Environment improving – reject alarmist scenarios

Link

Oil Spill – no impact

Oil Spill impact exaggerated

Paul, MA in government from Harvard University and a BS in History and Science (biology concentration) from the U.S. Air Force Academy, completed a fellowship at the Property & Environment Research Center (PERC), “The Catastrophe That Wasn’t: The Gulf Oil Spill in Perspective,” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/08/false-catastrophe-bp-spill/

Nope, not even close. Put a drop of that oil onto a sheet of paper and carefully cut it in half. Now do it again and toss that quarter of a drop into the deep end. Even this quarter droplet (about the size of the comma in this sentence) is about 10% too large, but NOW you have a sense of what 4.9 million barrels of oil in the Gulf looks like.[1]

Now that we’ve grappled with the issue of scale, let’s look at the aftermath of this ‘catastrophe.’ According to the government scientists, seventy-five percent of that sliver of a droplet has now evaporated, been eaten by microbes, skimmed or burnt. (This estimate is in dispute, but every day the released oil is being reduced to get to that figure, if not beyond it.)

Now, you’re going to need to borrow your kid’s microscope for the rest of this exercise….

“Ah,” says the ecologist in you, “but oil is like poison to an ecosystem, and so any amount is disproportionately harmful.” Well, the science doesn’t agree, but let’s assume for the moment that you’re right. Ignoring that the vast majority of this poison-oil has already been happily consumed by portions of this delicate ecosystem, let’s pretend that oil is to the Gulf what botulinum toxin is to man (really bad news, as it’s the deadliest substance known). Distributed uniformly, oil would contaminate the water of the Gulf at a ratio of eight thousand millionths per gallon. If the same concentration of botulinum existed in your swimming pool, you could safely spend the day in it without a second thought.[2] Sure, oil is not distributed uniformly, but shrill cries about the “collapse” of the Gulf’s ecosystem imply that it effects are. It is indeed true that every action has reverberating ecological consequences, but if we delude ourselves into thinking this means disintegration then we risk making poor policy choices.

Good Intentions, Good Analysis, Good Policy

Please don’t misunderstand. I am firmly in the camp of those who think the Gulf ecosystem is a wonderful and valuable thing that we should never take for granted. Furthermore, it’s not my intention here to dismiss or minimize BP’s bungle. Neither am I suggesting cleanup shouldn’t continue with the utmost diligence. After all, “scale” matters not one whit if that sliver of oil washes into your crab pots. Legally, BP should be held to account for their negligence and must make whole anyone whose property or livelihood they have harmed.

But two lessons rise to the surface here. The first is to never underestimate the power of ecosystems to absorb shocks and adapt to change. While we should not treat Nature with reckless disregard, we should also not dishonor her by intimating that she stands in precarious balance, perennially on the brink of human-caused collapse. As ecology continues to develop as a science, I expect that it will be the extraordinary resilience of natural systems that will become the prevailing acknowledgment.

The second lesson is that we must demand a sense of perspective when dealing with issues of environmental concern. The natural inclination when faced with torrents of extremely focused media coverage is to extrapolate broadly to “the ecosystem” at large. Hysteria and fear do not make for good policy, however. An inability to properly understand ecological sensitivity leads to dire predictions which fuel misguided regulatory reaction.

For instance, President Obama’s intuition told him that, “everybody understands that when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implications not just for this generation, but for future generations.” A true statement, of course, since every action necessarily has “concrete implications.” The question is, how big are these implications? Do the imagined implications of this oil spill (foodweb collapse, fishery destruction, economic implosion of the Gulf Coast) warrant the sort of unwise knee-jerk decisions like the now-beleaguered six-month drilling moratorium which would have very surely precipitated vastly more destructive results?

The ecological implications of this spill, I submit, will be relatively transitory and minimal. While conceding that “nobody really knows” the long-term effects, scientists generally agree that the sky isn’t falling. Comparable “disasters” such as the 1991 Persian Gulf spill (in which the retreating Iraqi Army perpetrated the largest spill in history) or the Ixtoc 1 spill off the coast of Yucatan (which gushed 3.5 million barrels for 290 days) can give us clues. In both cases, within three years the ecology had returned to pre-spill equilibrium.

It would not be naively optimistic to expect a significantly more rapid recovery in the Gulf: conditions lend themselves well to natural oil degradation and very little oil has ended up in the vibrant coastal regions where life mostly congregates. It would be safe to assume that 99% of the spill’s effects (economic loss, fishery damage, species diversity/habitat loss) will have disappeared along with the oil in one year or less.

Ext. Oil Spill – no impact

Your predictions are wrong. Other factors play out in ecological effects other than oil.

Ecosystems correct for spills

Siegel 10

(Alan Siegel, journalist, “Is an Oil Spill Ever Good for Animals?” Slate, July 8, 2010, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/07/is_an_oil_spill_ever_good_for_animals.html, date accessed 7/02/13, Woojae)

Yes. Scientists don't know what makes it so resilient to the health effects of oil, but the blood-red-colored bristle worm known as Capitella capitata seems able to survive in a polluted environment. Indeed, it thrives. The worm's natural predators—shrimp, fish, and crabs—start to die off after a spill, leaving room for what's called ecological succession: The population of one species grows to fill a gap left by damage to another.¶ At up to 10 centimeters in length and about the width of a human hair, Capitella capitata may seem like the oil spill's tiny grim reaper. In fact, it could help to restore the Gulf ecosystem. The animals burrow into the sea floor to feed on organic matter deposited there. This movement circulates new water into the sediments and addresses one of the major problems after an oil spill—the depletion of oxygen in the ocean by the hungry bacteria that are working to break down pollutants. By churning up mud at the bottom of the Gulf, the worms release and recycle pockets of anoxic water, which in turn allows sediment bacteria to degrade more oil. (The flourishing micro-organisms also serve as food for the bristle worms.) The ecological interplay between worms and bacteria paves the way for the return of other species. Bolstered ¶ by higher oxygen levels and more worms to eat, the populations of fish, crab, and shrimp begin to increase.

Drilling – No Impact

No impact oil drilling has little effect on the ecosystem

Carter et al 06’

(Assheton Stewart Carter_, Keith Alger_, Larry Gorenflo_, Patricia Zurita (Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and Gas Development Prepared for “Biodiversity Opportunities in Latin American and the Caribbean: The Role of the IDB” A workshop at the Inter-American Development Bank July 28, 2006 CI Policy Paper http://www.conservation.org/global/celb/Documents/idb_paper_oilgasdevelopment.pdf)

Developing an oil or gas field is a precise operation – like a root canal – and if done well will have little physical and mostly local impacts, compared to the very grave and landscape-scale impacts of grow- ing agricultural commodities for export, for example. Yet, large natural resource companies, especially multinationals developing oil, gas and mineral resources in developing countries, have a poor environ- mental record (Warhurst 1992) and a turbulent history regarding relationships with their workforce and local communities (Stewart Carter 1999). Developing oil and gas resources is not an environmentally benign activity.

Lifting Embargo Bad

Turn – lifting the embargo would devastate the Cuban marine ecosystem and diverse environment

PBS 10

(PBS, September 29, 2010, “Cuba: The Accidental Eden,” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/cuba-the-accidental-eden/introduction/5728/, 6/28/13, Woojae)

Cuba may have been restricted politically and economically for the past 50 years, but its borders have remained open to wildlife for which Cuba’s undeveloped islands are an irresistible draw. While many islands in the Caribbean have poisoned or paved over their ecological riches on land and in the sea in pursuit of a growing tourist industry, Cuba’s wild landscapes have remained virtually untouched, creating a safe haven for rare and intriguing indigenous animals, as well as for hundreds of species of migrating birds and marine creatures. Coral reefs have benefited, too. Independent research has shown that Cuba’s corals are doing much better than others both in the Caribbean and around the world.

Scientific research in Cuba on creatures such as the notoriously aggressive “jumping” crocodile, and the famous painted snails, paired with long-term ecological efforts on behalf of sea turtles, has been conducted primarily by devoted local experts. Conservation and research in Cuba can be a constant struggle for scientists who earn little for their work. But their work is their passion, and no less important than that of those collecting larger salaries. NATURE follows these scientists as they explore the crocodile population of Zapata swamp, the birth of baby sea turtles, and the mysteries of evolution demonstrated by creatures that travel no more than 60 yards in a lifetime.

As the possibility of an end to the U.S. trade embargo looms, Cuba’s wildlife hangs in the balance. Most experts predict that the end of the embargo could have devastating results. Tourism could double, and the economic development associated with tourism and other industries could change the face of what was once a nearly pristine ecosystem. Or Cuba could set an example for development and conservation around the world, defining a new era of sustainability well beyond Cuba’s borders.

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 174.95 Kb.

Share with your friends: