors to find areas of mutual interest and seek out new opportunities for collaboration”.[9] Via “U.S. Innovation Dialogue” Cohen identifies six major areas where the actors seek to deliver: Education, Entrepreneurship Training, and Mentorship Anti-trafficking and child protection Combating Cyber-crime Health E-governance and Collaboration Promoting Cultural Collaboration Although certainly involving another dimension – collaboration on international issues and involving new technologies and communication tools not previously available – and a transparency that did not exist during the Cold War years, Cohen nevertheless does touch on an area in diplomacy that is worth exploring within the context of science. In addition to philanthropic assistance, the West responded to the crisis in Russian science at the end of the Cold War not only by trying to prevent nuclear proliferation but also by pursuing profitable ventures. The US and Germany, afraid that top Soviet nuclear scientists would be courted by nations trying to develop their own nuclear arsenal, developed the Baker-Genscher initiative. Part of this initiative was agreed in 1992, whereby the US would provide $35m and Europe $25m to create “clearing houses” for the top 2000 nuclear scientists from the former-USSR to focus on research fields unrelated to weapons development.[10] By the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy had entered into a dozen agreements involving nuclear science and technology.[11] Often maligned as being merely an expensive exercise in national prestige, space policy – and the competitive/cooperative relationship between the US and USSR/Russia – has also often proved to be a good case study for science diplomacy. NASA, an organisation originally set up during the Cold War, which competed with the USSR in the Space Race to the moon and for dominance in orbit, had its roots directly linked to enhancing national security. Since the early 1990s, the agency was placed at the forefront of cooperation with Russia on space programmes with the continual aim of aiding US national security interests. Via cooperation with the Russian space agency, and in a similar vein to the Baker-Genscher initiative, the US helped provide continued employment to former Soviet scientists who might otherwise have plied their trade in Iran or North Korea, and aided the ailing Russian economy. When Russia sought to sell cryogenic rocket engines to India, the US was concerned the dual-use technology could be applied to ballistic missile development despite the two parties insistence that technology transfers were purely intended to aid India’s indigenous satellite launching program; investment by the US and cooperation with Russia eventually ended the sale. However, this was another stepping stone to what had come before: cooperation between the two nations during the height of the Cold War under the auspices of scientific bodies and national academies when formal political relations were strained, or even directly between the two governments on the high profile Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) during the 1970s when the political climate of détente allowed for increased collaboration. It can certainly be argued that by examining the pattern of previous scientific cooperation between the two nations, there is evidence to suggest that what Cohen describes is a logical and expedient continuation and expansion in policy and development between the US and Russia, and that this will no doubt continue while it still serves both their mutual interests. Although referring specifically to space policy, the broader aspects of the geopolitics of science that Nicholas Peter discusses in his 2006 paper certainly apply. [12] During the Cold War “intrabloc” cooperation was the norm; however, “interbloc” cooperation also took place on a more limited set of occasions. This pattern has evolved since the end of the Cold War, leading to science and technology increasingly shaping foreign policy and diplomacy. Therefore, it can be expected that activities will also influence the future geopolitical context as governments initiate or participate in collaborative projects for a number of scientific reasons, but also for broader domestic and foreign policy reasons. Science should ideally provide the basis of non-ideological environments for the participation and free exchange of ideas. However, science has been, and will no doubt at times continue to be, used for political gain with the express aim of furthering a particular ideology and proving its superiority. Despite the negatives surrounding it as a policy tool, science diplomacy has been effective for many years and led to

coalition building and conflict resolution, and as the expansion of new technology continues it seems that politicians are seeing even further value to exploring science as a method of foreign policy.

Cooperation through science diplomacy is key to solve a laundry list of impactsFederoff 8 (Nina, science and technology adviser to the Sec of State, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htmThe U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50 percent of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board's 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47 percent of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science--particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology--are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to Earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world--Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States--representing 70 percent of the world's current population. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world's two nuclear powers--the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount. Using

Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and

indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have

combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for U.S. science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people's lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed `brain drain.' Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.

Sustainable heg key – transition away will fail and result in war Zhang and Shi 11 [Yuhan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Lin, Columbia University, “America’s decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry,” January 22nd, 2011 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/

Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western

Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

Multilateralism failed in Europe, Hard to overcomeKuryanova-13[Lyubov Kuryanova,'Policy of multiculturalism in Europe has failed' - expert, The Voice of Russia, May/7/2013, http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_05_07/Policy-of-multiculturalism-in-Europe-has-failed-expert/]Thomas The policy of multiculturalism in Europe is experiencing a crisis, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel admitted,

as did UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron. At a meeting with young activists of the Christian Democratic Union in October 2010, Merkel declared that attempts to create a multicultural society in Germany have failed completely. According to The Daily Mail the UK is experiencing the same problem as is evident from the recent Demos studies. Trevor Phillips, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claims that regions with a high concentration of ethnic minorities prevent newcomers from integrating and adapting to life in the UK. The situation is no better in France, where a case was recently opened dealing with racism targeting Caucasians. Two young people asked a passer-by for a cigarette and, faced with a refusal, started to verbally assault him in French and Arabic and then beat him up. As a result, the victim was severely wounded. Modern Europe has experienced a fair share of ethnic conflicts, like the Paris unrest in 2005 and the London riots that took place in

Tottenham in August 2011. Ethnic tensions in Europe are growing worse with each passing year, political analyst Sergei Mikheyev says.“The policy of multiculturalism in Europe has failed. Immigrants are not integrating into the Western society; on the contrary, they do everything to lead a segregated lifestyle and establish closed communities with their own rules. They use the material luxuries that the Western countries provide, but they want to live according to their own laws and beliefs.”

The common belief is that there are two ways to solve this problem: either to accept that the policy of multiculturalism has failed, or try to establish a much stricter European identity. Whether Europe is ready for either option is a big

question. It would be very difficult for the EU to overcome this conflict in a smooth way , expert at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations Vladislav Belov believes.“Europe needs to limit immigration. There will be resistance, but the government has enough resources for stricter control in situations when resistance surpasses the boundaries of what is deemed civil in the European society.”It seems that today a reverse integration is taking place: it is not the immigrants who adapt to the local way of life, but the natives who try to

modify their lifestyles in accordance with the immigrants’ demands. Experts predict that if this trend continues, in 30-50 years Europe as we know it will cease to exist.

Science leadership is key to overall leadership Gentile-12 [ James M. Gentile, PhD., is Dean for the Natural & Applied Sciences at Hope College in Holland, MI., and the Past President of Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA), a Tucson, AZ-based foundation dedicated to science,Accepting the Challenge of Continued U.S. Science Leadership, Huff Post scienc,09/12/2012,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-m-gentile/accepting-the-challenge-o_b_1870744.html] Thomas

Science and technology have fueled America's standing as a global superpower, and the millions of jobs that flow from that leadership. Yet the place of science in America's future is publicly debated now perhaps

more than at any time since the Scopes Trial of 1925 -- the landmark legal case over the right to teach evolution in school. The consequences of not maintaining our national commitment to science, however, are greater than ever -- for American economic preeminence, for our own standard of living, and for humankind . That's why Research Corporation for Science Advancement -- the nation's oldest foundation devoted wholly to science, which I have the honor of leading -- has made a renewed commitment in this our centennial year to being in the forefront of science advocacy: for scientific research, for transformational science, and

for science education.¶ Globally, there is urgency to the situation, as the world depends increasingly on the scientific breakthroughs for which the United States is legendary. The population of the underdeveloped world is projected to increase by 2.9 billion by

2050, and that growth is likely to add exponentially to problems of health maintenance and disease control. Of the 7 billion people on earth, 854 million, or 12.6 percent, are already undernourished, according to the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization, and in many countries clean water is in short supply.The global demand for energy adds more challenges for energy production and the environment. According to energy chemist Nathan S. Lewis of the California Institute of Technology, the world must go from roughly 15 billion terawatts peak rate of energy production today (with 80 to 90 percent derived from fossil fuel combustion) to roughly 30 billion terawatts by 2050.For the United States the challenges are striking, as well. Economists have estimated that about half of U.S. economic growth since World War II has been the result of technological innovation. Yet rising economic powers like China and India increasingly understand America's "secret" of success: our commitment to producing and inspiring the world's science leaders.To excel in tomorrow's global economy, the United States must produce more scientists and more transformational research. Key to that is increasing the quality of STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in the vast majority of colleges and universities, bringing the effectiveness of instruction closer to the level found in top institutions.¶ Unfortunately, the academic community -- of which I have been a part for more than 30 years -- excels at conducting studies and offering analysis but falls short when it comes to taking widespread coordinated action. It is as if the inhabitants of this particular archipelago are

fond of beating their drums to warn of approaching danger, but somehow all of this urgent communication among the islands never transforms into a comprehensive concerted response to the collective threat.¶ Given the recent revival among some politicians of the practice of ridiculing ("Proxmiring") National Science Foundation-funded, peer-reviewed, scientific research, as well as congressional gridlock and continuing budget battles, it is unlikely that there is a taxpayer-funded rescue armada steaming this way. We in the academic-based science community must rise to the challenge ourselves.¶ That's why Research Corporation for Science Advancement has made this commitment to advocacy. As a small independent foundation, we will take advantage of our capacity to be nimble and aggressive, while larger agencies and institutions may be more cautious or deliberative.¶ In our centennial year (having been founded in 1912), Research Corporation for Science Advancement follows our established tradition of recognizing a challenge and taking action that we hope will be transformative. In earlier times, among other game-changing work, we funded Robert Goddard, now known as the father of modern rocketry, at a critical time in his research, when even The New York Times ridiculed his notion of sending a rocket to the moon. We supported the quest of Ernest O. Lawrence (now the namesake of the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories) to build the first large cyclotron, opening the door to subatomic physics. And we helped eliminate the dietary scourges of pellagra and beriberi.¶ In keeping with this tradition of action, Research Corporation for Science Advancement pledges to work aggressively to rally our academic colleagues, sister foundations, and other like-minded organizations for a frontal assault on the current stumbling blocks impeding the production of more top-quality science and scientists. This will require, among other things, reasserting the ideal of the teacher-scholar (as opposed to the isolated researcher) as the central powerhouse of U.S. science advancement; it will depend upon cross-disciplinary approaches at a time when scientific discovery is more complex than ever; it will necessitate a widespread commitment to undergraduate research programs, through which students are most engaged in the work of science and can most envision a career in science; and it will require a rethinking of how science is taught, moving away from the iconic auditorium

lecture to a hands-on experience with science, enhanced by digital opportunities that did not previously exist.¶ America has an extraordinary legacy in science and technology and an outstanding foundation of global leadership on which to build. We also have a population of potential future scientists who are already digitally inclined and captivated by technological advances. But we must not take our nation's leadership for granted. It is being challenged as never before, and at a time when our national success is producing scientists is declining.¶ America needs more scientists, and the academic-based science community must be in the forefront of designing and implementing solutions. The jobs that Americans want and need depend upon it, as does our nation's preeminence in innovation and the future of scientific inquiry and discovery.

Heg prevents extinction, increase of military Barnett 2011 – Former Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College, worked as the Assistant for Strategic Futures in the Office of Force Transformation in the DOD (3/7, Thomas, World Politics Review, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads”, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads) Thomas

Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as the

world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from risk because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem. Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is

actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time

of arguably the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing

feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military

intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of

our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from

the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire ." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has

marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would

have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left,

once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of

perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan

over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy , the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted

global GDP and a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts.

Unipolarity strengthens alliance relationshipsWalt, 09 – professor of international affairs at Harvard (Stephen, “Alliances in a Unipolar World,” World Politics, January, project muse) Thomas

Lastly, regional balancing will be the preferred course for most states, particularly when they face imminent local threats and are convinced that the single superpower shares their perceptions of the danger . As noted, regional balancers will also go to some lengths to reinforce these perceptions, to convince the strongest state to see the world as they do. But if the unipolar power

is smart and clear-eyed, it will recognize the opportunity that the desire for protection affords. The main effect of unipolarity will be to make weaker states more concerned about abandonment and thus more prone to being entrapped, while

the unipole will be unconcerned about the former and largely invulnerable to the latter. In unipolarity, the dominant power can play hard to get most of the time and insist that the allies that crave its protection be willing to follow its lead.

Hegemony key to solve global warmingCascio 08 [Jamais Cascio, 2008, Writers for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, The Big Picture: Climate Chaos] Thomas

The relationship between climate chaos and the rise of the post-hegemonic world is tricky. Climate disruption isn’t causing the decline of US hegemony,

nor is it caused by that decline. However, global warming underscores the weakness of the American hegemony, and that the decline of American hegemony weakens the potential for a near-term coordinated response to global warming. Moreover, this decline has the potential to make dealing with climate chaos more difficult. The best example of this situation occurred at the Bali global warming conference in December. The US delegation refused to sign an agreement accepted by essentially the rest of the participants, instead arguing for its own alternative. Kevin Conrad, the delegate from Papua New Guinea, then stepped to the microphone and said this: There’s an old saying: If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way. I ask the United States: We asked for your leadership; we seek your leadership. But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us; please get

out of the way. A weakened American hegemon is one that is most likely to either try a costly attempt to shore up its power, or lash out at rising competitors, distracting national and world leadership at a time when distraction is most problematic. Of all of the risks to our global capacity to deal with global warming, this is the most dangerous.

U.S. econ keyt o world econ WATT- 7/9 [ LOUISE WATT, Associated Press, ABC. China Says It's up to US to Drive Global Economy, ABC News,7/9/2014, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/china-us-drive-global-economy-24482358]Thomas China's finance minister said Wednesday that the country is not planning any new stimulus measures and it is up to the United States to drive the global economy.¶ Lou Jiwei said that leaders are satisfied with the country's economic performance so far this year and that in the first five months China had created up to 6 million jobs, 60 percent of this year's target.¶ Analysts say the ruling party appears willing to accept economic growth below its 7.5 percent target this year so long as the rate of creation of new jobs stays high enough to avoid political tensions.¶ Lou said China, which is the world's second-largest economy after the U.S., is emphasizing structural reforms to spur economic growth and is unlikely to

repeat the kind of massive economic stimulus it did in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.¶ "Therefore the global economic recovery depends on the situation in the United States," he told reporters at a briefing during an annual U.S.-China strategic and economic dialogue in Beijing attended by U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.¶ Lou pointed out that the U.S. economy shrank at a 2.9 percent annual rate from January to March — largely because of a brutal winter — and said China hopes the U.S. "can take measures to ensure the

momentum of growth."¶ He also said China hopes the U.S. can rebalance its economy by encouraging Americans to save more.¶ The finance minister said that during the talks Wednesday, U.S. officials had asked whether China still had to intervene in the foreign exchange rate — a longstanding issue between the two as the U.S. says Beijing's controls on the yuan give Chinese exporters an unfair price advantage and hurt foreign competitors. Lou said that as China's economy wasn't in full health and capital flows weren't yet normal, "it is very difficult for us to refrain" from foreign market intervention.¶ Domestically, Lou said that industries that have visibly suffered from a high-profile anti-corruption campaign spearheaded by President Xi Jinping, such as high-end hotels, tobacco and luxury liquors, have adapted to the conditions. "Some of the luxury hotels

and restaurants have started to sell takeout food," he added.¶ He gave no additional details about the progress of the campaign and the impact it might have on the economy at large.

U.S hegemony solves terrorism, the military defeats themThayer, 07 – Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University (Bradley A., American Empire, Routledge, page 16) Thomas

Another critical question is not simply how much the United States spends on defense but what benefits it receives from its spending: “Is the money

spent worth it?” the benefits of American military power are considerable, and I will elaborate on five of them. First, and most importantly, the American people are protected from invasion and attack. The horrific attacks of 9/11 are—mercifully—an aberration. The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence community do an outstanding job deterring aggression against the United States. Second, American interests abroad are protected. U.S. military power allows Washington to defeat its enemies overseas. For example, the United States has made the decision to attack terrorists far from America’s shores, and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the

United States itself. Its military power also gives Washington the power to protect its interests abroad by deterring attacks against America’s interests or coercing potential or actual opponents. In international politics, coercion means dissuading an opponent from actions America does not want it to do or to do something that it wants done. For example, the United States wanted Libya to give up the weapons of mass destruction capabilities it pos-sessed or was developing. As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, “I think the reason Mu’ammar Qadhai agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction was because he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein.”

Science is necessary for mankind, will bring peace to the arctic BERKMA-6/23 [Paul Arthur Berkman is a research professor at the Marine Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Stability and Peace in the Arctic Ocean through Science Diplomacy, Science and diplomacy, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/stability-and-peace-in-arctic-ocean-through-science-diplomacy]Thomas

¶ “High north, low tensions” has been the mantra of diplomats, as coined by former Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre. After all, the Cold War is over and cooperation has been evolving in productive directions ever since for the North Polar region.¶ ¶ Lessons of the Arctic, such as those from the Antarctic, reveal science as a tool of diplomacy that creates bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. It is well known that science is necessary for Earth system monitoring and assessment, especially as an essential gauge of change over time and space.

Science also is a frequent determinant of public policy agendas and institutions , often for early warning about future events. However, even more than an immediate source of insight, invention, and commercial enterprise, science provides continuity in our global society with its evolving foundation of prior knowledge. These and other features of science diplomacy,1 as a field of human endeavor, are relevant to our global future in the Arctic.¶ ¶ Building on the East-West breakthrough in the 1986 Reykjavik Summit, with his Murmansk speech in October 1987, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev envisioned a shared path where “the community and interrelationship of the interests of our entire world is felt in the northern part of the globe, in the Arctic, perhaps more than anywhere else.” Recognizing that “scientific exploration of the Arctic is of immense importance for the whole of mankind,” Gorbachev called for creation of a “joint Arctic Research Council.”¶ ¶ Emerging from his Murmansk speech, the International Arctic Science Committee was founded in 1990, followed by the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991, which revealed a “common future” among Arctic countries and peoples. Also involving the eight Arctic states,2 the Barents-Euro Arctic Council and Standing Committee of the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region were formed in 1993 and 1994, respectively.¶ ¶ Eventually established in 1996, the Arctic Council breathed life into a circumpolar community of the eight states and six indigenous peoples’ organizations inhabiting the region north of the Arctic Circle. “As a high level forum,” the Arctic Council has become central in an institutional arena for the high north that includes the above organizations along with many others, starting with the 1920 Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen. With its forty-two signatories, this treaty still stands as a beacon of peaceful development in the high north.¶ ¶ Together, the six scientific working groups of the Arctic Council are facilitating knowledge discovery and contributing to informed decisions about “common Arctic issues” of sustainable development and environmental protection. As a direct consequence of the Arctic Council, pan-Arctic agreements are being signed by all Arctic states, beginning with the 2011 search and rescue agreement and 2013 marine oil pollution response agreement. Interests of twelve non-Arctic states, including China and India, also are being accommodated as they are brought in as observers to the Arctic Council.¶ ¶ Moreover, the so-called Arctic Five3 coastal states are

reaching territorial agreements. As noted in their 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the Arctic Ocean”are being addressed cooperatively under the Law of the Sea, particularly with regard to “outer limits of the continental shelf.” This commitment includes the United States, even though it has not yet ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Highlighting the cooperation, Russia and Norway signed an agreement in 2010 about Barents Sea resources, ending a dispute that had escaped their resolution for the previous four decades.

Science Diplomacy key to US-Europe cooperationWang 14 [Tom, Associate professor, Science Diplomacy: Transatlantic Asset and Competition, John Hopkins University, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/publications/books/Smarter%20Power/Chapter%2011%20wang.pdf] JBModern science diplomacy established itself, if not in name, then by action, following World War II, and especially during the Cold War. Because of their histories, the United States and Europe (this paper focuses primarily at the European Union level

of analysis) have taken different approaches to the use of science in support of broader foreign policy objectives. The two economies have developed complementary but different competences in science diplomacy reflecting European integration priorities and U.S. geopolitical ones. Scientific activities, including higher education in the sciences and engineering, are important tools of soft power for the two economies and will continue to be so in the future. Today, the U.S. and European approaches to science diplomacy are converging. Concurrently, science

diplomacy will increasingly be a source of transatlantic competition. Science Diplomacy and Soft Power A country’s science and technology system and culture can be, in itself and as a driver of economic vibrancy, a source of soft power, which has been treated extensively by Nye and Center for Transatlantic Relations Johns Hopkins University – Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 525, Washington DC 20036 transatlantic-sais@jhu.edu – (202) 663-5880 2 others.1 The strength of such power depends not only on the quality, size, and prestige of a country’s scientific system but also includes the enabling mechanisms and policies for accessing the system, including immigration policies and openness of higher education and scientific training institutions. Science for diplomacy, or simply science diplomacy, describes the use of scientific activities (e.g., international joint research, academic exchange programs, etc.) as a soft power tool. Governments can wield it to further foreign policy objectives. For example, governments may develop policies and mechanisms that facilitate engagement of its scientific community with that of a targeted country in the form of formal intergovernmental science and technology agreements or the establishment of special funding programs for joint research. No less important, civil society, including non-governmental organizations, can wield science diplomacy to support the broader relationship between societies. Other areas at the intersection of science and diplomacy, while not treated in this paper, are important aspects of U.S. and E.U. relationships between each other and with other countries and regions. These other areas include:2 the scientific or technical aspects of formal diplomatic apparatus and processes (e.g., in negotiations of environmental and arms control agreements) and the employment of diplomatic apparatus and processes for scientific purposes (e.g., mega-scale, multinational scientific experiments and research infrastructures, like ITER or the International Space Station).

Cooperation is key to solve terrorism-requires international community to solveCordesman and Toukan 09 [Anthony, chair in strategy, Abdullah, Chief Executive Officer, Strategic Analysis and Global Risk Assessment (SAGRA) Center , Terrorism and WMD: The Link with the War in Afghanistan, Center for Strategic and International Studies, http://csis.org/publication/terrorism-and-wmd-link-war-afghanistan] JBIn the aftermath of the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, terrorist groups and networks are now exploring new means to cause greater destruction and disruption for the purpose of capturing world attention and news coverage. Al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups will seek to acquire and use WMDs in order to carry out spectacular attacks that cause catastrophic destruction and disruption. Terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction

(WMD) have recognized that by using or threatening to use these weapons they can somehow influence political, economic and military policies and capitalizing on the effects tragic events. The threat of terrorist groups like al-Qaida using WMD against the U.S. and other nations that they consider potential targets is very real. One important outcome of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 – also known as Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) – was the destruction of the terrorist training camps and the central command

structure of al-Qaida and other affiliated terrorist groups. Counter-terrorism agencies worldwide have developed various means to fight terrorism using not only intelligence and deterrence but also preemption. Eight years later, with the return of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, the number of attacks against coalition forces has been steadily increasing and a large geographic area of Afghan territory has come under the influence and control of the Taliban. The Taliban insurgency is also engaged in fierce

fighting with the Pakistani military in areas close to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This study addresses the critical linkage between the increase in the attacks initiated by the Taliban insurgency against the coalition forces and the size of the coalition forces, whether increasing or decreasing, with the probability that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups will re-establish training camps and a central command structure in Afghanistan, and start launching terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Europe using WMD. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption at the disposal of terrorist such as al-Qaida include: Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and Radiological Weapons (often called radiological dispersal devices - RDD) as well as High Yield Explosives and Cyber attacks. The effects of using Biological, Nuclear and Chemical WMD to attack highly populated cities like New York City are also reported in this study. The problems of Terrorism and nuclear proliferation are vast and require international cooperation, between both governments and institutions, in identifying the various “country specific” worst case threat scenarios, potential targets including infrastructure systems and networks, and types of possible attack modes and their consequences, especially on human and economic losses.

Energy Grids Advantage

Uniqueness Probability of a severe space storm happening is highHouse of Commons Defense Committee 11 [Developing Threats to Electronic Infrastructure, House of Commons Defense Committee, http://www.proteccioncivil.org/catalogo/naturales/climaespacial/documentacion/1552.pdfThe impact of EMP events caused by nuclear devices would be very severe but the likelihood is currently considered to be low. Non-nuclear EMP devices exist and the risks are being kept under review but are not currently considered to be sufficient to warrant recognition as a national security risk. Severe space weather, which might cause geomagnetic storms impacting the Earth’s magnetosphere, has been the subject of extensive research over the past year. The likelihood of a severe space weather event is assessed to be moderate to high over the next five years, with the potential to cause damage to electrically conducting systems such as power grids, pipelines, and signalling circuits.

Major solar storm inevitable- sun is at peak nowMillman 2/26 [Gregory, senior columnist for Risk & Compliance Journal, Catastrophic Solar Storm Inevitable, Insurers Warn, Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/02/26/catastrophic-solar-storm-inevitable-insurers-warn/]The sun erupted on Monday, releasing a powerful flare that happened to point away from earth, a lucky break for earthlings. In 1859, a similar solar eruption knocked out telegraph systems across Europe and North America,

and had Rocky Mountain gold miners up for breakfast at 1 a.m. because they thought it was daytime. Analysts say that another solar storm as severe as that 1859 event is inevitable, will be much more costly–and they note ominously that the sun is now near the peak of its activity cycle. ”The risk is real, and it will happen one day–we know that,” Romain Launay, advisor to the chairman and chief executive officer of the Paris-based reinsurer, SCOR SE SCR.FR -0.94%, told Risk & Compliance Journal in an interview, “The uncertainty lies in the exact consequences.” The consequences are likely to be more severe than in the horse-and-buggy 19th century. According to a new

report from SCOR they could include long power blackouts affecting millions of people, and causing trillions of dollars in damage. “The more we rely on the Internet, the availability of all sorts of communication channels, GPS, etc., the more we are dependent on power. That’s the major exposure driver,” said Reto Schneider, head of emerging risk management at Swiss Re SREN.VX +0.06%, which has also raised concerns about the risk. Lloyd’s last year reported that a major solar storm is “almost inevitable”, estimating the frequency at one every 150 years, and said that 20 million-40 million people in the U.S. are at risk of power outages lasting from two weeks to two years. Of course, it has been 155 years since that last really big one in 1859.

The Earth needs preparation for future inevitable space storms- experts agreeFerner 13 [Matt, Denver editor for the Huffington Post, Earth Needs Better Preparation For Massive Solar Storm, Scientist Says, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/earth-preparation-solar-storm_n_4414929.html] JBPolicy makers in the U.S. need to get serious about the threat posed by solar storms. So says Dr. Daniel Baker, a University of Colorado solar scientist with significant expertise in sun storms -- like

the huge one the sun fired off in July 2012. “My space weather colleagues believe that until we have an event that slams Earth and causes complete mayhem, policy makers are not going to pay attention,” Baker, director of the university's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said in a written statement. “The message we are trying to convey is that we made direct measurements of the 2012 event and saw the full consequences without going through a direct hit on our planet.” The high-energy particles liberated by a major flare could disrupt transportation, communication, and financial systems in addition to limiting the availability of food, medications, and drinking water, according to a

2008 National Resource Council report, which Baker co-authored. Baker isn't alone in his concern over the risk posed by solar storms. A 2013 report from the Royal Academy of Engineering in London called for the creation of a space weather board to help plan for a solar superstorm. It also called for a system to warn of dangerous space weather radiation. What exactly is Baker proposing? That the 2012 event be adopted as "the best estimate of the worst case space weather scenario" and be used to create models to predict the effects such a storm would have on power grids and other vulnerable systems. The 2012 solar storm largely missed Earth but could have been highly disruptive if radiation from it had given the planet a direct hit, Baker said. The area of the sun that produced the solar explosion was facing away from us, but just a week earlier that same area was pointed right at Earth, he said. The 2012 event was also alarming to Baker for the speed at which the radiation it produced traveled through space. Generally, coronal mass ejections take two to three days to reach Earth, but the 2012 ejection reached Earth in 18 hours. “The speed of this event was as fast or faster than anything that has been seen in the modern space age,” Baker said in the statement. "The event not only had the most powerful CME ever recorded, but it would have triggered one of the strongest geomagnetic storms and the highest density of particle fluctuation ever seen in a typical solar cycle, which lasts roughly 11 years." The largest solar storm on record is believed to be the so-called "Carrington event" in 1859 -- an event that reportedly set telegraph machines ablaze and caused auroras borealis so bright that people could read well into the night. Yet there's speculation that the 2012 CME was likely even more powerful. “The Carrington storm and the 2012 event show that extreme space weather events can happen even during a modest solar cycle like the one presently underway,” Baker said. “Rather than wait and pick up the pieces, we ought to take lessons from these events to prepare ourselves for inevitable future solar storms.”

Earth needs better preparation for solar storms- current preparations lackingWall 12 [Mike, senior writer for Space.com, Earth Unprepared for Super Solar Storm, Space, http://www.space.com/15324-solar-storm-earth-surprise-attack.html] JBPowerful blasts from the sun have triggered intense geomagnetic storms on Earth before, and they'll do so again. But at the moment our ability to predict these events and guard against their worst consequences — which can include interruptions of power grids and satellite navigation systems — is lacking, says Mike Hapgood of the British research and technology agency RAL Space. "We need a much better understanding of the likelihood of space weather disruptions and their impacts, and we need to develop that knowledge quickly," Hapgood, head of RAL Space's space environment group, writes in a commentary in the April 19 issue of the journal Nature. The solar storms we need to worry about, Hapgood says, are coronal mass ejections, huge clouds of charged solar plasma that can rocket into space at speeds of 3 million mph (5 million kilometers per hour) or more. CMEs that hit Earth inject large amounts of energy into the planet's magnetic field, spawning potentially devastating geomagnetic storms that can disrupt GPS signals, radio communications and power grids for days. [The Worst Solar Storms in History] The world witnessed such effects not too long ago. In March 1989, a CME caused a power blackout in Quebec, leaving 5 million Canadians in the dark in cold weather for hours. The event caused about $2 billion in damages and lost business, Hapgood writes. But CMEs are capable of much greater mischief. A huge ejection — now known as the Carrington event, after a British astronomer— slammed into Earth in 1859, setting off fires in telegraph offices. The world was not technologically advanced enough yet to suffer worse consequences, Hapgood noted. "If we had a repeat of the Carrington event, I would expect several days of economic and social mayhem as many critical technological systems failed – e.g., localized power grid failures in many countries, widespread loss of GPS signals for navigation and timing, disruption of communications systems, shutdown of long-haul aviation," Hapgood told SPACE.com via email. And the short-term problems caused by such a storm could pale in comparison with its long-term impact, he added. "What scares me is the possibility that this recovery could take a long time in many parts of the world," Hapgood said. "Over the past few decades, we have become much more dependent on technology to sustain our everyday lives: e.g., electricity to pump clean water to our homes and remove sewage, just-in-time supply chains to feed us, ATMs and retail card readers to provide money for everyday shopping. Do we know how to recover quickly from the simultaneous disruption of a huge range of systems?" Despite a growing sense of concern among scientists — and decision-makers in politics and industry — our technology-dependent society remains vulnerable to a big CME-spawned geomagnetic storm, Hapgood says. [Photos: Huge Solar Flare Eruptions of 2012] For starters, our forecasting ability, while improving, is still lacking. The United States' Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC)

can currently provide warnings of strong geomagnetic storms 10 to 60 minutes in advance with about 50 percent accuracy, Hapgood writes. That's a pretty small window for power companies to take protective measures. SWPC scientists and other space-weather forecasters generally rely onobservtions of approaching CMEs made by a handful of spacecraft. These include NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) and Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) probes, as well as the NASA/European Space Agency Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). ACE launched in 1997, SOHO in 1995 and the twin STEREO craft in 2006. It's time for an upgrade, Hapgood told SPACE.com.

"We really need to replace those spacecraft and their instruments that monitor CMEs and, if possible, upgrade the instruments so they are optimized for space weather monitoring – essentially to pull out the most critical data and get it back to Earth as soon as possible," he said

Better preparation for solar storms neededWall 14 [Mike, senior writer for Space.com, Storm Warning: We’re not ready for a super solar blast, NBC news/Space, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47089141/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/storm-warning-were-not-ready-super-solar-blast/#.U8l0-PldV8E] JBThe 1989 event spurred some power companies to require that all new transformers be able to withstand storms of similar magnitude. But Hapgood thinks power, aviation and other vulnerable industries — including finance, which depends on precise GPS time stamps for automatic trading — should take a longer view and guard against the huge storm that comes along just once every 1,000 years or so.

That's tough to do, since researchers don't know what a thousand-year storm might look like; data on such dramatic events are pretty hard to come by. But Hapgood says scientists could get a better idea by analyzing more data, including observations from a century or more ago. Much of this historical information exists on paper only. Digitizing it would bring these records to the attention of many more researchers, Hapgood says, and he suggests enlisting citizen scientists to do the job on the Internet, much as the Galaxy Zoo project has asked volunteers to classify galaxies online by the galaxies' shapes. Advertise Researchers also need to develop better physics-based models to improve their understanding of extreme space weather, Hapgood says. And he suggests that studying storms on other, sunlike stars could be helpful, too . In general, Hapgood is calling for powerful geomagnetic storms to be regarded as natural hazards similar to big earthquakes and volcanic eruptions: infrequent, potentially devastating events. Space news from NBCNews.com "These events often transcend the experience of any individual because they happen so rarely. Thus there is an all-too-human tendency to ignore them — that they lie outside the awareness of the decision-maker and probably will not occur during his term of office," Hapgood said. "But these events will happen sometime. We need to understand them and decide how far we should (i.e.,

can afford to) protect against them — and definitely not leave them until it's too late."

Internal Links

Research in the Antarctica make it possible to understand extreme weather conditions in space – extreme space storms risk shutting down the energy grid Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

As society becomes more dependent on space-based technologies such as¶ satellites for communications and navigation, it is becoming more vulnerable to severe¶ space weather events—magnetic storms on the sun that can spew high energy particles¶ toward Earth. Space weather can disrupt the proper functioning of Global Positioning¶ System (GPS) satellites, as well as electrical power distribution at the surface.¶ In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in recorded history caused visible auroras¶ all over the globe and made telegraph systems all over Europe and the United States fail,¶ spark, and catch fire. If such an event were to occur today,

it could cause trillions of¶ dollars worth of damage and many areas of the United States and

the rest of the world¶ could be left without electrical power and communications for several

months .¶ The alignment of Earth’s magnetic field places the planet’s poles in an optimal¶ position to monitor space weather. The region around the South Pole is an ideal location¶ to monitor changes in space weather, as compared to the North Pole where shifting sea¶ ice makes building a permanent research station impractical. Increased space weather¶

observations in Antarctica over the next 20 years can improve our ability to predict¶ potentially catastrophic space weather events.

Research facilities in Antarctica make it possible and are the best place to monitor and predict space storms – this would increase our response time NSF 2011 (National Science Foundation “Future Science Opportunities in¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean” http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/mtg_docs/nov2011/presentations/nrc_ant_rpt_smmry.pdf //RC)

As society becomes more dependent on spacebased technologies such as satellites for communications and navigation, it is becoming more vulnerable to space weather—magnetic storms on the sun that can spew high energy particles toward Earth and disrupt the proper functioning of satellites in orbit and electrical power distribution systems at Earth’s surface. Better monitoring of space weather could allow scientists to better predict space storms and

limit their negative impacts .¶ For example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) has emerged as a major component of technological infrastructure over recent years. Many people use GPS as a tool for navigation, but the technology is also used for drilling for oil, tracking livestock, and guiding missiles. Space weather events can disrupt GPS functioning, leading to significant errors in positioning data.¶ The alignment of Earth’s magnetic field means that both of the planet’s

poles lie in an optimal position to monitor space weather. The region around the South Pole

is an ideal location to monitor changes in space weather, as compared to the North Pole

where shifting sea ice makes building a permanent research station impractical . Over the next

two decades, increased observations of space weather from Antarctica could hold the key to

improving abilities to predict potentially catastrophic space weather events .

Monitoring space weather is key to U.S. dominance and national security COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 2003 (“ WHAT IS SPACE WEATHER AND¶ WHO SHOULD FORECAST IT?” [House Hearing, 108 Congress] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg90161/html/CHRG-108hhrg90161.htm //RC)

Over the last several decades in which the Air Force and NOAA have ¶ analyzed and forecasted the space environment for operational users, we ¶ have learned a valuable lesson: space weather is a complex and costly ¶ undertaking. Our solution has been to leverage each other's resources; ¶ achieving efficiency by concentrating on those things we each do best. ¶ Our nation is becoming increasingly dependent on space technology. ¶ Although the science of space weather is still in its infancy--which ¶ some have compared to the meteorological capability of this country in ¶ the 1950's--we are on the verge of improved capabilities from new ¶ models and data sources that will provide more accurate space weather ¶ services. SEC is at the forefront of this movement. The Nation's ¶ investment in space weather capabilities will yield great future ¶ dividends, just as the investment in terrestrial weather fifty years ¶ ago is paying off today. The synergy of the two complementary space ¶ weather forecast centers at SEC and AFWA has proven to be a national ¶ asset to the security and prosperity of the United States. One does not ¶ have to look very far to see that the United States is not the only ¶ ``game in town'' when it comes to the exploitation of the space ¶ environment. We urge this committee to advocate for a healthy and ¶ stable SEC so that this critical capability for military and civilian ¶

users will continue into the future.

Increased monitoring capabilities create the knowledge necessary to prepare and respond to space storms Baker et al. 2004 (Daniel University of Colorado Professor Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics “Effects of Space Weather On Technology Infrastructure” Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry – Vol. 176//RC) Contemporary models of large power grids and the electromagnetic coupling¶ to these infrastructures by the geomagnetic disturbance environment have¶ matured to a level in which it is possible to achieve very accurate¶ benchmarking of storm geomagnetic observations and the resulting GIC. As¶ abilities advance to model the complex interactions of the space environment¶ with the electric power grid infrastructures, the ability to more rigorously¶ quantify the impacts of storms on these critical systems also advances. This¶ quantification of impacts due to extreme space weather events is leading to¶ the recognition that geomagnetic storms are an important threat that has not¶ been well recognized in the past. These capabilities for detailed analysis and¶ have also enabled the development of predictive tools to help the

power¶ industry deal with these threats. ¶ New understandings of the complex nature of geomagnetic disturbance¶ environments at low to high latitude locations and the increasing

ability of¶ grids of higher kV design to conduct large GIC flows are also changing the¶ view of risks that power grids may face due to the space weather¶ environment. It is no longer the case that power grids at high latitudes which¶ are in close proximity to auroral electrojets are the only power systems that¶ are at-risk due to GIC impacts. SSC and ring current intensifications can¶ cause equivalently large GIC’s in power grids located even at equatorial¶ latitudes. Ultimately the combination of regional deep-earth ground¶ conditions and the design of the power grid itself will determine the extent of¶ possible GIC risk that will occur for a power system. The geo-electric field¶ responses of regional ground conditions are highly uncertain, but all ground¶ strata exhibit uniformly high degrees of frequency dependency and nonlinear¶

response across the frequency range of concern for geomagnetic¶ disturbance environments. While more work is needed to better define the¶ regional risk factors due to ground conductivity conditions, there is near¶ unambiguous evidence that higher kV-Rated power grid designs are likely to¶ experience relatively larger GIC flows for any geomagnetic disturbance¶ condition or grid latitude location. The prevailing design evolution of power¶ grids have greatly escalated this aspect of risk modifier as the power systems¶ have grown in size and kV operating voltages. Because of this, kV rating is¶ a more appropriate initial screening for determining GIC risk for power¶ grids. In other words, power grids with operating voltage levels of 400kV¶ or greater are all potentially at risk no matter where they may be located in¶ the world.¶ Improving understanding of both storm processes and the interactions¶ with power grid infrastructures are forcing a change in basic assessments of¶ which power grids face risks from geomagnetic storms and for what reasons. The risk implications extend to power grids that have never considered the¶ risk of GIC previously because they were not at high latitude locations. In¶

contrast to these previous notions, latitude location is not as important a¶ consideration of GIC risk as that due to grid design and related risk factors.¶ Both studies and observation evidence are indicating that power grids even¶ at equatorial locations can have large GIC flows. In initial screening for¶ determining GIC risk for power grids, operating voltage levels are proving to¶ be a more relevant screening criterion. In other words, grids with operating¶ voltage levels of 400kV or greater are all potentially at risk.

Antarctica key to research space- provides access to the auroral zoneLessard 11 [Marc, PhD in physics ,Solar-terrestrial Research in Polar Regions Workshop, Antarctic Geography, http://antarctic.siena-space.org/] JBResearch in polar regions supports the high-latitude observations needed to understand aspects of coupling between the solar wind and Earth. The large geographical regions in both hemispheres provide access to a broad range of phenomena, spanning magnetic latitudes from the auroral zone to the polar caps. This workshop aims to bring together a diverse group of researchers to map out goals for the direction of polar research in the coming 5 to 10 years. Discussions in the workshop will include comprehensive reviews of current polar research in space science and aeronomy, followed by discussions that identify and prioritize future science topics to be addressed and taking logistical concerns into consideration. We seek broad community input and will produce a consensus report following the workshop. This meeting is timely as recent National Academy reports reports identify key questions driving scientific research in Antarctica, and underscore the need for development of a large-scale observing and modeling networks to expand scientific understanding and ensure continued success of research in Antarctica.

Antarctica key to research space weather- Earth’s magnetic field and ideal locationScar 2011 [Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National Academy Of Sciences, National Academy Of Engineering, Institute Of Medicine, National Research Council, http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning/Antarctica_Report_US_NAS.pdf] JBThe alignment of Earth’s magnetic field means that both of the planet’s poles lie in an optimal position to monitor space weather. The region around the South Pole is an ideal location to monitor changes in space weather, as compared to the North Pole where shifting sea ice makes building a permanent research station impractical. Over the next two decades, increased observations of space weather from Antarctica could hold the key to improving abilities to predict potentially catastrophic space weather events. The Power of Space Weather In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in recorded history caused visible auroras all over the globe and made telegraph systems all over Europe and the United States fail, spark, and catch fire. If such an event were to occur today, it would cause trillions of dollars worth of damage and many areas of the United States and the rest of the world could be without electrical power and communications for several months. Such events produce environmental changes termed “space weather.” Source: NASA Seals and Penguins Aid Research In addition to providing insight into human health, the birds and mammals of the Antarctic region can also provide information on ocean conditions. Some seals and penguins can be fitted with miniaturized sensors that obtain environmental data at locations and depths that submarines would have difficulty reaching. For example, Southern Elephant seals wearing sensors can obtain environmental data at depths of more than 900 meters. The sensors can record data on ocean variables such as temperature and salinity, and transmit the information to polar orbiting satellites when the animal surfaces.

Space storms can disrupt power distribution systems and satellitesScar 2011 [Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National Academy Of Sciences, National Academy Of Engineering, Institute Of Medicine, National Research Council, http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning/Antarctica_Report_US_NAS.pdf] JBAs society becomes more dependent on space based technologies such as satellites for communications and navigation, it is becoming more vulnerable to space weather—magnetic

storms on the sun that can spew high energy particles toward Earth and disrupt the proper functioning of satellites in orbit and electrical power distribution systems at Earth’s surface. Better monitoring of space weather could allow scientists to better predict space storms and limit their negative impacts. For example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) has emerged as a major component of techno logical infrastructure over recent years. Many people use GPS as a tool for navigation, but the technology is also used for drilling for oil, tracking livestock, and guiding missiles. Space weather events can disrupt GPS functioning, leading to significant errors in positioning data.

Antarctica is a strategic location for being able to stop and predict extreme weatherHawke 14 [Graham- Deputy Director, Environment and Research at the Bureau of Meteorology. “20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan.” Australian Bureau of Meteorology. 3/20/2014. http://20yearplan.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/136803/Bureau-of-Meteorology.pdf] Dressler

Retention and upgrading of the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island station —as well as from longstanding continental sites at Casey,

Davis, and Mawson—is crucial to maintain the meteorological capability and continuing the climate record in order to understand the variability of Antarctic climate and processes affecting the

Australian climate. With so few observing stations in the Southern Ocean, the observations from Macquarie Island are critical to maintain existing forecast accuracy, in Antarctica and Australia. The

Bureau is therefore eager to participate in discussions concerning the future development of Macquarie Island station. The

Antarctic plays a key role in Australia’s climate and represents an important region in its own right. The Bureau is well qualified to lead the establishment of an Antarctic Climate Monitoring and Prediction Centre in collaboration with

other Antarctic nations. Real time Antarctic and sub-Antarctic surface weather and upper atmospheric observations are important inputs into the weather forecast models that form the basis of routine and severe weather forecast and warning services for all states and territories. Knowledge of Antarctic meteorology improves the prediction of weather in mainland Australia. Real time Antarctic and sub-Antarctic surface weather and upper atmospheric observations are important inputs into the weather forecast models that form the basis of routine and severe weather forecast and warning services for all states and territories. The Bureau's network of manned and automatic weather stations, upper air stations, satellite reception facilities, drifting buoys, and scientific instruments provide information required to; monitor environmental conditions, supply input for numerical weather prediction, conduct research and produce weather forecasts.

Building infrastructure in Antarctica is key for effective weather predictionsAntarctic Connection 2001 [Antarctic Connection- Travel experts on Antarctica. “ANTARCTIC WEATHER.” Antarctic Connection. No date. http://www.antarcticconnection.com/shopcontent.asp?type=weather-index ] Dressler

Weather observations in Antarctica have been recorded only for the last 150 years. Detailed climatic monitoring began in the late 1950's. Most Antarctic stations today are equipped with sophisticated weather monitoring technology and are manned by professional meteorologists who perform observations around the clock. Automated stations and remote sensing equipment provide a wealth of previously unattainable data and help to paint a more accurate picture of Antarctic weather continent-wide. Satellite measurements and photographs of the continent continue to reveal valuable information concerning cloud cover, storm movement, ice formation and distribution patterns, and a variety of other environmental characteristics.

Antarctica gives a unique opportunity to observe extreme space weather National Research Council 11 [Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National Research Council, http://www.andrill.org/static/Resources/Publications/NAS%20Future%20Science%20Opportunities%20in%20Antarctica%20and%20the%20Southern%20Ocean.pdf] As society becomes more dependent on space-based technologies such as satellites for communications and navigation, it is becoming more vulnerable to severe space weather events—magnetic storms on the sun that can spew high energy particles toward Earth. Space weather can disrupt the proper functioning of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, as well as electrical power distribution at the surface. In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in recorded history caused visible auroras all over the globe and made telegraph systems all over Europe and the United States fail, spark, and catch fire. If such an event were to occur today, it could cause trillions of dollars worth of damage and many areas of the United States and the rest of the world could be left without electrical power and communications for several months. The alignment of Earth’s magnetic field places the planet’s poles in an optimal position to monitor space weather. The region around the South Pole is an ideal location to monitor changes in space weather, as compared to the North Pole where shifting sea ice makes building a permanent research station impractical. Increased space weather observations in Antarctica over the next 20 years can improve our ability to predict potentially catastrophic space weather events.

Working on science in Antarctica key to predict space weatherNational Research Council 11 [Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, National Research Council, http://www.andrill.org/static/Resources/Publications/NAS%20Future%20Science%20Opportunities%20in%20Antarctica%20and%20the%20Southern%20Ocean.pdf] Basic science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean covers a wide breadth of research questions, including the climatic shifts that the Earth has undergone in its history, the adaptation of polar species to the rigors of life in Antarctica, the predictability of space weather, and the origins of the Universe. This research is expected to lead to remarkable new insights into our planet and the Universe over the next two decades. Design and implement improved mechanisms for international collaboration. The vast size of the Antarctic continent and the logistical challenges of working in the region mean that international teamwork is needed to reach the goals set out in this report. The International Polar Year, held from 2007-2008, demonstrated how successful international collaboration can facilitate research that no nation could complete alone. The United States can best retain its leadership role in global science by taking the lead in future international activities. Mechanisms to ensure timely and integrated international collaborative research would greatly enhance this effort.

The building of infrastructure in Antarctic is key to predict and prepare for extreme weatherLeong 14 [Dr. Harald- : Chair of the European Polar Board. “Arctic and Antarctic Science for Europe: The Polar Regions in a Connected World- a challenge for Horizon 2020.” European Polar Board. 6/27/14. http://polar.se/wp-content/uploads/epb-flyer-horizon2020.pdf ]The Polar Regions may seem remote but the rapid changes now affecting both these areas have resulted in significant consequences for the weather and climate elsewhere, including Europe. Those environmental changes being observed, particularly in the Arctic, are a clear indication of the threats to European environments, society and industry in the future. Changes in the Polar Regions present societal challenges but also economic opportunities for Europe and the world. Science is a vital tool in establishing what is driving this rapid change. Science is also necessary to make our climate models and forecasting more realistic by identifying and reducing the many sources of uncertainty that can degrade reliable prediction . It is essential that Europe works to benefit in a sustainable manner from the opportunities of change in the Polar Regions. The high rate of change demands an early response and Horizon 2020 presents a timely opportunity and an effective mechanism for Europe to address polar issues. Space weather is a key security issue for Europe that is most effectively studied through platforms in both Polar Regions. The same polar instrumentation also facilitates better understanding of the entire atmosphere and will lead to more reliable forecasting of climate and weather with societal and economic benefits for European countries.

More warning and prediction of space weather events is key to minimize the damage of extreme space weather eventsHouse of Commons Defense Committee 11 [Developing Threats to Electronic Infrastructure, House of Commons Defense Committee, http://www.proteccioncivil.org/catalogo/naturales/climaespacial/documentacion/1552.pdf]

Warning and prediction of space weather events is one of the most important ways of mitigating effects. Essential systems can then be put into a safe mode, but this may not always

ensure survival. 28. There are a number of mitigating possibilities to help protect satellites in the aftermath of an EMP or severe space weather event. Scientific research at the BAS on natural radiation belts has shown that various types of electromagnetic waves can remove energetic charged particles so that they are deposited down into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere they are quickly absorbed. A potential mitigation process is to increase the rate of scattering and particle loss by these waves. This might be done by: • Injecting very low frequency and extremely low frequency waves into space from ground based transmitters; • Transmitting very low frequency waves from satellites in orbit; • Releasing chemicals from rockets which generate waves in space by natural wave-particle interactions.

29. These ideas are at the research stage and are led by the USA. The UK has considerable expertise in wave-particle interactions through its research on space weather and radiation belts at BAS.

The Earth needs preparation for future inevitable space storms- experts agreeFerner 13 [Matt, Denver editor for the Huffington Post, Earth Needs Better Preparation For Massive Solar Storm, Scientist Says, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/earth-preparation-solar-storm_n_4414929.html] JBPolicy makers in the U.S. need to get serious about the threat posed by solar storms. So says Dr. Daniel Baker, a University of Colorado solar scientist with significant expertise in sun storms -- like

the huge one the sun fired off in July 2012. “My space weather colleagues believe that until we have an event that slams Earth and causes complete mayhem, policy makers are not going to pay attention,” Baker, director of the university's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said in a written statement. “The message we are trying to convey is that we made direct measurements of the 2012 event and saw the full consequences without going through a direct hit on our planet.” The high-energy particles liberated by a major flare could disrupt transportation, communication, and financial systems in addition to limiting the availability of food, medications, and drinking water, according to a 2008 National Resource Council report, which Baker co-authored. Baker isn't alone in his concern over the risk posed by solar storms. A 2013 report from the Royal Academy of Engineering in London called for the creation of a space weather board to help plan for a solar superstorm. It also called for a system to warn of dangerous space weather radiation. What exactly is Baker proposing? That the 2012 event be adopted as "the best estimate of the worst case space weather scenario" and be used to create models to predict the effects such a storm would have on power grids and other vulnerable systems. The 2012 solar storm largely missed Earth but could have been highly disruptive if radiation from it had given the planet a direct hit, Baker said. The area of the sun that produced the solar explosion was facing away from us, but just a week earlier that same area was pointed right at Earth, he said. The 2012 event was also alarming to Baker for the speed at which the radiation it produced traveled through space. Generally, coronal mass ejections take two to three days to reach Earth, but the 2012 ejection reached Earth in 18 hours. “The speed of this event was as fast or faster than anything that has been seen in the modern space age,” Baker said in the statement. "The event not only had the most powerful CME ever recorded, but it would have triggered one of the strongest geomagnetic storms and the highest density of particle fluctuation ever seen in a typical solar cycle, which lasts roughly 11 years." The largest solar storm on record is believed to be the so-called "Carrington event" in 1859 -- an event that reportedly set telegraph machines ablaze and caused auroras borealis so bright that people could read well into the night. Yet there's speculation that the 2012 CME was likely even more powerful. “The Carrington storm and the 2012 event show that extreme space weather events can happen even during a modest solar cycle like the one presently underway,” Baker said. “Rather than wait and pick up the pieces, we ought to take lessons from these events to prepare ourselves for inevitable future solar storms.”

Earth needs better preparation for solar storms- current preparations lackingWall 12 [Mike, senior writer for Space.com, Earth Unprepared for Super Solar Storm, Space, http://www.space.com/15324-solar-storm-earth-surprise-attack.html] JBPowerful blasts from the sun have triggered intense geomagnetic storms on Earth before, and they'll do so again. But at the moment our ability to predict these events and guard against their worst consequences — which can include interruptions of power grids and satellite navigation systems — is lacking, says Mike Hapgood of the British research and technology agency RAL Space. "We need a much better understanding of the likelihood of space weather disruptions and their

impacts, and we need to develop that knowledge quickly," Hapgood, head of RAL Space's space environment group, writes in a commentary in the April 19 issue of the journal Nature. The solar storms we need to worry about, Hapgood says, are coronal mass ejections, huge clouds of charged solar plasma that can rocket into space at speeds of 3 million mph (5 million kilometers per hour) or more. CMEs that hit Earth inject large amounts of energy into the planet's magnetic field, spawning potentially devastating geomagnetic storms that can disrupt GPS signals, radio communications and power grids for days. [The Worst Solar Storms in History] The world witnessed such effects not too long ago. In March 1989, a CME caused a power blackout in Quebec, leaving 5 million Canadians in the dark in cold weather for hours. The event caused about $2 billion in damages and lost business, Hapgood writes. But CMEs are capable of much greater mischief. A huge ejection — now known as the Carrington event, after a British astronomer— slammed into Earth in 1859, setting off fires in telegraph offices. The world was not technologically advanced enough yet to suffer worse consequences, Hapgood noted. "If we had a repeat of the Carrington event, I would expect several days of economic and social mayhem as many critical technological systems failed – e.g., localized power grid failures in many countries, widespread loss of GPS signals for navigation and timing, disruption of communications systems, shutdown of long-haul aviation," Hapgood told SPACE.com via email. And the short-term problems caused by such a storm could pale in comparison with its long-term impact, he added. "What scares me is the possibility that this recovery could take a long time in many parts of the world," Hapgood said. "Over the past few decades, we have become much more dependent on technology to sustain our everyday lives: e.g., electricity to pump clean water to our homes and remove sewage, just-in-time supply chains to feed us, ATMs and retail card readers to provide money for everyday shopping. Do we know how to recover quickly from the simultaneous disruption of a huge range of systems?" Despite a growing sense of concern among scientists — and decision-makers in politics and industry — our technology-dependent society remains vulnerable to a big CME-spawned geomagnetic storm, Hapgood says. [Photos: Huge Solar Flare Eruptions of 2012] For starters, our forecasting ability, while improving, is still lacking. The United States' Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC)

can currently provide warnings of strong geomagnetic storms 10 to 60 minutes in advance with about 50 percent accuracy, Hapgood writes. That's a pretty small window for power companies to take protective measures. SWPC scientists and other space-weather forecasters generally rely onobservtions of approaching CMEs made by a handful of spacecraft. These include NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) and Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) probes, as well as the NASA/European Space Agency Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). ACE launched in 1997, SOHO in 1995 and the twin STEREO craft in 2006. It's time for an upgrade, Hapgood told SPACE.com. "We really need to replace those spacecraft and their instruments that monitor CMEs and, if possible, upgrade the instruments so they are optimized for space weather monitoring – essentially to pull out the most critical data and get it back to Earth as soon as possible," he said

Better preparation for solar storms neededWall 14 [Mike, senior writer for Space.com, Storm Warning: We’re not ready for a super solar blast, NBC news/Space, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47089141/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/storm-warning-were-not-ready-super-solar-blast/#.U8l0-PldV8E] JBThe 1989 event spurred some power companies to require that all new transformers be able to withstand storms of similar magnitude. But Hapgood thinks power, aviation and other vulnerable industries — including finance, which depends on precise GPS time stamps for automatic trading — should take a longer view and guard against the huge storm that comes along just once every 1,000 years or so.

That's tough to do, since researchers don't know what a thousand-year storm might look like; data on such dramatic events are pretty hard to come by. But Hapgood says scientists could get a better idea by analyzing more data, including observations from a century or more ago. Much of this historical information exists on paper only. Digitizing it would bring these records to the attention of many more researchers, Hapgood says, and he suggests enlisting citizen scientists to do the job on the Internet, much as the Galaxy Zoo project has asked volunteers to classify galaxies online by the galaxies' shapes. Advertise Researchers also need to develop better physics-based models to improve their understanding of extreme space weather, Hapgood says. And he suggests that studying storms on other, sunlike stars could be helpful, too . In general, Hapgood is calling for powerful geomagnetic storms to be regarded as natural hazards similar to big earthquakes and volcanic eruptions: infrequent, potentially devastating events. Space news from NBCNews.com "These events often transcend the experience of any individual because they happen so rarely. Thus there is an all-too-human tendency to ignore them — that they lie outside the awareness of the decision-maker and probably will not occur during his term of office," Hapgood said. "But these events will happen sometime. We need to understand them and decide how far we should (i.e.,

can afford to) protect against them — and definitely not leave them until it's too late."

Solar weather causes blackoutsRT 13 [RT, Super solar storm could leave Western nations without power 'for months' – report, RT, http://rt.com/news/solar-storm-earth-electricity-391/] JBA power outage could leave Western nations without electricity for months in the event of a strong geomagnetic storm, a new report claims, adding that it is “almost inevitable in the future” while

the sun is approaching the peak of its solar cycle. It is a known fact that solar activity is interconnected with the our planet’s geomagnetic fields that are known to affect life on Earth, including widespread electrical disruptions. Currently the Sun’s activity is ramping up toward what is known as solar maximum as the peak of the 11-year solar cycle is expected in 2015. According to the report, produced by Lloyd’s in cooperation with Atmospheric and Environmental research (AER), super solar storms normally occur approximately every 150 years, the last being the Carrington Event in 1859 – a geomagnetic storm that caused disruptions in telegraph lines all over the world and the brightest auroras. However that was long before people were so dependent on electricity. The report outlines a doomsday scenario - the cancellation of the services the public has come to depend upon every day. For example, the systems for controlling air-traffic would stop, potentially grounding entire fleets. The satellites that power the world's telecoms networks would be knocked out. Hospital patients dependent on electrical equipment would be put at risk. This could lead to liability claims if customers believe companies did not take enough protective measures during a blackout, which would have significant implications for the insurance industry. All this can occur as a result of strong geomagnetic storms - severe disturbances in the upper layers of our atmosphere caused by solar storms. The geomagnetic storms induce currents in long conductors such as power lines. These additional currents can trigger voltage collapse or damage extra-high voltage transformers. The economic costs would be catastrophic, according to the report.

Solar weather causes blackoutsRT 13 [RT, Super solar storm could leave Western nations without power 'for months' – report, RT, http://rt.com/news/solar-storm-earth-electricity-391/] JBA power outage could leave Western nations without electricity for months in the event of a strong geomagnetic storm, a new report claims, adding that it is “almost inevitable in the future” while

the sun is approaching the peak of its solar cycle. It is a known fact that solar activity is interconnected with the our planet’s geomagnetic fields that are known to affect life on Earth, including widespread electrical disruptions. Currently the Sun’s activity is ramping up toward what is known as solar maximum as the peak of the 11-year solar cycle is expected in 2015. According to the report, produced by Lloyd’s in cooperation with Atmospheric and Environmental research (AER), super solar storms normally occur approximately every 150 years, the last being the Carrington Event in 1859 – a geomagnetic storm that caused disruptions in telegraph lines all over the world and the brightest auroras. However that was long before people were so dependent on electricity. The report outlines a doomsday scenario - the cancellation of the services the public has come to depend upon every day. For example, the systems for controlling air-traffic would stop, potentially grounding entire fleets. The satellites that power the world's telecoms networks would be knocked out. Hospital patients dependent on electrical equipment would be put at risk. This could lead to liability claims if customers believe companies did not take enough protective measures during a blackout, which would have significant implications for the insurance industry. All this can occur as a result of strong geomagnetic storms - severe disturbances in the upper layers of our atmosphere caused by solar storms. The geomagnetic storms induce currents in long conductors such as power lines. These additional currents can trigger voltage collapse or damage extra-high voltage transformers. The economic costs would be catastrophic, according to the report.

Impacts

Serious space storms destroy energy grids, risk national security, and collapse the economy Hough 2010 (Andrew News Reporter “Nasa: Solar Flares From 'Huge Space Storm' Will Cause Devastation” 21 June 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html//RC)

Britain could face widespread power blackouts and be left without critical communication signals for long periods of time, after the earth is hit by a once-in-a-generation “space storm”, Nasa has warned. National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.¶ Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.¶ In a new warning, Nasa said the super storm would hit like “a bolt of lightning” and could cause catastrophic consequences for the world’s health, emergency services and national security unless precautions are taken.¶ Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.¶ Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.¶

“We know it is coming but we don’t know how bad it is going to be,” Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa's Heliophysics division, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.¶ “It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.¶ “Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”¶ Dr Fisher added: “Systems will just not work. The flares change the magnetic field on the earth that is rapid and like a lightning bolt. That is the solar affect.”¶ A “space weather” conference in Washington DC last week, attended by Nasa scientists, policy-makers, researchers and government officials, was told of similar warnings.

Your impact D is wrong – dependence on tech means that a large space storm now would devastate the global economy NSF 2011 (National Science Foundation “Future Science Opportunities in¶ Antarctica and the Southern Ocean” http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/mtg_docs/nov2011/presentations/nrc_ant_rpt_smmry.pdf //RC)

In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in recorded history caused visible auroras all over the globe and made telegraph systems all over Europe and the United States fail, spark, and catch fire. If such an event were to occur today, it would cause trillions of dollars worth of damage and many areas of the United States and the rest of the world could be without electrical power and communications for several months.

Space Storms can and will destroy the energy gridKramer 13 [Miriam, staff writer, How Solar Storms and Nukes Threaten the Power Grid, Space, http://www.space.com/21294-storms-nukes-power-grid-threat.html] JBWASHINGTON — The United States' electrical transmission grid can be a fragile thing. Sewage treatment plants, water filtration services and other key utilities rely on the grid to power their facilities. But some officials and experts worry that the infrastructure is exceedingly vulnerable to natural and human attack, said speakers and panelists at the fourth annual Electric Infrastructure Security Summit held here

earlier this week. While most vital organizations have enough backup power to last for a few days or a week, even essential facilities, such as hospitals or military bases, probably could not continue to function during a large-scale blackout that lasted more than a week. Yet such extended blackouts could happen, as a result of a man-made electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or an extreme solar storm. "For a large, interconnected power grid just in North America — even with three grids — you can have a disturbance footprint that spans the entire North American continent," said John Kappenman, principal investigator for the National Academy of Sciences Space Weather Study. (The continental U.S. and Canada are served by three independent but linked power grids — one east of the Rockies, another west of the Rockies and the third in Texas.) In Kappenman's worst-case scenario, copper wires would melt, making it very difficult for engineers to get the grid back online within weeks or even months.

Extreme space storms could cause complete grid failureBritt 09 [Robert, writer, editor and Director of Site Operations at SPACE.com, Powerful Solar Storm Could Shut Down U.S. for Months, FOX News, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/09/powerful-solar-storm-could-shut-down-us-for-months/] JBA new study from the National Academy of Sciences outlines grim possibilities on Earth for a worst-

case scenario solar storm. Damage to power grids and other communications systems could be catastrophic, the scientists conclude, with effects leading to a potential loss of governmental control of the situation. The prediction is based in part on a major solar storm in 1859 that caused telegraph wires to short out in the United States and Europe, igniting widespread fires. It was perhaps the worst in the past 200 years, according to the new study, and with the advent of modern power grids and satellites, much more is at risk. "A contemporary repetition of the [1859] event would cause significantly more extensive (and possibly catastrophic) social and economic disruptions," the researchers conclude. 'Command and control might be lost' When the sun is in the active phase of its 11-year cycle, it can unleash powerful magnetic storms that disable satellites, threaten astronaut safety, and even disrupt communication systems on Earth. The worst storms can knock out power grids by inducing currents that melt transformers. Modern power grids are so interconnected that a big space storm — the type expected to occur about once a century — could cause a cascade of failures that would sweep across the United States, cutting power to 130 million people or more in this country alone, the new report concludes. Such widespread power outages, though expected to be a rare possibility, would affect other vital systems. "Impacts would be felt on interdependent infrastructures with, for example, potable water distribution affected within several hours; perishable foods and medications lost in 12-24 hours; immediate or eventual loss of heating/air conditioning, sewage disposal, phone service, transportation, fuel resupply and so on," the report states. Outages could take months to fix, the

researchers say. Banks might close, and trade with other countries might halt. "Emergency services would be strained, and command and control might be lost," write the researchers, led by Daniel Baker, director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "Whether it is terrestrial catastrophes or extreme space weather incidents, the results can be devastating to modern societies that depend in a myriad of ways on advanced technological systems," Baker said in a statement released with the report. Stormy past Solar storms have had significant effects in modern time: — In 1989, the sun unleashed a tempest that knocked out power to all of Quebec, Canada. — A remarkable 2003 rampage included 10 major solar flares over a two-week period, knocking out two Earth-orbiting satellites and crippling an instrument aboard a Mars orbiter. "Obviously, the sun is Earth's life blood," said Richard Fisher, director of the Heliophysics division at NASA. "To mitigate possible public safety issues, it is vital that we better understand extreme space weather events caused by the sun's activity." "Space weather can produce solar storm electromagnetic fields that induce extreme currents in wires, disrupting power lines, causing wide-spread blackouts and affecting communication cables that support the Internet," the

report states. "Severe space weather also produces solar energetic particles and the dislocation of the Earth's radiation belts, which can damage satellites used for commercial communications, global positioning and weather forecasting." Rush to prepare The race is on for better forecasting abilities, as the next peak in solar activity is expected to come around 2012. While the sun is in a lull now, activity can flare up at any moment, and severe space weather — how severe, nobody knows — will ramp up a year or two before the peak. Some scientists expect the next peak to bring more severe events than other recent peaks. "A catastrophic failure of commercial and government infrastructure in space and on the ground can be mitigated through raising public awareness, improving vulnerable infrastructure and developing advanced forecasting capabilities," the report states. "Without preventive actions or plans, the trend of increased dependency on modern space-weather sensitive assets could make society more vulnerable in the future." The report was commissioned and funded by NASA. Experts from around the world in industry, government and academia participated. It was released this week.

Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.Auslin 9 [Michael, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, http://www.aei.org/article/100187] JBWhat do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse . The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs.

Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing

economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely . Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible

protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

Stopping extreme weather is key to prevent grid collapse, because the grid is very vulnerable to extreme space weatherNASA 09 [NASA- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the agency of the United States government that is responsible for the nation's civilian space program and for aeronautics and aerospace research. “Severe Space Weather--Social and Economic Impacts.” NASA. 1/21/09. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/ ] Dressler

The problem begins with the electric power grid. "Electric power is modern society's cornerstone technology on

which virtually all other infrastructures and services depend," the report notes. Yet it is particularly vulnerable to bad

space weather. Ground currents induced during geomagnetic storms can actually melt the copper windings of transformers at the heart of many power distribution systems. Sprawling power lines act like antennas, picking up the currents and spreading the problem over a wide area. The most famous geomagnetic power outage happened during a space storm in March 1989 when six million people in Quebec lost power for 9 hours: image. According to the report, power grids may be more vulnerable than ever. The problem is interconnectedness. In recent years, utilities have joined grids together to allow long-distance transmission of low-cost power to areas of sudden demand . On a hot summer day in California, for instance, people in Los Angeles might be

running their air conditioners on power routed from Oregon. It makes economic sense—but not necessarily geomagnetic sense. Interconnectedness makes the system susceptible to wide-ranging "cascade failures.” To estimate the scale of such a failure, report co-author John Kappenmann of the Metatech Corporation looked at the great geomagnetic storm of May 1921, which produced ground currents as much as ten times stronger than the 1989 Quebec storm, and modeled its effect on the modern power grid. He found more than 350 transformers at risk of permanent damage and 130 million people without power. The loss of electricity would ripple across the social infrastructure with "water distribution affected within several hours; perishable foods and medications lost in 12-24 hours; loss of heating/air conditioning, sewage disposal, phone service, fuel re-supply and so on." What's the solution? The report ends with a call for infrastructure designed to better withstand geomagnetic disturbances, improved GPS codes and frequencies, and improvements in space weather forecasting. Reliable forecasting is key. If utility and satellite operators know a storm is coming, they can take measures to reduce damage—e.g., disconnecting wires, shielding vulnerable electronics, powering down critical hardware. A few hours without power is better than a few weeks.

Grid collapse causes economic collapseCannon 13 [Paul- part-time Director of the Poynting Institute at the University of Birmingham and a Senior Fellow at QinetiQ, and Cannon is a leading figure in Radio Science and Systems. “Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure.” Royal Academy of Engineering. February 2013. http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Space_Weather_Full_Report_Final.PDF

] Dressler

Rarely occurring solar superstorms generate X-rays and solar radio bursts, accelerate solar particles to relativistic velocities

and cause major perturbations to the solar wind. These environmental changes can cause detrimental effects to the electricity grid, satellites, avionics, air passengers, signals from satellite navigation systems, mobile telephones and more.

They have consequently been identified as a risk to the world economy and society. The purpose of this report is to assess their impact on a variety of engineered systems and to identify ways to prepare for these low-probability but

randomly occurring events. The report has an emphasis on the UK, but many of the conclusions also apply to other countries. Extreme storm risks to space systems critical to social and economic cohesion of the country (which is likely to include navigation satellite systems) should be assessed in greater depth. Users of satellite services which need to operate through a superstorm should challenge their service providers to determine the level of

survivability and to plan mitigation actions in case of satellite outages (eg network diversification.) US space weather, transformer and modelling experts have recently produced conflicting reports analyzing the impact on a large space weather event

on the US system. In an influential report kappenman [2010] suggests that a one-in-100-year event could lead to catastrophic system collapse in the US taking many years and trillions of dollars to restore. However, a comprehensive February 2012 report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation [nerc, 2012], suggested that loss of reactive power and voltage instability would be the most likely outcomes. At a Federal GMD Technical Conference on 30 April 2012, it was clear that there was still more work required to agree a proportionate management of the risk. Ongoing work,

prepared by National Grid on a severe space weather event for the UK, initially from June 2011, aligns more closely with the conclusions from the NERC paper. GNSS positioning, navigation and timing are ubiquitous to our lives and important in a number of

safety of life applications; and their unmitigated loss resulting from a superstorm would have severe social and economic repercussions.

Ext- Solar storms cause grid collapseKiger 13 [Patrick-Blogger for the National Geographic Channel. Has written over the years for numerous print publications, ranging from GQ and Mother Jones to the Los Angeles Times Magazine, and for a variety of news websites. Co-author with Martin J. Smith of "Poplorica: A Popular History of the Fads, Mavericks, Inventions, and Lore that Shaped Modern America," and "Oops: 20 Life Lessons from the Fiascoes That Shaped America," both published by Harper Collins. I have appeared as a guest on numerous radio and TV programs, including NPR's "Talk of the Nation" and Fox News Weekend. ““’American Blackout’: Four Major Real-Life Threats to the Electric Grid.” National Geographic. 10/25/2013. http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/25/american-blackout-four-major-real-life-threats-to-the-electric-grid/ ] Dressler

A catastrophic, prolonged failure of the electrical grid—the sort of event whose effects are depicted in National Geographic Channel’s upcoming American Blackout, which premieres Sunday—may seem like just apocalyptic science fiction to some viewers. Unfortunately, though, the possibility of such a breakdown is all too real. “We are woefully unprepared for any large-scale geographic outage that might take place over an extended period of time,” explained Joel Gordes, research director for the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, an independent group that assesses the danger of such attacks and what it would take to thwart them. He said that while some generators and transmission lines probably would survive such an

attack, they might not be able to muster enough juice to reboot the grid, which experts call a “black start.” And if critical equipment is damaged beyond repair, it might be necessary to transport replacement units long distances—an

undertaking that would be difficult, if communications systems were also seriously damaged by the attack. Solar flare: Not all of

the threats to the grid are from human enemies. A solar storm, which would spew a surge of radiation across the

93million-mile distance between the Sun and our Earth, causing an electromagnetic pulse similar to the one that a high-altitude nuclear blast would trigger–except that it might be even bigger, and have even more devastating effects. While we’ve known the destructive effects of solar weather on Earth’s electrical infrastructure since the 19th century, the first really clear-cut warning came in 1989, when a moderate-intensity solar storm caused

northeastern Canada’s Hydro-Quebec power grid to fail, leaving millions of people without electricity for nine hours. Yousef Butt, a scientist at Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University, argued in a 2010 article in the online journal Space Review that the likelihood of a devastating EMP from a solar storm is greater than that from an intentional EMP attack. (See related story: “As Sun Storms Ramp Up, Electric Grid Braces for Impact.”)

A collapse of the grid leads to an economic collapseSlavo 10 [Mac Slavo- Writer for the shtfplan.com. “NASA Plans for Large Scale Failure, Power Grid is “Particularly Vulnerable to Bad Space Weather.” Shtfplan.com. 6/7/10. http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-preparedness/nasa-plans-for-large-scale-failure-power-grid-is-particularly-vulnerable-to-bad-space-weather_06072010 ] Dressler

The sun is waking up from a deep slumber, and in the next few years we expect to see much higher levels of solar activity. At the same time, our technological society has developed an unprecedented sensitivity to

solar storms. The intersection of these two issues is what we’re getting together to discuss.” The National Academy of Sciences framed the problem two years ago in a landmark report entitled “Severe Space Weather Events Societal and Economic Impacts.” It noted how people of the 21st-century rely on high-tech

systems for the basics of daily life. Smart power grids, GPS navigation, air travel, financial services and emergency radio communications can all be knocked out by intense solar activity. A century-class solar storm, the Academy warned, could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.

Solar weather can cause long-term blackoutsLloyd’s 03 [Solar Storm Risk To The North American Electric Grid, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/solar%20storm%20risk%20to%20the%20north%20american%20electric%20grid.pdf] Electricity: imagine our world without it. Society depends on electricity for everything from communication, banking and business transactions to basic necessities like food and water. Terrestrial weather and human errors account for $75-180bn annually in economic costs from power outages1 . One serious threat to the reliability of electric power is geomagnetic storms – severe disturbances caused by solar storms in the upper layers of our atmosphere that induce currents in long conductors on the Earth’s surface, such as power lines. These additional currents can overload the electric grid system to trigger voltage collapse, or worse, damage a significant number of expensive extra-high voltage transformers. The economic costs of such an event would be catastrophic. Large transformer repairs/replacements occur on the timescale of weeks to months, and could result in long-term widespread blackouts.

More protection needed to minimize the solar weather impactRAENG 13 [UK must plan now to defend against extreme weather storm events, RAENG, http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/shownews.htm?NewsID=825]The UK should plan now to mitigate the effects of a rare but potentially serious solar superstorm, according to a report published today by the Royal Academy of Engineering. Although the UK is better prepared than many countries, there are areas where we need to improve our resilience. The Academy's report, Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure, was drawn up with the help of experts from many different

disciplines. It is the UK's first in-depth assessment of the potential impacts of solar superstorms. Explosive eruptions of energy from the Sun that cause minor solar storms on Earth are relatively common events. Superstorms, by contrast, occur very rarely - perhaps once every century or two. Most superstorms

miss the Earth, travelling harmlessly into space. Of those that do travel towards the Earth, only half interact with our environment and cause damage. The last true solar superstorm - known as the 'Carrington event' was in 1859. However, a solar superstorm is inevitable at some point and will degrade the performance of the electricity grid, satellites, GPS systems, aviation and possibly mobile communications. The Academy recommends that a UK Space Weather Board be initiated within government to provide overall leadership of UK space weather activities - this board must have the capacity to maintain an overview of space weather strategy across all government departments. More research is needed into the full effects of solar superstorms. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) should ensure that its research programmes recognise the importance of extreme space weather mitigation and EPSRC should be fully integrated into any research council strategy, In some respects UK planning is well advanced - for example the National Grid has already taken measures to harden the electricity grid against such disruption and has an active mitigation strategy in place. This should be continued, combining appropriate forecasting, engineering and operational procedures. The Academy recommends that all terrestrial mobile communications networks with critical resiliency requirements should be able to operate without global navigational satellite systems (GNSS) timing for up to three days. This should include network upgrades, including those associated with the new 4G licences, and particularly upgrades to emergency services communications. The report finds that a solar superstorm might render GPS and Galileo partially or completely inoperable for between one and three days due to disruption of radio transmission paths between the satellites and the ground. Such a loss of navigational aids could potentially affect aircraft and shipping. Today's aircraft navigation systems are not wholly dependent on GNSS and their use is generally backed up by other navigation aids; it is important that these alternative navigation options remain available in the future. In a solar superstorm of the size of the Carrington event, air passengers and crew already airborne would be exposed to a one-off dose of radiation. The radiation doses received would result in a marginal increase in cancer risk. The same radiation may also upset the electronics on aircraft, but design practices will keep the risks to a minimum. The report recommends that ground-, space- and even airborne-derived radiation alerts should be considered for provision to aviation authorities, operators and pilots to allow them to minimise and quantify the risk. Consideration should also be given to classifying solar superstorms as radiation emergencies for air passengers and crew, although the radiation levels concerned are borderline. Satellites will also be affected by the solar superstorm and we expect around one in ten satellites to be fully or partially inoperative for a period of a few days. A small number will never recover. More broadly

the satellite fleet will be aged significantly, necessitating an accelerated satellite launch programme to compensate. Professor Paul Cannon FREng, Chair of the Academy's working group on extreme solar weather, says: "The UK is one of a small number of countries taking this risk seriously. The two challenges for government are the wide spectrum of technologies affected today and the emergence of unexpected vulnerabilities as technology evolves. The Academy recommends that government sets up a space weather board to oversee these issues across government departments. "Our message is: Don't panic, but do prepare - a solar superstorm will happen one day and we need to be ready for it. Many steps have already been taken to minimise the impact of solar superstorms on current technology and by following the recommendations in the report we anticipate that the UK can further minimise the impact."

Diseases Advantage

Internal Links

Research in the Artic creates the tools needed to develop new vaccines and solve diseases Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Organisms native to Antarctica have evolved characteristics that allow them to¶ thrive in the region’s harsh conditions. These adaptations include changes in body shape,¶ cardiovascular control, and metabolism that allow organisms to avoid hypothermia or¶ hypoxia (low oxygen levels). For example, since prey is available at great depths in the¶ Southern Ocean, many of the mammal and bird species able to survive in the harsh¶ climate of the Antarctic region have developed the ability to dive deeply, swim¶ underwater for long periods, and resurface without suffering damage from low oxygen¶ levels or getting the bends. More information

about these specialized biochemical and¶ physiological adaptations could hold the key to

understanding and preventing a host of¶ pathological problems that plague humans, such as

heart attacks, strokes, and¶ decompression sickness. In addition, learning how life tolerates

the extremes of¶ Antarctica could help scientists engineer frost-resistant plants and develop

an array of¶ temperature-stable products, from ice cream to vaccines. New tools are emerging that¶ will allow scientists to study the genomics, metagenomics, and proteomics of how life¶ has adapted to survive and prosper in the frigid and inhospitable Antarctic and Southern¶ Ocean environments.

2AC Answers

Topicality

Exploration

Infrastructure and research are necessary parts of ocean exploration NOAA accessed 7/14/14 (“About NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration and Research” http://explore.noaa.gov/AboutOER/Overview.aspx//RC)

Exploration advances the breadth of knowledge and Research advances the depth of knowledge. Cutting-edge technologies and methodologies continue to be developed by the men and women dedicated to ocean exploration, but the potential of ocean exploration has only begun to be met. OER is investing in new technologies, in state-of-the-art platforms, undersea vehicles and infrastructure, in data and information management, in transmission networks, in research programs, and in the efforts to inform and educate society on the importance of a National program dedicated to ocean exploration and research. Through its important work, OER will certainly make discoveries and perform breakthroughs to the benefit of all life on Earth.

Infrastructure and technology are ocean explorationYoder 2003 (J. National Research Council NOAA “Strategic Plan” http://explore.noaa.gov/AboutOER/StrategicPlan.aspx//RC)

Exploration advances the breadth of knowledge and basic research advances the depth of knowledge. Exploration and basic research share:¶ the goal of discovery and expanding our base of knowledge;¶ technology and infrastructure needs; and¶ the opportunity for integrating science and education.

Exploration for the ocean as defined by President of NOAA is the early stages of researchNASA 2010 (Last Updated: April 5, 2010 “Ocean Exploration” http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-exploration///RC)

As defined by the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration (NOAA, 2000), exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and the recording of findings. Exploration is an early component of the research process; it focuses on new areas of inquiry and develops descriptions of phenomena that inform the direction of further study.

Infrastructure is a prereq to ocean exploration Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

To advance understanding of the fundamental biology of organisms from bacteriato mammals, and how they function in the Antarctic ecosystem, new tools andinfrastructure for exploration and discovery will be essential to identify the diversity oflife and its functioning in the extreme environment of Antarctic glaciers and oceans.

Ocean Development

Ocean development has to be directed at the ocean Indian Institute of Technology 1986 (“IOC-Unesco Regional Training¶ Workshop on Ocean Engineering¶ and Its Interface with Ocean Sciences¶ in the Indian Ocean Region http://www.jodc.go.jp/info/ioc_doc/Training/085239eo.pdf//RC)

The term "ocean development" has often been used to denote all activities, including ocean sciences, ocean engineering and related marine technology, directed to resource exploration and exploitation and the use of ocean space. The underlying guiding principle in all these activities has been that these be conducted in a manner that insure the preservation of the marine environment without detriment to its quality and the resources with which it abounds. From the statements given by the participants, it became apparent that in some countries, such as China, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, ocean development programmes and activities, over the years, have evolved from fisheries oriented needs towards mineral resources exploitation. In some of these countries exploitation of these resources has brought about new adjustments to their priority needs which have progressively involved the strengthening of their marine scientific and technological capability demanded by these new situations.

Oceans

Antarctica is part of the ocean – This understanding of Antarctica and oceans is the best for education about the southern oceanAnderson 2003 (Genny Author of online Marine Science¶ Santa Barbara City College “Antarctica, Continent of Ice¶ Ice, Ice Shelves, Tidewater Glaciers, Icebergs, and Sea Ice” Revised 18 June 2003http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/04benthon/AAcontinent.htm//RC)

Antarctica can be defined in three ways. The first way is the outline of the continental land mass and its permanent ice. The second is to use the Antarctic Circle (at latitude 66.5 degrees south) and consider everything south of that latitude to be Antarctica. The third way is perhaps the best for considering the entire Antarctic as an ecosystem - this is to use the Antarctic Convergence as the defining line. The Antarctic Convergence occurs in the ocean surrounding Antarctica and is where very cold (low salinity) Antarctic water, flowing away from the continent and constantly cooled by the ice on the continent, meets with the southernmost parts of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. The Antarctic water is denser, because it is so cold, and sinks, creeping north across the ocean bottoms. South of this convergence not only is the ocean water colder but the air is distinctly colder and drier than north of the convergence. Most of the life forms found in Antarctica depend on the ocean within the Antarctic Convergence so using this as a definition for Antarctica encompasses the entire physical area that is important for the complex ecosystem that is found there. The convergence moves north during the Antarctic winter, and south in the Antarctic summer - in response to the freezing and thawing of the sea ice. This Convergence is a biological barrier to organisms both in the ocean and the air because of the big temperature difference.

Counterplans

A2 – Agent Counterplans

U.S. is key to organizing internal efforts – only U.S. leadership in Antarctica can assure that they maintain global science leadership Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Design and implement improved mechanisms for international collaboration.¶ The complex nature and scope of both the changes to be studied and discoverybased¶ basic science that will be conducted over the next 20 years in Antarctica¶ and the Southern Ocean requires international teamwork. The International Polar¶ Year (IPY) held from 2007-2008 demonstrated how successful international¶ collaboration could work to foster discoveries and insights impossible for any¶ single nation to complete. Even with the nation’s unique logistical capabilities,¶ the vast size of the Antarctic continent and ocean makes working with other¶ nations and taking mutual advantage of their bases, ships, and transport systems¶ both practical and advantageous. The logistical and scientific successes of the IPY¶ demonstrated that the United States can appropriately support large collaborative¶ international programs. The United States can best retain its leadership role in¶ global science if it takes the lead in future international initiatives. Mechanisms to ensure timely and integrated international collaborative research would greatly¶ enhance this effort.

Permutation is best - multilateral cooperation solvesBerkman et al 9 – (Paul Arthur Berkman, Berkman is a researcher in the NSF program on Governance for Sustainable Development, former chair of the Sustainability Standing Committee for the National Space Digital Library program, Fulbright scholarship to plan and coordinate the Antarctic Treaty Summit, Works at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, Michael A. Lang, David W.H. Walton, and Oran R. Young, “Scientific Diplomacy – Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces”, NOAA and Smithsonian Institution, 2009, http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_related_docs/antarctica_1959_treaty.pdf) WangIn the years since 2004, my counterparts heading Antarctic programs in the other treaty nations will likely agree that the recently concluded field phase of the International Polar Year of 2007–2008 is resulting in dramatic advances in understanding this important part of the world. The rise in polar climate papers has been particularly steep.¶ Countries are working together to describe current and potential future events impacting the Antarctic ice sheet. Only through

such a broad effort involving China, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and other

countries can we hope to reduce uncertainties in the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of long-term global sea level rise. The goal is to determine the rates of loss of ice from the main drainage basins (Fig- ure 2) and how the rates depend on bed lubrication, to- pography, and ocean temperature.¶ The Antarctica’s Gamburtsev Province (AGAP) proj- ect is an IPY effort involving the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, China, and Australia that discovered river valleys in the Gamburtsev Mountains under the Antarctic ice sheet. This is the location of the first Antarctic ice sheet (~34 mya) and thus represents potentially¶ very old ice and a tectonic enigma. The effort gave us a first detailed look at what that part of the continent, as big as the Alps, might have been like before it was covered in ice. This project involved close international collaboration in science, technology, and logistics.¶

An IPY signature project, the Larsen Ice Shelf System, Antarctica (LARISSA; Figure 3), is a collaboration by Argentina, Belgium,

South Korea, Ukraine, and the United States to study a regional problem with global change implications. The abrupt environmental change in Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf system was investigated using marine and Quaternary geosciences, cryosphere and ocean studies, and research into marine ecosystems. In an example of IPY’s education and legacy roles, a two-week course in the United States in July 2010 under the auspices of the Australia-based International Antarctic Institute used recently acquired marine data, sediment cores, and imagery.¶ Twenty-eight countries are collaborating in the Polar Earth Observing Network (POLENET) to map uplift of the Antarctic crust resulting from a decreased mass of the covering ice sheet. Data from new GPS and seismic stations spanning much of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are used to model how much ice was lost over the 10,000 years since the last major ice age. These data, taken with information gathered by satellites, help in determining where, and at what rate, the ice sheets are changing in

response to recent climate change. The measurements are critical in refining estimates of future global sea level rise. The collaborations have led to new technology for continuous measurement at autonomous

observatories operating in polar conditions and have provided a legacy framework for ongoing international geophysical

observations.¶ Thirteen countries are participating in the International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition (ITASE), which is collecting ice core samples that provide signatures of how constituents of the atmosphere have changed since the be- ginning of the industrial revolution. The ITASE is an existing project (begun in 1990) that matches IPY goals and that flourished during the IPY period. Like the ice sheet drainage collaborations shown in Figure 2, ITASE has tended to distribute its goals geographically among the involved nations. A workshop identified tasks for national participants, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Global Change Program provides coordination. Germany, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States contributed to the Antarctic Geological Drilling Program (ANDRILL) and obtained deep sediment cores from the sea bed that show Earth’s climate 15–30 mya. These paleoclimate perspectives increase confidence in the ability to predict future change. Using the McMurdo Ice Shelf as a drilling platform, the project found new evidence that even a slight rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide affects the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.¶ France and the United States combined their capa- bilities in the Concordiasi project to develop a new way of measuring the constituents of the atmosphere, layer by layer, from top to bottom with new instruments that are dropped from long-duration stratospheric superpres- sure balloons deployed from McMurdo. Their data are coupled with surface observations at a number of Antarctic locations. This Concordiasi project is intended to reduce uncertainties in aspects of climate change that could change the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Figure 4 shows an instrument (dropsonde) launched on demand¶ FIGURE 4. Dropsonde.¶ under a parachute to measure atmospheric parameters on the way down over Antarctica.¶ In biology a major impetus has been provided to marine scientists by the Census of Antarctic Marine Life (CAML). The Southern Ocean is around 10% of the world’s oceans, and together with the Arctic Ocean, it is the least studied. It is a major carbon sink, and one of the globe’s major ecosystems. This five-year CAML program involved 27 cruises on research vessels from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, Russia, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Chile, Uru- guay, Peru, and Japan searching both the seafloor and the water column for new species, of which hundreds have already been identified.¶ These multinational research programs are conceived through a variety of mechanisms that include scientific workshops, meetings convened under science and technol- ogy agreements between and among nations, and, increasingly, electronic access to data of common interest. For over 50 years SCAR has provided a broadly international forum for identifying and building on common interests among scientists and building collaborations and plans for achieving them. Its major new programs on Antarctic climate evolution,

biodiversity, subglacial lakes, and solar- terrestrial physics now involve more than 30 nations.

A2 - EU Counterplan

EU can’t solve- past history proves EU’s policy failuresDempsey 14 [Judy, Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Europe, Editor In Chief, Strategic Europe, The EU’s Flawed Eastern Enlargement, Carnegie Europe, May/4, http://www.carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=55492] Patel

Since then, and especially after Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform government took power in 2007, Poland has shown great commitment to the EU, its Eastern neighbors, and its security . So have Lithuania and Estonia, which joined the EU together with Poland and five other Central and Eastern European countries . The same cannot be said for Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, or the Czech

Republic. These countries have done little for the EU’s foreign and security policy. Most have failed to speak out for a more integrated Europe. Curiously, they have turned inward and often populist instead of taking pride in their EU membership and the values Europe stands for. It’s difficult to

explain why. One reason is that when a country joins the EU, the sense of obligation weakens. Being a member of the club is taken for granted. Once a country is in, there is no more pressure to undertake further reforms or strengthen democratic institutions. If anything, with very few exceptions, the zeal for consolidating democracy and tackling corruption diminishes. It is easy to blame the EU institutions and their weak leaders for this malaise. That, however, is an excuse to disguise how extremely reluctant most Eastern European leaders have been to think strategically about their own country’s place in the EU and the future of Europe’s security and defense. The late Václav Havel, who was a steadfast and eloquent defender of political integrity, knew how much it meant for his country (he was the last president of Czechoslovakia and then the first of the Czech Republic) to rejoin Europe. For him, it was about stretching freedom, security, and integrity to their maximum. He had only contempt for intellectual laziness or, worse, those willing to compromise

over basic, universal values. In recent weeks, the Ukraine crisis has been the perfect example of how Central and Eastern European governments have not pulled together in a strong manner. Poland has been at the forefront of trying to toughen the EU’s stance toward Russia . That is not because the Polish government is anti-Russian. It’s because Warsaw (along with Tallinn and Vilnius) understands how Europe’s post–Cold War borders have

become vulnerable. Poland had pursued a two-pronged strategy ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. One part of its approach was aimed at joining the Euro-Atlantic organizations of the EU and NATO . The other was designed to reach out to Poland’s Eastern neighbors, particularly Ukraine, and later Russia. Poland did not want a new Iron Curtain to be thrown down on its Eastern borders. That is why successive Polish governments have worked hard to foster democracy in Ukraine—efforts that received little support from Brussels.

Won’t Solve- EU fails to enforce own lawsDempsey 14 [Judy, Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Europe, Editor In Chief, Strategic Europe, The EU’s Flawed

Enlargement Strategy, Carnegie Europe, 6/16, http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=48857] Patel

When Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in December 2007, all the member states knew that neither country was ready. The European Commission’s regular progress reports had repeatedly criticized the countries’ endemic corruption, the weak judiciary, the incompetent administrations, the widespread

criminal networks, and the trafficking. Nevertheless, they got in. And to compound the initial error, the EU made no workable provisions to deal with countries which disregard the rule of law once they have been admitted. For these mistakes, Europe is now paying a high price, seeing its values being undermined from the inside in a way that debases the EU’s enlargement strategy. The latest example is Romania, a country with a particularly weak political culture. Prime Minister Victor Ponta, a 39-year-old populist, has shocked and outraged democratic politicians with his cynical attempts to monopolize power. Over the past several months Ponta, leader of the former communist Social Democratic Party, has been waging a relentless and unconstitutional campaign to dismiss President Traian Basescu from office. Ponta has sacked two

ombudsmen from the opposition who were tasked with following up on citizens’ complaints against government agencies. He also dismissed the board of the National Archive Institute that was set up a few years ago to allow access to communist and the Securitate secret police files . The same happened to the boards of the state-run television and the Institute for Investigation of Political Crimes before 1989. The independent-spirited Monitorul Oficial, the Romanian Official Gazette is now under the control of the government; the Romanian Cultural Institute has been brought under the control of the Senate. Ponta now has a free hand to replace the management of both

institutions and control what they publish. To add insult to injury, Ponta and other ministers have been accused of plagiarism over writing their doctoral theses. So what, said the interior minister. That’s been going on since Aristotle and Plato. Andrei Plesu, a leading Romanian philosopher and art historian wrote recently: “For some time now, I have been waking up every morning to witness the disconcerting signs of social decay.” Depending on your view, things may be a bit better in neighboring Bulgaria. But there, too, corruption and bribery and gangsters are pervasive. Politics is an unpleasant playground for rivalries and ruthlessly pursued personal ambition. In Hungary, Viktor Orban’s Fidesz government is making a supreme effort at establishing what I would call a ‘Fidesz State’ consisting of loyal oligarchs and journalists, judges and the security services. Transparency there, as in Romania or Bulgaria, is extremely weak. What is taking place in these countries is shameful, both for their own citizens and for the EU as a whole. After all, the whole point of enlargement was to export and foster democracy and economic development in these countries.

Solvency Deficit- EU moves too slowEEC 14 [European Economic Congress, International Organization, Commissioner Andor on the European labor market: there is some slow improvement, European Economic Congress 2014, 5/15, http://www.eecpoland.eu/news/commissioner-andor-on-the-european-labour-market-there-is-some-slow-improvement,225757.html,] Patel

‘The situation in the European labor market has only begun to improve slightly. Hopefully we expect to receive some better news in the second half of this year,’ projected Andor. In his opinion, the positive signs are related to the delayed consequences of corrective actions undertaken in the Eurozone. ‘The interventions made by the European Central Bank in 2012 have moved towards real economy last year and now we can see their first consequences in the labor market,’ explained the Commissioner. He also referred to the level of professional activity in European societies, reminding the attendees about the strategic objective of the EU, i.e. achieving the target of 75 per cent general employment among the population

at the age between 20 and 64 within the next six years. However, he also indicated that the Member States will strive to achieve that objective following various paths and using flexible tools that take into account the current structure of their own labor markets. Andor presented the professional activation of women and people over 55 as exemplary methods in this regard; however, he also noticed that the professional activity of elderly people in the Nordic countries has already reached high level,

contrary to the countries of the south of Europe, for instance. The short press conference was also attended by Jerzy Buzek, former President of the European Parliament and Chairman of the Congress Council, who declared that the program of the Congress will be extended with a broader range of social topics related to such areas as the labor market and employment or the relations between employers and employees. ‘Such events as the European Economic Congress accumulate the tensions related to social issues, which

have to be defused,’ stated Buzek. ‘While discussing the economy and economic growth, we appreciate the presence of Commissioners and other politicians involved in social issues. Let us remember that no employer can manage without other people.’

US Ocean policies show great advancementCavalier et al 11 (Sandra, Master of Natural Resource Policy, Master of Public Administration, Bachelor in Religion and Environmental Science, Coordinator Arctic, Coordinator Transatlantic Program, A Comparison: EU and US Ocean Policy, Calmar, 6/8, http://calamar-dialogue.org/sites/default/files/CALAMAR_1_Report.pdf] Patel

The EU and US have similar priorities for improving domestic and international ocean governance. While the EU is focusing on integrating many aspects of maritime governance through the IMP, the US has set up integrative structures and national priority objectives, such as ecosystem-based management, CMSP, and improved coordination, through the national ocean policy. Both regions have similar goals moving forward: both seek strong leadership from Member States/states on rallying support for effective ocean policies, improving the knowledge and innovation base on marine science and increasing the sustainability and economic vitality of coastal communities. Both the EU and US are concerned about emerging threats to oceans and coasts around the world, largely due to climate change and increased use of natural resources. Annex A presents a comparative table on the consistency of policy objectives for the EU and US as described in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and US National Policy on Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (Executive Order 2010)

Ocean Policies are stronger in the US

Cavalier et al 11 (Sandra, Master of Natural Resource Policy, Master of Public Administration, Bachelor in Religion and Environmental Science, Coordinator Arctic, Coordinator Transatlantic Program, A Comparison: EU and US Ocean Policy, Calmar, 6/8, http://calamar-dialogue.org/sites/default/files/CALAMAR_1_Report.pdf] Patel

The US has a longstanding record of implementing regulations and legislation for maritime safety, security and prevention of environmental damage from maritime activities. The maritime safety and maritime environmental protection regime for the US is articulated in Titles 46 and 33 in the US Code. Other key pieces of federal legislation for US maritime safety include the 1972 Ports and Waterway Safety Act, the 1978 Port and Tanker Safety Act, 1990 Oil Pollution Act, 2002 Maritime Transport Security Act, and the Security and

Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act). Additionally, many states with strong maritime interests have adopted further maritime safety legislation. Though the US is party to many international agreements on maritime safety and pollution prevention, it has maintained a unilateral stance on a number of key areas.

Overfishing caused from EU jurisdiction Brittin ‘13 (Rachel, Communications Officer. EU Subsidies Favor Industry, Promote Overfishing Abroad, 9/27. The Pew Charitable Trust, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/11/27/eu-subsidies-favor-industry-promote-overfishing-abroad]

The European Union, or EU, pays 75 percent of the access fees for European vessels to fish in the waters of developing countries in Africa and the South Pacific, according to a new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia. Industry pays the remaining 25 percent,

but that represents only about 2 percent of the revenue it receives from selling the catch. The EU subsidies provide strong incentives for overfishing, according to the study, published November 27, 2013 in the journal PLOS ONE.

“Frequently, subsidies cover the cost of fuel or equipment, but in this case, the government covers a large part of the access fees as well,” says Frédéric Le Manach, lead author of the study and a fisheries expert with the Sea

Around Us Project at the UBC Fisheries Centre in Vancouver. “Since the fishing fleets don't pay the full cost of access, greater profit allows for spending on more efficient vessels. This may lead to over-exploitation of the developing countries' tuna populations and other already vulnerable marine resources.” In the study, supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, the UBC researchers analyzed agreements the EU made with developing countries to access their waters between 1980 and 2012. These agreements include fees that range from roughly €400,000 to €230 million per year per country (about US$470,000 to US$305 million at today's exchange rates). The text of the agreements shows that the EU government paid a total of about €5 billion toward the access fees during this period. To compare the industry's fee to its revenues from fishing, the researchers used data from the agreements and a database of global fish prices. Such calculations were possible only for agreements relating to tuna because other agreements did not consistently include the catch level available to EU vessels. The study found that the fishing industry paid about one-fourth the cost of access. Assuming that ratio holds for all agreements, this equates to about €1.7 billion over the 33-year period. But revenue from fishing in these waters totaled about €96 billion, so the fees paid by the industry amounted to only about 2 percent of its revenue (1.5 percent for tuna and 3.2 percent for other species). “The EU has the potential to lead the world in sustainable fisheries,” says Daniel Pauly, principal investigator with the Sea Around Us Project and a study co-author. “But as they

stand now, these access agreements are being subsidized in ways that disadvantage developing countries and contradict the EU's own development goals by forcing their citizens to essentially pay twice for the fish they're taking off of the plates of developing countries.” The authors recommend that host countries learn from Pacific nations that recently began to charge higher fees for access to their waters—up to 50 percent more than the world average in the case of the island nation of Kiribati. They also note that a senior representative of the French tuna fleet recently acknowledged that the fees paid by the industry are low and that it would be reasonable to set them at up to 7 percent of the value of fish landed.

EU can’t solve financial issuesAlloway 11 [Tracy, Reporter for The Financial Times, European Banks Face Funding Problems, The Financial Times, 9/8, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f56688ec-d963-11e0-b52f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz37amVApt3] Patel

Ask a treasurer at a eurozone bank what they have been dealing with this week, amid continued financial turmoil, and they would probably say their immediate cash needs. But ask what really

keeps them awake at night and the answer could well be their longer-term financing. For banks across the single currency area, the prospects of replacing their maturing debt with new funds have grown far from certain. Months of market volatility have deterred traditional investors. Strain in the short-term funding markets, where banks borrow money on a day-to-day basis, have grabbed the headlines. But it is a slow withdrawal of longer-term funding that could

turn out to be the bigger concern for Europe’s banks – and the wider economy. Net issuance of bank debt stands at $4.5bn so far this year, but is close to falling below zero after three consecutive months of negative net issuance, according to figures from Dealogic. Indeed, net issuance of bank debt excluding covered bonds – debt secured against pools of loans that has been the mainstay of banks’ funding in recent months – is a negative $41bn. Banks can either sell their assets

or try to increase their deposits to deal with the funding gap. Meanwhile, spreads on bank credit, the premium over benchmark interest rates demanded by investors to hold the debt, have widened in recent months, indicating buyer nervousness. “European financial institutions need to finance nearly €2,000bn over

the next five-year horizon,” Deutsche Bank analysts wrote in a note to clients. “Access to the market is not only appearing punitive – as evidenced by increase in credit spreads – the issuance to date from Europe shows a marked deceleration.” Markit’s iTraxx Europe Senior Financial index, which is tied to the senior debt of 25 of the region’s banks, shows credit spreads jumped to a record 276 basis points this week, eclipsing the levels reached in the depths of the financial crisis in 2008 and Greece’s 2010 bail-out. “While August is traditionally a slow month in the bond markets . . . this year’s decline was somewhat sharper than usual,” says David Munves at

Moody’s Analytics. “The reason, of course, is higher credit spreads, with banks leading the way.” Those wider credit spreads are likely to be passed on by Europe’s banks to the region’s borrowers, in the form of higher lending costs, just as the eurozone is arguably in need of a lending boost. The rate at which banks lend to European companies is now rising again, having fallen sharply after 2008, according to Deutsche. “Long-term funding is more than difficult right now,” says Olivier Renault, head of structuring and advisory at StormHarbour Securities. “The preferred funding route has so far been covered bonds, but there is a risk of oversaturation.”

EU fails now- coverage of bank debt pushes them farther down the spectrumAlloway 11 [Tracy, Reporter for The Financial Times, European Banks Face Funding Problems, The Financial Times, 9/8, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f56688ec-d963-11e0-b52f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz37amVApt3] Patel

Many banks, having learnt from mistakes during the financial crisis, have made efforts to

issue more stable, longer-term bonds since 2008. But their efforts have been uneven. A mountain of legacy

bank debt due to mature in the coming months could make matters more difficult for Europe’s financial institutions. In the last week of August, European banks sold almost $20bn worth of covered debt, considered “ultra-safe” by many investors. The bonds have been particularly popular since they are thought to be safe from Europe’s new bank “bail-in” regimes, which can force losses on holders of bank debt, especially so-called “subordinated” debt which ranks below senior debt in bankruptcy. Senior unsecured debt, which traditionally accounts for the vast majority of bank funding, totalled just $18.8bn for all of July and August, according to

Moody’s Analytics. While covered bonds have so far filled the funding gap, there are regulatory and physical limits to issuance of this debt. While central banks could step in to provide short-term liquidity to banks, for instance by helping to swap euros for dollars, support for longer-term funding is more tenuous. During the financial crisis, when many investors shied away from buying bank debt, Europe’s governments guaranteed more than

$460bn worth of financial bonds. Now, the unfolding sovereign debt crisis would probably make further such guarantees highly controversial. Nevertheless, the European Banking Authority did recently propose a new guarantee scheme for bank bonds using the European financial stability facility, Europe’s bail-out fund. “Bank funding concerns in the very near term are less of an issue, but there are problems ahead, especially when looking at the roll-offs of guaranteed debt for next year,” says Suki Mann, credit strategist at Société Générale. “With sovereign risks escalating, the market would balk at a guarantee from most sovereigns,” says Mr Mann. “That leaves a possibly expanded EFSF to come to the rescue. It might work for the first few banks which pull the trigger, but it will be no panacea.”

EU Needs to solve its own Problems FirstBrown 11 (Gordon; Writer for the New York Times; “Europe's Real Problems”; 7/11/2011; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/opinion/12iht-edbrown12.html?pagewanted=all) PatelWhen the history of the 21st century is written people will ask why it was that Europe was found wanting during its most intractable economic crisis. They will ask why Europe slept as an undercapitalized banking system floundered, unemployment remained unacceptably high, and the Continent’s growth and competitiveness plummeted. Worse still, if a reconstruction plan does not come soon, Europe’s leaders will be charged with “the decline of the West” and then face accusations for being, in the words of Winston Churchill about the

1930s, “resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity and all-powerful for impotence.” There is, of course, no shortage of meetings. Hardly a day goes by without a summit of European leaders discussing the latest crisis facing a member state. But each time they talk as

though they are dealing with a calamity confined to the nation in the headlines — the Greek

problem, or the Irish problem, sometimes the Portuguese or the Spanish problem — without an agreement on the true nature of the emergency that is pan-European. By wrongly analyzing Europe’s woes, they end up implementing the

wrong remedies, too. Because Europe’s deficit crisis, while a real concern, is just one of its concerns. There are in fact three

deep-rooted problems, each entwined with the others, and each reaching systemically into every corner of the Continent. Alongside the deficit problem is also a banking problem — not

confined to a handful of banks or countries — and a chronic growth problem.

EU Can’t Solve – EU is horrible when working togetherCleary 12 (Grace; Student and Writer for UMass Amherst; “United in Difficulty: The European Union’s Use of Shared Problems as a Way to Encourage Unity”, http://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_student_ research/4/) PatelSince the European Union's inception, it has invested considerable resources into cultural programs aimed at fostering a sense of shared European heritage. However, these efforts have always been balanced alongside the need to leave space for diversity within and across EU nations. In this paper, which highlights the findings of my MA thesis, I examine the European Capital of Culture (ECC), which I studied in Córdoba, Spain during the spring of 2011. I look at how European identity is being defined in a specific context, and in particular how the contest is refocusing on new forms of shared heritage by looking at common European problems and how cities are working to solve them. I argue that both unity and diversity are encouraged, but that initiatives such as the ECC delineate and construct the acceptable boundaries of shared cultural expressions and cultural difference. I argue that the EU's focus on the methods and attitudes for dealing with shared problems is becoming an important part of European identity; one that allows countries to maintain certain kinds of marketable difference, like food or music, while also encouraging a common outlook on handling problems. While shared history, religion, nationality and/or language once served to unify people within a country's borders, these characteristics no longer provide an adequate bond within the supranational EU. In shifting the contest’s unifying function to include common problems, the contest is

drawing on shared European narratives and anxieties, and through the contest, the EU is monitoring how these 'challenges' are defined and dealt with.

EU Needs the US Mallet 11 (Pascal; Writer for the Middle East Online; “NATO chief: Libya exposes Europe's dependence on US power”; 7/14/2011; http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=47188) PatelThe NATO mission in Libya has laid bare Europe's ever growing dependence on US military might to carry out operations, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview. Rasmussen warned

that shrinking defence budgets across the continent could make it harder for Europeans to respond to future crises and lead to their decline on the global stage. "I think the Libyan operations is an example that there is a potential for strengthening what you might call a European pillar within NATO," the Danish former prime minister said. Although Europeans and Canada provide the majority of combat jets in the operation, he said, they lack the key intelligence and surveillance aircraft that only Washington possesses. "For the first time in the history of NATO, we see a NATO operation not led by the Americans but led by the

Europeans," Rasmussen said at this office on Wednesday. "But it's a fact we could not carry out this operation without the unique and critical assets provided by the United States," he said. "So we are still dependent on America."

EU’s Policies are riskyCaffarena 10 (Victoria; Researcher for Access Info; “Access Info has identified some key problems with EU transparency”; http://www.access-info.org/en/european-union/6-european-union-key-problems) PatelPeople are having problems getting access to information: the European Ombudsman's report for 2008 says that 36% of citizens' complaints relate to transparency and access to documents.

But at the same time, most users of the EU's access rules are businesses rather than journalists, civil society organisations or members of the public. And even when these stakeholders might think about making requests the explanations given on the EU's websites makes it seem quite daunting (despite the fact that making requests is really quite straightforward!). The proposed reforms to the access rules presented by the European Commission in 2008 would reduce the right of Europe's citizens to know about decision-making, the exercise of power, legislative initiatives and the spending of public funds in Brussels. The result is likely to be a greater distancing of citizens from Union institutions and a lowering of public trust just at the moment when the EU is seeking to recover from the failure to adopt the Lisbon Treaty. It is also of great concern that the debate about the revision of the access rules is itself inaccessible to the public - Access Info has had difficulty obtaining key documents about the proposed reform which would tell us the positions that different member states are taking over the reforms. We have launched legal challenges against this lack of transparency - more details can be found below on this page. The legislative process is extremely complex and very difficult for citizens to follow, the Commission does not disclose legal advice nor is it possible to get information about the positions taken by member states in preparing draft legislation; trying to follow the process

involves a maze of websites which could only be fully understood by dedicated experts. There is no reason that the legislative process at the EU should be less transparent than it is in member states.

A2 – Warming Adv. CP

No Adv CP’s – Antarctic is necessary to understand the warming process of the earthCommittee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (“Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern¶ Ocean”//RC)

Antarctica and the surrounding Southern Ocean remains one of the world’s last¶ frontiers. Covering nearly 14 million km2 (an area approximately 1.4 times the size of the¶ United States), Antarctica is the coldest, driest, highest, and windiest continent on Earth.¶ While it is challenging to live and work in this extreme environment, this region offers¶ many opportunities for scientific research.¶ The icy landscape of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean may seem distant, but the¶ natural processes that occur there are intimately linked to those on the rest of the planet.¶ For example, the Southern Ocean is an extremely important region of the globe for airsea¶ exchange of carbon dioxide, second only to the northern North Atlantic. To¶

understand the effects of increasing emissions of carbon dioxide on the climate, it is¶ vitally

important to understand the processes that occur in the Antarctic region.¶ Ever since the first humans set foot on Antarctica a little more than a century ago,¶ the discoveries made there have advanced our scientific knowledge of the region, the¶ world, and the Universe—but there is still much more to learn. Recent findings in the¶ region have included enormous lakes and mountain ranges buried beneath ice and entire¶ ecosystems of never-seen-before life forms. The rocks, sediments, and ice of Antarctica¶ hold a trove of information about the past history of Earth’s climate, continents, and life¶ forms. The remarkable clarity and stability of the atmosphere above Antarctica allows¶ scientists to look out to the upper reaches of the atmosphere and into the Universe¶ beyond—observations that could contribute to understanding of the origins of the¶ Universe and the nature of the solar system.

Disadvantages

A2 – Elections DA

Yes – Dems

Democrats will win midterms – Obamacare, women’s rights, and economic recovery.Cooper 5/20/14 (Wendy, Attorney in Michigan. She also writes for The Epoch Times and has written articles for the American Bar Association Health Care section and the Ann Arbor News, “Five Reasons Why Democrats Might Win the Midterm Elections,” Quiet Mike, http://quietmike.org/2014/05/20/five-reasons-democrats-midterm-elections/) Chen

Pollsters and political pundits are predicting the Democrats will lose control of the Senate this November. Our own Quiet Mike’s Chad MacDonald offered Five Reasons Republicans Will Win the Midterm Elections. While the Democrats have an uphill battle, it is still possible for them to maintain control in the midterm elections. Here are five reasons Democrats just might hold on to control of the Senate.¶ Obamacare is Working ¶ Despite attempting to repeal Obamacare over 50 times,

Republicans are beginning to grudgingly admit the law is here to stay. There are popular aspects of the bill that appeal even to Republican voters. Children of the insured can remain on their parent’s policy until age 26.¶ There are more than 9 million newly insured because of the law and for many in this group they are insured for the first time in their lives. No one will ever be denied health insurance again because of a preexisting

condition. It is also notable that in the states where Obamacare is failing, that blame can be laid squarely at the feet of the Republican controlled local governments.¶ Women’s Issues¶ In states where Republicans have control of the local government, women’s rights are being decimated. In 2012, a record 430 anti-abortion bills were introduced in various Republican controlled state legislatures. The Senate Republicans did everything in their power to block the Paycheck Fairness Act. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would require employers to prove that differences in pay are based on qualifications, education and other “bona fides” not related to gender. Women make up 50 percent of the voting electorate and based on chatter on websites related to women’s issues they are paying attention to this election.¶ Cuts to Social Programs¶ Republicans have blocked key programs meant to help the economy recover from one of the worst downturns in history. Late last year more than 1.3 million people lost their Emergency Unemployment Insurance benefits. The reason for the loss was due to an all-to-familiar tactic by House Speaker John Boehner of refusing to call a vote on bills that are unpopular with his conservative base. The bill should pass easily, but is stuck in purgatory. Republican house members also passed a cut to food stamp assistance by 8.7 billion dollars overall. And despite taking up the futile attempt to repeal Obamacare not one jobs bill has made it to the floor for a vote.¶ The Economy is Recovering¶ Despite catastrophic losses in home values, the recovery in housing market values has increased for the fourth consecutive quarter. The unemployment rate was as high as 10 percent in 2009. It now stands at 6.3 percent. The stock market has doubled in value with the election of Obama and there is no reason to believe the markets will not continue their gains in the foreseeable future.¶ The American Population is Not Stupid¶ Despite what Republican politicians would like to believe, America is not made up of a bunch of fools. People know that the Bush economic policies are why they lost their houses and their savings. They know the Bush era turned a budget surplus into record deficits. They also know that the only way to continue the recovery is to give the President a Congress who works with him rather than against him.

Trends show Democrats will win mid-term elections.CNN Political Unit 07/15/14 (CNN is a well-known and established American cable and satellite TV company, “Poll: Democrats with slight edge in two key Senate races,” CNN, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/15/poll-democrats-with-slight-edge-in-two-key-senate-races/) ChenThe Democrats have a slight lead in two crucial Senate showdowns that could decide whether the party keeps control of the chamber this November, according to new polling.¶ And NBC News/Marist surveys released Tuesday also indicate that two important gubernatorial races are all knotted up. According to the poll, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado leads his GOP challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner, 48%-41%, among registered voters, with one in ten undecided. In the state's gubernatorial contest, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has a 49%-43% edge over Republican

challenger Bob Beauprez, a former congressman. Seven percent are undecided.¶ In the Senate race in Michigan, the poll indicates that Democratic Rep. Gary Peters has a 43%-37% edge over Republican candidate Terry Lynn Land, a former Michigan secretary of state, with a high 19% undecided. The winner in November will succeed longtime Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who is retiring. In the gubernatorial contest, GOP Gov. Rick Snyder holds a 46%-44% margin over Democratic nominee Mark Schauer, with 9% undecided.¶ Democrats have a 55-45 majority in the Senate (53 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the party). But in the midterms, the party is defending 21 of the 36 seats up for grabs, with half of those Democratic-held seats in red or purple states.¶ "The early edge goes to the Democrats" said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. "But these are not states they can put into their win column just yet."¶ When it comes to governors' races, the Republicans are defending 22 of the 36 seats up for grabs in November. And some of them are in states that Obama carried in both 2008 and 2012, such as Michigan, as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Maine, Nevada and New Mexico. But Democrats also have some vulnerable seats to defend, in Colorado, as well as Arkansas and Illinois. And they won't have cakewalks in Connecticut and Massachusetts.¶ In the Senate races, the poll indicates that a gender gap is helping the Democrats. Udall tied up with Gardner among male voters, but is up by 12-percentage

points among females. In Michigan, Peters' holds a 13-point lead over his female opponent among women voters.¶ In Colorado, big leads among Latino voters are helping Udall and Hickenlooper.

A2 – Export-Import Bank

No – Authorization

Export-Import Bank won’t be reauthorized – Conservatives think it’s antithetical to free-market principles.Gilbert 07/12/14 (Craig, American business executive who served as the chairman of the board of the Intel Corporation, “Export-Import Bank's reauthorization in jeopardy,” the Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com/business/export-import-banks-reauthorization-in-jeopardy-b99307866z1-266888981.html) Chen

The government-run Export-Import Bank provides direct loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to help foreign buyers purchase American-made products. In its 2013 annual report, the bank said it approved an all-time high of 3,842 authorizations for the 12-month period, with an estimated export value of $37.4 billion.¶ The support sustained an estimated 205,000 export-related U.S. jobs, according to the bank.¶ Yet suddenly the bank's survival is under assault. Its charter expires in September, and its reauthorization, long taken for granted, is a subject of intense debate.¶ Democrats almost uniformly support the bank. So do the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers.¶ Republicans, however, are split, with many conservatives opposing the bank as an example of corporate welfare, crony capitalism, or of the government's picking winners and losers in the marketplace.¶ "In reality, the Export-Import Bank is just bad policy..." the Heritage Foundation, a

conservative Washington, D.C., think tank, said in a statement.¶ Opponents of the Ex-Im Bank include some of the nation's highest-profile lawmakers, among them House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, the Republican from Janesville.¶ "We have to decide whether we want to be a pro-business party or a pro-market party," Ryan said in an interview, acknowledging that his opposition to the bank puts him on the other side of business groups with whom he agrees "95 percent of the time."¶ Ryan calls the bank a "strange collusion of big business and big government" and argues it's antithetical to conservative free-market principles.¶ When the bank's charter was last reauthorized in 2012, all four Democrats in Wisconsin's congressional delegation voted for it, but only two of the six Republicans voted yes. Sen. Ron Johnson and House members Ryan, Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri opposed the reauthorization, while then-freshmen House members Sean Duffy and Reid Ribble supported it.¶ In interviews last week, Ryan, Sensenbrenner and Petri all reiterated their opposition to or strong reservations about the bank. Johnson, Duffy and Ribble declined interview requests, though a Duffy aide said the lawmaker is undecided on reauthorization. In a statement, Ribble said he was seeking additional reforms in how the bank works but defended its mission:

Export-Import Bank won’t be reauthorized – Conservatives think it distorts free market.Alberta 07/15/14 (Tim, leadership reporter for the National Journal; formerly served as senior editor of National Journal Hotline, where he edited the publication’s popular tip-sheets and directed its coverage of the 2012 Republican presidential race, “Conservative Groups Unite Against Export-Import Bank,” National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/conservative-groups-unite-against-export-import-bank-20140715) Chen

A powerful coalition of conservative advocacy groups is taking a united stand against the Export-Import Bank, raising the stakes in the debate over whether to reauthorize the agency that provides foreign loan guarantees aimed at boosting U.S. exports.¶ The Conservative Action Project, a coalition of right-wing groups led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, has penned a memo urging Republicans in Congress to let the bank's charter expire at the end of September. The

memo, obtained by National Journal, is signed by the leaders of America's largest and best-funded

conservative organizations, including Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, Citizens United, and FreedomWorks.¶ "The Export-Import Bank distorts the free market by providing loans to politically favored companies, at the expense of their competitors who receive no such help. It uses taxpayer dollars to

subsidize goods and services that benefit foreign regimes, including Russia and China," the memo reads. "To close the door to cronyism, the Export-Import Bank should not be reauthorized."

Export-Import Bank unpopular among Conservatives – it helps “crony capitalism.”Puzzanghera and Memoli 06/24/14 (Jim and Michael. Jim Puzzanghera writes about business and economic issues from the Times’ Washington, D.C., bureau. He won the paper’s Editor’s Award in 2009 for coverage of the financial crisis. He has worked in the nation’s capital since 1998 and is a two-time National Press Club award winner for Washington coverage. Michael A. Memoli has worked in the Los Angeles Times’ Washington, D.C., bureau since 2010, and now spends most of his time in the halls of the Capitol covering Congress. He has spent the last 10 years covering national politics based in D.C., “Shift in GOP leadership leaves Export-Import Bank at risk of closing,” LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-export-import-bank-20140625-story.html#page=1) Chen

For 80 years, an obscure federal agency has helped Boeing Co., General Electric Co. and thousands of other U.S. firms sell products abroad. But a sudden change in the House Republican leadership has put the Export-Import Bank at risk of going out of business.¶ At a hearing Wednesday, members of the House Financial Services Committee will wrangle with the bank's president, Fred Hochberg, and his supporters as well as with opponents over whether the bank is a "corporate necessity or corporate welfare" — as a Sept. 30 deadline approaches to extend its charter.¶ Critics of the bank, led by top conservatives, say its $27 billion in annual loans and other export assistance for foreign buyers to purchase U.S. goods amount to "crony capitalism" that helps the nation's wealthiest corporations while putting taxpayers on the hook for possible future losses of as much as $140 billion.¶ Even if the bank were working perfectly, it's just not the proper role of the federal government to be in the financing business.¶ - Diane Katz, a research fellow in regulatory policy at

the Heritage Foundation¶ Opponents also argue that the bank is mismanaged, allegations that gained steam amid a report Tuesday that four Export-Import Bank officials have been suspended or removed as part of an investigation into kickbacks and favoritism.

No – Obama P.C.

Obama has no political capital – little power or support from congress and the public.Oliphant 04/11/14 (James, James was a correspondent covering the 2012 presidential campaign for the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, and also worked as a congressional and legal affairs reporter for those newspapers. He is a former editor-in-chief of Legal Times in Washington, where he also won awards for feature writing, and has been a contributing editor to American Lawyer magazine, “Obama Begins to Say Good-Bye,” National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-begins-to-say-good-bye-20140411) Chen

Constrained by crises over which he has little power to impact events, hemmed in by a divided Congress more interested in scoring points with voters than in legislating, and watching as his potential successor assumes more and more of the political spotlight, Obama may be receding into history more quickly than either he or his aides ever anticipated.¶ It was impossible to listen to the president's speech Thursday at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library in Texas without hearing the trace of the valedictory. Certainly, it was not intended to be so—and Obama didn't deliver it as such. (Bill Clinton does wistful; Obama may not have that gear.) But his remarks were less a clarion call to action than a stern statement of principle, his mouth fixed flat for most of the address, his face betraying the weariness of almost six years of incessant conflict. ¶ His demeanor matched that of his White House, dogged, hunkered down, like Butch and Sundance in Bolivia, surrounded by an increasingly tuned-out public, opportunistic Republicans, often feckless Democrats, and a skeptical press corps. For some time now, as Obama's approval rating has fallen and his political capital has dried up, his supporters have insisted that the long view will vindicate him, as if a contemporaneous verdict on his stewardship cannot be trusted. (And again, Friday, he vowed outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would go "down in history" for her work to pass and implement Obamacare, despite the fierce criticism she faced.)

Obama used up all political capital – no more faith in presidency. Ukraine proves.Galen 3/17/14 (Rich, Columnist, strategist, and former press-secretary, “Obama Is Poisonous,” Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/17/obama_is_poisonous_121954.html) Chen

Gallup Obama Approval 3-day track = 39-55. One year ago was 50-43. Reason enough for Dems to worry. http://bit.ly/6v3JWW¶ There is not much statistical difference between an approval rating of 42 and 39 (and it is likely to bounce within that range) but, the psychology of one being in the 40s and the other in the 30s is huge.¶ There is a reason cars are priced at $25,999 and not $26,001.¶ Going from a +7 (50-43) to a -16 (39-55) may be a numerical swing of 23 points, but it is a political swing of biblical proportions. ¶ On Sunday the number, indeed, crawled back to 40-

54.¶ We know that President Obama doesn't have much use for the U.S. Congress. He wasn't there very long, and while he was he didn't do much, and didn't make many friends. ¶ But, he got

to be President of the United States and none of the 535 members of the House or Senate can say that.¶ President Obama has used up his political capital. The cupboard is bare. His disdain for the Article I branch is exceeded only by his dislike of the Article III branch. While people thought he was at least trying to do the right thing they gave him the benefit of the doubt.¶ But that benefit - like many health care benefits - have disappeared.¶ The business in Ukraine is, if only because of newness and rawness of the vote in Crimea yesterday, an excellent example of why the country has lost faith in the Obama Presidency.

Obama PC down – unpopular among Republicans and the public because of soldier trade.Pew Research 6/9/14 (Nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis, and other empirical social science research, “Public Has Doubts about Bergdahl Prisoner Exchange,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/09/public-has-doubts-about-bergdahl-prisoner-exchange/) Chen

The prisoner exchange that freed U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban in Afghanistan gets a more negative than positive reaction from the public. ¶ Overall, 43% say it was the wrong thing for the Obama administration to exchange five Taliban prisoners for captive soldier Bergdahl, while fewer (34%) say it was the right thing to do; 23% do not offer an opinion.¶ The new national survey by the Pew Research Center and USA TODAY, conducted June 5-8 among 1,004 adults, finds that while this specific prisoner exchange is viewed negatively on balance, most think the U.S. has a responsibility to do all it can to free captive U.S. soldiers in general, regardless of the circumstances of their capture.¶ Overall, 56% say the U.S. has a responsibility to do all it can to return an American captive soldier, no matter what the circumstances; 29% say that because Bergdahl left his post, the U.S. was not obligated to do all it could to secure his release.¶ Reactions to the Bergdahl case are deeply divided along partisan lines. Fully 71% of Republicans think the prisoner exchange was the wrong thing to do, while just 16% say it was the right thing to do. Democrats, by more than two-to-one (55% to 24%), have a positive opinion of the agreement.

Politics Link Turns

Plan Popular

Ocean development popular among the public – communities depend on it.Helvarg 2/14 (David, American journalist and environmental activist. He is the founder and president of the marine conservation lobbying organization Blue Frontier Campaign, “The oceans demand our attention,” The Hill, 02/14/14, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-our-attention) Chen

Still, today in early 2014, only four of the nine regional bodies have held meetings. In New England, participation by the states, tribal governments, fishermen, environmentalists and others have seen a strong launch. In the mid-Atlantic, it’s been more a case of different federal agencies talking to each other without much transparency or citizen participation. Initial meetings have also been held in the Caribbean and the Western Pacific, including Hawaii.¶

Although the course forward seems as slow as that sea hare, it’s also clear the public wants action for our ocean, coasts and the communities that depend on them. One can only hope (and insist) that by the end of the Obama presidency in 2016 we see some tangible improvements in how we treat our ocean through better coordination and planning among agencies and stakeholders. Good models for this kind of sustainable ocean use already exist in states like California.¶ At that point we can raise our public seas to the level of public policy and begin to balance recreation, ports and shipping, wildlife protection, clean energy, coastal climate adaptation, food security, national security, exploration and science to sustain both our economy and the health of the ocean.

Ocean efforts becoming more popular among private explorers and Congress – needed to ensure maritime strength.NOAA 13 (Scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and atmosphere, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 07/19/13-07/21/13, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf) Chen

There are a few, scattered ocean exploration efforts within our nation. Federal agencies do make new discoveries incidental to their separate missions. And, privately funded citizen explorers are getting excited about the ocean. While this collection of small efforts survives, each for its own purpose, the Congress expected more. The nation needs more to ensure maritime strength. A broad, coordinated national program envisioned by Congress in PL 111-11 could help prioritize cross-agency oceanographic campaigns, strain from mission and research-driven expeditions and private excursions those bits of information that are of new-discovery-quality and guarantee that it will be archived within government and shared with an increasingly excited group of American citizen explorers.

High support from scientists for funding Antarctic development.Sheppard 13 (Kate, Senior reporter and the environment and energy editor at the Huffington Post, “Antarctic Researchers to Congress: Don’t Stop the Science!” The Huffington Post, 10/15/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/shutdown-antarctic-research_n_4102800.html) Chen

A contractor working at the United States Antarctic Program has started an online petition asking Congress to shield the program's McMurdo Station from the effects of the government shutdown.¶ Richard Jeong, a senior systems administrator at United States Antarctic Program, started the Change.org petition last week, and more than 3,000 people—including a number of scientists -- have since signed it.¶ Jeong wants the government to continue funding the station's work, which is part of a National Science Foundation program. The shutdown came just as scientists there were preparing for the summer research season, and the closure has forced the station to go into a holding pattern while it awaits a new appropriation.¶ "Unlike shutting down a court or a government office in a city, removing Antarctic participants from the ice means losing a long-term investment in infrastructure and a higher cost to re-start the projects," wrote Jeong. "I’m seeing the devastating consequences of this decision firsthand as I’ve been working as a contractor at McMurdo Station in Antarctica all winter. Congress must pass a shutdown exemption, similar to US Military Pay and US Defense Contractors, for the USAP program or end the shutdown."

Plan Unpopular

Ocean exploration unpopular – expensive and gives little return.Carlyle 13 (Ryan, Engineer for deep water control equipment in the oil industry, “Why Don’t We Spend More On Exploring the Oceans, Rather than on Space Exploration?” Forbes, 01/31/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/) Chen

So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I can tell you that the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot.

Ocean development unpopular – used as a bill rider.Helvarg 2/14 (David, American journalist and environmental activist. He is the founder and president of the marine conservation lobbying organization Blue Frontier Campaign, “The oceans demand our attention,” The Hill, 02/14/14, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-our-attention) Chen

The latest battle over the future of America’s ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly unrelated bill in Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent fund – based on offshore energy revenue – for scientific research and coastal restoration.¶ On the House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops. ¶ One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at coordinating federal agencies in ways that could reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, “putting urban planning in the water column,” in the words of former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas.¶ Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail).¶ In 2004 ocean conservationists held their first ‘Blue Vision Summit’ in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) called for a “Big Ocean Bill,” to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to examine the state of America’s blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commission’s recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result America’s seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws.¶ In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane

Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions’ recommendations that he agreed to do.¶ By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress had become too polarized to pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses.

A2 - Spending DA

Non Unique

US economy already too far gone due to stock valuation dropsSlavo 14 [Mac, “this chart shows us how bad the economy really is ‘flashing red warning’”, 4/14, http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/this-chart-shows-us-how-bad-the-economy-really-is-flashing-red-warning_04142014] Jia

Recent weeks have led to a fairly significant drop in stock valuations, with many expert analysts struggling to figure out exactly why it’s happening. You’ll hear them cite the weather, or market overreaction, or any number of reasons for why stocks have seen their share prices reduced and why they’ll be rebounding in the near-term. What they won’t show you on mainstream financial channels is what’s really happening behind the scenes. Forget about all the minute-by-minute noise for a moment and take a look at the following chart. It gives a very simple overview of earnings growth trends for stocks listed on the S&P 500 on a quarterly basis. Last year saw what analysts would call fairly robust growth, and they had no problem citing these numbers for evidence of economic recovery. We’re curious what they’d call it now, considering this chart shows a massive collapse in earnings per share growth across the board. Pay close attention to that yellow line, which indicates growth (or lack there of) for the first quarter of 2014. According to Zero Hedge this is a Flashing Red Warning as earnings growth plunges to its lowest levels since 2012: Most people, when you ask them how the economy is doing, will point to the Dow Jones, NASDAQ and S&P 500 as evidence of a healthy recovery.What the majority of those people fail to look at is the underlying valuations for the stocks within those indexes. The P/E ratio of a stock is basically the price of the stock compared to the earnings of said share. In the case of Amazon trading at 537 times earnings, this is an INCREDIBLE number considering most conservative financial advisers recommend dividend earning stocks in the 10 – 12 P/E range for investment purposes. In essence, the easiest way to interpret Amazon today is that an investor is willing to pay $537 for $1 in current earnings. So, investors who bought Amazon stock at its current price should see a return on that investment… in about 537 years (give or take) at current earnings. Yes, that’s how crazy the stock market is right now, and Amazon is certainly not alone insofar as over-valuation is concerned. Couple that with the earning growth chart above and you can clearly see that we are in very dangerous territory here. And this doesn’t even take into account the economic warfare playing out between East and West, where Russia has now announced it will be actively pursuing a strategy to decouple its resource trade from the US dollar, meaning it will now trade in local currencies as opposed to the world’s traditional reserve currency. As Paul Craig Roberts noted recently, there is a reckoning coming and all evidence points to economic failure in 2014 . Or, we can all just go along with the prevailing narrative and pretend like happy days are here again.

Economy will never be able to make a comeback - unemployment rate makes it impossibleBernstein 13 [Jared, Obama administration economist; CNBC and MSNBC contributor, “ Is the U.S. economy good, bad or in between right now?”, www.HuffingtonPost.com, 7/23,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/is-the-us-economy-good-ba_b_3641572.html] Jia

Yesterday, the WSJ featured a piece explaining how the economy's "stuck in neutral." Today, it features" reasons for economic hope," including repaired balance sheets, the shale boom, reduced health care inflation, and falling budget deficits. So, which is it? At the risk of being a little too folksy, I think the gear shift analogy is a good one (with the caveat that standard transmissions are a dying breed; I recently needed my 23-year-old assistant to park my car for me, but this highly capable young man had no idea how to drive a stick). If we think of the gears as points of real GDP growth, the U.S. is more in second gear than neutral (i.e., we're puttering along at around 2 percent). France is in neutral, the UK maybe shifting from neutral to first. The Euro area as a whole is in reverse, with Italy and Spain driving backwards pretty fast. The problem here is that while the above list of positive developments from today's sunnier WSJ assessment is a good one, and every forecast I've seen has us growing faster pretty soon, the job market, even with recent gains, still remains slack. And as long as that's the case, it will be tough to accelerate to higher gears. If you match up the GDP forecasts to the unemployment rate -- i.e., you apply basic rules of thumb about how much the economy's growth rate should help to lower the jobless rate -- you'd expect that for the rest of this year and next, we'll probably shave about one or two tenths off of the unemployment rate each quarter. For example, the Fed, GS, and economy.com all forecast the unemployment to be about 6.6 percent by the last quarter of next year. Then there's distribution. Protracted unemployment is a big reason why growth has flowed upwards. The real income of the typical household is down 5 percent over the recovery , corporate profitability is near an all-time high, the real S&P index is up 60 percent, and the compensation share of national income -- the stuff working people depend on -- is at a 50-year low. So again, which is it? Frankly, I'm worried. We're definitely doing better than Europe, but we have a problem they don't: structural inequalities are more deeply embedded in our economy than their economies. So, especially with the president about to hold forth on a pro-middle-class economic agenda, it's not enough to cite positive macro trends without considering whether they're reaching the broad swath of households whose economic prospects have been disconnected from growth for many years. We may shift into higher gears, but if we're zipping along through gated neighborhoods in a Ferrari with no passengers from the bottom 99 percent, we'll still be in trouble. In other words, moving my folksy analogies from cars to arts-and-crafts, now is the time to get out the policy glue that can reconnect growth and middle-class prosperity. And that's what I expect to hear from the president later this week. I know Congress won't be receptive, and that's deeply unfortunate. But that shouldn't stop him from articulating his economic vision, nor from explaining to the American people what we should be doing if our politics were functional.

U.S. economy dissipating and will not improve any time soonAllen 12 [Patrick, CNBC EMEA head of news, “U.S. economy going from bad to worse: Roubini”, 7/23, http://www.cnbc.com/id/48281577] Jia

A robust and self-sustaining U.S. recovery is not on the cards, and we should now expect below trend growth for many years to come, according to Nouriel Roubini, the economist famed for his bearish views. Roubini, best-known for calling the 2008 economic crisis, outlined five reasons the bulls have been wrong and argued that an American economic cold will lead

the rest of the world to catch pneumonia in a post on the Project Syndicate website. “Even this year, the consensus got it wrong, expecting a recovery to annual GDP growth of better than 3 percent,” the founder of Roubini Global Economics wrote. “And now, after getting the first half of 2012 wrong, many are repeating the fairy tale that a combination of lower oil prices, rising auto sales, recovering house prices, and a resurgence of U.S. manufacturing will boost growth in the second half of the year and fuel above-potential growth by 2013.” Roubini believes the U.S. economy will slow further this year and next as expectations of the “fiscal cliff” keep spending and growth lower — and uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential election dogs markets. The fiscal cliff could knock 4.5 percent off 2013 growth if all tax cuts and transfer payments were allowed to expire and spending cuts where triggered, according to Roubini. “Of course, the drag will be much smaller, as tax increases and spending cuts will be much milder. But, even if the fiscal cliff turns out to be a mild growth bump — a mere 0.5 percent of GDP — and annual growth at the end of the year is just 1.5 percent, as seems likely, the fiscal drag will suffice to slow the economy to stall speed: a growth rate of barely 1 percent,” he wrote. The U.S. consumer, which drives plenty of the global economy as well as the U.S., will not be able to keep spending when $1.4 billion worth of tax cuts and extended transfer payments come to an end according to Roubini. “In 2013, as transfer payments are phased out, however gradually, and as some tax cuts are allowed to expire, disposable income growth and consumption growth will slow. The U.S. will then face not only the direct effects of a fiscal drag, but also its indirect effect on private spending,” he wrote. The problems in the euro zone, a slowdown in China and emerging markets, added to the chance that oil prices could be driven higher by tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, will also add to America’s economic woes, Roubini argued. He warned the Fed will not be able to ride to the rescue this time. “The U.S. Federal Reserve will carry out more quantitative easing this year, but it will be ineffective: long-term interest rates are already very low, and lowering them further would not boost spending,” he wrote. “Indeed, the credit channel is frozen and velocity has collapsed, with banks hoarding increases in base money in the form of excess reserves. Moreover, the dollar is unlikely to weaken as other countries also carry out quantitative easing.” Roubini also argued that earnings growth is now beginning to run out of steam, after buoying markets earlier in the economic cycle. The second-quarter earnings season has so far presented a mixed picture. “A significant equity-price correction could, in fact, be the force that in 2013 tips the US economy into outright contraction. And if the U.S. starts to sneeze again, the rest of the world — its immunity already weakened by Europe’s malaise and emerging countries’ slowdown — will catch pneumonia,” he warned.

Harsh weather leading economy to lose momentum- too weak to make a comebackKutz 14 [Annalyn, “U.S. economy: not looking so good”, www.money.cnn.com, 6/16, http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/news/economy/imf-us-forecast/] Jia

When it comes to the U.S. economy, the glass just went from half full to half empty.At the start of the year, economists were optimistic. Perhaps the economy would grow 3% this year, they said, instead of the measly 2% pace it's been stuck at for the prior three years. So much for that hopeful thinking. Half-way through the year, forecasts are being slashed. The latest Zorro move comes from the International Monetary Fund. The organization said Monday that the U.S. economy would only grow 2% this year, down from it earlier forecast of 2.8%.

This comes on the heels of the World Bank announcement last week that it was cutting its prediction for the United States and the broader world economy. Many expect Federal Reserve policymakers to do the same downward revision when they meet this week. What went wrong?Blame it on the deep freeze that caused a very weak start to 2014. "In the early part of the year, as a harsh winter conspired with other factors... momentum faded in the U.S economy," the IMF said. Even though the economy is now starting to bounce back, the IMF doesn't believe the comeback will be strong enough to completely offset the terrible first quarter. Here's how bad the first quarter was: The data already show the economy contracted in the first quarter, but now it looks like that contraction was the deepest decline since the Great Recession. The housing market slowed, businesses invested less money in new equipment and buildings, and exports of American goods declined. Economists still believe the first quarter downturn is a one-time blip, caused mostly by brutal winter. Snowstorms put new home construction on hold, slowed shipments of goods, and dissuaded people from going out to car lots to buy new cars.The one bright spot supposedly came from consumers spending more of their money, particularly on services like health care. With Obamacare coming into effect, the Commerce Department assumed health care spending rose dramatically in the first quarter. Now, it looks like that assumption was flawed. A Census report released Friday shows health care spending was far weaker than expected in the first quarter. As a result, economists are now forecasting the economy contracted at an annual rate of 1.5% to 2.4% in the first three months of the year, even weaker than the 1% contraction already reported by the Commerce Department . (The Commerce Department will revise its GDP numbers next week).If that's the case, achieving 3% growth for 2014 overall will be next to impossible. The economy would have to grow at around a 4.6% annual pace for the next three quarters in a row.The United States has not had a growth spurt that strong since late 2003 to early 2004.Growth in 2015 and beyond: If there's a silver lining in the latest downgrades of U.S. economic growth for 2014, it's that many are still forecasting a pickup in 2015. The IMF predicts the U.S. will grow 3% in 2015. But the report is also quick to point out problems that will put a drag on the U.S. economy in the coming years such as population aging and "modest prospects for productivity growth." To boost output, the IMF urges the U.S. to undertake a "skills-based approach" to immigration reform and to lift restrictions on U.S. oil exports.

Expansion attempts and new regulations causing U.S. economic points to fall drasticallyThe Heritage Foundation 14 [no name, “united states economy”, 2014, http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates] Jia

The United States, with an economic freedom score of 75.5, is the 12th freest economy in the 2014 Index. Its score is half a point lower than last year, primarily due to deteriorations in property rights, fiscal freedom, and business freedom. The U.S. is ranked 2nd out of three countries in the North America region, and although its score remains well above the world and regional averages, it is no longer one of the top 10 freest economies. Over the 20-year history of the Index, the U.S.’s economic freedom has fluctuated significantly. During the first 10 years, its score rose gradually, and it joined the ranks of the economically “free” in 2006. Since then, it has suffered a dramatic decline of almost 6 points, with particularly large losses in property rights, freedom from corruption, and control of government spending. The U.S. is the only country to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years. The

overall U.S. score decline from 1995 to 2014 is 1.2 points, the fourth worst drop among advanced economies. Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. economic freedom. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness.

Experts recorded three straight drops in outlook for U.S. economyStilwell 14 [Victoria, “American’s outlook for U.S. economy falls to seven-month low”, 5/22, Bloomberg news, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/americans-outlook-for-u-s-economy-falls-to-seven-month-low.html] Jia

Americans’ expectations for the economy deteriorated to a seven-month low in May, a sign that the rebound from weakness earlier this year may be limited by still-cautious consumers. An expectations gauge that tracks where the economy is heading declined to 42.5 in May from 48 in the month prior, data from the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index showed today . The share of respondents who said the economy was getting worse climbed to the highest level this year. The weekly measure of sentiment declined to 34.1 in the period ended May 18 from 34.9, the third straight drop. Wages last month failed to keep pace with a rising cost of living as prices increased for such necessities as food and fuel. Stronger hiring that leads to fatter paychecks would help spur confidence and provide households the wherewithal to boost their spending.

Taxes on small business causing U.S. economy to plummetRoot 13 [Wayne Allen, “this is why the economy is failing”, 12/30, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-the-economy-is-failing-2013-12-30] Jia

I’m an S.O.B. — son of a butcher. My dad, the blue-collar butcher, used to always say, “I’d love to hate rich people, but no poor person has ever given me a job.” If only politicians understood those words. That is what’s wrong with the U.S. economy. Politicians and government bureaucrats tax small business owners too much. They overregulate us, denigrate us, demonize us, and demoralize us. And since small business owners create a majority of the jobs, it’s no surprise that the U.S. economy has ground to a standstill. The statistics are mind numbing: 102 million working-age Americans are not working , the highest in history: The number of Americans not in the labor force has grown by 11 million since President Obama took office . More Americans now receive entitlements than work full-time. The typical American family earns less today than in 1989. The number of Americans getting food stamps is now bigger than population of the entire Northeast — including New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia. Nearly half of Americans have less than $500 in savings. And Obamacare is exploding the entitlement bill (and therefore our national debt). Over 80% of enrollees are joining Medicaid, not private insurance. How is this going to help the economy? We are facing economic disaster. The answer why is found in how we treat the heroes of the economy. Small business owners are those heroes. I call them “financial first responders.” They risk their financial lives, just as policeman and fireman risk their physical lives. They run towards crisis, they are willing to risk their life savings on nothing but a business idea. While others are scaling back spending, declaring bankruptcy, or letting their homes go, small business owners are

putting their money on the line. That takes guts. Financial first responders risk their life savings to create jobs, to provide a better life for their employees, and to provide products that consumers need, at a price they can afford. Their courageous risk-taking helps fuel the U.S. economy, and they pay the taxesnecessary to fund government. Without these heroes the economy and the government would grind to a halt. Obama famously said, “You didn’t build that” to business owners. He had it all backwards. Nothing can be built by government without the risks taken by business owners. Remember, government has no money of its own. The reason we have roads, highways, bridges, airports, schools and hospitals is from taxes. Yet for all the sacrifice and contributions, this population is often demonized by politicians. This population is frequently targeted, punished, regulated and taxed for success. And did you know IRS audits were up dramatically on small business owners from 2009 to 2011? That’s no way to get the economy moving again. Next time you wonder why the U.S. economy is failing, just remember that politicians appear to have created a hostile work environment. Politicians and government bureaucrats ignore one of the most important rules of business: the 80/20 rule. It states that 80% of success at any business comes from the top 20% of superstar employees. The same holds true of government. Success is dependent on “the rainmakers.” The top 20% pay 80% of your bills. How do you motivate the rainmakers? It’s simple. The more these rainmakers produce, the more they get to keep. In any industry in the world, the superstars at the top keep more of what they earn. Plus they receive bonuses, fancy dinners, vacations, and gifts. Jack Welsh built General Electric into the most valuable company in the world (in his day) by each year giving a raise and promotion to the top 20% of executives and at the same time, firing the bottom 10%. Imagine if a company came along that reversed that idea. What if this company treated the top 20% like dirt? What if they punished them, and the more they made the less they were allowed to keep? What if this company took away all the extra commissions and bonuses of these superstars…and redistributed the money to the worst employees. That company would be out of business in 90 days. Don’t look now, but it’s happening. It’s called government. Our government punishes the taxpayers (the makers), while rewarding those who take money out of the system (the takers). The business owners are supposed to pay more, even while government doles out food stamps, housing allowances, free meals at school, free medical care, free education, and tax refunds to illegal immigrants who never paid any taxes in the first place. The superstars at the top are told they don’t pay their fair share. The facts prove otherwise. Top income earners actually pay 109% of the taxes. No, that’s not a typo. The top 40% pay 109%. While the bottom 40% are paying negative 6% into the system. Ask any small businessman today. They’ll tell you that it feels as if government sees the job creators and financial risk-takers as nothing more than targets to pilfer. They’ll tell you that they feel punished for working harder, or smarter, or taking big risks with their own money. They’ll tell you that they feel buried in a blizzard of new regulations that are meant to help big business (because only giant companies can afford armies of lawyers, accountants, compliance officers, and of course, lobbyists). Now add to this volatile mix the infamous Obamacare. The early facts are in. Obamacare isn’t good for small business. It either cancels our policies, or dramatically increases our bills . Where will we get the extra money? Even Obama’s own internal White House studies reported that up to 80% of small businesses would lose their health insurance coverage. Will millions of small businesses be put out of business by the costs of Obamacare? What would that do to the U.S. economy? Then just for good measure, government dramatically increases IRS audits of small business — as if we don’t have enough to worry about. Not because any of us did something wrong. Where does the money for those accounting and tax lawyer bills come from? Still wondering why the economy is in decline? Stop wondering.

Job market hasn’t increased since 2009- economy failingSnyder 12 [Michael, “the U.S. economy: soul crushing total system failure”, 3/18, http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-u-s-economy-soul-crushing-total-system-failure] Jia

No matter how often the pretty people on television tell us that the U.S. economy is getting better, it isn't going to change the soul crushing agony that millions of American families are going through right now. The stock market may have gotten back to where it was in 2008, but the job market sure hasn't. As I wrote about a few days ago , the percentage of working age Americans that are actually employed has stayed very flat since late 2009, and the average duration of unemployment is hovering near an all-time high. Sadly, this is not just a temporary downturn. The U.S. economy has been slowly declining for several decades and is nearing total system failure. Right now, many poverty statistics are higher than they have ever been since the Great Depression. Many measurements of government dependence are the highest that we have ever seen in all of U.S. history. The emerging one world economic system (otherwise known as "free trade") has cost the U.S. economy tens of thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of our national wealth. The federal government is going into unprecedented amounts of debt in order to try to maintain our current standard of living, but there is no way that they will be able to sustain this kind of borrowing for too much longer. So enjoy this bubble of false prosperity while you can, because things will soon get significantly worse. As the U.S. economy experiences total system failure, it will be imperative for all of us not to wait around waiting for someone to rescue us. And I am not just talking about the government. Today, millions upon millions of Americans are waiting around hoping that someone out there will hire them. Well, the truth is that our politicians have made it so complicated and so expensive to hire someone that many small businesses try to avoid hiring as much as possible. Businesses generally only want to hire people if they can make a profit by doing so. When our politicians keep piling on the taxes and the regulations and the paperwork, that creates a tremendous incentive not to hire workers. Michael Fleischer, the President of Bogen Communications, once wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Why I'm Not Hiring". The following is how Paul Hollrah of Family Security Matterssummarized the nightmarish taxes that are imposed on his company when Fleischer hires a new worker.... Are you starting to understand why so many businesses are hesitant to hire new workers? The big corporations can handle all of the paperwork and regulations that come with hiring a new worker fairly well, but for small businesses hiring a new worker can be a massive undertaking. That new worker is going to have to almost be a miracle worker in order to justify all of the hassle and expense. But the federal government just keeps piling more burdens on to the backs of employers. That is one reason why there is such an uproar over Obamacare. It is going to make hiring workers even less attractive. These days, most small businesses are trying to get by with as few workers as possible, and many big businesses are trying to ship as many jobs as they can overseas. Sadly, even if you do find a good job it can disappear at any moment. The following is from a comment that a reader named Jeff recently left on one of my articles.... Can you imagine that? Can you imagine your boss walking in one day and declaring that the business has just been sold to foreigners and that you are about to lose your job? In America today, it can be absolutely soul crushing to lose a job. It isn't as if you are going to run out and get another fantastic job in a week or two. When you are unemployed, people look at your differently. It gets to the point where you don't even want to interact with other people because you know

that your unemployment is probably going to be the number one topic of conversation. When you are out of work for six months or more, it is easy to feel like a failure - especially when so many other people are looking at you as if you are a failure too. But in most cases, individual Americans are not to blame for not being able to find work. Rather it is the entire system that is failing all of us. The U.S. economy is bleeding good jobs and the middle class in America has become a bizarre game of musical chairs. When the music stops each round you might lose your spot. You just never know. Looking for work in the United States in this economic environment can be a demoralizing endeavor. For example, a recent Esquire article described what one unemployed man named Scott Annechino found when he attended a job fair in San Francisco.... If you want to check out the rest of the sad unemployment stories in that article, you can find them right here. But even if you do have a job, that doesn't mean that everything is just fine. Average American families are finding that the prices of the basic things that they need are rising much faster than their paychecks are. According to one recent study , more than half of all Americans feel as though they are really struggling to afford just the basics at this point.... Just buying food and gas is a major financial ordeal for many families these days. On average, a gallon of gasoline in the United States now costs $3.83. Many Americans burn up a huge chunk of their paychecks just going back and forth to work in their cars. So what is the solution? Well, according to the Obama administration the answer is even more government dependence. The federal government is now actually running ads encouraging even more people to go on food stamps.... Can you believe that? Apparently having 46.5 million Americans on food stamps is not enough. The federal government is spending our tax money on advertisements that try to convince even more Americans that they need to be on food stamps. What the American people really need are good jobs, but those keep getting shipped out of the country. Meanwhile, people are becoming increasingly desperate. For example one Colorado man was recently caught stealing parts from toilets in public restrooms.... They are calling him "the crapper scrapper". Other Americans are not willing to stoop to crime and instead suffer quietly and anonymously. A reader named Katie recently left the following heartbreaking comment on one of my articles.... Please say a prayer for Katie and the millions of other Americans just like her. It can be absolutely soul crushing to lose everything that you ever worked for and not see any light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, the U.S. economy is not going to be improving in the long run. What we are experiencing right now is about as good as it is going to get. The truth is that it is pretty much downhill from here . It is fairly simple to figure out what is happening to us as a nation. You can't keep buying far more than you sell. You can't keep spending far more than you bring in. You can't keep running up debt in larger and larger amounts indefinitely. The U.S. economy is running on borrowed money and on borrowed time. At some point, both are going to run out. Are you ready for that?

Link Turns

Link turn - Ocean infrastructure vital to a thriving economySanctuaries web team 12 [sanctuaries web team, national oceanic and atmospheric association, “Your national marine sanctuaries are centers for strong local economies and have economic value reaching far beyond the water”, 5/23, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/features/1211socio.html] Jia

From restaurants and hotels, to aquariums and kayak operators, the success of many businesses, millions of dollars in sales and thousands of jobs, directly depend on thriving national marine sanctuaries. Across all national marine sanctuaries, about $4 billion annually is generated in local coastal and ocean dependent economies from diverse activities like commercial fishing, research and recreation-tourist activities. According to a 2005 study1, counties surrounding Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary garner $100 million in sales associated with sanctuary activities, $39.1 million in personal income to residents, $59.1 million in value added and 1,704 jobs. Between 2000 and 2003, there were, on average, 473 commercial fishing operations and one kelp harvester in Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The value of harvest/landings was $29.6 million; with multiplier impacts, this value translates to almost $88 million in income, which supported 2,000 jobs in seven California counties. Between 1981 and 2003, the seven most important fisheries in the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries yielded landings worth more than $31 million per year, accounting for 92 percent of landings and revenues in the Northern California ports. From 2007 to 2008, more than 400,000 visitors and residents of the Florida Keys engaged in over 2 million person-days of recreational sports fishing. These recreational fishers spent $274 million in Monroe County/Florida Keys, approximately $107.6 million of which was directly spent on fishing items. A study2 completed in 2000 estimated that Massachusetts alone accounted for nearly 80 percent of New England whale watching tour totals, generating $31.3 million; virtually all of Massachusetts whale watching occurs in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Between 2007-2008, approximately 739,000 visitors and residents participated in 2.8 million days of diving in the Florida Keys; $54 million was spent at diving/snorkeling operations. Moreover, divers spent a total of $470 million in Monroe County, Florida Keys, supporting more than 7,500 jobs. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary provides opportunities for approximately 25 marine science facilities; these facilities employed almost 2,000 people in 2004 with a combined budget of over $200 million. The total benefits of coral reefs to American Samoa residents and visitors are estimated to be worth around $5 million per year. In the Pacific Northwest, Treaty Tribes are connected economically, culturally and spiritually to natural resources found on their reserved lands and within their usual and accustomed hunting, fishing and gathering areas; Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary is helping preserve resources critical for sustaining these ocean-dependent livelihoods that have existed along this coast for thousands of years.

Link turn - Cyber-infrastructure good for economy Kim 05 [Sangtae, distinguished professor of mechanical engineering and chemical engineering at Purdue university, http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html3month/2005/050820.O-Kim.cyber.html, “Cyberinfrastructure is key for Indiana’s future economy”, 8/05] Jia

For any state or region to enjoy a competitive economic advantage, it must have a superior infrastructure, such as the highways and bridges of the transportation system, a reliable supply of affordable electricity and other elements of the power grid. In today's economy, with the pervasive presence of information technology, an increasingly important role is being played by another type of infrastructure, called "cyberinfrastructure." This is the IT network made up of computers, software, databases, transmission lines and facilities, as well as the people and services needed to make the system work. Cyberinfrastructure is central to scientific advancement in the modern research environment. For example, a revolution in the life sciences, including the seminal achievement of sequencing the human genome on an accelerated time frame, was made possible by parallel advances in cyberinfrastructure for research in this data-intensive field. But cyberinfrastructure is fast becoming as integral to everyday life as it is to research. In the Indianapolis Star's June 1 Dialogue & Letters section, a writer envisioned new and innovative transportation-funding methods via cyberinfrastructure technologies like on-road sensors, radio-frequency transmitters and global-positioning devices – in other words, a convergence of transportation infrastructure and cyberinfrastructure. Another piece published on May 1 in the Star envisioned a transformative revitalization of the aging power grid, using cyberinfrastructure to avoid large-scale power failures by splitting the grid into a series of smaller, sensor-laden segments that could be better controlled. The future of the power grid is tied closely to advances in cyberinfrastructure. This brings us to the key point of the role of cyberinfrastructure in creating a competitive edge for Indiana: "Infrastructure convergence," or combining cyber and other classic infrastructures, is clearly the foundation for driving economic growth in new areas, such as those in the life sciences, as well as revitalizing our core strengths, including the state's manufacturing base. Other regions in the United States and beyond have embraced this cyber vision as well. So, is there a compelling cyber advantage for Indiana? The answer is a most emphatic yes, and here we have the kernel of a "how to" roadmap for Indiana's economic growth in the 21st century. Because of the state's geographical location, Indiana stands to reap great benefits from this ongoing cyber revolution that many believe will bring a high level of investments driven by free-market forces. A recent workshop report from the National Science Foundation highlighted nascent developments in logistics and supply-chain technologies linking retailers to manufacturers as the next big wave of this cyber revolution. Indiana, as the crossroads of America, is already a major player, and many would say the leader, in this field. The second wave will feature new cyber techniques for inventory management, which, when coupled with ultra-efficient supply chains, will form the basis for agile manufacturers to respond rapidly to shifting consumer tastes. Cyberinfrastructure is enabling companies to quickly modify products to better suit shifting consumer needs. Companies choosing to exploit this "agile manufacturing" trend must place themselves at the epicenter of the U.S. population, and this is an advantage other regions cannot replicate. We in Indiana have much to gain not just by preparing for but by accelerating the time scale to this future landscape. The state can effectively speed progress in this area by bridging the "digital divide" between the haves and have-nots and boosting research funding in cyberinfrastructure. Purdue University, like other institutions, is addressing these issues through its newly formed Cyber Center in Discovery Park, the university's hub for interdisciplinary research. Yes, there will be "new economy" jobs in creating, building and deploying cyberinfrastructure, but many more jobs will be created by attracting new firms to our region as well as increasing the success rate for new startups — with a cyberinfrastructure second to none.

NASA T/O DA

Non Unique

NASA budget cuts have been happening since 1973.Foust 5/30/14 (Jeff, Jeff Foust is an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. He is an aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation. He is the editor and publisher of The Space Review and has written for Astronomy Now and The New Atlantis, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts,” National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/) Chen

Research – AT Trade-off DAs¶ But the reality is that while the stars and planets beckon, a budget battle is brewing over NASA, the $17.6-billion civilian space agency. Cuts threaten spacecraft and telescopes, even as

NASA struggles to clarify its mission in the post-space shuttle era. (Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ Since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, the space agency's budget has steadily declined from 1.35 percent of federal spending to less than 0.6 percent. A long-running annual drop in inflation-adjusted funds took a sharp downward turn in the past two years, as budget cuts, including mandatory ones ordered by Congress, trimmed almost a billion dollars from 2012 to 2013. The 2014 budget recovered some, but not all, of that cut.¶ In addition, a fundamental debate is under way over the future exploration aims of NASA. The Obama Administration favors "stepping stone" plans leading to an asteroid visit in the next decade; congressional representatives call for a return to the moon.¶ A National Research Council report released in late 2012 called NASA's strategic plan to explore asteroids "vague," adding that the agency's explanations did not explain "why it is worthy of taxpayer investment."¶ The debate over funding the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)—which was barred from receiving federal dollars in a 1993 congressional vote that scrubbed its ten-million-dollar yearly operating cost—mirrors, in microcosm, the larger debate about paying for space science. Already squeezed by decades of straitened funding, a variety of NASA missions, ranging from an infrared space telescope to a 747-mounted observatory, now face cancellation.¶ Difficult Choices¶ When NASA released its 2015 budget proposal in March, it dropped a

bombshell on the astronomical community. The proposal cut funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a 747 jetliner equipped with a 2.5-meter (8.2-foot) telescope that can make observations above most of our atmosphere's infrared-absorbing water vapor.¶ Unless NASA finds a new partner to take over its share of SOFIA's operating costs, about $85 million a year, the proposed budget would force the agency to mothball the observatory—even though it began routine operations earlier this year.¶ NASA administrator Charles Bolden said SOFIA was a victim of limited budgets that had led the agency to prioritize other programs, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and a 2020 Mars rover mission.¶ "It turned out that we had to make very difficult choices about where we go with astrophysics and planetary science and Earth science, and SOFIA happened to be what fell off the plate this time," he said shortly after the budget proposal came out.¶ The space agency is also facing some difficult choices about what ongoing space missions it can afford to keep running. Every two years NASA convenes panels, known as senior reviews, to examine the performance of missions that have exceeded their original lifetimes. The reviews are designed to ensure that the science these missions produce is worth the continuing expense, but it's rare for such reviews to recommend ending a mission before the spacecraft can simply no longer operate.

NASA projects facing huge cuts already.Plait 3/5/14 (Phil, Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies!, “Another Year, Another Set of Bizarre Cuts to NASA's Budget,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/03/05/nasa_budget_2015_more_cuts_more_politics.html) Chen

Earth Science: cut by $56 million (given that so many in Congress are climate change deniers who want to cut Earth-

observing missions, I think this may be a mistake). Astrophysics: cut by $61 million (including mothballing the wonderful

SOFIA aircraft unless a German partner can pony up the cash; see page 15 of the report). Planetary Science: cut by $65

million. That last one is almost a victory, given how the White House has tried to eviscerate planetary exploration over the past few years. But don’t be fooled; these cuts would hurt. A lot. (Note added after I wrote this article but before it was posted: Casey Dreier at The Planetary Society has more on this situation.)But the one that really gets me, the one that is appalling, is the cut to Education: It will see a devastating reduction in funding of nearly $28 million, dropping to $89 million if this budget is passed as is. That’s nearly a 24 percent drop.

NOAA T/O DA

Non Unique

Beaufort Lab funding won’t get cut – bipartisan support.Newsobserver 5/5 (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/05/3837809/us-house-bill-would-maintain-funding.html

A bipartisan effort has put funding in a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations bill to save a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Beaufort that the scientific agency had proposed to close.¶ The lab, which opened in 1899, employs 108 people and is the only government facility between New Jersey and Miami, Fla., studying Atlantic fish populations.¶ It also is a hub for several research operations in Carteret County, including labs run by three universities. Together, NOAA and the universities have 163,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 labs. Marine science directly employs more than 500 people locally and injects $58 million into the local economy, according to the county economic development council.¶ The President’s budget for fiscal year 2015 had proposed shuttering the lab, but Democrat David Price of Chapel Hill, who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Republican Walter Jones, who represents the coastal district that includes Beaufort, announced Monday that the Fiscal Year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes full funding for NOAA’s ocean science labs, including the one in Beaufort.¶ The bill will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee on Thursday.¶ “The Beaufort NOAA Lab is the focal point for federal, state and university-based marine and fisheries research in North Carolina,” Rep. Price said in a news release. “I’m very pleased we were able to work

together secure this funding because the lab has a significant economic impact, and it is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of our state’s research enterprise.”

Kritiks

Environment K’s

Deep ecology finds its foundations in the eco-brutalism of Nazism – the alt perpetuates suffering Bookchin 87 – (Murray Bookchin, American anarchist, livertarian socialist author, and political theoretician, pioneer in the ecology movement and initiated the theory of social ecology, cofounder of the Institute for Social Ecology, taught at the Alternative University in New York, City University of New York, Ramapo College of New Jersey, co founder of Left Green Network, “Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement”, Originally published in Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project, Summer 1987, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html) Wang Let us agree from the outset that ecology is no magic term that unlocks the secret of our abuse of nature. It is a word that can be as easily abused, distorted, and tainted as democracy and freedom. Nor does ecology put us all--whoever "we" may be---in the same boat against environmentalists, who are simply trying to make a rotten society work by dressing it in green leaves and colorful flowers while ignoring the deep-seated roots of our ecological problems.¶ It is time to honestly fact the fact that there are differences within today's so-called ecology movement that are as serious as those between the environmentalism and ecologism of the early 1970s. There are barely disguised racists, survivalists, macho Daniel Boones, and outright social reactionaries who use the word ecology to express their views, just as there are deeply concerned naturalists, communitarians, social radicals, and feminists who use the word ecology to express theirs.¶ The differences between these two tendencies consist not only of quarrels with regard to theory, sensibility, and ethics. They have far-reaching practical and political consequences. They concern not only of the way we view nature, or

humanity; or even ecology, but how we propose to change society and by what means.¶ The greatest differences that are emerging within the so-called ecology movement are between a vague, formless, often self-contradictory, and invertebrate thing called deep ecology and a long-developing, coherent, and

socially oriented body of ideas that can best be called social ecology. Deep ecology has parachuted into our midst quite recently from the Sunbelt's bizarre mix of Hollywood and Disneyland, spiced with homilies from Taoism,

Buddhism, spiritualism, reborn Christianity, and in some cases eco-fascism, while social ecology draws its inspiration from such outstanding radical decentralist thinkers as Peter Kropotkin, William Morris, and Paul Goodman, among many others who have advanced a serious challenge to the present society with its vast hierarchical, sexist, class-ruled, statist apparatus and militaristic history.¶ Let us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of "original sin" that accurses a vague species called humanity---as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters.¶ Deep ecologists see this vague and undifferentiated humanity essentially as an ugly "anthropocentric" thing---presumably a malignant product of natural evolution---that is "overpopulating" the planet, "devouring" its resources, and destroying its wildlife and the biosphere---as though some vague domain of "nature" stands opposed to a constellation of nonnatural human beings, with their technology, minds, society, etc. Deep ecology, formulated largely by privileged male white academics, has managed to bring sincere naturalists like Paul Shepard into the same company as patently antihumanist and macho mountain men like David Foreman of Earth First! who preach a gospel that humanity is some kind of cancer in the world of life.¶ It was out of this kind of crude eco-brutalism that Hitler, in the name of "population control," with a racial orientation, fashioned theories of blood and soil that led to the transport of millions of people to murder camps like Auschwitz.

The same eco-brutalism now reappears a half-century later among self-professed deep

ecologists who believe that Third World peoples should be permitted to starve to death and

that desperate Indian immigrants from Latin America should be exclude by the border cops from the United States lest they burden "our" ecological resources.¶ This eco-brutalism does not come out of Hitler's Mein Kampf. It appeared in Simply Living, an Australian periodical, as part of a laudatory interview of David Foreman by Professor Bill Devall, who co-authored Deep Ecology with Professor George Sessions, the authorized manifesto of the deep ecology movement. Foreman, who

exuberantly expressed his commitment to deep ecology, frankly informed Devall that "When I tell people who the worst

thing we could do in Ethiopia is to give aid---the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve---they think this is monstrous. . . . Likewise, letting the USA be an overflow valve for problems in Latin America is not solving a thing. It's just putting more pressure on the resources we have in the USA."¶ One can reasonably ask such compelling questions as what does it mean for nature to "seek its own balance" in East Africa, where agribusiness, colonialism, and exploitation have ravaged a once culturally and ecologically stable area. Or who is this all-American "our" that owns "the resources we have in the USA"? Are they the ordinary people who are driven by sheer need to cut timber, mine ores, and operate nuclear power plants? Or are they the giant corporations that are not only wrecking the good old USA but have produced the main problems these days in Latin America that send largely Indian folk across the Rio Grande? As an ex-Washington lobbyist and political huckster, David Foreman need not be expected to answer these subtle questions in a radical way. But what is truly surprising is the reaction---more precisely, the lack of any reaction---that marked Professor Devall's behavior. Indeed, the interview was notable for the laudatory, almost reverential, introduction and description of Foreman that Devall prepared.

Human environmental management key to solve disease, war, and asteroids Bookchin 87 – (Murray Bookchin, American anarchist, livertarian socialist author, and political theoretician, pioneer in the ecology movement and initiated the theory of social ecology, cofounder of the Institute for Social Ecology, taught at the Alternative University in New York, City University of New York, Ramapo College of New Jersey, co founder of Left Green Network, “Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement”, Originally published in Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project, Summer 1987, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html) Wang The problems that deep ecology and biocentrism raise have not gone unnoticed in more thoughtful press in

England. During a discussion of "biocentric ethics" in The New Scientist 69 (1976), for example, Bernard Dixon observed that no "logical line can be drawn" between the conservation of whales, gentians, and flamingoes on

the one hand and the extinction of pathogenic microbes like the small pox virus on the other. At which point God's gift to misanthropy, David Ehrenfeld, cutely observes that the smallpox virus is an "endangered species" in his The Arrogance of Humanism, a work that is so selective and tendentious in its use of quotations that it should validly be renamed "The Arrogance of Ignorance." One wonders what to do about the AIDS virus if a vaccine or therapy should threaten its survival. Further, given the passion for perpetuating the ecosystem of every species, one wonders how smallpox and AIDS virus should be preserved. In test tubes? Laboratory cultures? Or to

be truly ecological, in their native habitat, the human body? In which case, idealistic acolytes of deep ecology should

be invited to offer their own bloodstreams in the interests of "biocentric equality." Certainly, if "nature should be permitted to take its course," as Foreman advises for Ethiopians and Indian peasants, then plagues, famines, suffering, wars, and perhaps even lethal asteroids of the kind that exterminated the great reptiles of

the Mesozoic should not be kept from defacing the purity of first nature by the intervention of second nature. With so much absurdity to unscramble, one can indeed get heady, almost dizzy, with a sense of polemical intoxication.

Human ecosystem management inevitable Ruhl 4 – (J.B. Ruhl, Co director of Energy, Environment and Land Use Program at Vanderbilt, expert in environmental law, land use, and property law, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair in Law at Vanderbilt, former Professor at Florida State University, published environmental journals and law reviews in California Law Review, Duke Law Review, Georgetown Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and Vanderbilt Law Review, PhD in geography from Southern Illinois University School of Law, “The Myth of What Is Inevitable under Ecosystem Management: A Response to Pardy”, Pace Environmental Law Review, June 2004, http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=pelr) Wang Pardy suggests that maximizing the naturalness of ecosystems could involve "preserving the present state

that [the] systems are in. . .. -31 This, presumably, means keeping them "free from human influence."32 How Pardy

would do this remains a mystery, particularly given his acknowledgment that ecosystems are open dynamic systems subject to influences from outside their human-drawn boundaries.33 He suggests that "[human actions that will alter an ecosystem's state can be identified and prohibited so that the only changes the

system experiences are natural ones." 34 We will be doing a lot of prohibiting in that case. Consider, for example, an estuary. We could, I suppose, prohibit humans from entering the boundaries of the estuary. But, even

putting aside the obvious point that doing so is in itself a management decision, it would not prevent human influence-i.e., it would not ensure that the only changes the system experiences are natural ones. An estuary, as the end of a larger watershed system, is greatly influenced by what transpires upstream in the watershed. The watersheds of our National Estuaries, for example, cover quite a bit of inland territory.35 And the air sheds of those watersheds-the areas within which pollutants mix and could land within the watershed-are even larger.36 The air sheds of the National Estuaries on the East Coast reach inland to he Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.37 How, precisely, would one preserve the present state of such an estuary?¶ The reality is that there simply is no way to "preserve" nature¶ without in some sense managing it somewhere with some human-¶ defined purpose. Pardy agrees that there are no pristine ecosystems left and humans have changed all ecosystems. 38 This makes¶ preserving ecosystems quite problematic. If we were to make "preservation" of an estuary our overriding purpose, we would¶ have to manage upstream watershed and distant air shed locations in some way. Assuming those locations are in ecosystems too, well, then we would be managing those ecosystems in order to preserve other ecosystems. Also assuming we do not intend to drive humans completely out of all ecosystems, we would necessarily be confronted with the need to manage some ecosystems in order to preserve other ecosystems. So, even under a "preserve the present state" model of Ecosystem

Preservation, we will in fact be engaged in Ecosystem Management.¶ Pardy would likely respond that, while his Ecosystem Preservation model does call for "management," it is not management borne of human-serving utilitarian goals. It is not clear from which philosophical paradigm Pardy wishes us to set our natural resource policy goals-it seems to be founded in some form of human preference-but it is clear, as noted above, that utilitarianism is not the driver for Ecosystem Management. Nowhere in Grumbine's or my descriptions of Ecosystem Management does utilitarianism rule the day. Acknowledging that humans are immersed in nature, and thus any natural resources policy must accommodate human use of and occupancy in the environment, does not require hard adherence to utilitarian goals. The bottom line is that whether utilitarian or other goals lead one to

seek to preserve the present state of an ecosystem, the present state of the world is such that one thereby will be led inevitably to Ecosystem Management.

No link – Southern Ocean environment management policies follows principles of deep ecology that acknowledges that nature has intrinsic value Chopra and Hansen 97 – (Sudhir Chopra, Chopra is a professor of the department of International Relations at Central European University; PhD Law Candidate from University of Tasmania, PhD from Lucknow University, Craig Hansen, J.D., Valparaiso University School of Law, “Ecology and the Antarctic Marine Living Resources: Lessons for Other Regimes”, 1997, http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/oclj/pdf/vol03_1-2/vol3_oclj_117.pdf) WangThe Southern Ocean is the habitat for a unique and diverse collection¶ of marine living resources. Interestingly, this marine life, because of the¶ small number of species, comprises one of the simplest ecosystems in the¶ world. The existence of a peculiarly short food chain focuses much of the¶ attention on one particular species-krill. Those marine animals which do¶ not rely directly on krill as their main food source feed instead on other animals, which in turn feed directly on krill.' Consequently, a serious¶ depletion of krill in the Antarctic could have a potentially devastating effect on the entire Antarctic marine ecosystem. This short food chain and the resulting strong interdependence among species have made it necessary to implement strict conservation measures in the Antarctic. 2 Surprisingly, it is only recently that the need for conservation measures in the Antarctic has been recognized and acted upon. When the Antarctic Treaty, the first in a series of agreements that comprise the Antarctic Treaty System, was negotiated in the late 1950s, conservation was not considered to be one of the more important issues.3 Conserving the environment did not become a primary issue in the Antarctic until the Antarctic Treaty parties drafted the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (Agreed Measures), at the Third Consultative Meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Parties in 1964.' The Agreed Measures were the first in a series of agreements which offer greater protection to the Antarctic environment.¶ The move toward ecosystem awareness is a significant departure from previous human attitudes toward nature. More specifically, humans have historically viewed nature as existing purely for their own purposes and consumption. Natural resource management existed as a means to

maximize long-term as well as short-term commercial benefits. However, the development of protective

agreements for Antarctic marine living resources signals a corresponding retreat from this

human-centered attitude . A new attitude has developed which acknowledges nature as

having intrinsic value distinct from anything associated with humans or human benefits. This still-developing attitude has been classified as "deep ecology."¶ This Article reviews the development of the deep ecology approach, from its origins to its implementation, throughout the Antarctic Treaty System. Section II of this Article provides the necessary background information about deep ecology theory. Section HI discusses and analyzes¶ the Antarctic Treaty System. This section will also outline the initial, limited application of deep ecology in the Antarctic Treaty and the growth of the deep ecology approach through the System's subsequent Treaties. The Article concludes that the Antarctic Treaty System has evolved from a regulatory system concerned with protecting and developing the fishing industries, to a more preservation-oriented system which protects all species as part of the global ecosystem.

Permutation do both—Contemporary deep ecology must be implemented through a policy framework that appeals to both citizens and politicians in order for it to become effective in the long-termTuck 13 – (Lisa Tuck, environmental crusader, BA at La Trobe University, President of the Peoples Action Club, Gloden Key International Honour Society member, founding member of the Australian Youth Climate Coalitions Albury-Wodonga chapter,“Exploring Deep Ecology’s Stengths and Weaknesses”, Eco Adventures, January 29, 2013, http://lisatuck1990.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/exploring-deep-ecologys-strengths-and-weaknesses/) WangDespite the many enormous benefits of Deep Ecology regarding its role in alleviating environmental problems it is also

important to note the theory’s weaknesses and limitations. Realistically, ‘radical’ environmental theories such as Deep Ecology are not likely to have much influence on mainstream cultural thought (Oelschlaeger, 1993, p. 317). We have been socialised to consider the natural environment to be a resource for our consumption and therefore, the philosophies of Deep Ecology are hard for citizens to sympathise with as they challenge the dominant anthropocentric worldview that has been ingrained in the human psyche over many years (Norton, 1994, p. 232). The suggestion that there needs to be significant individual lifestyle changes as well as dramatic long term societal changes is also hard to relate to from a political agenda which is generally focused around short term policies predicated on re-election . From a moral viewpoint, the goals of Deep Ecology regarding biological egalitarianism have the profound ability to contribute to the reduction of environmental harm. However, in order for these philosophies to be implemented and effective, Deep Ecology needs to be able to appeal to both everyday citizens and politicians so

as to generate the moral and societal changes necessary to deal with the rapidly spreading ecological crisis (Norton, 1994, p. 233).¶ On the whole, the field of Deep Ecology which was coined by Arne Naess in the early 1970’s can offer many potential contributions to the resolution of environmental problems. The view that all life forms have an intrinsic value which is independent of human desirers presents a fresh perspective on the human relationship with the natural world and encourages people to live a more sustainable and simple life. In doing this, the field of Deep Ecology can help people to reconnect with the natural environment and thus reduce the impact of human activity. Deep Ecology is particularly useful in the fact that it provides us with an alternative way of conceptualising environmental problems

and also allows us to critically question the dominant social, cultural, economic and political paradigms that inform our behaviour. Adhering to the basic principles of Deep Ecology can essentially lead to a more environmentally integrated way of life and contribute to the creation of societies that are socially, as well as ecologically equitable. Although it has many limitations and can be seen as radical, Deep Ecology offers various potential contributions to the mitigation of environmental problems and should defiantly be considered one of the most significant voices in the crucial dialogue now taking place regarding the future of the earth (Cutcliffe, 1992, p. 183).

Only the perm solves – acknowledging that human prioritization is inevitable allows us to recognize the intrinsic worth of all beings Mathews 88 – (Freya Mathews, Australian philosopher and author mainly dealing with ecological philosophy, associate professor in philosophy at Latrobe University, research fellow and graduate supervisor at Latrobe University, “Deep Ecology: Where all things are connected”, Habitat, October 1988, http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/controversy/env/artdeep.html) WangThis refusal to rank life forms one above another is one of the profound ideas of Deep Ecology, but it is an idea which can really only be understood in the context of feminist theory. For it has been one of the central insights of feminism that the impulse to arrange everything in hierarchical orders does not reflect an objectively stratified social or natural reality, but rather serves to legitimate the claim of the self-styled "higher" to dominate and control the "lower".¶ It is often assumed that if we concede that we are not in fact a "higher" life form then we will not be entitled to defend ourselves and to pursue our own interests at the expense of other forms of life. But this does not follow. Self-preservation is the business of any organism and so, as

organisms, we do not need any special justification for pursuing our own interests . We are entitled to use other organisms not because we are more important than they are, but because we need them in order to maintain ourselves. However, this justification only entitles us to use other organisms to the extent that they are required for the satisfaction of our vital needs. Recognising this is consistent with our recognition of the intrinsic worth of all beings. The upshot is that Deep Ecology enjoins us, not to take a totally 'hands-off' approach to Nature, but to 'tread lightly' on the earth, taking only what we truly need, and respecting the needs of other beings. We are not called to stand by helplessly when snakes, rats, redbacks, etc., threaten our vital interests or those of our children. But we are called upon to respect and empathize with other beings, and refrain from interfering with them when they are not directly threatening our vital interests.

The perm solves best – human technology can effectively coexist and benefit the environment Trumbore 96 – (Sam Trumbore, Reverend, Education for Ministry in Berkeley, California, former President of a Capital Religion project A Regional Invitiative Supporting Empowerment, BS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Cal Berkeley, “A Case Against Deep Ecology”, Unitarian Universalist fellowship of Charlotte County, February 25, 1996, http://www.trumbore.org/sam/sermons/s624.htm) WangThe critique of technology is myopic, though, if it doesn't also enumerate the many benefits of better food production, better health care, better methods of transportation and communication which have improved our lives. Imagine what old age would be like without the assortment of medicines which manage

medical conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. The ability to replace a joint can greatly improve quality of life.¶ Technology is a tool no better or worse than the person who uses it. A shovel can be used for landscaping or as a weapon for murder. Factory automation can be used to improve the quality and productivity of workers' jobs or to replace people with machines. This was an area of concern for me as a former manufacturing engineer. One of the reasons I wanted to get out of the world of engineering was because I saw our technical ability growing much faster than our ethics to guide its wise use. Rather than using my abilities to advance technology, I thought a better use would be in the ethical domain as a minister working to see technology used to serve the well-being of people rather than exploit them. Technology such as is used in tracking animal and bird migrations or cleaning up oil spills can be part of the solution to reverse some of the damage we do and have done.¶ Deep ecology is also attempting to serve the well-being of the human and nonhuman alike by identifying what is of highest value and naming the threats to these values. The critique you have heard this morning is of some of the weaknesses of deep ecology's analysis and solutions, but not of its identification of the problems and assertion of values. Whether we are enamored with technology or not, diversity and richness remain high values of the ecosystem that should be cherished. The deep ecologists' concern for preservation of wilderness is an important value we too should respect. By valuing wilderness, we do not devalue people but rather elevate the value of the species which can't

coexist with us as neighbors.¶ Everything that lives, yearns to continue to exist, create and procreate. The greater the richness and diversity of an ecosystem, the more it is able to find stability and harmony which affirms the whole system. Greater novelty is supported by richness and diversity. It is possible for human beings to live more harmoniously with the ecosystem and it is imperative we find ways to do this without a priori solutions. As much as possible, we must seek win-win solutions that allow us to share the planet with the rest of the species of plants, birds, fish and animals rather than selecting one as a winner and the other as the loser to be driven to extinction.

Deep ecology is flawed--- stems from the idea of ‘intrinsic’ value of natureHeywood no date (Andrew, ecology enthusiast organic intellectual, HOW ‘DEEP’ IS DEEP ECOLOGY?, andrewheywood.co.uk/resources/deepecology.doc) YousufThe role and importance of deep ecology within larger green political thought has been a matter of considerable controversy. Not only has the significance of deep ecology, in terms of the philosophical and ethical debates it has stimulated,

greatly outweighed its practical importance as an within the green movement, but it has also attracted sometimes passionate criticism from fellow ecologists. Although most of these criticisms are rooted in the perspective of humanist ecology, some of them have been specifically associated with social ecology. Humanist ecologists roundly reject the idea that their views amount merely to a ‘shallow’ version of deep ecology, arguing instead that deep ecology is flawed philosophically, morally and politically. The philosophical flaw of deep ecology, from this perspective, is the belief that anthropocentrism and ecology are mutually exclusive. In reality, human needs and ends can only genuinely be served by an appreciation of ecological balance. A concern with human well-being, or at least long-term and sustainable human well-being, thus requires respect for ecology rather than its betrayal. Moreover, to throw into question the entirety of modern western thought, on the grounds that it is mechanistic and reductionist, as some deep ecologists suggest, is dangerously unbalanced and risks, for instance, rejecting all the developments that have been associated with modern medicine. The moral flaws of deep ecology stem from the idea of the ‘intrinsic’ value of nature. In the humanist view, environmental ethics cannot be non-anthropocentric because morality is a human construct: ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can only be defined in terms of human well-being, or at least the well-being of complex and sophisticated species that have a capacity for self-reflection and suffering. Any attempt to construct a non-anthropocentric ethical theory runs into contradictions and confusions. For example, if nature is an inherently benevolent force, how can earthquakes, droughts and floods be explained, and is it possible to sustain the idea of biocentric equality when this implies that the smallpox virus and a dolphin have equal value?

Empirically proven that deep ecology has failed—deep ecology is apolitical and elitist Heywood no date (Andrew, ecology enthusiast organic intellectual, HOW ‘DEEP’ IS DEEP ECOLOGY?, andrewheywood.co.uk/resources/deepecology.doc) YousufThe political flaws of deep ecology derive from the fact that by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of human interests, deep ecology has a very limited capacity to promote political activism or attract widespread popular support. Deep ecology thus tends to be apolitical and elitist, in part because it is so openly dismissive of the values and aspirations of the mass of humankind. In addition, the political activism that deep ecology has inspired has commonly attracted criticism. This is because deep ecology’s assumption that conventional politics is tainted by anthropocentric concerns and priorities has encouraged activists to engage in direct action, which often involves damage to property and sometimes extends to wider threats and intimidation. Examples of this can be seen in the case of radical environmentalist groups such as Earth First! and the Animal Liberation Front. Such direct action tends, nevertheless, to be counter-productive (because it portrays green activists as reckless and irresponsible), and it may be linked to an anti-human philosophy that, arguably, allows activists to disregard the suffering that is inflicted on people.

Deep ecology fails to account for things like capitalism and patriarchy—the alternative falls too short and ultimately failsHeywood no date (Andrew, ecology enthusiast organic intellectual, HOW ‘DEEP’ IS DEEP ECOLOGY?, andrewheywood.co.uk/resources/deepecology.doc) YousufThe tensions between deep ecology and social ecology have been exposed in particular by the US

anarchist social philosopher, Murray Bookchin (1921-2006), the leading proponent of ‘social ecology’. In the first place, social ecologists have condemned deep ecology for failing to recognise the impact on the relationship between humankind and nature of social or economic systems, in which case industrialisation, capitalism, patriarchy or whatever are merely seen as expressions of the ‘Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm’. Deep ecology is concerned about ‘inner’ revolution, a

transformation of consciousness, which it naively believes can be achieved without an accompanying process of radical social change. In that sense, deep ecology can be said to be socially conservative.

Second, Bookchin placed special emphasis on the extent to which deep ecologist’s attempts to ‘re-enchant’ of nature have encouraged them to turn their backs on rationalist thought and to embrace instead mysticism, dismisses by Bookchin as ‘vulgar Californian spiritualism’ or ‘Eco-la-la’. From the perspective of social ecology, reason and critical approaches to thinking are part of the solution to the environmental crisis, rather than its underlying cause.

Deep ecology fails--- not going to gain acceptance Worster 1995 (Donald, Hall Professor of American History at the University of Kansas and author of Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas., The Rights of Nature: Has Deep Ecology Gone Too Far? http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/51614/donald-worster/the-rights-of-nature-has-deep-ecology-gone-too-far) YousufThe first section of Ferry's book deals with the crusade for animal liberation, which has little to do with ecology, aimed as it is at protecting individual animals rather than the integrity of the ecosphere. The Australian philosopher Peter Singer argues that because animals can suffer, or have their "interests" damaged, they should be given legal rights. Ferry disagrees, holding that animals cannot be liberated at all because true freedom involves rising above instinct. Animals can be let out of their cages, but they cannot become other than what they are. Yet he understands that they deserve better treatment than having their eyes poked out by callous experimenters or their pain made into sport. We need rules to stop unnecessary cruelty--protective rules for animals, rights for humans. It is a fine line, and the courts are likely to find it harder and harder to draw.¶ The animal rights advocates are merely illogical, Ferry believes, confusing distinct categories of being, but the radical or deep ecologists advocate a truly dangerous set of doctrines that threaten a new tyranny. They want to overturn modernity itself. They look on nature as sacred. They teach that humans are only one species among many, that the earth is greater than any single part. They have no tolerance for democratic procedures. Seizing on a few

paragraphs in a handful of texts, however, Ferry fails to do justice to the movement, especially its more mature leaders.¶ Deep ecology's leading voice is Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher, who feels that environmental concerns should go beyond purely human matters such as public health or long-term economic viability to the preservation of all living organisms and ecosystems. "Present human

interference with the nonhuman world is excessive," he writes, "and the situation is rapidly worsening." Curtailing that interference would require a drastic reversal of the growth in human population and consumption. Radical thoughts, yes, unlikely to gain wide acceptance anytime soon. Yet how could such a change of thinking, if it came, pose any danger to the human spirit or to freedom?

Deep ecology fails--- doesn’t take into account that social problems are the cause of ecological problemsBookchin 87 (Murray, American anarchist and libertarian socialist author, orator, historian, and political theoretician, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html) YousufLet us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of "original sin" that accurses a vague species called humanity---as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters.¶ Deep ecologists see this vague and undifferentiated humanity essentially as an ugly "anthropocentric" thing---presumably a malignant product of natural evolution---that is "overpopulating" the planet, "devouring" its resources, and destroying its wildlife and the biosphere---as though some vague domain of "nature" stands opposed to a constellation of nonnatural human beings, with their technology, minds, society, etc. Deep ecology, formulated largely by privileged male white academics, has managed to

bring sincere naturalists like Paul Shepard into the same company as patently antihumanist and macho mountain men like David Foreman of Earth First! who

preach a gospel that humanity is some kind of cancer in the world of life.¶ It was out of this kind of crude eco-brutalism that Hitler, in the name of "population control," with a racial orientation, fashioned theories of blood and soil that led to the transport of millions of people to murder camps like Auschwitz. The same eco-brutalism now reappears a half-century later among self-professed deep ecologists who believe that Third World peoples should be permitted to starve to death and that desperate Indian immigrants from Latin America should be exclude by the border cops from the United States lest they burden "our" ecological resources.

Deep ecology fails---- no one will act upon itBookchin 87 (Murray, American anarchist and libertarian socialist author, orator, historian, and political theoretician, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html)YousufDeep ecology provides is with no approach for responding to, much less acting upon, this key question. It not only rips invaluable ideas like decentralization, a nonhierarchical society, local autonomy, mutual aid, and communalism from the liberatory anarchic tradition of the past where they have acquired a richly nuanced, anti-elitist , and egalitarian content ---reinforced by passionate struggles by

millions of men and women for freedom. It reduces them to bumper-sticker slogans that can be recycled for use by a macho mountain man like Foreman at one extreme or flaky spiritualists at the other. These bumper-sticker slogans are then relocated in a

particularly repulsive context whose contours are defined by Malthusian elitism, antihumanist misanthropy, and a seemingly benign "biocentrism" that dissolves humanity with all its unique natural traits for conceptual thought and self-consciousness into a "biocentric democracy" that is more properly the product of human consciousness than a natural reality .

Carried to its logical absurdity, this "biocentric democracy'"---one might also speak of a tree's morality or a leopard's social contract with its prey---can no more deny the right of pathogenic viruses to be placed in an Endangered Species list (and who places them

there in the first place?) than it can deny the same status to whales. The social roots of the ecological crisis are layered over with a hybridized, often self-contradictory spirituality in which the human self, writ large, is projected into the environment or into the sky as a reified deity or deities---a piece of anthropocentrism if ever there was one, like the shamans dressed in reindeer skins and horns---and abjectly revered as "nature." Or as Arne Naess, the grand pontiff of this mess, puts it: "The basic principles within the deep ecology

movement are grounded in religion or philosophy" (225)---as though the two words can be flippantly used interchangeably. Selfhood is dissolved, in turn, into a cosmic "Self" precisely at a time when deindividuation and passivity are being cultivated by the mass

media, corporations, and the State to an appalling extent. Finally, deep ecology, with its concern for the manipulation of nature, exhibits very little concern for the manipulation of human beings by one another, except perhaps when it comes to the drastic measures that may be "needed" for "population control."

Deep ecology doesn’t take other philosophies into account--- so it failsBookchin 87 (Murray, American anarchist and libertarian socialist author, orator, historian, and political theoretician, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement http://www.environment.gen.tr/deep-ecology/64-social-ecology-versus-deep-ecology.html,) YousufThis kind of absurdity tells us more than we realize about the confusion Naess-Sessions-Devall, not to speak of eco-brutalists like Foreman, have introduced into the current ecology movement as it grew beyond the earlier environmental movement of the 1970s. Indeed, the Naess-Sessions-Devall trio rely very heavily upon the ease with which people forget the history of the ecology movement, the way in which the same wheel is

reinvented every few years by newly arrived individuals who, well meaning as they may be, often accept a crude version of highly developed ideas that appeared earlier in time. At best, these crudities merely echo in very unfinished form a corpus of views that were once presented in a richer context and tradition of ideas. At worst, they shatter such contexts and traditions, picking out tasty pieces that become utterly distorted when they reappear in an utterly alien framework. No regard is paid by such "deep thinkers" to the fact that the new context in which an idea is placed may utterly change the meaning of the idea itself. German National Socialism, which came to power in the Third Reich in 1933, was militantly "anticapitalist" and won many of its adherents from the German Social Democratic and Communist parties because of its anticapitalist denunciations. But its anticapitalism was placed in a strongly racist, imperialist, and seemingly naturalist context that extolled wilderness, sociobiology (the word had yet to be invented, but its "morality of the gene," to use E. O. Wilson's delicious expression, and its emphasis on "racial memory" to use William Irwin Thompson's Jungian expression), and antirationalism, features one finds in latent or explicit form in Sessions and Devall's Deep Ecology.1¶ Note well

that neither Naess, Sessions, nor Devall has written a single line about decentralization, a nonhierarchical society, democracy, small-scale communities, local autonomy, mutual aid, communalism, and tolerance that was not worked out in painstaking detail and brilliantly contextualized into a unified and coherent outlook by Peter Kropotkin a century ago and his admirers from the 1930s to the 1960s in our own time. Great movements in Europe and an immense literature followed from these writers' works---anarchist movements, I may add, like the Iberian Anarchist Federation in Spain, a tradition that is being unscrupulously red-baited by certain self-styled Greens as "leftist" and eco-anarchist. When George Sessions was asked at a recent ecofeminist

conference about the differences between deep ecology and social ecology, he identified it as one between spiritualism and Marxism---this, a particularly odious and conscious falsehood!¶ But what the boys from Ecotopia proceed to do is to totally recontextualize the framework of these ideas, bringing in personalities and notions that basically change their radical libertarian thrust. Deep Ecology mingles Woody Guthrie, a Communist Party centralist who no more believed in decentralization than did Stalin (whom he greatly admired until his physical deterioration and death), with Paul Goodman, an anarchist who would have been mortified to be place din the same tradition with Guthrie (18). In philosophy, Spinoza, a Jew in spirit if not in religious commitment, is intermingled with Heidegger, a former member of the Nazi Party in spirit as well as ideological affiliation---all in the name of a vague "process philosophy." Almost opportunistic in their use of catchwords and what George Orwell called doublespeak, "process philosophy" makes it possible for Sessions-Devall to add Alfred North Whitehead to their list of ideological ancestors because he called his ideas "processual," although he would have differed profoundly from Heidegger, who earned his academic spurs in the Third Reich by repudiating his Jewish teacher, notably Edmund Husserl, in an ugly and shameful way.¶

Deep ecology ideas are flawed—letting people in third world countries isn’t going to solve anythingBookchin 87 (Murray, American anarchist and libertarian socialist author, orator, historian, and political theoretician, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement http://www.environment.gen.tr/deep-ecology/64-social-ecology-versus-deep-ecology.html,) YousufLet us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of "original sin" that accurses a vague species called humanity---as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor

with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters.¶ Deep ecologists see this vague and undifferentiated humanity essentially as an ugly "anthropocentric" thing---presumably a malignant product of natural evolution---that is "overpopulating" the planet, "devouring" its resources, and destroying its wildlife and the biosphere---as though some vague domain of "nature" stands opposed to a constellation of nonnatural human beings, with their technology, minds, society, etc. Deep ecology, formulated largely by privileged male white academics, has managed to bring sincere naturalists like Paul Shepard into the same company as patently antihumanist and macho mountain men like David Foreman of Earth First! who preach a gospel that humanity is some kind of cancer in the world of life.¶ It was out of this kind of crude eco-brutalism that Hitler, in the name of "population control," with a racial orientation,

fashioned theories of blood and soil that led to the transport of millions of people to murder camps like Auschwitz. The same eco-brutalism now reappears a half-century later among self-professed deep ecologists who believe that Third World peoples should be permitted to starve to death and that desperate Indian immigrants from Latin America should be exclude by the border cops from the United States lest they burden "our" ecological resources.¶ This eco-brutalism does not come out of Hitler's Mein Kampf. It appeared in Simply Living, an Australian periodical, as part of a laudatory interview of David Foreman by Professor Bill Devall, who co-authored Deep Ecology with Professor George Sessions, the authorized manifesto of the deep ecology movement. Foreman, who exuberantly expressed his commitment to deep ecology, frankly informed Devall that "When I tell people who the worst thing we could do in Ethiopia is to give aid---the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve---they

think this is monstrous. . . . Likewise, letting the USA be an overflow valve for problems in Latin America is not solving a thing. It's just putting more pressure on the resources we have in the USA."

Human environmental management key to sustainability – intrinsic value of nature is based on too narrow of a view Byers 92 – (Bruce A. Byers, Associate professor at Biology department at University of Massachusetts, BS and PhD from University of Massachusetts, “Deep Ecology and its Critics: A Buddhist Perspective”, Winter 1992, http://www.brucebyersconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Deep-Ecology-and-Its-Critics-The-Trumpeter-Win.-1992.pdf) WangEcology and evolution provide concrete evidence of the interdependence or "interbeing" of ecological communities so clearly¶ expressed in Buddhism Nutrient cycles show this clearly. For¶ example, animals take in oxygen from the air in order to release¶ the energy from their food, and in the process create and release¶ carbon dioxide: plants use carbon dioxide in the process of¶ photosynthesis, and release oxygen as a waste product. So there¶ is complementarity, interdependence, between plants and¶ animals. Food chains and food webs, metaphors for the flow of¶ energy through ecosystems, also illustrate this interdependence.¶ A food-web diagram of a species-rich ecosystem like a tropical¶ forest or coral reef provides a beautiful image of the Net of Indra.¶ Evolution, over eons of time, has shaped interdependent and¶ sometimes even cooperative relationships within ecological¶ communities. Predators and their prey are clearly shaped by¶ these evolutionary forces. Wolves and mountain lions, for ex-¶ ample, arc responsible for the fleetness and grace of deer; and¶ deer are responsible for the ferocity and stealth of their predators.¶ Insect-eating birds arc responsible for the beautiful camouflage¶

of moths; and moth camouflage is responsible for the sharp¶ vision of birds. Parasites and their hosts also can co-evolve¶ relationships of mutual dependence; relationships that begin as¶ harmful to the host and beneficial to the parasite seem often to¶ evolve into relationships that arc mutually beneficial. Lichens,¶ reef-building corals, and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in¶ the root-nodules of legumes may all be exam pics of this coevolution of cooperation. The mitochondria found in the cells of all¶ plants and animals - humans included - may be examples also.¶ If we look seriously the idea that ecocentrism was the way to¶ love and protect people, how could we best protect the jobs of¶ loggers in the Pacific Northwest and the economies of the¶ logging communities they support, not to mention supplying the¶

needs of the rest of us for affordable building materials, paper,¶ and other forest products? By making certain that logging is an¶ ecologically sustainable economic activity - otherwise we would¶ condemn loggers, or their children, to the economic collapse of their means of livelihood. Developing forestry practices that are ecologically sustainable in the long term probably requires that¶ we protect the last relict stands of old growth forests. They are a¶ natural ecological laboratory in which forest ecologists can¶ study, and

perhaps come lo understand (which they do not now),¶ the complex processes that make forests sustainable. These¶ ancient forests arc also a repository of genetically diverse trees,¶ which could allow future forests to adapt lo changes in climate,¶ or outbreaks of new pests or diseases. People employed by the¶ "forest products industry" take it as a matter of faith that tree¶ "farming." which replaces a complex forest ecosystem with l¶ genetic monoculture of nursery-bred trees, is ecologically sustainable, but there is no history lo prove that it is. The spotted owl, marbled, murrelet and other endangered species of the¶ ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest should be seen as the¶ "miner's canaries" of the logging industry, warning of imminent¶ danger if we continue to mine out the old growth.¶ How could we best love and support the native people of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area, some of whom want oil¶ development? Certainly not by

getting them hooked on the short –term economic benefits of an extractive, oil-based economy, but¶ by encouraging them to maintain (he health of their traditional,¶ sustainable subsistence economy based on hunting caribou,¶ birds, seals,

and other sea mammals, and fishing.¶ These examples may give the impression that I am arguing for¶ preserving other species and the "land-community" because of their instrumental value to people - to provide renewable food¶ or forest resources, as a repository of genetic diversity, as a¶ laboratory where scientists can

learn about ecological sustainability. or as an early warning system to warn humans of¶ ecological collapse - rather than for their intrinsic value. The¶ Buddhist perspective of interlacing suggests that the distinction between the intrinsic and instrumental values of nonhuman species, a distinction so often debated by eco philosophers is

based on too narrow a view of reality. The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value blurs when the view of "self" is widened from an "ego-self to an "eco-self."

All lives have intrinsic value – its just a question of how much Nelson 8 – (Michael P. Nelson, environmental scholar, writer, teacher, speaker, consultant, Ruth H Spaniol Chair in Natural Resources, Professor of environmental philosophy and ethics at Oregon State University, MA from Michigan State, PhD in philosophy from Lancaster University, “Deep Ecology”, Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, July 18, 2008, http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/AppalFor/Readings/240%20-%20Reading%20-%20Deep%20Ecology.pdf) WangThe deep-ecological principles of biocentric egalitarianism and metaphysical holism have elicited robust critiques. Some of the most interesting debates have centered on the normative status of Deep Ecology. Naess maintains that Deep Ecology is essentially descriptive. For Naess unmitigated empiricism or ‘‘ecophenomenology’’ (Brown and Toadvine 2003) promotes a direct experience of the qualities of nature—its ‘‘concrete contents’’ (Naess 1985). Deep Ecology, he argues, is simply an enumeration of general principles that command the assent of persons open to the direct apprehension of nature.¶ Scholars have found the disclaimer that Deep Ecol- ogy is not a normative system—and ought not be judged as such—disingenuous.

They have treated Deep Ecology as the legitimate object of the analysis of moral philosophy. Some regard Deep Ecology as

strident axiological egalitarianism that is useless in adjudicating conflicting interests. If all organisms are of equal value, then there is no basis upon which to make prescriptions because the kind of value distinctions necessary for evaluating the ¶ moral situations of environmental ethics are deliberately disqualified. The principle of biocentric egalitarianism, on this view, renders Deep Ecology impotent as an ethical theory. Environmental ethics is predicated on the possibility of a nonegalitarian axiology. In the words of the American philosopher Bryan Norton, ‘‘The 120,000th elk cannot be treated equally with one of the last California condors—not, at least, on a reasonable environmental ethic’’ (1991, p. 224). Baird Callicott has surmised that environmental ethics must manifestly not ‘‘accord equal moral worth to each and every member of the biotic community’’ (1980, p. 327). These scholars argue, therefore, that biocentric egalitarianism must be scrapped (Sylvan 1985).¶ In a similar vein Fox has argued that the leveling axiology of orthodox Deep Ecology must be forsworn. If all organisms are really of equal intrinsic worth, the deep- ecological doctrinaire might just as well eat veal as vegetables (Fox 1984). In reality, Fox predicted, deep ecologists probably tend to be vegetarians, because—in the words of Alan Watts—‘‘cows scream louder than carrots’’ (Fox 1984, p. 198). Orthodox Deep Ecology, Fox contends,¶ does itself a disservice by employing a definition of anthropocentrism which is so overly exclusive that it condemns more or less any theory of value that attempts to guide ‘‘realistic praxis. . . . ’’ Unless deep ecologists take up this challenge and employ a workable definition of anthropocentrism,

they may well become known as the advocates of ‘‘Procrustean Ethics’’ as they attempt to fit all organisms to the same dimensions of intrinsic value. (Fox 1984, pp. 198–99).¶ Not eager to be labeled a procrustean ethicist, Fox

persuasively argues for a position that abandons biocentric egalitarianism and instead asserts that all biota have intrinsic value but are not equal in intrinsic value because the ‘‘richness of experience’’ differs (Fox 1984, p. 198). On this point Fox aligns himself with the Whiteheadian-inspired environmental ethics based on intensity of sentience(Ferre 1994) that Sessions so adamantly opposes. ́ ¶