Contention one is overfishing Current federal policy impedes offshore aquaculture—ensures the us is dependent on unsustainable sources

Offshore aquaculture will increase seafood production and maintenance jobs

(Rachel, Rebecca Gentry, Russell Richards, (1) a Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Institute of Sociology and Political Science (2) Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB (3) Centre for Coastal Management, Griffith University; “Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California” Ocean & Coastal Management; Jan. 15, 2013; Access 6/27/14; www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman)//ck

Until recently, there has been no universal method of obtaining permits for aquaculture in US federal waters beyond the 3-mile state waters to the limits of the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Access to sites in coastal areas under state jurisdiction face chal- lenges of their own with competing claims to coastal usage as well as a plethora of local, state and federal permits under the existing US laws and regulations (Welp et al., 2006). The US EEZ is large however, and setting aside 500 km2, which accounts for 0.01% of the entire area under federal marine jurisdiction, would allow for an additional 600,000 metric tons of additional seafood to be produced annually (Carr and Heyman, 2012). The lack of a regu- latory framework in US federal waters has thus effectively pro- hibited aquaculture ventures and the expansion of the industry for domestic seafood needs to be met with national products (Edelman, 2012). In 2004, however, it was recommended by the US Commission on Ocean Policy that there be established a regulatory framework for aquaculture licensing in federal waters. A National Offshore Aquaculture Act would clarify federal regulatory re- quirements, allowing businesses and individuals to obtain a permit to operate in federal waters (Welp et al., 2006). In lieu of this, however, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the primary federal agency, under the Department of Commerce, charged with overseeing and permitting aquaculture production in the US (Santa Barbara Mariculture, 2011) has taken charge. In working toward lessening the trade deficit in seafood commerce, the Department of Commerce and NOAA released national sustainable marine aquaculture policies during the summer of 2011. One of the implementations toward this goal is the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for Aquaculture, which includes the required regulatory framework for offshore aqua- culture production in the Gulf (Abreu et al., 2011). Starting up offshore aquaculture could potentially not only increase domestic seafood production dramatically, but also provide job opportunities among others to U.S. fishermen, in for instance jobs that involve vessel maintenance and maintenance of offshore operations (FAO, 2005e2012).

The plan creates tens of thousands of good jobs

But where the negative rhetoric around the corporatization of fish farming is true, so is the more positive. The industry, for example, has the potential to bring a significant number of jobs to the United States. Don Kent says he’s done the calculations based on estimates that 1,000 tons of aquaculture produces about 40 jobs. “California has 37 million people in it,” he said from his office in San Diego. “If we grew all the seafood we needed for those people … we’d need something like a quarter million tons of seafood just for California. And figuring, when you filet the fish, you eat half and the other half gets thrown away — the bones and guts and everything — you’d actually need half a million tons of seafood. That’s 500,000 tons times 40. You’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs. Well over 20,000 jobs, just to feed our own people.”

Economy - Seafood Trade Deficit

US dependency on imported seafood has a trade deficit of over $9 billion

Tiller et al. ‘13

(Rachel, Rebecca Gentry, Russell Richards, (1) a Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Institute of Sociology and Political Science (2) Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB (3) Centre for Coastal Management, Griffith University; “Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California” Ocean & Coastal Management; Jan. 15, 2013; Access 6/27/14; www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman)//ck

The United States is a major consumer of seafood, including aquaculture products. In 2010, however, 86% of seafood consumed in the US was imported with half of this produced through aqua- culture. This import of 5.5 billion pounds per year was valued at $14.8 billion in 2009 (Abdallah and Sumaila, 2007). The necessity for import stems from the US aquaculture production, both fresh and marine, accounting for only 5% of US seafood supply, with marine-based aquaculture supplying less than 1.5%. Furthermore, US aquaculture production is ranked 13th globally after countries such as China, Canada, Norway and Chile. Indeed, the US imports about 300 million pounds of farmed salmon every year, primarily from Canada, Norway, and Chile. This dependency on imported seafood leads to an annual seafood trade deficit of over $9 billion (Antunes Zappes et al.; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004; Santa Barbara Mariculture, 2011).

The US runs a dangerously negative seafood trade balance

Johns 2013 (Kristen L. [USC School of Law; B.S. Environmental Systems: Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, University of California San Diego]; Farm fishing holes: Gaps in federal regulation offshore aquaculture; 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681; kdf)

 A compelling case can be made for growing more seafood in the United States. America's appetite for seafood continues to increase n13 - yet dwindling supplies of domestic fish stocks n14 have forced the United States [*687] to import 91 percent of its seafood. n15 Domestic aquaculture can help meet the growing demand for seafood, reduce the dependence on imports, and help rebuild wild fish stocks. Over thirty years ago, Congress recognized the enormous potential of aquaculture for our nation's food supply. Acknowledging that traditional domestic fisheries were being harvested at unsustainable rates, that the United States imported most of its seafood, but that aquaculture contributed very little to domestic seafood production, Congress concluded that "domestic aquacultural production, therefore, has the potential for significant growth." n16It declared aquaculture development to be in "the national interest" n17 and enacted the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to "encourage aquaculture activities and programs in both the public and private sectors of the economy." n18 The passage of the Act undoubtedly led to an expansion of the aquaculture industry, n19 but not to the extent anticipated or hoped for. Twenty years later, when aquaculture still had not become a major player in seafood production, the Department of Commerce called for a fivefold increase in U.S. aquaculture production by 2025. n20 As of 2013, aquaculture still represents only 5 percent of the domestic seafood supply (in tons). n21 At the same time, domestic fisheries continue to be overharvested and the United States continues to rely on foreign nations for its seafood. Like the United States, other nations have recognized the potential of aquaculture as a major food producer. Unlike the United States, however, these nations have acted to ensure that potential is realized. Worldwide,aquaculture has grown at an annual rate of 8.3 percent, "making it the fastest growing form of food production in the world." n22 Global aquaculture production is dominated by Asia, which accounts for 89 percent of production by quantity: China alone represents 62 percent of the global industry. n23 The United States ranks thirteenth in total aquaculture [*688] production - behind countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Chile, Egypt, Japan, and Norway - despite being one of the top importers of these products. n24 Aquaculture accounts for 20 percent of the New Zealand seafood production and, with the support of the New Zealand government, has become a major export industry. n25 In Chile, with the help of the government-sponsored National Aquaculture Policy, aquaculture products represented a third of its total export volume of seafood in 2009. n26 Indeed, while global aquacultureproduction is valued at over $ 100 billion annually, total U.S. aquaculture production is just under $ 1 billion. n27 Thus, while the United States remains a major consumer of aquaculture products, it is still considered a minor producer on the global stage. Thirty years after the creation of the National Aquaculture Act, U.S. aquaculture still has the potential for significant growth.

K2 Economy

Seafood industry is k/2 economy, single states make billions and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the seafood industry

Bloch 13 Benjamin Alexander-Bloch, Nola, 3/11/14, "Louisiana seafood industry's economic impact compared to other states," www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/louisiana_seafood_industrys_ec.html, 6/29/14, MRM

While Louisiana seafood's economic impact wasn't near the top of the national, Louisiana came in second behind Alaska in terms local seafood poundage landed per state. Louisiana fisheries came in second by catching nearly 1.3 billion pounds of seafood in 2011; Alaska's fisheries produced about 5.3 billion. The Louisiana seafood industry's total economic impact was $1.8 billion, the report states. California led the way with an economic impact of about $20 billion. Meanwhile, Louisiana's seafood industry supported 32,818 people in 2011. California led the nation with 122,074 people supported by the seafood industry.

Fishing industry supports almost $200 billion in profits and millions of jobs, continues to grow

Matheson 13 Fionna Matheson, 3/7/13, NOAA Fisheries, "NOAA report finds commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $199 billion in 2011," www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreational.html, 6/29/14, MRM

U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales and supported 1.7 million jobs in the nation’s economy in 2011, according to a new economic report released by NOAA’s Fisheries Service. The report, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011, is published annually on a two-year lag to allow data collection, analysis, and peer review. It provides economic statistics on U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries and marine-related businesses for each coastal state and the nation. Key to the report are the economic effects--jobs, sales, income, and value added to Gross National Product--of the commercial and recreational fishing industries. “Economic impact” measures how sales in each sector ripple throughout the state and national economy as each dollar spent generates additional sales by other firms and consumers. The seafood industry—harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and retailers—generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011, the most recent year included in the report. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Compared to 2010, the numbers are up for all of these impacts except commercial seafood sales.

Seafood industry makes $30 billion in Washington alone, continues to grow

Economic Development Council 13 Economic Development Council, 11/19/14, "Study Reveals $30 Billion Economic Impact of the MAritime Industry in Washington State," edc-seaking.org/news/study-reveals-maritime-economic-impact-in-washington/ 6/29/14, MRM

Seattle, WA – The maritime industry in Washington State generated a total of $30 billion in direct, indirect and induced revenues in 2012 and is responsible for over 148,000 workers according to a comprehensive study commissioned by the Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County and the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County with support from the Puget Sound Regional Council. Maritime wages in general are close to or greater than the state median wage of $51,000, averaging $70,800 per year. The industry, as a whole, paid nearly $4 billion in wages in 2012.

The Washington State Maritime Cluster Economic Impact Study conducted by Seattle-based research firm Community Attributes, which included interviews with more than 35 regional leaders in the maritime sector, sought to quantify the impact of the maritime industry across Washington State in order to better understand and strengthen its contribution to the regional economy.

Industry wide, revenues have grown 6.4% per year on average with Maritime Logistics and Shipping seeing the highest growth rate at 10.2%. The job outlook for the sector also appears rosy, with ample opportunities for job seekers. Retaining and recruiting skilled employees is a top priority for the cluster.

Econ collapse -> War

Nuclear war, terrorism, democratic backsliding

Harris and Burrows 9 - *PhD in Euro History, **member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit

Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf

Increased Potential for Global Conflict

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Statistics prove

Royal 10 — Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense

Jedediah, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises?”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. 'Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.77 Mb.

Share with your friends: