1AC v James Bowie BR Apple Valley Runoff

1AC – Gulf Instability

The contention is Gulf Instability:
Ongoing offshore extraction risks deep ocean ecological instability.
Zhong et al 21 [Yick Hang Kwan, Greg G. Goss, Daniel S. Alessi, and Pei-Yuan Qian Environmental
Science & Technology 2021 55 (8), 4199-4201 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c00107] //Sunny

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that extracts oil and gas from low-permeability hydrocarbon-bearing
reservoirs using high volumes of chemicals and water under extreme pressures. Primarily used for
terrestrial extractions, hydraulic fracturing has also been extended to offshore hydrocarbon extraction in
estuarine, shallow, and deep-sea marine environments. Concerns now exist that the chemical composition of the resulting
hydraulic fracturing–flowback and produced water (HF-FPW) may impact the marine ecosystem.(2) Studies of HF-FPW produced from
terrestrial hydrocarbon extractions show that it contains a wide variety of salts and metals (e.g., Sr, Ba, Cu, Zn, Cd, V), chemical additives (e.g.,
scale inhibitors, surfactants, biocides), petrogenic organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and transformation compounds
(e.g., halogenated methane and acetone derived from the chemical additives in injected HF fluid through both biotic and abiotic reactions).(3)
To date, publicly available compositional information for HF-FPW produced from offshore hydrocarbon extraction is scarce. Compared
with fluid and oil spills reported from conventional offshore hydrocarbon extraction, HF-FPW from
offshore wells has a different fluid composition. Seawater is often used as a base fluid to make hydraulic fracturing fluids in
offshore HF operations, whereas freshwater is most commonly used in terrestrial HF wells. The injected chemical additives (e.g.,
stabilizers) therefore also differ due to the use of seawater-based hydraulic fracturing fluids as well as
other constraints specific to offshore platforms. Although some of the fluid composition is likely to be similar, such as
prevalent elements found in the formation water or leached from the rocks via water–rock interactions (e.g., Na, Cl, Ca, Sr, Ba), different
transformation compounds are also likely to be generated in the marine subsurface due to chemical additives specific to the seawater-based HF
fluid and broader types of halotolerant organisms carried by the seawater-based HF fluid.(3) Despite
the poor understanding of
the composition of HF-FPW from offshore hydraulically fractured wells, this waste fluid is allowed to be
directly released to the the marine environment after treatment with discharges permitted under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in the United States., whereas in China,
permits for HF-FPW discharge are allowed under the Effluent Standards for Oil-Bearing Wastewater
from Offshore Petroleum Development Industry Guideline (GB 4914-85). These discharged wastewaters
are not yet classified as hazardous waste in the U.S. or Canada and are therefore allowed, despite ample
evidence of adverse effects on marine and freshwater biota due to the exposure to inorganic and
organic components and synergetic effects.(2,4) Additional inputs to the marine ecosystem may also come from terrestrial
inputs or offshore HF-FPW spills or infrastructure failures. Despite regulated releases already occurring, the current knowledge on the potential
impacts of HF-FPW on deep-sea organisms and changes in biogeochemical cycling in the surrounding environment is scarce, making prediction
difficult. Publicly available studies of the direct impact of HF-FPW on marine ecosystems, including shallow marine and deep-sea environments,
are limited. To
the best of our knowledge and based on the growing literature of HF-FPW effects on
freshwater and a limited number of seawater organisms,(2) HF-FPW entering the marine environment is
also likely to lead to adverse effects on the exposed ecosystem. For example, elevated dissolved metals and organic
carbon concentrations in HF-FPW may change the bioavailability of metal species under marine conditions, in particular, for those that are
redox-active, with ecotoxicological implications. Additionally, organics (both anthropogenically and geogenically derived) found in HF-FPW (e.g.,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polyethylene glycols) may have adverse effects on marine organisms and also shift the marine microbial
community composition and biodiversity, thereby altering the marine element cycling. Furthermore,
organic compounds are
known to enter the food chain through uptake into phytoplankton and zooplankton, leading to the
bioaccumulation of selected contaminants in the upper trophic levels and a resulting decrease in the
survival and reproductive fitness of individuals. The deep-sea environment is far less studied than shallow water systems,
exists under extreme pressures, and is aphotic (no light energy). Organisms inhabiting the deep sea are specialized to survive under these
particular conditions, and these fauna may be less resilient to major perturbations in water chemistry influencing the survival of both
individuals and ecosystems in these deep-sea regions. Except for deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, the deep-sea environment and
abyssal basins have low rates of chemical degradation and are inhabited by lower densities of organisms who possess higher lipid contents and
greater potential to bioaccumulate nonpolar compounds. The
potential for adverse environmental impacts is therefore
significant. It is not difficult to envisage that exposure to HF-FPW-derived pollutants may lead to local
extirpation or even global extinction of some deep-sea species. A common approach to quantify the ecosystem impacts
from contaminant exposure is to use biomarkers from model indicator species and marker genes and proteins to evaluate the responses to
contamination by an organism. However, unlike shallow water ecosystems, the baseline information, in particular, toxicity biomarkers, that is
representative of deep-sea habitats remains largely missing. Culturing deep-sea animals in the laboratory to mimic in situ conditions is
challenging in traditional ecotoxicological studies. Therefore, the development of novel markers of exposure coupled to omics-sequencing
techniques that can effectively estimate the impacts of HF-FPW on deep-sea environments is urgently needed. A
major complicating
factor in assessing risk in offshore extraction zones and, in particular, the deep-sea environment is that
the contamination from offshore spills/releases can easily enter various distinct ecosystems that extend
vertically and horizontally, often crossing multiple political boundaries. Complex laws and politics obstruct the
remediation efficiency when contamination does occur, with some countries more vulnerable to the detrimental impacts of marine
contamination due to a lack of resources to conduct remediation and assess the environmental and human health impacts on their own (e.g.,
the MV Wakashio oil spill: A Japanese ship ran aground on a coral reef in Mauritius in the Indian ocean in July 2020 and spilled its contents of
4000 tonnes of fuel oil into the ocean, which has caused adverse impacts on the local ecosystems and human health).(5) In
conclusion,
offshore hydrocarbon extraction via hydraulic fracturing and the release of waste HF-FPW, in particular,
in deep-sea environments, may result in long-term and irreversible impacts on sensitive marine
ecosystems. Future studies are needed to understand the effects of discharged HF-FPW on deep-sea marine (micro)organisms, including
studying the fate of pollutants and developing new biomarkers with effective assessment methods. Filling this knowledge gap promises to
reveal the impact of HF-FPW release on extreme marine environments and organisms that traditional ecotoxicological studies do not normally
report on. The resulting data will provide a solid foundation to establish effective and protective regulation schemes and environmental
monitoring programs for marine resource protection and conservation. Furthermore, these data are essential in assessing the overall
sustainability of hydrocarbon extraction and allowing more accurate comparisons with the risks associated with alternative energy resources.

