Aquaculture Affirmative fyi
Download 0.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2AC Inland CP
- Inland aquaculture causes NIMBY battles that destroy benefits
- 2AC NGO CP
- CP fails- no accountability
- 2AC International CP
2AC Wild Fisheries CPWild fisheries are over-exploited- aquaculture is keyKite-Powell ‘11 [Hauke Kite-Powell, aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood?” Sept. 21, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood] Do you think the growth of fish aquaculture is bad for the fishing industry or for environmental groups?¶ Kite-Powell: No, I don't. Wild fisheries are exploited so heavily today that there really isn't room for more production or economic value from “capture fisheries.” So if we want to increase employment in the seafood industry and increase the whole fisheries value chain in the U.S., it will have to come from farmed seafood. Many environmental groups understand the value of seafood in the human diet, and there's a strong argument for farming seafood in a sustainable way.¶ We had fishermen at our meeting comment on this. They see their future and the future of their colleagues as being a mix of wild-capture fishing, maybe six months out of the year, and fish farming the other six months, probably shifting more to farming over time. Historically, that's how it's gone with land-based food production. 2AC Inland CPInland aquaculture destroys the environment- IMTA is keyChopin et al ‘10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, Dr. Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Dr. Gregor K. Reid, University of New Brunswick, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: Part II. Increasing IMTA Adoption,” http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANov-Dec2010pp17-20.pdf] Moving to land-based or closed containment operations is one approach that ¶ may help address some sustainability issues but is not without its problems. Large amounts of energy, often diesel or electric power, are required to pump and aerate water. Nutrients are either pumped back into the water or settled somewhere and ¶ “trucked” off site. All of these processes leave a ‘carbon footprint’, and only partly solve the issue of excess nutrients. IMTA, or its variations called “aquaponics” or ¶ “hydroponics”, will have to be added to closed-containment or land-based systems to treat the effluents. One ‘impact’ may simply be traded for another. Ayer and Tyedmers (2009), in their life cycle assessment of alternative aquaculture ¶ technologies, warned that we could be in a case of environmental problem shifting, not solving, where, while reducing local ecological impacts, the increase in material and energy demands may result in significant increased contributions to several environmental impacts of global concern, including global warming, non-renewable resource depletion, and acidification. Inland aquaculture causes NIMBY battles that destroy benefitsWalsh ’11 [Bryan Walsh is a senior editor at TIME, NIMBY= “Not in my backyard,” “Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?” July 8, http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/] American fish farmers who work along coastlines—like the salmon farmers of Maine—also face a battle over simple space. As the fishing industry in the Northeast has contracted, coastal towns that once depending on a working waterfront now rely on seasonal tourism. As it turns out, summer residents who spend big bucks on a coastal view aren’t that keen to spend their vacations looking down on a fish farm. NIMBY battles have erupted in Maine amid complaints over the pollution, noise and disruption caused by fish farms. More often than not aquaculture—a tiny industry—loses out. “People have a strong feeling about the environmental impact of aquaculture and they voice those opinions, even though they’re only summer residents,” says Sebastian Belle, the head of the Maine Aquaculture Association. “We try to be receptive to the public’s criticisms. But how do that, but continue to compete from a commercial point of view with countries that have few regulations.”¶ Aquaculture does have pollution issues, but for that matter, so does agriculture on land. But the U.S. agricultural lobby is incredibly powerful, while the U.S. aquaculture lobby is…pretty much nonexistent. As the new kid on the block, and a small one at that, U.S. aquaculture comes under more scrutiny than it probably deserves. Nor does it help that there has been little in the way of a national aquaculture policy, no streamlined permits. America doesn’t seem very interested in having a strong domestic aquaculture industry—but we are interested in eating more seafood. All that does is push demand overseas. “We have the luxury to displace aquaculture to another country where we don’t have to see or hear it,” says one U.S. fish farmer. “Most countries don’t have that luxury.” 