Things to add for future Impacts for addons Bio-d / Amazon rainforest impact 1ac Plan
Download 0.97 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Multitude of causes for species loss – plan doesn’t solve them all
- Unnecessary fees and self-interest prevent biologists from inhibiting species loss
- Biodiversity loss inevitable
- Biodiversity is resilient
- Species loss is overblown
- Species loss is exaggerated and not based on any hard evidence
AT: BiodiversityBiodiversity loss inevitableGoméz-Pompa 04; (Arturo, university professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Sciences at the University of California, “The Role of Biodiversity Scientists in a Troubled World,” BioScience, March 2004, pp.217-225, BioOne) Even as biological devastation occurs unchecked throughout the world, biodiversity scientists who are willing to risk their lives to collect rare or unknown taxa for scientific purposes—entering guerrilla-inhabited areas, coca plantations, malaria-infested locations, or areas in the process of deforestation by forest exploitation—can experience months of waiting as they try to obtain official collecting permits. To obtain the permits, they may have to accept nonsensical requests, such as determining the number of new species that they expect to find and the number of specimens that they will be collecting. They may have to prepare quarterly reports of the fieldwork in process. The most frustrating part of this process is the lack of precise information on the application requirements and on the time needed to obtain a permit. This problem is not unique to developing countries. In the United States, scientists complain about their inability to undertake important biodiversity research. In areas that are or will be protected because of species of concern, restrictions resulting from written and unwritten rules have resulted in the loss of existing permits or the refusal to issue new ones. Restrictions often change on a monthly or daily basis, preventing valuable information from being gathered. In most cases, permits are required for each individual administrative unit (state, county, and agency). These units include each national forest, Bureau of Land Management property, national park, county park, and so on. No scientist can be expected to predict an unusual event that will trigger an important biological process, and thus to request all the necessary permits beforehand. In many cases, important new findings are being lost because of the regulations that frustrate some of our most renowned scientists. Multitude of causes for species loss – plan doesn’t solve them allFERN 09; (Forests and the European Union Resource Network, created by the World Rainforest Movement, http://www.fern.org/pages/cbd/bioloss.html) The number of species on Earth has been variously estimated to be between 10 and 100 million, although only 1.7 million of them have been described so far. To date, the loss of biodiversity is greater that at any time in the past. Some 100 species are being lost every day. Even the most insignificant-seeming species can play a crucial role in the ecosystem to which it belongs. We simply do not know what we are throwing away. Forest ecosystems are among those facing the most severe biodiversity loss.Causes of biodiversity loss The major direct causes of biodiversity loss are the fragmentation, degradation or loss of habitats; the over-exploitation of natural resources; pollution; the introduction of non-native (alien, or exotic) species and climate change. Among the most important underlying causes of biodiversity loss are ill-fitted policies, undefined lands and resources rights, and the macro-economic context which affects both peoples and ecosystems alike.The CBD recognises that the conservation of biological diversity is an integral part of sustainable development and promotes the integration of environmental conservation with economic development, arguing that sustainable development is only possible if the earth's renewable resources are consumed in a sustainable way. Unnecessary fees and self-interest prevent biologists from inhibiting species lossGoméz-Pompa 04; (Arturo, university professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Sciences at the University of California, “The Role of Biodiversity Scientists in a Troubled World,” BioScience, March 2004, pp.217-225, BioOne) In most cases, scientists must pay fees to be allowed to do research and make collections. I believe that this is another unnecessary obstacle to scientific discovery. Scientists should not pay fees for doing research that is of general interest and benefit to all. Instead, they should be allowed to use these resources in exchange for accepting students and collaborating with local scientists. I am sure that most visiting scientists are willing to do this. I understand the deep inequalities between developed and developing countries in terms of their scientific infrastructure, which may motivate these fees in the developing world. Yet often the government officials who promote such fees fail to recognize the need to conduct biodiversity research and to involve local scientists and students: Pay a fee, they seem to say, and you need do no more. Showing little concern for the safety of scientists or the importance of the research, they focus instead on the fear that biological riches will be stolen without compensation.Some historical examples, such as Hevea from Brazil and Cinchona from Ecuador, have been used again and again to justify these regulations. There is a widespread myth that if the seeds of these trees had not left the countries of origin, the wealth produced by their discovery could have benefited the people there. Unfortunately, the history of introduction, cultivation, and domestication of trees does not support this myth. There are many variables that need to be considered to successfully introduce a new crop into cultivation. We should remember the case of coffee, which came from the mountains of Ethiopia and was introduced to Asia and America, and that of cacao, which was introduced from Mesoamerica to South America and Africa. Generally, crops do best when they are grown far from their place of origin, in places where they can escape (at least for a while) their biotic enemies. Biodiversity loss inevitablePynn 07; (Larry, staff writer at The Vancouver Sun, “Global warming not biggest threat: expert,” The Vancouver Sun, http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6e2988da-31ab-4697-810d-7a008306d571&p=1) "We all worry about climate change, as we should, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about protecting habitat," says James Grant, a biology professor at Concordia University in Montreal and co-author of a new report on threats to endangered species in Canada. "The really immediate causes right now for many species are things like farming, urbanization and habitat loss caused by the direct things we do." Research by Grant and his pupils shows the biggest threat is habitat loss at 84 per cent, overexploitation 32 per cent, native species interactions 31 per cent, natural causes 27 per cent, pollution 26 per cent, and introduced species 22 per cent. On average, species are threatened by at least two of the six categories. Human activities representing the biggest source of habitat loss and pollution are not industrial resource extraction, but agriculture at 46 per cent and urbanization at 44 per cent. "Farming is huge," Grant said in an interview. "The Prairies are one of the most affected habitats in the world. We've turned them into wheat fields." The southern Okanagan-Similkameen is another example, home to about one-third of species at risk in B.C. as well as a thriving agricultural industry, including vineyards, and increased urban development. Biodiversity is resilientLomborg 01; (Bjørn, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Danish author, academic, “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World,” Cambridge University Press, originally published in Danish in 1998) The correlation between the number of species and area was formulated by the biologist E.O. Wilson in the late 1960s. The model seem appealingly intuitive. Its logic is that the more space there is the more species can exist. The theory was launched in order to explain the number of species on islands, and it works well in this context. Wilson formulated a rule of thumb: if the area is reduced by 90 percent, then the number of species will be halved. But the question is, of course, whether the theory for islands can be used on large and forested areas such as rainforests. If islands get smaller, there is nowhere to escape. If, on the other hand, one tract of rainforest is cut down, many animals and plants can go on living in the surrounding areas. One obvious thing to do would be to look at our own experiment, the one carried out in Europe and North America. In both places, primary forest was reduced by approximately 98-99 percent. In the US, the eastern forests were reduced over two centuries to fragments totaling just 1-2 percent of their original area, but nonetheless this resulted in the extinction of only one forest bird. The largest tropical study of the correlation between rainforest and the extinction of species was carried out in Puerto Rico by Ariel Lugo of the United States Department of Agriculture. He found that the primary forest had been reduced by 99 percent of a species of 400 years. “Only” seven out of 60 species of birds had become extinct although the island today is home to 97 species of birds. This indicates a serious problem with Wilson’s rule of thumb. And what is perhaps more astonishing is that even though the area of primary forest on Puerto Rico was reduced by 99 percent they ended up with more species of birds? Species loss is overblownFoster 7; (Peter, journalist, author, winner of the National Business Book Award, “Exaggerated extinctions,” 9.13.07, The Financial Post, http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=d52e2756-4cb9-4122-bf24-2cd1fd9e1ab2&k=26101&p=2) But there are less attractive aspects of human nature, and one of them is the tendency to exploit humanity's finer instincts in pursuit of power, pelf and status. Hence "biodiversity" has been turned into a political issue, which has been taken up by the United Nations -- that fount of repressed and/or reflexive socialism -- and used as an excuse for bureaucratic empire building, cheered on by many well-meaning, and sometimes well-funded, professional naturalists. There is always one clear sign of those seeking to exploit any "problem" for political purposes: They will grossly exaggerate it.. This is frequently seen as morally justifiable. After all, action needs to be taken. So what's wrong with amping the facts? Plenty. Biodiversity is firmly and deliberately linked to alleged man-made climate change. It is the twin, and related, alleged "crisis" seized upon by the radical environmental movement and its power-and place-seeking promoters to justify radically curtailing economic activity. As such, an alleged ongoing "biotic holocaust" has become a central, unquestionable, tenet of radical environmentalism. But is it true? For a start, let's take a look at one glaring "fact:" the enormous discrepancy in the extinction numbers between the Field Museum and the IUCN. According to the IUCN, and despite its apocalyptic language, the total number of species that has gone extinct (since 1500) "has reached 785 and a further 65 are only found in captivity or cultivation." That's about 1.5 species a year. How can that figure possibly fit with the Field Museum's claims that the earth is losing 30,000 a year, and what does that tell us about the biodiversity "crisis"? Species loss is exaggerated and not based on any hard evidenceStevens 91; (William K., science reporter for the New York Times, author, “Species Loss: Crisis or False Alarm?” The New York Times, 8.20.91, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/20/science/species-loss-crisis-or-false-alarm.html?pagewanted=all) The skeptics have not yet had a chance to examine Dr. Wilson's latest assessments in detail, but they have attacked earlier, similar assessments made by him and other scientists. The critics say there simply is not enough information on which to build a reliable assessment. While species constitute a "valuable endowment" and should be protected, there is "a total lack of evidence" of a biological holocaust, said Dr. Julian Simon, a University of Maryland economist. He is perhaps better known for arguing that the world's resources, coupled with human ingenuity, can support a surging population. "We're being asked to take the entire scenario on faith" and on the judgment of those who advance it, he said. The warnings of mass extinction, he said, "seem like guesswork and hysteria." Other dissenters say there is a problem, but that its dimensions simply cannot be known at the moment. No one even knows the true number of species in the world, they say. This is acknowledged by Dr. Wilson and others who share his view. Only 1.4 million species have been identified worldwide, but estimates of South American species alone range from 5 million to 50 million, and estimates of global species range up to 100 million. "When you deal with that kind of error, it's hard to say what's happening," said Dr. Michael A. Mares, a zoologist at the University of Oklahoma who is an expert on neotropical habitats. Likewise, he said, it is difficult to come up with a rate of extinction when the geographical distribution of organisms is not known. "Most of them are invertebrates," he said. "We really don't have a good handle on whether or not they're going extinct and how rapidly. The problem is data right now." More should be known, he said, before the poor countries of the world are asked to make large sacrifices to preserve tropical forests. For his part, Dr. Mares said, he believes that the wolf is not yet at the door. "The wolf is coming," he said, "but he's coming later." It is "understandable that there's disagreement," said Dr. Jared Diamond, an ecologist at the University of California at Los Angeles who has examined the problem." Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.97 Mb. Share with your friends:
|