Kennedy 2 (Victor, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate Change, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine.cfm)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable. Some species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to climate change.
No Resource Wars – Three Reasons
Deudney 99 – (Dan, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins, Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics, Eds. Deudney & Matthews p 205-6)
The hypothesis that states will begin fighting each other as natural resources are depleted and degraded seems intuitively accurate. The popular metaphor of a lifeboat adrift at sea with declining supplies of clean water and rations suggests there will be fewer opportunities for positive-sum gains between actors as resource scarcity grows. Many fears of resource war are derived from the cataclysmic world wars of the first half of the twentieth century Influenced by geopolitical theories that emphasized the importance of land and resources for great power status, Adolf Hitler fashioned Nazi German war aims to achieve resource autonomy. The aggression of Japan was directly related to resource goals: lacking indigenous fuel and minerals, and faced with a slowly tightening embargo by the Western colonial pow ers in Asia, the Japanese invaded Southeast Asia for oil, tin, and rub ber. Although the United States had a richer resource endowment than the Axis powers, fears of shortages and industrial strangulation played a central role in the strategic thinking of American elites about world strategy. During the Cold War, the presence of natural resources in the Third World helped turn this vast area into an arena for East-West conflict. Given this record, the scenario of conflicts over resources playing a powerful role in shaping international order should be taken seriously. However, there are three strong reasons for concluding that the familiar scenarios of resource war are of diminishing plausibility for the foreseeable future. First, the robust character of the world trade system means that states no longer experience resource dependency as a major threat to their military security and political autonomy. During the 1930s, the collapse of the world trading system drove states to pursue economic autarky, but the resource needs of contemporary states are routinely met without territorial control of the resource source. As Ronnie Lipschutz has argued, this means that re source constraints are much less likely to generate interstate violence than in the past. Second, the prospects for resource wars are diminished by the growing difficulty that states face in obtaining resources through territorial conquest. Although the invention of nuclear explosives has made it easy and cheap to annihilate humans and infrastructure in extensive areas, the spread of conventional weaponry and national consciousness has made it very costly for an invader, even one equipped with advanced technology, to subdue a resisting population, as France discovered in Indochina and Algeria, the United States in Vietnam, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. At the lower levels of violence capability that matter most for conquering and subduing territory; the great powers have lost effective military superiority and are unlikely soon to regain it. Third, nonrenewable resources are, contrary to intuitive logic, becoming less economically scarce. There is strong evidence that the world is entering what H. E. Goeller and Alvin M. Weinberg have labeled the “age of substitutability,” in which industrial technology is increasingly capable of fashioning ubiquitous and plentiful earth materials such as iron, aluminum, silicon, and hydrocarbons into virtually everything needed by modem societies. The most striking manifestation of this trend is that prices for virtually every raw material have been stagnant or falling for the last two decades despite the continued growth in world economic output. In contrast to the expectations widely held during the 1970s that resource scarcity would drive up commodity prices to the benefit of Third World raw material suppliers, prices have fallen.
Chang 11 – Graduated Cornell Law School (Gordon G., Feb 21, “Global Food Wars” http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/02/21/global-food-wars/)
In any event, food-price increases have apparently been factors in the unrest now sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. The poor spend up to half their disposable income on edibles, making rapid food inflation a cause of concern for dictators, strongmen, and assorted autocrats everywhere. So even if humankind does not go to war over bad harvests, Paskal may be right when she contends that climate change may end up altering the global map. This is not the first time in human history that food shortages looked like they would be the motor of violent geopolitical change. Yet amazing agronomic advances, especially Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution in the middle of the 20th century, have consistently proved the pessimists wrong. In these days when capitalism is being blamed for most everything, it’s important to remember the power of human innovation in free societies—and the efficiency of free markets.