2AC NGO CPCP can’t solve- industry oppositionBuck ‘12 [Lisa E. Buck, Master of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_10741.pdf?sequence=1] All interviewees were asked to state who, in their opinion, were the most important ¶ stakeholder groups involved in offshore aquaculture and how their positions have ¶ influenced the development of the industry. Responses are summarized in Figure 4 ¶ below. As shown, there was a near consensus on the involvement of environmental ¶ NGOs in the development of offshore aquaculture. The majority of interviewees offered the opinion that environmental NGOs have influenced the development of offshore ¶ aquaculture by creating impediments to growth of the industry. Interviewees in ¶ regulatory, industry, research and political interest categories noted efforts by environmental NGOs to slow development of offshore aquaculture through information dissemination, litigation, and by taking an overly precautionary standpoint on regulation. It was stated by interviewees in agency, industry and research categories that information disseminated by NGOs is often misleading and not based in fact in order to sway its ¶ intended audience towards opposition to offshore aquaculture development. Interviewees ¶ in these categories also noted suits brought against NMFS by environmental NGOs ¶ looking to halt development of offshore aquaculture in the United States. Interviewees in ¶ the industry and research categories also offered the opinion that the precautionary approach to development of offshore aquaculture adopted by environmental NGOs was overly cautionary and not based in rational thought. As noted earlier, interviewees cited ¶ the NSOAA of 2009 and 2011 as outlining a precautionary approach to offshore ¶ aquaculture development that built precaution into regulations in a way that they felt ¶ would inhibit adaptive management in the industry. A differing opinion of the NSOAA ¶ was offered by an interviewee in the political interest category who stated that the bill ¶ took an adaptive approach to regulation of offshore aquaculture and provided a ¶ framework for research to be conducted in order to build necessary environmental ¶ safeguards into federal regulation. CP fails- no accountabilityHishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf] Non-governmental organizations have certain inherent deficiencies. They are not accountable, unlike politicians who are often democratically elected. They do not have to compromise but merely satisfy a narrow interest or place group, and single-issue partisans may not be representative of the broader society. Moreover, reliance on donor funding can lead to sensationalism in order to attract media attention. The result ¶ may be rejection of aquaculture without considering economic and social benefits that ¶ accrue from aquaculture 2AC International CPForeign aquaculture is unsustainable- poorly regulatedConathan ’11 [Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress, “Fish on Fridays: Dealing with the Aquaculture Dilemma,” June 17, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/06/17/9711/fish-on-fridays-dealing-with-the-aquaculture-dilemma/] Foreign fish farms aren’t exactly models of sustainability—they’re often poorly regulated and sited with little or no attention to environmental factors. Shrimp is one of the worst offenders. A National Geographic report published in 2004 found that Southeast Asian shrimp farms accounted for up to 38 percent of the decline in the world’s mangrove areas—fragile coastal wetlands that protect shores from storm surge and serve as vital carbon sinks. The report also referenced a 1995 study by the American Society of Microbiology stipulating that “the use of antibiotics in aquaculture as potentially a leading cause of the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans.”¶ There are also health concerns. The United States suspended imports of some Chinese-farmed seafood in 2007 because samples contained residues of drugs banned from use in U.S. food production, including some that were not even approved under Chinese law. The Washington Post reported that fish had been found that “carried the tell-tale greenish tinge of malachite green, a disinfectant powder that has been banned in China for five years because it is a suspected carcinogen but is still commonly used.”¶ And The New York Times quoted a professor from Hong Kong who had found “heavy metals, mercury and flame retardants in fish samples we’ve tested.”¶ Expecting the U.S. government to catch every piece of tainted tilapia entering the U.S. food supply is naïve at best when the Food and Drug Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, have the capacity to inspect less than 2 percent of the seafood we import. So while foreign-farmed fish is clearly here to stay as part of the American diet, I won’t be putting it on my family’s dinner table.¶ 4. Farm more fish domestically.¶ Last week the NOAA announced a new domestic aquaculture policy intended to support an increase in domestic marine aquaculture. As expected, the move was greeted with largely negative reactions from environmental groups and fishing industry organizations.¶ But as we’ve just discussed, Americans will continue to consume fish; our wild fisheries are, for the moment, running at capacity; and foreign sources of farmed fish are rife with unsustainable and even unhealthy management practices. So we really have but one alternative remaining: more domestic fish farming. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 0.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|