Aff Starter Pack – Search for mh370


Nuclear materials module – Backlines



Download 1.41 Mb.
Page20/26
Date22.04.2018
Size1.41 Mb.
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   26

Nuclear materials module – Backlines




Maritime Security = includes Safety Measures, etc




( ) Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean includes safety and cracking-down on illegal activities.



Potgieter ‘12

Prof. TD (Thean) Potgieter is currently Chief Director Research and Innovation at PALAMA (Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy). His previous appointment was as Director of the Centre for Military Studies, Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University. He is also the Secretary-General of the South African of Military History Commission and is the recipient of a number of academic and military awards. “Maritime security in the Indian Ocean: strategic setting and features” – Institute for Security Studies – PAPER 236 – AUGUST 2012 – http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper236.pdf


Indian Ocean security is now no longer the domain of colonial states or superpowers, but has become multifaceted and dynamic. New role players such as India and China have become major powers, and new national alliances are changing the scene. But current global realities have introduced maritime security problems as non-state actors are influencing security in the area directly and fundamentally. This is a serious development since the rich Indian Ocean maritime trade, which includes much of the world’s energy trade, is crucial to the global economy. It seems that many of the lessons of centuries gone by are again being learned – rather than doing battle, navies have to project power and play a diplomatic role to maintain good order at sea. Maritime security is a broad, somewhat amorphous area of focus, and the relevant literature covers everything from physical safety and security measures to port security, terrorism and more. A coherent definition is therefore difficult to determine, but, for the purpose of this paper, maritime security deals with the prevention of illicit activities in the maritime domain. It could be linked directly to the national security efforts of a specific country, or it could cover regional and international efforts to enforce maritime security.

Coop Low Now

( ) Maritime environmental coop is workable, but it’s insufficient now.



Potgieter ‘12

Prof. TD (Thean) Potgieter is currently Chief Director Research and Innovation at PALAMA (Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy). His previous appointment was as Director of the Centre for Military Studies, Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University. He is also the Secretary-General of the South African of Military History Commission and is the recipient of a number of academic and military awards. “Maritime security in the Indian Ocean: strategic setting and features” – Institute for Security Studies – PAPER 236 – AUGUST 2012 – http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper236.pdf


Insufficient emphasis is placed on environmental security in the Indian Ocean, which is particularly serious since the degradation of the environment, climate change and the overexploitation of ocean resources are threatening the interests and futures of all the region’s countries and peoples. Sea temperatures in the Indian Ocean are rising quicker than elsewhere in the world, while more severe weather patterns and rising sea levels will most likely have adverse effects on natural systems and societies. They will increase the likelihood of flooding, resulting in loss of life and damage to property, as illustrated by recent tsunamis and cyclones. The existence of communities residing on low-lying islands such as the Maldives will be severely threatened. African countries are also likely to be affected adversely by climate change owing to the risks posed to food production and water resources. Since close to 40 per cent of Asia’s roughly four billion inhabitants live within 100 km of the coast, climate change is likely to affect their quality of life and security.37 The quality of coastal marine systems and seawater in the Indian Ocean is also deteriorating because of landbased pollution such as sewage, drainage and discharge, and marine-based pollution caused by shipping (spillage, ballast water), drilling and mining. Illegal waste-dumping is also of serious concern, in particular as the extent thereof is unknown. The waters off Somalia, in particular, have been badly affected as they are within easy reach of industrial countries, public awareness is low and influential locals have allowed toxic waste dumping to occur, usually in exchange for foreign currency payments. After the Asian tsunami, broken hazardous waste containers washed ashore in Somalia and, according to the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), Somalia has been a dumping ground for hazardous waste since the early 1990s. It is much cheaper for European companies to dispose of waste here than in other parts of the world, with, according to earlier estimations, the cost being as low as $2,50/t compared to $250/t elsewhere. Organised crime in Italy has been linked with this practice in particular.38 It is uncertain whether illegal waste dumping continues, but a UN report has warned that it can have serious health implications since industrial, hospital and chemical wastes can include uranium and radioactive wastes, leads, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. Because little information about the extent of such dumping is available, the exact impact cannot be calculated.39 Because of the growth in global prosperity and technological advances, competition for resources in and under the oceans, specifically energy and protein, is intensifying. World energy consumption is growing significantly, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. The fast-growing Indian and Chinese economies are forecast to be the key energy consumers in the future. As national efforts to control energy sources and to secure energy shipments are increasing, some observers contend that energy competition may result in conflict. However, a counter view is that it is in the common interest of the powers concerned to maintain a stable trading environment.

Regional Coop key on waste




( ) Enhanced coop is the best way to solve environmental threats in the Indian Ocean.



Potgieter ‘12

Prof. TD (Thean) Potgieter is currently Chief Director Research and Innovation at PALAMA (Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy). His previous appointment was as Director of the Centre for Military Studies, Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University. He is also the Secretary-General of the South African of Military History Commission and is the recipient of a number of academic and military awards. “Maritime security in the Indian Ocean: strategic setting and features” – Institute for Security Studies – PAPER 236 – AUGUST 2012 – http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper236.pdf


Discussion in this paper concentrated on the Indian Ocean’s strategic value, maritime security characteristics and threats, possible solutions, and international and regional cooperation. Nations in the region are keen to facilitate vibrant maritime commerce and economic activities at sea since these underpin economic security. At the same time they endeavour to protect their maritime domains against ocean-related threats such as piracy, criminal activities, terrorism, pollution, etc. These objectives can best be achieved by blending public and private maritime security activities, and by tackling maritime threats by integrating their efforts, ideally within a specific legal framework. Cooperation on maritime security is essential, since virtually all nations benefit from maritime activity.

Safe Transit key to Waste and Accidents




Secure energy transit vital to check accidents and illegal waste dumping.



A.I.I. ‘13

(The Australia India Institute, Task Force on Indian Ocean Security – editor and principal contributor is Dr. Dennis Rumley is an Associate Professor at the University of Western Australia.[1] He gained a PhD in political geography at the University of British Columbia. He is chairperson of the Indian Ocean Research Group Inc. He is also Chief Editor of The Journal of the Indian Ocean Region. “The Indian Ocean Region: Security, Stability and Sustainability in the 21st Century” – March 2013 – http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/IndianOceanSecurityTaskforce.pdf.)


As also noted earlier, it has been argued that the Indian Ocean is fast becoming a nuclear ocean139. What applies for the security of flows of oil also applies to other energy flows through the Indian Ocean, except that, in the case of uranium, there are important additional environmental security considerations, especially in relation to any movement of nuclear materials as well as the illegal dumping of nuclear waste (Figure 20).

A-to “Oceans resilient, alt causes”

Note to students : the Ayers ’13 card – in the “Answers to Fukushima” – is also strong on this arg



( ) Oceans not resilient and alt causes are a bad gamble. Best science and risk framing goes Aff.



Langston ‘11

(internally quoting Brad Warren, who directs the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s ocean acidification program. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) is an NGO working to reshape the world of corporate responsibility through the creation of powerful information tools and a methodology that allows companies to directly engage with suppliers of natural resources. Jennifer Langston is a researcher on sustainability issues and Sightline Daily editor – Formerly an author at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. This post is part of the research project: Northwest Ocean Acidification – “Are You a Banker or a Gambler?” – July 27th – http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/27/are-you-a-banker-or-a-gambler/)


Some might argue that oceans are resilient places, that nature abhors a vacuum, and that other kinds of algae or grasses that thrive in more acidic seas could replace losses at the bottom of the food web. In truth, we don’t yet know how complicated marine ecosystems will adapt to ocean acidification. The effects could range from minor to apocalyptic. In that sense, you get to choose how scared you want to be, says Brad Warren, who directs the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s ocean acidification program. But the most knowledgeable scientists tend to eschew the more optimistic view, he said. And a smart businessperson pays attention to signs of trouble, tries not to get caught behind the curve, and needs to rethink old strategies when they’re no longer working. In other words, says Warren: If you think of someone who has a fiduciary duty for the systems that feed us and provide jobs to half a billion people in the world—from subsistence hunting to those making a lot of money—one can view that with a gambler’s instinct or with a stewardship instinct. What would you rather be—a banker or a gambler—with this resource?

Resilient just means “re-charge” – which can’t happen unless environmental destruction slows.



Floyd ‘3

Mark Floyd has a bachelor’s degree in journalism and a master’s degree in interdisciplinary studies from Oregon State University. He has worked at OSU since 1981 and serves as writer and news editor. Internally quoting Jane Lubchenco is an environmental scientist and marine ecologist who teaches and does research at Oregon State University. “Ocean policies haven't kept up with science” – EurekAlert! – EurekAlert! is an online, global news service operated by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS is an international non-profit organization and is the World's Largest General Scientific Society – June 4th – http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/osu-oph060403.php


Many worthwhile initiatives grew out of that commission, she added, including the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the passage of fisheries management legislation. The commission’s recommendations reflected the knowledge and attitude of the day. "At the time, it was thought that our oceans were endlessly bountiful and infinitely resilient," Lubchenco said. "In those 30 years, we’ve discovered that neither is true." Lubchenco said the area of the ocean over which the U.S. has jurisdiction encompasses an area 23 percent larger than the entire U.S. landmass - in large part because of Hawaii and Pacific territories. Yet its remoteness has led to an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality about management. Science, common sense, and experience, she says, can help guide the nation toward sustainable ocean policies. "Recent scientific knowledge emphasizes managing on an ecosystem basis," Lubchenco said. "A focus on single species has caused unintended problems because it ignores by-catch, invasive species, and pollution. Knowing how the pieces fit together enables smarter and less wasteful management." "We have a wealth of information that is not being incorporated into policy and management." Lubchenco is a principal investigator for the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. PISCO, a program supported by a pair of five-year grants totaling $20 million from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, is studying the near-shore region of the Pacific Coast. OSU is one of four universities in the initiative, which Lubchenco says is a prototype for large-scale marine ecosystem-based research. What she and other scientists are discovering is that the world's oceans are resilient enough to rebound if they are managed properly. "The message is one we've learned from testing and studying marine reserves," she said, "and that is when you eliminate the destructive activities, the ocean can respond in bounteous fashion and recharge depleted areas outside the reserves. We simply need better stewardship."

( ) Rate of introduction and modern compounds will overwhelm ocean resilience.



Blundell ‘3

Sir Tom Blundell, Professor and Head of Department of Biochemistry, University Cambridge and Professorial Fellow, Sidney Sussex College. He is also chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution – ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION Twenty-fourth Report “CHEMICALS IN PRODUCTS SAFEGUARDING THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agriculturedefensecoalition.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Fcanada_52%2F52H_2003_Royal_Commission_on_Environmental_Pollution_24th_Report_Chemicals_in_Products_June_2003_Health.pdf&ei=eU6VU5v5C_Si8gHYmICABQ&usg=AFQjCNHkkHKUZSUbFY5T1gxw4-auEJwyyA


Chemicals are the basic units of the Earth and all living organisms. Even so, they have the capability to disrupt the processes of life or the physical environment. Most successful organisms, including humans, have developed sophisticated mechanisms for degrading or eliminating harmful substances.17 But these mechanisms, which have evolved over millions of years, cannot be assumed to be successful in coping with the synthetic chemicals that have only been introduced into the environment over the last hundred years or so. Similarly, the chemistries of the atmosphere and of the oceans are resilient but not to the extent that they can continue to absorb this relatively sudden influx of huge amounts of chemicals resulting from human activities without impact. Direct effects through interference with the regulatory systems of living organisms, or indirect effects through physical processes such as ozone depletion, may not manifest themselves for many years. In such cases, the adverse consequences of exposure to synthetic chemicals could become increasingly important as people live longer, as our knowledge of the functioning of ecosystems increases, and as improvements in technology increase our awareness of degradation of the physical environment. It remains possible that some chemicals entering the environment will have serious long-term effects – effects that are not being tested for, indeed effects for which tests have not yet been developed. Regulators may not be asking the right questions about the impacts of chemicals on the physical and biological environment, or on human health.