Specfically Federal Waters

Sakashita 19 [Miyoko Sakashita 10-22-2019, "Trump Administration Sued for Failing to Release Gulf of
Mexico Fracking Records," Center for Biological Diversity, https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-
releases/trump-administration-sued-failing-release-gulf-mexico-fracking-records-2019-10-22/] //Sunny
NEW ORLEANS— The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump administration today for failing to release public documents revealing the
extent and risks of fracking of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Officials have stonewalled a Freedom of Information Act request
filed by the Center, which last year sued the administration for failing to study how offshore drilling impacts endangered marine life. A similar
lawsuit in 2015 compelled the release of public records that found the federal government permitted more than 1,600 fracks in the Gulf from
2010 to 2014. Fracking uses toxic chemicals that can harm loggerhead sea turtles and other imperiled
marine life. Federal records showed oil companies were allowed to dump more than 76 billion gallons of drilling waste water — including
fracking chemicals — into the Gulf in 2014. “Trump appointees are covering up the oil industry’s pollution of the
Gulf with toxic fracking chemicals,” said Miyoko Sakashita, ocean program director at the Center. “We have
a right to know how sea turtles, whales and other marine animals are being harmed by offshore drilling and fracking. The administration’s
secretive fracking approvals have made offshore drilling even more dirty and dangerous. We need full disclosure on fracking’s threats to marine
life, coastal communities and our climate.” Federal
waters in the Gulf of Mexico are where the vast majority of
offshore drilling occurs in the United States. The Trump administrations has quietly issued more than
1,700 waivers of offshore drilling safety rules adopted after the deadly 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon
explosion and oil spill in the Gulf. At least 10 fracking chemicals routinely used in offshore fracking could
kill or harm a broad variety of marine species, including marine mammals and fish, Center scientists
have found. The California Council on Science and Technology has identified some common fracking chemicals to be among the most toxic
in the world to marine animals. Discharging fracking chemicals into the Gulf raises grave ecological concerns
because the Gulf provides important habitat for whales, sea turtles and fish — as well as being federally
designated critical habitat for imperiled loggerhead sea turtles.
Scenario 1 is Food Insecurity –
Gulf coast fish ecosystem is key to the global food supply
Nabayan Ali ’20 [Jaida Nabayan and Maz Ali, 6/10/20, earthjustice, nonprofit public interest
environmental law organization, https://earthjustice.org/blog/2020-june/senseless-removal-of-species-
protections-threatens-life-in-the-gulf-of-mexico] //Sunny
Sushi is almost as common a choice as any for family dinners, first dates, or even the solo diner. The industry now boasts thousands of
restaurants and generates billions in revenue, but our taste for Japan’s hand-rolled sea fare poses a threat you won’t read about on a
restaurant menu. Fourteen
years ago, attorneys at Earthjustice joined the effort to save the western Atlantic
bluefin tuna, a magnificent ocean predator whose populations have been decimated by a human
appetite for fish on-demand. The change they achieved with their clients and allies helped turn the tide for the species, but the
bluefin tuna is back in troubled waters. Under the Trump administration’s leadership, the National Marine Fisheries Service has reversed some
of the protections Earthjustice helped design to support the bluefin tuna rebound. To
understand how reckless this is, you have
to see the bigger or, rather, deeper picture. Bluefin tuna can grow as large as 10 feet long and 2,000
pounds, while still moving through water at speeds that would get you a ticket driving in a school zone.
As a top-of-the-chain species, they are a safeguard for the natural order and health of marine
ecosystems. However, according to a 2016 report, overfishing in recent decades has driven an
astounding 97% plunge in global Bluefin numbers and branded them at one time with the title of world’s
most endangered tuna. “People tend to recognize bluefin tuna more for their use in sushi than their value as wildlife,” says Earthjustice
attorney Andrea Treece, who has spent years advocating for bluefin protections. This has made them a highly lucrative species to catch and
sell. As a result, bluefin tuna suffer unsustainable global pressure from fishing fleets.” In
2014, realizing the larger ecological
risk, the Fisheries Service responded to the urgent calls of Earthjustice and other ocean conservation
groups, passing rules to protect the bluefin. The rules placed restrictions on pelagic longline fishing in
the Gulf of Mexico (the western Atlantic bluefin’s only known spawning area) during their spring
migration – a true act of will, as the species can travel sometimes thousands of miles to breed in the
Gulf. The Fisheries Service’s move was a recognition that allowing the bluefin to reproduce isn’t a matter of courtesy – it’s of critical
importance. Now, pelagic longlines aren’t exactly engineered for precision (think: using a wrecking ball to
hammer a nail). Fishing boats set surface lines that stretch for miles and are strung with hundreds or
thousands of baited hooks to lure their target catch, like yellowfin tuna and swordfish, by the tons. With
this crude and haphazard practice, bluefin tunas are snagged – and too often killed – as bycatch. Bycatch is a problem for many species, but the
bluefin’s high economic value adds another wrinkle: Because the Fisheries Service allows longline vessels to keep a limited number of
“incidentally” caught bluefin (i.e. bluefin caught as bycatch), there’s extra incentive to fish in areas where vessels are more likely to catch
bluefin. In
fact, the Fisheries Service enacted the prohibition of pelagic longline gear in certain areas of the
Gulf to end this sort of de facto, unofficial fishing for spawning bluefin. The pelagic longline restrictions
have been an undeniable success. Federal data revealed that when the restrictions were implemented
in 2015, Bluefin deaths in the Gulf of Mexico dropped by 70%. Perhaps you’re wondering: Why doesn’t the story end
there? The Fisheries Service, now under the Trump administration’s leadership, has decided to downsize the bluefin spawning areas that were
off limits to pelagic longline vessels. The agency says it’s eliminating “duplicative” regulations to ease the burden on industry, but their logic has
flaws that are deeper than a bluefin’s deepest dive (about 3,000 feet, according to the World Wildlife Fund). The Fisheries Service’s own
analysis indicates that the potential economic gains are miniscule at best. Reducing
bluefin protections makes even less
sense if you also consider the enormity of the toll pelagic longlines have had on the species in such a
short period. The scientific reality is that pulling adult bluefins out of the ocean will send the population
back into decline, which will inhibit or eliminate the species’ ability to support a healthy ecosystem.
Earthjustice filed a lawsuit challenging the Fisheries Service decision to weaken bluefin tuna protections on behalf of conservation groups
Healthy Gulf and Turtle Island Restoration Network. The suit argues that removing the pelagic longline restrictions “stands in glaring contrast to
the agency’s own data and experience, and violates its fundamental duties under both domestic law and international treaty obligations.” It
also highlights the government’s failures assess the impacts of those rollbacks on the bluefin tuna and
other protected species in the Gulf of Mexico, like leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, oceanic
whitetip sharks, and marlins. “The administration has shown a blatant disregard for science and reason,” says Treece. “This decision
shows a willingness to make nakedly political decisions that hurt ocean resources that belong to us all.” Today we are witnessing what
researchers call the sixth global extinction – a wave of species loss the Earth hasn’t seen in 65 million years. The main difference today is us.
Over the last century alone, human activities have accelerated this modern extinction at a rate 1,000 times the historical average. The
implications of this crisis are manifold, and the stakes are much higher than anyone typically ponders over a sushi roll. Unsustainable
fishing practices threaten more than the bluefin tuna – the risks extend to their entire ecosystem. If
ecosystems collapse, food supplies suffer. Keep connecting the dots, and you’ll see that choices like
reversing bluefin protections threaten our own survival. So what can we do to help the bluefin tuna? Treece suggests we
start by not eating them. If we do choose to eat other tuna or swordfish, we can learn more about sustainable seafood using tools like
Environmental Defense Fund's Seafood Selector; and we can ask how menu items are caught to reduce demand for those caught with pelagic
longlines. To support a more permanent solution, Treece says we can urge the Fisheries Service to restrict the use of pelagic longlines and other
high-bycatch equipment, as well as limit the fishing of top predators like the bluefin so they can continue to keep our oceans healthy. The
Trump administration may view marine life as inventory for a global kitchen, but a 2019 poll revealed
that 95% of Americans support the creation and enforcement of stronger marine protection areas. On
some level, we all know we’re keepers of this world. For now, we still have time to embrace the responsibility.

Deepsea fish are key

Moltsen 16 [Mads moltsen is a freelance journalist in Copenhagen (Mads, “Scientists: Deepsea Fishing
can solve world food shortages,” 3/18/16, Science Nordic, https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-fish-
food/scientists-deep-sea-fish-can-solve-world-food-shortages/1430896)] //Sunny

How to feed the world is one of the most pressing global problems that we face right now and in the
future as the world’s population continues to grow. But some scientists think they may have found
a solution, deep below the sea. In a new article, marine scientists examine the potential of seafood in the mesopelagic zone, which
is the part of the ocean that is between 200 to 1,000 meters deep. The article was recently published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science.
"There is a huge potential in the mesopelagic zone. It
suggests that there is a resource so great that it alone could feed
the entire world population," says lead author, Professor Michael St. John, from the Danish Technical
University. 10 billion tons of fish in the mesopelagic zone The sea is divided into five zones based on depth. A huge
amount of fish that can be used to feed the earth's soaring population live in the mesopelagic zone (200 to 1000 meters deep) (Illustration:
NOAA) Enormous amounts of fish are believed to live in the so-called mesopelagic zone. Recent
observations indicate about 10
billion metric tonnes of biomass is hiding down there. This is considerably larger than the previous
estimate of about 1 billion tonnes in the 1980s. Some of these deep-sea fish are suitable for human consumption, but right
now most of it end up in fishmeal--feed for fish farming and farm animals. "We could produce tremendous amounts of food with fish meal. If
we imagine that we can fish 5 billion tonnes without further depleting fish stocks--that corresponds to a food output of 1.25 billion tons," says
St. John. Scientists warn against overfishing However, it is still too early to sit back and rely on deep-sea fish to solve the world’s food problems.
"The figure can so far only be described as a guess. I personally believe that the 10 billion is a conservative estimate--a minimum number. But
we need many more studies before we can say anything definitive," says St. John, who stresses that the potential is so great that urgent
research is needed. Most fishing takes place in the top layer of the ocean, where we know most about the ecosystem. But according to St. John
the fishing industry is already waking up to what is hiding in the mesopelagic zone and it is important to learn from our past experience with
overfishing. We should make sure we understand the ecosystem somewhat before we start fishing there, he says. "We’ve seen so many
examples of overfishing that has destroyed stocks and ecosystems in the oceans. Take for example cod, which began to be fished in the mid
00s. We fished without taking into account that [cod] become sexually mature at a late age, which reduced the population considerably. We
must make sure not to repeat these kinds of mistakes,” says St John. "We need to start researching immediately so we [know how to proceed].
Because there are many things that can go wrong when we have such a large biomass," he says. Concerns about climate and biodiversity With
such a large biomass, a lot can go wrong. Fish play an important role in the marine ecosystem as feed for
the predators. So overfishing would destroy more than just the stock of mesopelagic zone fish. These deepsea fish also take up large
quantities of CO2 through their participation in the so-called biological pump. Every day fish migrate up to the surface and move carbon from
the sea surface down to the deep ocean. So St. John suggests that fisheries hold back until we understand the role of deep-sea fish in these
systems. Associate Professor Peter Grønkjær, from Aarhus University's Institute of Bioscience agrees. "The potential of this is huge, but we must
be careful. We
must have complete control over how we handle this biomass. If it’s as big as it seems, it has
an enormous impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystem--so one must tread very carefully," he says.

Goes nuclear
FDI 12 (Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s
global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the
University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International
Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict
Points,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-
potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html) //recut MNHS JS

There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack
of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as
conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been
inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that
attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a
result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in
the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of
food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “… if
people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration
result.” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large
regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are
liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of
super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the
21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions,
civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant
put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another
observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A
study by the
International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to
result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars.
Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA,
the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a
potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.

Scenario 2 is China War –

Caribbean fisheries competition triggers war with China.
Stravridis et al 17 [James G. Stavridis and Johan Bergenas September 13, 2017 ["The fishing wars are
coming" Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fishing-wars-are-coming/
2017/09/13/05c75208-97c6-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html] //Sunny
Lawmakers are finally catching up to something that the Navy and Coast Guard have known for a long time: The escalating conflict over fishing
could lead to a "global fish war." This week, as part of the pending National Defense Authorization Act, Congress asked the Navy to help fight
illegal fishing. This is an important step. Greater
military and diplomatic efforts must follow. Indeed, history is full of
natural-resource wars, including over sugar, spices, textiles, minerals, opium and oil. Looking at current
dynamics, fish scarcity could be the next catalyst. The decline in nearly half of global fish stocks in recent decades is a growing
and existential threat to roughly 1 billion people around the world who rely on seafood as their primary source of protein. No
other
country is more concerned about the increasingly empty oceans than China, whose people eat twice as
much fish as the global average. Beijing is also the world's largest exporter of fish, with 14 million fishers
in a sector producing billions of dollars a year. In order to keep its people fed and employed, the Chinese government provides
hundreds of millions of dollars a year in subsidies to its distant-water fishing fleet. And in the South China Sea, it is common for its ships to
receive Chinese Coast Guard escorts when illegally entering other countries' fishing waters. As
such, the Chinese government is
directly enabling and militarizing the worldwide robbing of ocean resources. The deployment of both
hard and soft power to acquire natural resources is nothing short of hybrid warfare. Countries on the receiving
end of Chinese actions are responding in kind: Indonesia has blown up hundreds of vessels fishing in their waters illegally; Argentina sank a
Chinese vessel illegally fishing in its waters last year; and South Africa continues to clash with Beijing over fishing practices. Recently,
Ecuador summoned the Chinese ambassador to condemn China's fishing in Ecuadoran maritime
territory following the seizure of 300 tons of illegally sourced fish. The United States could be next.
Chinese vessels are increasingly fishing near our waters and are seeking to expand their footprint in the
Caribbean. U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Jay Caputo recently underscored this point: "It is imperative that the
Coast Guard be prepared for when the Chinese fishing militia approaches the U.S. [exclusive economic
zone]." Emptier oceans also lead to increased transnational crimes. The commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet noted this year that "out-of-work
fishermen" are often involved in weapons smuggling for countries such as Iran. Drug traffickers also use fishing vessels around the world,
including U.S. waters. This summer in Miami, U.S. Customs and Border Protection interdicted a fishing vessel from the Bahamas carrying 150
pounds of cocaine. These practices are rampant in Central and South America.

Resource wars become hemispheric and spill across South America.

Woody 19 [Christopher Woody, 1-4-2019, "The US military is warning that China's fishing boats are
bullies and could start a war on the high seas," Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/us-
warns-chinas-aggressive-fishing-boats-could-start-a-war-2019-1] //Sunny

China's "insatiable appetite" for seafood is straining the limited abilities of South American countries to
enforce their maritime boundaries, according to a December 13 article in Dialogo, a website run by US
Southern Command. Countries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts have been affected, and most of the illicit fishing activity in those areas
is done by Chinese vessels. Juan Carlos Sueiro, fisheries director for Peru at the ocean conservation and advocacy organization Oceana, told
Dialogo that Peru and Argentina saw "the largest congregation of these vessels in the world." "It's
not that they can't fish in
international waters, but their close presence generates controversy. For example, Oceana already
identified vessels entering into Peruvian waters without a license or with duplicated ID," Sueiro said.
"Refrigerated fishing vessels can be found in international waters to transfer their captures, fuel, and supplies," he said, adding that
transshipment activity, which can launder profits from illegal fishing, had also been detected . Officials
and experts have said rising
demand for fish and increased competition over dwindling stocks could spark new conflicts. Many of
them have pointed specifically to China. Fishing stocks around China have shrunken dramatically. But
Beijing has expanded its distant-ocean fishing fleet, and those vessels have been involved in disputes as far afield as Argentina — where the
coast guard has fired at and sunk them — and in Africa, where Chinese firms are building fish-processing facilities. In a September 2017 article,
retired US Navy Adm. James Stavridis and a coauthor said that Beijing was spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidize its
long-range fishing fleet and that its coast guard often escorts those ships while they fish illegally .
"As such, the Chinese
government is directly enabling and militarizing the worldwide robbing of ocean resources," they said. In
September 2018, US Coast Guard Cmdr. Kate Higgins-Bloom wrote that "the odds that a squabble over
fishing rights could turn into a major armed conflict are rising." Countries overplaying their hands with fishing and
fisheries enforcement in contested waters and increasingly aggressive responses to illegal fishing are two ways that conflict could develop,
Higgins-Bloom wrote. She added that "political leaders of rising powers will feel enormous pressure to secure the resources their citizens
demand — even if it means violating international norms and rules." Indonesia
has blown up boats caught fishing illegally,
including a Chinese vessel, and the country's fisheries minister has said what Chinese fishing boats "are
doing is not fishing. It is transnational organized crime." "There’s no need to worry [about conflicts with other nations] as
we have government vessels protecting us," a Chinese fisherman said in September 2017, after the expiration of a fishing ban in the South
China Sea. The
Arctic, where retreating ice has increased interest in commercial shipping and resource
extraction, could also become a venue for that competition. "I think the Chinese are very interested in
the potential protein sources, the fishing stocks," in the Arctic, Heather Conley, senior vice president for
Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Business Insider
in late 2018. Nine countries, including China, and the EU signed an agreement in late 2017 prohibiting commercial fishing in the central
Arctic for 16 years to allow study of the region — a deal meant to ensure there's sufficient information to fish manageably "when these
decisions have to be reached," Conley said. "We're
seeing anecdotal evidence of fishing stocks traveling north to get
to cooler waters," Conley added. "China certainly wants to ensure that ... they're not excluded from"
those fishing grounds.

Nuke war causes extinction

PND 16. internally citing Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council of Foreign Relations and former national security
adviser to President Carter, Toon and Robock’s 2012 study on nuclear winter in the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists, Gareth Evans’ International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament
Report, Congressional EMP studies, studies on nuclear winter by Seth Baum of the Global Catastrophic
Risk Institute and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, and U.S. and Russian former Defense
Secretaries and former heads of nuclear missile forces, brief submitted to the United Nations General
Assembly, Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear risks. A/AC.286/NGO/13. 05-03-2016.
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/OEWG/2016/Documents/
NGO13.pdf

Consequences human survival 12. Even if the 'other' side does NOT launch in response the smoke from 'their' burning
cities (incinerated by 'us') will still make 'our' country (and the rest of the world) uninhabitable, potentially inducing
global famine lasting up to decades. Toon and Robock note in ‘Self Assured Destruction’, in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
68/5, 2012, that: 13. “A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could
produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self assured destruction. Even a
'small' nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with each country detonating 50 Hiroshima-size atom bombs--only about
0.03 percent of the global nuclear arsenal's explosive power--as air bursts in urban areas, could produce so much smoke that
temperatures would fall below those of the Little Ice Age of the fourteenth to nineteenth centuries, shortening the
growing season around the world and threatening the global food supply. Furthermore, there would be massive
ozone depletion, allowing more ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth's surface. Recent studies predict that
agricultural production in parts of the United States and China would decline by about 20 percent for four years, and
by 10 percent for a decade.” 14. A conflagration involving USA/NATO forces and those of Russian federation would most likely cause the
deaths of most/nearly all/all humans (and severely impact/extinguish other species) as well as
destroying the delicate interwoven techno-structure on which latter-day 'civilization' has come to
depend. Temperatures would drop to below those of the last ice-age for up to 30 years as a result of the
lofting of up to 180 million tonnes of very black soot into the stratosphere where it would remain for
decades. 15. Though human ingenuity and resilience shouldn't be underestimated, human survival itself is
arguably problematic, to put it mildly, under a 2000+ warhead USA/Russian federation scenario. 16. The Joint Statement on
Catastrophic Humanitarian Consequences signed October 2013 by 146 governments mentioned 'Human Survival' no less than 5 times. The
most recent (December 2014) one gives it a highly prominent place. Gareth
Evans’ ICNND (International Commission on
Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament) Report made it clear that it saw the threat posed by
nuclear weapons use as one that at least threatens what we now call 'civilization' and that potentially threatens human
survival with an immediacy that even climate change does not, though we can see the results of climate change here
and now and of course the immediate post-nuclear results for Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.
Scenario 3 is Biodiversity –
Contaminated water kills biodiversity.
Lohan 19 [Tara Lohan, 10-2-2019, "We’re Just Starting to Learn How Fracking Harms Wildlife • The
Revelator," Revelator, https://therevelator.org/fracking-wildlife/] //Sunny
In January 2015 North Dakota experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in its history: A pipeline burst, spilling nearly 3 million
gallons of briny, saltwater waste from nearby oil-drilling operations into two creek beds. The wastewater, which flowed all the
way to the Missouri River, contained chloride concentrations high enough to kill any wildlife that
encountered it. It wasn’t the first such disaster in the state. In 2006 a spill of close to 1 million gallons of
fracking wastewater into the Yellowstone River resulted in a mass die-off of fish and plants. Cleanup of that
spill was still ongoing at the time of the 2015 spill, nearly a decade later. Spills like these highlight the dangers that come
with unconventional fossil-fuel extraction techniques that go after hard-to-reach pockets of oil and gas
using practices like horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing (otherwise known as
fracking). But events like these massive spills are just the tip of the iceberg. Other risks to wildlife can be more contained, subtle or hidden.
And while many of the after-effects of fracking have grabbed headlines for years — such as
contaminated drinking water, earthquakes and even flammable faucets — the consequences for wildlife
have so far been left out of the national conversation. But those consequences are very real for a vast suite of animals
including mussels, birds, fish, caribou and even fleas, and they’re as varied as the species themselves. In some places wildlife pays the price
when habitat is destroyed. Elsewhere the damage occurs when water is sucked away or polluted . Still other species can’t take the
traffic, noise and dust that accompany extraction operations. All this damage makes sense when you
think about fracking’s outsized footprint. It starts with the land cleared for the well pad, followed by sucking large volumes of
water (between 1.5 and 16 million gallons per well) out of rivers, streams or groundwater. Then there’s the sand that’s mined for
use during the fracturing of underground rock to release natural gas or oil. There are also new pipelines,
compressor stations and other related infrastructure that need to be constructed. And there’s the truck traffic
that surges during operations, or the disposal of fracking wastewater, either in streams or underground. The cumulative footprint of a single
new well can be as large as 30 acres. In places where hundreds or thousands of wells spring up across a landscape, it’s easy to imagine the toll
on wildlife — and even cases with ecosystem-wide implications.
“Studies show that there are multiple pathways to
wildlife being harmed,” says ecologist Sandra Steingraber, a distinguished scholar in residence at Ithaca
College who has worked for a decade compiling research on the health effects of fracking. “ Biodiversity
is a determinant of public health — without these wild animals doing ecosystem services for us, we can’t
survive.”

The Gulf of Mexico is a unique hotspot

Chen 17 [Chen, Y. (2017). Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Ward, C. (eds) Habitats and Biota of
the Gulf of Mexico: Before the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Springer, New York, NY.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3456-0_1] //Sunny

The Gulf of Mexico provides a wide range of habitats for its ichthyofaunal community, but long-term
anthropogenic and natural stressors and perturbations, such as rapid coastal development, pollution,
overfishing, and natural disasters, have altered the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and the dynamics of its
fish community and populations (O’Connell et al. 2004). However, it is difficult to quantitatively assess and separate the
impacts of human and natural perturbations on the resilience of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem because of the limitations of available data. The
Gulf of Mexico receives about 50 % of all watershed discharge in the United States, and more than 3,100 point-source outfalls discharge into
the Gulf of Mexico. Pesticides and nutrients used in the watersheds of the U.S. states bordering the Gulf exceed those used in any of the other
coastal zones in the United States. The entire U.S. Gulf of Mexico coastline has been under fish consumption advisory for mercury since 1994
(USEPA 1994). Fifty-nine
percent of the estuarine areas of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, which are essential
nursery and spawning grounds for many finfish and sharks, assessed from 1997 through 2000, were
considered impaired or threatened (USEPA 2004). Coastal wetlands and nearshore seagrass beds are critical nursery and
spawning grounds for many finfish and sharks; however, Lewis et al. (2007) estimated that 78 square kilometers (km2) (30 miles2) of wetlands
were being lost annually and that 20–100 % of the seagrasses have been destroyed in some areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The
deterioration and even total loss of these critical habitats may greatly reduce the carrying capacity of
the Gulf of Mexico for many fish and shark species that depend on these areas as their critical habitat.
Overfishing and shrimp fishery bycatch have substantially reduced the population abundance of many
fish and shark species of commercial and recreational importance, resulting in some important species
being classified as in the status of overfishing and/or being

Biodiversity loss causes extinction – also multiplies threats of escalation.

Torres 16 [Phil Biologist, conservationist, science advocate & educator. 2 years based in Amazon
rainforest, now exploring science around the world. “Biodiversity Loss: An Existential Risk Comparable to
Climate Change” http://futureoflife.org/2016/05/20/biodiversity-loss/]
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the two greatest existential threats to human civilization stem from climate change and nuclear
weapons. Both pose clear and present dangers to the perpetuation of our species, and the increasingly dire climate situation and nuclear
arsenal modernizations in the United States and Russia were the most significant reasons why the Bulletin decided to keep the Doomsday Clock
set at three minutes before midnight earlier this year. But there is another existential threat that the Bulletin overlooked in its Doomsday Clock
announcement: biodiversity loss. This phenomenon is often identified as one of the many consequences of climate change, and this is of course
correct. But biodiversity loss is also a contributing factor behind climate change. For example, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and
elsewhere reduces the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by plants, a natural process that mitigates the effects of
climate change. So the causal relation between climate change and biodiversity loss is bidirectional. Furthermore, there are myriad phenomena
that are driving biodiversity loss in addition to climate change. Other causes include ecosystem fragmentation, invasive species, pollution,
oxygen depletion caused by fertilizers running off into ponds and streams, overfishing, human overpopulation, and overconsumption. All of
these phenomena have a direct impact on the health of the biosphere, and all would conceivably persist even if the problem of climate change
were somehow immediately solved. Such considerations warrant decoupling biodiversity loss from climate change, because the former has
been consistently subsumed by the latter as a mere effect. Biodiversity loss is a distinct environmental crisis with its own unique syndrome of
causes, consequences, and solutions—such as restoring habitats, creating protected areas (“biodiversity parks”), and practicing sustainable
agriculture. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest decreases natural mitigation of CO2 and destroys the habitats of many endangered species.
The sixth extinction. The repercussions of biodiversity loss are potentially as severe as those anticipated from climate change, or even a nuclear
the best available evidence reveals “an
conflict. For example, according to a 2015 study published in Science Advances,
exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction
is already under way.” This conclusion holds, even on the most optimistic assumptions about the background rate of species losses and
the current rate of vertebrate extinctions. The group classified as “vertebrates” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and all other creatures
with a backbone. The article argues that, using its conservative figures, the average loss of vertebrate species was 100 times higher in the past
century relative to the background rate of extinction. (Other scientists have suggested that the current extinction rate could be as much as
10,000 times higher than normal.) As the authors write, “The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in
human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history.” Perhaps the term “Big Six” should enter the popular lexicon—to add the current extinction
to the previous “Big Five,” the last of which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But the concept of biodiversity encompasses more
than just the total number of species on the planet. It also refers to the size of different populations of species. With respect to this
phenomenon, multiple studies have confirmed that wild populations around the world are dwindling and disappearing at an alarming rate. For
example, the 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook report found that the population of wild vertebrates living in the tropics dropped by 59 percent
between 1970 and 2006. The report also found that the population of farmland birds in Europe has dropped by 50 percent since 1980; bird
populations in the grasslands of North America declined by almost 40 percent between 1968 and 2003; and the population of birds in North
American arid lands has fallen by almost 30 percent since the 1960s. Similarly, 42 percent of all amphibian species (a type of vertebrate that is
sometimes called an “ecological indicator”) are undergoing population declines, and 23 percent of all plant species “are estimated to be
threatened with extinction.” Other studies have found that some 20 percent of all reptile species, 48 percent of the world’s primates, and 50
percent of freshwater turtles are threatened. Underwater, about 10 percent of all coral reefs are now dead, and another 60 percent are in
danger of dying. Consistent with these data, the 2014 Living Planet Report shows that the global population of wild vertebrates dropped by 52
percent in only four decades—from 1970 to 2010. While biologists often avoid projecting historical trends into the future because of the
complexity of ecological systems, it’s tempting to extrapolate this figure to, say, the year 2050, which is four decades from 2010. As it happens,
a 2006study published in Science does precisely this: It projects past trends of marine biodiversity loss into the 21st century, concluding that,
unless significant changes are made to patterns of human activity, there will be virtually no more wild-caught seafood by 2048. 48% of the
world’s primates are threatened with extinction. Catastrophic consequences for civilization. The
consequences of this rapid
pruning of the evolutionary tree of life extend beyond the obvious. There could be surprising effects of
biodiversity loss that scientists are unable to fully anticipate in advance. For example, prior research has
shown that localized ecosystems can undergo abrupt and irreversible shifts when they reach a tipping
point. According to a 2012 paper published in Nature, there are reasons for thinking that we may be approaching a tipping point of this sort
in the global ecosystem, beyond which the consequences could be catastrophic for civilization. As the authors write, a planetary-scale
transition could precipitate “substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population.” An ecosystem
service is any ecological process that benefits humanity, such as food production and crop pollination . If the global ecosystem were
to cross a tipping point and substantial ecosystem services were lost, the results could be “widespread
social unrest, economic instability, and loss of human life.” According to Missouri Botanical Garden
ecologist Adam Smith, one of the paper’s co-authors, this could occur in a matter of decades— far more
quickly than most of the expected consequences of climate change, yet equally destructive. Biodiversity
loss is a “threat multiplier” that, by pushing societies to the brink of collapse, will exacerbate existing
conflicts and introduce entirely new struggles between state and non-state actors. Indeed, it could even fuel the
rise of terrorism. (After all, climate change has been linked to the emergence of ISIS in Syria, and multiple high-ranking US officials, such as
former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hageland CIA director John Brennan, have affirmed that climate change and terrorism are connected.) The
reality is that we are entering the sixth mass extinction in the 3.8-billion-year history of life on Earth, and the impact of this event could be felt
by civilization “in as little as three human lifetimes,” as the aforementioned 2012 Nature paper notes. Furthermore, the widespread decline of
biological populations could plausibly initiate a dramatic transformation of the global ecosystem on an even faster timescale: perhaps a single
human lifetime. The unavoidable conclusion is that biodiversity loss constitutes an existential threat in its own right. As such,
it ought to be considered alongside climate change and nuclear weapons as one of the most significant contemporary risks to human prosperity
and survival.
 1AC – Plan
Plan: The United States ought to prohibit the extraction of fossil fuels from federal
public waters
Extraction is primarily concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico – Republicans hate it
Friedman 23 [Lisa Friedman, NYT reporter, 9-29-2023, "Biden Administration Offers Fewest Offshore
Oil and Gas Leases in History.," NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/climate/biden-offshore-
drilling-plan.html] //Sunny

A new plan to sell offshore drilling rights will be limited to three spots, all in the Gulf of Mexico The
Biden administration announced Friday it would lease a handful of spots in the Gulf of Mexico to oil
companies for drilling over the next five years, a move that angered Republicans, the fossil fuel industry
and climate activists alike. The administration said oil and gas companies would be able to drill in just
three new areas in the Gulf between 2024 and 2029, the smallest number of lease sales offered since
the federal drilling program began decades ago. Under a new law, the government must offer leases for oil drilling before it
can invite developers to build wind farms in federal waters. Producing clean electricity from wind turbines is one of President Biden’s top
priorities as he tries to reduce the fossil fuel pollution that is dangerously heating the planet. Deb Haaland, the Interior Department secretary,
said in a statement that the plan “sets a course for the department to support the growing offshore wind industry and protect against the
potential for environmental damage and adverse impacts to coastal communities.” The
five-year plan is significant because the
government cannot conduct any lease sales that are not specified in the plan, and the time frame is such
that it determines the actions of a future administration. The oil industry, which had pressed for unfettered access to
waters around the United States, warned that limiting its opportunities to drill would lead to higher gas prices and force the country to increase
oil imports from countries with lax environmental standards. “This restrictive offshore leasing program is the latest tactic in a coordinated
strategy to reduce energy production, ultimately weakening America’s energy dominance, limiting consumers’ access to affordable, reliable
energy and compromising our ability to lead on the global stage,” Mike Sommers, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a
statement. The United States is the top oil producer in the world and is on track to set a production record in 2023. Limiting leases won’t have
an immediate effect on gas prices because it takes years to produce gas after the purchase of an oil lease. But energy analysts do agree that
restrictions could have an effect in the long term. Climate advocates want the administration to end new leasing altogether. Scientists around
the world have said that nations must stop new fossil fuel projects to prevent the most cataclysmic impacts of global warming. “This decision is
beyond disappointing,” Beth Lowell, the vice president of Oceana, an environmental group, said in a statement. “Expanding dirty and
dangerous offshore drilling only exacerbates the climate catastrophe that is already at our doorstep.” As a candidate, Mr. Biden had promised
“no new drilling, period” on public lands and in federal waters. But time and again, he has been compelled by courts or Congress to approve
new drilling. Emissions from burning fossil fuels extracted from federal lands and waters account for almost 25 percent of the country’s
greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Increasingly, though, development of coal, oil and gas is taking place on
private lands, according to industry associations. Environmental groups note that oil and gas companies are sitting on thousands of unused
leases on federal lands and waters and say they don’t need more. “While it is disappointing that the plan includes new offshore oil and gas
leasing at all, it is a sign of progress that the administration has scheduled dramatically fewer oil and gas lease sales,” said Nicole Gentile, senior
director of conservation at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. The 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
requires a plan to be updated every five years that lays out where the government would lease its offshore mineral, gas and oil resources,
subject to environmental review. The last version of the plan was finalized under President Barack Obama and expired in 2022. President
Donald J. Trump proposed opening virtually all United States waters to oil and gas drilling but then
declared a moratorium off the coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina after Republican leaders in those
states said they feared drilling could mar beaches and harm tourism. His plan was never finalized. Mr. Biden’s plan will undergo a
60-day congressional review before it can be implemented. The three areas to be leased are in the western and central
Gulf of Mexico. According to the Interior Department, the government chose sections where oil and gas facilities
already exist. The Gulf is the primary source of offshore oil and gas in the United States. The agency said that
limiting potential leases put the plan in line with Mr. Biden’s goal for the United States to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by
2050 and to cut emissions roughly in half by the end of this decade. “To meet these targets, the United States would have to drastically change
the way it both consumes and supplies energy,” the drilling plan states. “An increase in renewable energy production, electrification, energy
efficiency and reduced consumption leads to less reliance on oil and gas resources and reduced demand.” Republicans and oil industry leaders
are expected to challenge the new five-year plan in court, although that may prove difficult because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act does
not require a minimum number of lease sales. Still, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 does require oil and gas lease sales as a condition of
leasing waters for wind farms. Before it can allow wind farms to be built in federal waters, the government must first offer at least 60 million
acres offshore in the previous year for oil and gas leasing. The provision was included in the law by Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a
fossil-fuel-friendly Democrat. In a statement, Mr. Manchin accused the Biden administration of executing a “radical political agenda.” Mr. Biden
has set a goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, enough to power 10 million homes. The administration said that it had
already approved four commercial-scale offshore wind projects and that it expected to review at least 16 more offshore wind projects by 2025.
Together, they would produce more than 27 gigawatts of electricity, it said. Environmental groups have argued that the Biden administration
has consigned Gulf communities to health impacts from exposure to oil and gas drilling, refineries, petrochemical plants and other related
facilities that crowd the coastal states of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi. “The Gulf is the sacrifice zone of America and people of this
region are so tired of being sacrificed,” said Christian Wagley, an organizer with Healthy Gulf, a nonprofit group based in New Orleans.

Solves Gulf Extraction

CBD 17 [“17-7-10-CBD-Comments-R6-Offshore-Oil-and-Gas” via Truthout.org
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3894771-17-7-10-CBD-Comments-R6-Offshore-Oil-and-
Gas.html] //Sunny
The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) submits the following comments to Region 6 of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on
the Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit for New and Existing Dischargers in the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category for the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico,
General Permit No. GMG290000 (“Proposed Permit”). The
Western Gulf of Mexico is littered with thousands of
offshore oil and gas platforms, thousands of miles of offshore pipelines, and tens of thousands of
offshore wells—the largest concentration of offshore oil and gas activity in the country. While the Center
appreciates EPA’s new permit condition requiring oil companies to maintain an inventory of the chemicals used in offshore hydraulic fracturing
(“fracking”) and other well stimulation treatments, such condition does not go nearly far enough to protect Gulf ecosystems or marine species
from these environmentally destructive practices.
The Center urges EPA to prohibit the dumping of chemicals used in
offshore fracking and other well stimulation into the Gulf, and implement a zero discharge requirement
for wastewater generated by offshore oil and gas drilling activities, including drill cuttings and fluids, well
treatment fluids, and produced water. Such action is necessary to ensure the Proposed Permit does not
result in an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment as required by the Clean Water Act
(“CWA”), particularly given the enormous scale of offshore oil and gas drilling conducted in the Western
Gulf under the jurisdiction of Region 6. Moreover, prior to issuing the permit, EPA must prepare an environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and must engage in formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act
(“ESA”). These evaluations under NEPA and the ESA are necessary to ensure that EPA carefully considers the risks and harms inherent in
discharging fracking chemicals and other drilling wastes into the Gulf, including the cumulative impacts of the discharge of wastewater from
thousands of active drilling platforms; that the public is made aware of such risks; and that the marine environment and imperiled marine
species are sufficiently protected from the myriad dangerous pollutants discharged by offshore oil and gas drilling activities. Failure to do so
would violate NEPA and the ESA.

Biden’s executive action thumps DAs – Cant Solve Case

NPR 21 – Nathan, Rott. Scott Detrow. Alana Wise. (“Biden Hits 'Pause' On Oil And Gas Leasing On
Public Lands And Waters” NPR. 1/27/21.
https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/01/27/960941799/biden-to-pause-oil-
and-gas-leasing-on-public-lands-and-waters) //Sunny

In an effort to slow the nation's contribution to climate change, President Biden has signed an executive
order to begin halting oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. The much-anticipated move is one
of several executive actions the president took on Wednesday to address the worsening climate crisis and the
broader decline of the natural world, but it won't come without pushback. "Today is Climate Day at the White House, which means
it's Jobs Day at the White House," Biden said at the top of his remarks, also citing the health and national security impact of climate change,
which Biden called a "maximum threat." The president said there is increased bipartisan concern about climate
change, though many Republicans have criticized Biden's actions, claiming they will eliminate jobs. Biden emphasized work in agriculture and
manufacturing to advance energy conservation. He also promised 1 million new jobs in the auto industry as federal agencies aim to lead on a
transition to electric vehicles. "We're not going to lose jobs in these areas; we're going to create jobs," he said. On
fossil fuel
extraction, Biden addressed the pause in oil and gas leasing on federal lands. He also said, "We're not
going to ban fracking," which was a charge leveled at Biden by President Trump during the 2020 campaign. Biden pledged that the plan
will focus on disproportionate health, environmental and economic impact on communities of color and that 40% of federal benefits for clean
air and water infrastructure will go to communities disproportionately affected by climate change.
 1AC – Framework
The standard is consistency with hedonistic act utilitarianism.
1] Actor specificity – actor specificity outweighs cuz different actors have different
moral obligations
A] Aggregation – every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side
constraints freeze – only util can make tradeoffs.
B] No intent-foresight distinction – If we foresee a consequence, then it becomes part
of our deliberation which makes it intrinsic to our action since we intend it to happen.
C] No act-omission distinction – people psychologically decide not to act which means
being presented with the aff creates a choice between two actions, neither of which is
an omission
2] Extinction outweighs mathematically even if we don’t win util.
MacAskill 14 [William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative
Uncertainty, 2014]

The human race might go extinct from a number of causes: asteroids, supervolcanoes, runaway climate change, pandemics,
nuclear war, and the development and use of dangerous new technologies such as synthetic biology, all pose risks (even if very small) to the
continued survival of the human race.184 And different moral views give opposing answers to question of whether
this would be a good or a bad thing. It might seem obvious that human extinction would be a very bad thing, both because of the loss
of potential future lives, and because of the loss of the scientific and artistic progress that we would make in the future. But the issue is at least
unclear. The continuation of the human race would be a mixed bag: inevitably, it would involve both upsides and downsides. And if one regards
it as much more important to avoid bad things happening than to promote good things happening then one could plausibly regard human
extinction as a good thing.For example, one might regard the prevention of bads as being in general more important that the promotion of
goods, as defended historically by G. E. Moore,185 and more recently by Thomas Hurka.186 One could weight the prevention of suffering as
being much more important that the promotion of happiness. Or one could weight the prevention of objective bads, such as war and genocide,
as being much more important than the promotion of objective goods, such as scientific and artistic progress. If the human race continues its
future will inevitably involve suffering as well as happiness, and objective bads as well as objective goods. So, if one weights the bads sufficiently
heavily against the goods, or if one is sufficiently pessimistic about humanity’s ability to achieve good outcomes, then one will regard human
extinction as a good thing.187 However, even if we believe in a moral view according to which human extinction
would be a good thing, we still have strong reason to prevent near-term human extinction. To see this, we
must note three points. First, we should note that the extinction of the human race is an extremely high stakes moral issue.
Humanity could be around for a very long time: if humans survive as long as the median mammal species, we will last another two million
years. On this estimate, the
number of humans in existence in the The future, given that we don’t go extinct any time
soon, would be 2×10^14. So if it is good to bring new people into existence, then it’s very good to prevent
human extinction. Second, human extinction is by its nature an irreversible scenario. If we continue to exist, then we
always have the option of letting ourselves go extinct in the future (or, perhaps more realistically, of considerably reducing population size). But
if we go extinct, then we can’t magically bring ourselves back into existence at a later date. Third,
we should expect ourselves to
progress, morally, over the next few centuries, as we have progressed in the past. So we should expect that in a few
centuries’ time we will have better evidence about how to evaluate human extinction than we currently have.
Given these three factors, it would be better to prevent the near-term extinction of the human race, even if we thought that the extinction of
the human race would actually be a very good thing. To make this concrete, I’ll give the following simple but illustrative model. Suppose
that we have 0.8 credence that it is a bad thing to produce new people, and 0.2 certain that it’s a good thing to produce
new people; and the degree to which it is good to produce new people, if it is good, is the same as the degree to which it is bad to produce
new people, if it is bad. That is, I’m supposing, for simplicity, that we know that one new life has one unit of value; we just don’t know whether
that unit is positive or negative. And let’s use our estimate of 2×10^14 people who would exist in the future, if we avoid near-term human
extinction. Given our stipulated credences, the expected benefit of letting the human race go extinct now would be (.8-.2)×(2×10^14) =
 if we let the human race continue and did research for 300 years, we would know for certain
1.2×(10^14). Suppose that,
whether or not additional people are of positive or negative value. If so, then with the credences above we should
think it 80% likely that we will find out that it is a bad thing to produce new people, and 20% likely that we will find out that it’s a good thing to
produce new people. So there’s an 80% chance of a loss of 3×(10^10) (because of the delay of letting the human race go extinct), the expected
value of which is 2.4×(10^10). But there’s also a
20% chance of a gain of 2×(10^14), the expected value of which is
4×(10^13). That is, in expected value terms, the cost of waiting for a few hundred years is vanishingly small
compared with the benefit of keeping one’s options open while one gains new information.
 1AC – Method
1] Even if political liberalism currently excludes the disabled, discussing questions of
politics can revise it
Badano 13 (Gabriele – PhD candidate at the Centre for Philosophy, Justice and Health at University
College London – “Political liberalism and the justice claims of the disabled: a reconciliation,” Critical
Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, April 2013,
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/tHKkbrxhGYIWAxTcJrAW/full#.UxyV-PldX-4)

I argue that any proposal abandoning

the language of political justice would not seem to do enough for those
individuals with disabilities who fall outside the basic idea of persons as depicted by Rawls. In fact, the intuitions supporting the
idea that concepts like rights and opportunities are indispensable are very strong.11 Let us go back to the
examples of individuals falling outside Rawls’s idea of persons because their disabilities prevent them from being a net benefit to social
cooperation. They are individuals who need multiple carers to work, or whose disabilities prevent them from providing
a benefit to social cooperation that is large enough. To put the point more sharply, it is worth noticing that the disabilities in
question are compatible with being in full possession of one’s logical and moral powers. Now, should we accept that those
individuals ought to be given no rights or opportunities? An affirmative answer would strike us as implausible, and for a
good reason. In a liberal society, having one’s rights, opportunities and basic distributive entitlements
acknowledged is one and the same as being recognized as an equal. And what is missing from Rawls’s political
liberalism is precisely the idea that falling below a threshold of full cooperation should not be enough to prevent the disabled from being
regarded as persons on an equal footing with anyone else. In sum, Rawls’s political liberalism is not amenable to any
extension that, keeping the basic ideas of society and persons intact, is able to include a concern with the status of
individuals with disabilities. In addition, the proposal that the interests of the disabled are not for public reason to protect is not
satisfactory. Consequently, a substantial revision is the only way to reconcile political liberalism with our
intuitions concerning what is due to the disabled. 5. Revising political liberalism I: beyond Hartley’s contractualism The aim of this
section and the next is to propose a substantial revision of Rawls’s theory that accommodates the justice claims of the disabled while upholding
the project of political liberalism. A
question that needs to be answered at this point is: why should we uphold the
project of political liberalism, rather than endorsing a different model that more neatly fits with our
intuitions concerning what is due to the disabled? First, the general project of political liberalism is compelling. Rawls’s
political liberalism aims to identify a common ground of political ideas that can work as the basis on which the most important political
decisions should be made. This project is of the greatest importance because, if successful, it creates legitimacy by
building institutions on the basis of concepts that are acceptable to each reasonable individual. Moreover, it
promotes stability in societies that are characterized by deep pluralism. Second, despite Rawls’s failure to take the interests of
the disabled into consideration, political liberalism is well suited to support the justice claims of
individuals with disabilities. This is because the idea that the disabled are citizens who deserve our respect
is part of the common culture of our societies. In other words, there is an overlapping consensus on the idea that rights,
opportunities and distributive shares must be granted to individuals who are not fully cooperating members of society, including those who fall
below full moral powers. It is widely believed that those with physical disabilities should have the same rights as their
fellow citizens, live in a social environment that does not excessively limit their opportunities and receive
benefits that help meet their special needs. Besides, although the state or third parties are given exceptional rights to interfere
with the autonomy of individuals with severe cognitive disabilities, it is widely recognized that the mentally disabled are
citizens whose basic interests must be protected by the law.12 In the public space, any proposal that individuals who are
not fully cooperating members of society should have their basic interests neglected would be widely received with outrage. Such proposal
would be said to fit a fascist society, not a decent one. Among other legal documents, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (UN General Assembly, A/61/611) can be taken as the epitome of this widespread attitude. Adopted in 2006, the Convention
requires that all individuals with disabilities should share in the enjoyment of equal fundamental rights.
2] Liberalism’s self-correcting mechanisms maintain global stability, facilitate
international cooperation, and raise global standards of living while constantly
correcting for failure. Any other system risks global catastrophe and can’t be
effectuated given liberalism’s entrenched nature.
Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry ’18, *Deudney: Associate Professor of political science,
international relations and political theory at Johns Hopkins University, received the Alumni
Distinguished Teaching Award at Johns Hopkins University, former senior research fellow at the
TransAtlantic Academy at the German Marshall Fund, **Ikenberry: Albert G. Milbank Professor of
Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Co-Director of Princeton’s Center for
International Security Studies, served as a member of the Policy Planning Staff in 1991-92, as a
member of an advisory group at the State Department in 2003-04, and as a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S.-European relations, “Liberal World: The Resilient Order,”
Foreign Affairs 2018, Issue 4, pgs. 18-22

In many respects, today's liberal democratic malaise is a byproduct of the liberal world order's
success. After the Cold War, that order became a global system, expanding beyond its birthplace in
the West. But as free markets spread, problems began to crop up: economic inequality grew, old
political bargains between capital and labor broke down, and social supports eroded. The benefits of
globalization and economic expansion were distributed disproportionately to elites. Oligarchic
power bloomed. A modulated form of capitalism morphed into winnertake- all casino capitalism.
Many new democracies turned out to lack the traditions and habits necessary to sustain democratic
institutions. And large flows of immigrants triggered a xenophobic backlash. Together, these
developments have called into question the legitimacy of liberal democratic life and created
openings for opportunistic demagogues.