( ) Resiliency not infinite. Must reverse trends now in order to recover from damage already-done.



Tulloch ‘9

Internally quoting Ben Halpern, a scientists from the Zoological Society of London – James Tulloch – Editor at Allianz – Allianz November 18th – 2009 – http://www.conocimiento.allianz.com.ar/?513/climate-change-and-overfishing-top-threats-to-oceans


The future looks bleak, but there is hope. “Oceans are resilient, says Halpern, “if we act soon they can recover.” Dead zones can be eliminated. Whales and seals hunted to near extinction did recover once protected. Some sectors are acting. Merchant shipping is cutting the risk of oil spills by banning single-hulled ships from 2010, and trying to reduce the spread of invasive species via ballast water. More stubborn is the fishing industry. The obvious answer is to fish less. As The Economist magazine points out, “nothing did so much good for fish stocks in northern Europe in the past 150 years as the Second World War”. Trawlers stuck in port allowed fisheries to revive. Abolishing government subsidies for fishing, and for trawler fuel, is one strategy. Individual transferable quotas, or ‘catch shares’, is another, giving partial ownership of a fish stock. This has worked in Iceland, New Zealand, and the western United States. “Fishers become very interested in making sure the stock is healthy and sustainable when their income depends on it,” says Halpern. It could also protect stocks in developing countries from marauding foreign factory ships. Marine reserves are a proven solution, argues Norris. “We have to move from hunter-gatherer mode to having the oceans more tightly managed.” Coral reef reserves in Indonesia and Kenya, and kelp forest reserves in New Zealand and South Africa, have successfully revived biodiversity. They would also maintain the seas as effective carbon sinks, says the United Nations, which wants a global ‘Blue Carbon’ regime (like REDD for forests) to protect ecosystems like mangroves and salt marshes. The oceans can no longer be a free-for-all. A combination of preservation, regulation, and ownership—‘marine planning’ or ‘ecosystem management’is the best bet to save our seas. Otherwise the places where life started will become lifeless.


( ) Resiliency thesis false. Alt causes just feed the brink.



Diwakar ‘10

Dr. Prasoon Diwakar – Center for Materials Under eXtreme Environment, Purdue University. He holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. He is a former employee at the Center for Disease Control. He has an academic and research background in Mechanical Engineering, Analytical Chemistry, Environmental Engineering, and Environmental Chemistry – “The Deep Blue: World Ocean Day” – Science is Beautiful – June 9, 2010 – http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-deep-blue-world-ocean-day


World Ocean day was celebrated yesterday, June 8th. The importance of protecting our Oceans and it’s ecosystem can not be emphasized more in the wake of BP oil spill disaster. But it’s not like we have not been polluting our Oceans before this spill. We keep doing that on a regular basis– industrial waters, overfishing, excessive usage of plastic bags ending up in ocean currents , Ocean acidification due to excessive anthropogenic CO2 and list goes on. It is likely that roughly one billion gallons of oil enters our oceans each year as a result of man’s activities. Only 8% of this input is believed to derive from natural sources. At least 22% is intentionally released as a function of normal tanker “operational discharges,” 12% enters from accidental tanker spills and another 36% from runoff and municipal and industrial wastes. [American Zoologist , 1993]. I keep hearing politicians and people talking about that our Oceans are resilient and it can tolerate any kind of garbage we put in. No it is not. It can do to a limit (depending on the type of waste we are putting in, amount of waste, and time available to the marine organisms to bounce back) and I think we have already crossed that limit. The Ocean ecosystem is very fragile due to all the mess we have put in there and I would prefer to see beautiful marine life rather see images of dark crude oil gushing out incessantly. I have stopped updating about BP spill because its beyond my comprehension now seeing the response of BP, politicians, News channels. It’s not the time to get political mileage out of the disaster. When BP should be concentrating on the spill and cleaning beaches, paying out affected locals, it’s busy in PR campaign to clean it’s image. Search for BP spill on Google and you will find first sponsored link from BP.. then Tony Hayward, CEO BP, talking about how he and BP will make things right in a new BP commercial with beaches shown in the background… Action is the best PR not mere words, telling lies and getting exposed is worst PR.. Brown pelicans drenched in crude oil exposes all the lies of the amount of spill.. Is it 5,000 gallons per day, 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or more, no one knows. Is it that hard to estimate the amount of spill knowing the dimensions of pipe, flow rates, temperature, viscosity etc?

A-to “Alt Cause – Fukushima”




***Fukushima put the ocean on the edge. Recovery is possible – but not if we cross forthcoming tipping points.



Ayers ‘13

Internally quoting Dr. Sylvia Alice Earle – who is a marine biologist, explorer, author, and lecturer. Since 1998 she has been a National Geographic explorer-in-residence. Earle was the first female chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and was named by Time Magazine as its first Hero for the Planet in 1998. Jane Ayers is an independent journalist that has written pieces for USA Today, Los Angeles Times Interview, The Nation, SF Chronicle, Truthout. She is also Director of her own Media outlet. “Women Say 'Enough is Enough' to Climate Changes Worldwide” – NATION OF CHANGE – Published: Friday 11 October 2013 – http://www.nationofchange.org/women-say-enough-enough-climate-changes-worldwide-1381498329


Concerning the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Dr. Earle lamented,Radioactivity is one more impact we have infected into the ocean system. Oceans are resilient but we are facing tipping points. With carbon at 400/ we have crossed the line. How much decline in plankton is acceptable? We all like to breathe but if we destroy the systems that make oxygen and that take up the carbon, then what? This is the last time we have to assert ourselves and make it right. Most oxygen is generated by creatures in the sea. Everyone has a stake in this. Yes, we need to take care of the water, but we also need to take care of the living parts of the water, i.e. the fish.” Pointing to a crossroads mankind is facing, Dr. Earle explained, “I joked at the International Women for Earth & Climate Summit that women can help find solutions to climate change by focusing on the oceans because half the fish in the ocean are female. But seriously, we are in a moment in time, at a crossroads, where we are facing global rising sea levels, floods increasing, etc. We are at a pivotal point in time, and I am emphasizing the role of oceans to governments, and the world. The plankton play a largely neglected role but they generate the oxygen that takes up the carbon. The plankton are most important to humankind surviving, and makes the planet function properly. “ Stating that the ocean keeps us alive, Dr. Earle explained, “Most people might think the ocean is only a source of recreation or fishing. But we must recognize that the ocean keeps us alive. It is a cornerstone of life’s system, and only now are we appreciating how important oceans are to every breath we take, to every drink of water we injest. We have impacted the oceans over the last fifty years, and now we have an unprecedented chance to solve some of these problems.”

( ) Shipments outweigh Fukushima:

A – Fukushima had limited ocean impact – quick response, better safety.



Massey ‘12

Nathanael Massey – Reporter at Environment&Energy Publishing and formerly a Fellow in Environmental Journalism at Middlebury College – “Computer Model Predicts Fewer Than 200 Deaths from Fukushima Radiation” – Scientific American – Jul 17, 2012 – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/computer-model-predicts-fewer-than-200-deaths-fukushima-radiation/


Fukushima's radioactive release was also limited by more stringent safety measures and a quicker response time, the report notes. The remaining 20 percent of leaked radioactive material traveled through the air, moving with atmospheric currents, until it was eventually deposited on land. While the vast majority of grounded radioactive material has been detected in Japan, smaller traces have been detected as far away as North America and Europe.

B – Shipments differ from Fukushima – will spread globally and won’t direct towards land.



Welming ‘7

Lisa Welming – this MA thesis was approved by Lars-Göran Malmberg, who is Currently a Professor in public law and transportation law at Juridiska Institutionen, and formerly a Professor of Law at the Univ of Lund – “The Transportation of Nuclear Cargo at Sea Shrinkage of the Right of Innocent Passage?” – Autumn 2007 – http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1562917/file/1566116.pdf


Hazardous cargo transported at sea is exposed to special influence emanating from the sea itself. This can be for example the direct contact with salt water and the effect thereof on the cargo. It can also be the exposure to rough sea that can damage the cargo and result in a leakage of the dangerous substances. Another aspect when transporting cargo at sea is the various types of weather that the cargo encounters during a long voyage. It is not unusual that a ship during a transport passes through several climate zones and is exposed to both considerable heat and harsh cold.78 These particular problems related to transportation at sea apply to all types of cargoes carried over seas. Even so, there is one category of cargo that, when transported at sea, creates yet more challenging problems. This is cargo with nuclear or radioactive contents. Nuclear power is a relatively new phenomenon that showed its potential devastating power in the final days of World War II after ruining entire cities and regions. Nuclear substances are a type of material that is especially dangerous to humanity and the environment. However, it was not until the Chernobyl accident in 1986 that the world really became aware of the potential danger of nuclear power. The risk of being subjected to radioactive contamination and exposed to radiation, which creates long-term health risks, is today evidently a part of our lives.79 The impact that nuclear substances can have on land is one thing but the effect of a nuclear accident at sea is much greater. This has to do with the nature of the oceans. They are in constant flow, never still, and they spread throughout the whole world. Consequently, a nuclear accident at sea can spread quickly and is not restricted to one region only. At land such an accident could more easily be taken care of while at sea it threatens to spread throughout the world and contaminate the entire marine environment.80 In respect of the specific dangers associated with the transportation of dangerous cargo at sea, the legal world has set up a wide range of legal documents to protect the marine environment from the risk posed by these shipments. Some of these documents, including treaties and codes from the IMO, will be dealt with in the following section.

A-to “Nuclear cargo will be safe”




( ) Accident inevitable – can’t rule out human and mechanical error



Chi ‘13

Yvonne – Legal Intern at Earthjustice, Summer Intern, Civil Division, Appeals Section at State of Alaska Department of Law, Attorney General's Office. She is currently completing her LawDegree at Cal Berkeley. This article was published in the Ecology Law Quarterly – “Oceans in the Nuclear Age: The Need for Comprehensive International Environmental Regulations” – August 2013 – http://www.boalt.org/elq/documents/12_Chi_Website.pdf



Tensions between nuclear countries exporting radioactive material and coastal countries whose waters carry such shipments also highlight the need for effective international protocols to facilitate communication. For instance, Japan exports nuclear waste to Britain and France for reprocessing and imports the reprocessed fuel.19 This back-and-forth shipping between France and Japan is made possible via passage through the Panama Canal, and has exposed the Caribbean countries to the danger of nuclear fallouts.20 Since 1992, the Caribbean countries have demonstrated unwavering opposition to the shipment of this nuclear material. The states with nuclear technology have defended such passages as “innocent” passages during which the nuclear transports meet all requirements and standards for safety.21 Additionally, they have argued that nuclear energy helps to satisfy the demand for electricity and mitigates air pollution.22 But dissenters are unconvinced that such safety measures are adequate. Many have argued that fragmented evaluations of particular shipments fail to address the issue that continued transport would inevitably lead to a catastrophic accident which would greatly endanger the population.23 Additionally, the Caribbean states have advanced their opposition using scientific evidence emphasizing the importance of the Caribbean’s coral reefs, which garner much economic value and health benefits.24 To resolve the dispute between the states that ship nuclear material and coastal states, countries must address the issues of alternative energy production,25 the passage of nuclear waste as it relates to the long established right of innocent passage,26 and the impossibility of preventing human or mechanical error absolutely.27

( ) Nuclear cargo on the high sea is at unique risk



Welming ‘7

Lisa Welming – this MA thesis was approved by Lars-Göran Malmberg, who is Currently a Professor in public law and transportation law at Juridiska Institutionen, and formerly a Professor of Law at the Univ of Lund – “The Transportation of Nuclear Cargo at Sea Shrinkage of the Right of Innocent Passage?” – Autumn 2007 – http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1562917/file/1566116.pdf



Hazardous cargo transported at sea is exposed to special influence emanating from the sea itself. This can be for example the direct contact with salt water and the effect thereof on the cargo. It can also be the exposure to rough sea that can damage the cargo and result in a leakage of the dangerous substances. Another aspect when transporting cargo at sea is the various types of weather that the cargo encounters during a long voyage. It is not unusual that a ship during a transport passes through several climate zones and is exposed to both considerable heat and harsh cold.78 These particular problems related to transportation at sea apply to all types of cargoes carried over seas. Even so, there is one category of cargo that, when transported at sea, creates yet more challenging problems. This is cargo with nuclear or radioactive contents.


A-to “Aff Science = epistemology wrong”

( ) no epistemological bias. Scientists practicing different marine disciplines have all reached the same conclusion as the Aff.



Hartz ‘13

(Internally quoting the International Programme on the State of the Ocean. IPSO is a not for profit company registered in the United Kingdom. IPSO is a unique consortium of scientists and other Ocean experts, including those from the legal, communications and political arenas, created to identify the current problems affecting the global ocean. John Hartz – reporter for the website Skeptical Science – “Ocean In Critical State from Cumulative Impacts” – This article is a reprint of the press release, Latest Review of Science Reveals Ocean in Critical State From Cumulative Impacts, posted by the The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) on Oct 3, 2013. It is reposted on the website Skeptical Science – http://www.theconsensusproject.com/Ocean-In-Critical-State-from-Cumulative-Impacts_IPSO.html)


Professor Alex Rogers of Somerville College, Oxford, and Scientific Director of IPSO said: “The health of the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.” The findings, published in the peer review journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, are part of an ongoing assessment process overseen by IPSO, which brings together scientists from a range of marine disciplines. The body’s previous 2011 report, which warned of the threat of ‘globally significant’ extinctions of marine species, received global media attention and has been cited in hearings at the United Nations, US Senate and European Parliament as well as the UK Parliament.

Our paradigm of the precautionary principle inverts their epistemology arg. It’s okay to act before the science is 1000% settled.



Marr ‘3

Dr Simon Marr works at the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety where he is in charge of climate policy matters of the European Union. The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea: Modern Decision Making in International Law –



p. 9-11
The precautionary principle, however, requires environmental action at an earlier step: It provides a tool for dealing with situations where there is a potential hazard, but scientific uncertainty as to the impact of the environmentally sensitive activity does not allow a clear prediction of the degree of the hazards to the environment. Thus, its core characteristic feature is environmental action in the face of scientific certainty. To this end a number of different formulations exist,31 such as "absence of adequate scientific information",32 "no scientific proof,33 "no conclusive evidence",34 or "lack of full scientific certainty"". For some authors, precautionary measures go even further by requiring the "reduction and prevention of environmental impacts irrespective of the existence of risks".36 This approach, however, seems difficult to achieve since one of the premises for triggering precautionary action is the notion that the desired activity could be somehow hazardous to the environment. Hence, as Gerd Winter has already noted, "risks by definition37 cannot be excluded because there will always remain a small probability of possible minor harm". Moreover, this notion seems to find no support in the various legal formulations in international agreements which establish a threshold for justifying environmental action, for example, "threats of serious or irreversible damage",39 "reason to assume",40 or "reasonable grounds"41 for an environmental hazard.42 It remains true, however, that the precautionary principle does not only call for evaluating the different risks, but also implies that we should do more about some types of risk than others. Daniel Bodansky argues that in a situation of a similar risk - for example, where there is a 50 per cent risk that two dolphins will die and a situation of a one-to-a-million risk that a million dolphins will die - a risk neutral person would be indifferent to the decision whether to take extra precautions to prevent the environmental impact.43 In contrast, the precautionary principle requires action in order to avoid the risk to the lives of the million dolphins. The idea that even in the absence of scientifically proven risk protective measures should be taken also rejects the so called "assimilative capacity" approach to environmental policy, thus signalling a shift in paradigm. This approach is based on the notion that the ocean has the capacity to assimilate or absorb a certain amount of environmental pollution.45 States - for example, Finland and the Soviet Union in 1964 - have concluded treaties to enhance the capacity for assimilative pollution. The problem with the assimilative capacity approach, however, lies in the fact that it cannot protect the environment until harm is evident. Thus, as Alan Boyle noted, this shift is marked by "a movement away from concentration on the transboundary impact of pollution on neighbouring states and the emergence of a broader concern for the global environment, in which its intrinsic value and its intergenerational implications are given much greater significance than before".47 Starting from the assumption that the precautionary principle provides a tool for preventing harm to the environment, one has to ask whether it requires policy makers to take action. Since the precautionary principle operates with various different versions in international agreements, two rough differentiations can be made: the action- and the deliberation-guiding versions.48 In the face of scientific uncertainties the action-guiding approach requires action to prevent possibly damaging effects of human practice that may be damaging the environment.49 The deliberation-guiding approach does not expressly call for action but stipulates that lack of evidence shall not be used as a reason to postpone action against a potentially damaging practice.50 Whereas the action-guiding version directly calls for a response to environmental risks the deliberation-guiding version docs not. It simply places "constraints on what can be considered in the course of deliberation about whether to undertake this sort of action".51 The latter is thus less stringent than the former.

( ) Epistemology K comes 2nd and assumes zero foresight. At worst, we’re just a little off.



Cowen ‘4

Tyler, Department of Economics at George Mason University, "The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism," November 2, http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/Epistemic2.pdf, p. 14-15


The epistemic critique relies heavily on a complete lack of information about initial circumstances. This is not a plausible general assumption, although it may sometimes be true. The critique may give the impression of relying more heavily on a more plausible assumption, namely a high variance for the probability distribution of our estimates concerning the future. But simply increasing the level of variance or uncertainty does not add much force to the epistemic argument. To see this more clearly, consider another case of a high upfront benefit. Assume that the United States has been hit with a bioterror attack and one million children have contracted smallpox. We also have two new experimental remedies, both of which offer some chance of curing smallpox and restoring the children to perfect health. If we know for sure which remedy works, obviously we should apply that remedy. But imagine now that we are uncertain as to which remedy works. The uncertainty is so extreme that each remedy may cure somewhere between three hundred thousand and six hundred thousand children. Nonetheless we have a slight idea that one remedy is better than the other. That is, one remedy is slightly more likely to cure more children, with no other apparent offsetting negative effects or considerations. Despite the greater uncertainty, we still have the intuition that we should try to save as many children as possible. We should apply the remedy that is more likely to cure more children. We do not say: “We are now so uncertain about what will happen. We should pursue some goal other than trying to cure as many children as possible.” Nor would we cite greater uncertainty about longer-run events as an argument against curing the children. We have a definite good in the present (more cured children), balanced against a radical remixing of the future on both sides of the equation. The definite upfront good still stands firm. Alternatively, let us assume that our broader future suddenly became less predictable (perhaps genetic engineering is invented, which creates new and difficult-to-forecast possibilities). That still would not diminish the force of our reason for saving more children. The variance of forecast becomes larger on both sides of the equation – whether we save the children or not – and the value of the upfront lives remains. A higher variance of forecast might increase the required size of the upfront benefit (to overcome the Principle of Roughness), but it would not refute the relevance of consequences more generally. We could increase the uncertainty more, but consequentialism still will not appear counterintuitive. The remedies, rather than curing somewhere in the range of three to six hundred thousand children, might cure in the broader range of zero to all one million of the children. By all classical statistical standards, this new cure scenario involves more uncertainty than the previous case, such as by having a higher variance of possible outcomes. Yet this higher uncertainty lends little support for the view that curing the children becomes less important. We still have an imperative to apply the remedy that appears best, and is expected the cure the greater number of children. This example may appear excessively simple, but it points our attention to the non-generality of the epistemic critique. The critique appears strongest only when we have absolutely no idea about the future; this is a special rather than a general case. Simply boosting the degree of background generic uncertainty should not stop us from pursuing large upfront benefits of obvious importance.


Download 1.41 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   26




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page