Just as the causes of this malaise are clear, so is its solution: a return to the fundamentals of liberal
democracy. Rather than deeply challenging the first principles of liberal democracy , the current
problems call for reforms to better realize them. To reduce inequality, political leaders will need to
return to the social democratic policies embodied in the New Deal, pass more progressive taxation,
and invest in education and infrastructure. To foster a sense of liberal democratic identity, they will
need to emphasize education as a catalyst for assimilation and promote national and public service.
In other words, the remedy for the problems of liberal democracy is more liberal democracy;
liberalism contains the seeds of its own salvation.

Indeed, liberal democracies have repeatedly recovered from crises resulting from their own
excesses. In the 1930s, overproduction and the integration of financial markets brought about an
economic depression, which triggered the rise of fascism. But it also triggered the New Deal and
social democracy, leading to a more stable form of capitalism. In the 1950s, the success of the
Manhattan Project, combined with the emerging U.S.-Soviet rivalry, created the novel threat of a
worldwide nuclear holocaust. That threat gave rise to arms control pacts and agreements
concerning the governance of global spaces, deals forged by the United States in collaboration with
the Soviet Union. In the 1970s, rising middle-class consumption led to oil shortages, economic
stagnation, and environmental decay. In response, the advanced industrial democracies established
oil coordination agreements, invested in clean energy, and struck numerous international
environmental accords aimed at reducing pollutants. The problems that liberal democracies face
today, while great, are certainly not more challenging than those that they have faced and
overcome in these historically recent decades. Of course, there is no guarantee that liberal
democracies will successfully rise to the occasion, but to count them out would fly in the face of
repeated historical experiences.

Today's dire predictions ignore these past successes. They suffer from a blinding presentism. Taking
what is new and threatening as the master pattern is an understandable reflex in the face of change,
but it is almost never a very good guide to the future. Large-scale human arrangements such as
liberal democracy rarely change as rapidly or as radically as they seem to in the moment. If history
is any guide, today's illiberal populists and authoritarians will evoke resistance and
countermovements.

THE RESILIENT ORDER

After World War II, liberal democracies joined together to create an international order that
reflected their shared interests. And as is the case with liberal democracy itself, the order that
emerged to accompany it cannot be easily undone. For one thing, it is deeply embedded. Hundreds
of millions, if not billions, of people have geared their activities and expectations to the order's
institutions and incentives, from farmers to microchip makers. However unappealing aspects of it
may be, replacing the liberal order with something significantly different would be extremely
difficult. Despite the high expectations they generate, revolutionary moments often fail to make
enduring changes. It is unrealistic today to think that a few years of nationalist demagoguery will
dramatically undo liberalism.

Growing interdependence makes the order especially difficult to overturn. Ever since its inception in
the eighteenth century, liberalism has been deeply committed to the progressive improvement of
the human condition through scientific discovery and technological advancements. This
Enlightenment project began to bear practical fruits on a large scale in the nineteenth century,
transforming virtually every aspect of human life. New techniques for production, communication,
transportation, and destruction poured forth. The liberal system has been at the forefront not just
of stoking those fires of innovation but also of addressing the negative consequences. Adam Smith's
case for free trade, for example, was strengthened when it became easier to establish supply chains
across global distances. And the age-old case for peace was vastly strengthened when weapons
evolved from being simple and limited in their destruction to the city-busting missiles of the nuclear
era. Liberal democratic capitalist societies have thrived and expanded because they have been
particularly adept at stimulating and exploiting innovation and at coping with their spillover effects
and negative externalities. In short, liberal modernity excels at both harvesting the fruits of
modern advance and guarding against its dangers.

This dynamic of constant change and ever-increasing interdependence is only accelerating. Human
progress has caused grave harm to the planet and its atmosphere, yet climate change will also
require unprecedented levels of international cooperation. With the rise of bioweapons and
cyberwarfare, the capabilities to wreak mass destruction are getting cheaper and ever more
accessible, making the international regulation of these technologies a vital national security
imperative for all countries. At the same time, global capitalism has drawn more people and
countries into cross-border webs of exchange, thus making virtually everyone dependent on the
competent management of international finance and trade. In the age of global interdependence,
even a realist must be an internationalist.

The international order is also likely to persist because its survival does not depend on all of its
members being liberal democracies. The return of isolationism, the rise of illiberal regimes such as
China and Russia, and the general recession of liberal democracy in many parts of the world appear
to bode ill for the liberal international order. But contrary to the conventional wisdom, many of its
institutions are not uniquely liberal in character. Rather, they are Westphalian, in that they are
designed merely to solve problems of sovereign states, whether they be democratic or
authoritarian. And many of the key participants in these institutions are anything but liberal or
democratic.

Consider the Soviet Union's cooperative efforts during the Cold War. Back then, the liberal world
order was primarily an arrangement among liberal democracies in Europe, North America, and East
Asia. Even so, the Soviet Union often worked with the democracies to help build international
institutions. Moscow's committed antiliberal stance did not stop it from partnering with Washington
to create a raft of arms control agreements. Nor did it stop it from cooperating with Washington
through the World Health Organization to spearhead a global campaign to eradicate smallpox,
which succeeded in completely eliminating the disease by 1979.

More recently, countries of all stripes have crafted global rules to guard against environmental
destruction. The signatories to the Paris climate agreement, for example, include such autocracies as
China, Iran, and Russia. Westphalian approaches have also thrived when it comes to governing the
commons, such as the ocean, the atmosphere, outer space, and Antarctica. To name just one
example, the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which has thwarted the destruction of the ozone layer, has
been actively supported by democracies and dictatorships alike. Such agreements are not challenges
to the sovereignty of the states that create them but collective measures to solve problems they
cannot address on their own.

Most institutions in the liberal order do not demand that their backers be liberal democracies; they
only require that they be status quo powers and capable of fulfilling their commitments. They do
not challenge the Westphalian system; they codify it. The UN, for example, enshrines the principle
of state sovereignty and, through the permanent members of the Security Council, the notion of
great-power decision-making. All of this makes the order more durable. Because much of
international cooperation has nothing at all to do with liberalism or democracy, when politicians
who are hostile to all things liberal are in power, they can still retain their international agendas and
keep the order alive. The persistence of Westphalian institutions provides a lasting foundation on
which distinctively liberal and democratic institutions can be erected in the future.

Another reason to believe that the liberal order will endure involves the return of ideological rivalry.
The last two and a half decades have been profoundly anomalous in that liberalism has had no
credible competitor. During the rest of its existence, it faced competition that made it stronger.
Throughout the nineteenth century, liberal democracies sought to outperform monarchical,
hereditary, and aristocratic regimes. During the first half of the twentieth century, autocratic and
fascist competitors created strong incentives for the liberal democracies to get their own houses in
 order and band together. And after World War II, they built the liberal order in part to contain the
threat of the Soviet Union and international communism.

The Chinese Communist Party appears increasingly likely to seek to offer an alternative to the
components of the existing order that have to do with economic liberalism and human rights. If it ends
up competing with the liberal democracies, they will again face pressure to champion their values. As
during the Cold War, they will have incentives to undertake domestic reforms and strengthen their
international alliances. The collapse of the Soviet Union, although a great milestone in the annals of the
advance of liberal democracy, had the ironic effect of eliminating one of its main drivers of solidarity.
The bad news of renewed ideological rivalry could be good