There is no threat and at worst it will only mean cooperation
Burger et al. 10 – Kees Burger Development Economics, Corresponding author, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg, Jeroen Warner AND Eefje Derix Disaster Studies, Wageningen Universit “Governance of the world food system and crisis prevention” http://www.stuurgroepta.nl/rapporten/Foodshock-web.pdf
Both European water and agricultural policies are based on the belief that there will always be cheap food aplenty on the world market. A recent British report 23 reflects this optimism. Although production is now more prone to world market price shocks, their effects on farm incomes are softened by extensive income supports (van Eickhout et al. 2007). Earlier, in a 2003 report, a European group of agricultural economists wrote: Food security is no longer a prime objective of European food and agricultural policy. There is no credible threat to the availability of the basic ingredients of human nutrition from domestic and foreign sources. If there is a food security threat it is the possible disruption of supplies by natural disasters or catastrophic terrorist action. The main response necessary for such possibilities is the appropriate contingency planning and co-ordination between the Commission and Member States (Anania et al. 2003). Europe, it appears, feels rather sure of itself, and does not worry about a potential food crisis. We are also not aware of any special measures on standby. Nevertheless a fledgling European internal security has been called into being that can be deployed should (food) crises strike. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) created a quasi-decision-making platform to respond to transboundary threats. Since 9/11 the definition of what constitutes a threat has been broadened and the protection capacity reinforced. In the Solidarity Declaration of 2003 member states promised to stand by each other in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or human-made calamity (the European Security Strategy of 2003). Experimental forms of cooperation are tried that leave member-state sovereignty intact, such as pooling of resources. The EU co-operates in the area of health and food safety but its mechanisms remain decentrslised by dint of the principle of subsidiarity. The silo mentality between the European directorates is also unhelpful, leading to Babylonian confusion. Thus, in the context of forest fires and floods the Environment DG refers to ‘civil protection’. The European Security and Defence Policy( ESDP) of 2006, which is hoped to build a bridge between internal and external security policy, on the other hand refers to ‘crisis management’, while the ‘security’ concept mainly pertains to pandemics (Rhinard et al. 2008: 512, Boin et al. 2008: 406).
No impact—last recession proves econ doesn’t determine conflict or instability
Barnett 2009 – senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC and a contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire magazine, columnist for World Politics Review (8/25, Thomas P.M. “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” World Politics Review, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx, WEA)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape.
None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions.
Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends.
And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces.
So, to sum up:
No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?);
The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places);
Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered);
No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy);
A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and
No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis.
Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis?
Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed.
Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis?
If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism.
At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please!
Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.
Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon?
Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.
Solomon et al ‘10 Susan Solomon et. Al, Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ph.D. in Climotology University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Chairman of the IPCC, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Deputy Head, Director of Science, Technical Support Unit Working Group I, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Affiliated Scientist, Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland, John S. Daniel, research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Ph.D. in physics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Todd J. Sanford, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado Daniel M. Murphy, Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder Gian-Kasper Plattner, Deputy Head, Director of Science, Technical Support Unit Working Group I, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Affiliated Scientist, Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland Reto Knutti, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Eidgenössiche Technische Hochschule Zurich and Pierre Friedlingstein, Chair, Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems, member of the Science Steering Committee of the Analysis Integration and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES) programme of IGBP and of the Global Carbon Project (GCP) of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) (Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America, "Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse gases", October 26, 2010 Vol 107.43: 18354-18359)
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases increased over the course of the 20th century due to human activities. The human-caused increases in these gases are the primary forcing that accounts for much of the global warming of the past fifty years, with carbon dioxide being the most important single radiative forcing agent (1). Recent studies have shown that the human-caused warming linked to carbon dioxide is nearly irreversible for more than 1,000 y, even if emissions of the gas were to cease entirely (2–5). The importance of the ocean in taking up heat and slowing the response of the climate system to radiative forcing changes has been noted in many studies (e.g., refs. 6 and 7). The key role of the ocean’s thermal lag has also been highlighted by recent approaches to proposed metrics for comparing the warming of different greenhouse gases (8, 9). Among the observations attesting to the importance of these effects are those showing that climate changes caused by transient volcanic aerosol loading persist for more than 5 y (7, 10), and a portion can be expected to last more than a century in the ocean (11–13); clearly these signals persist far longer than the radiative forcing decay timescale of about 12–18 mo for the volcanic aerosol (14, 15). Thus the observed climate response to volcanic events suggests that some persistence of climate change should be expected even for quite short-lived radiative forcing perturbations. It follows that the climate changes induced by short-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as methane or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) may not decrease in concert with decreases in concentration if the anthropogenic emissions of those gases were to be eliminated. In this paper, our primary goal is to show how different processes and timescales contribute to determining how long the climate changes due to various greenhouse gases could be expected to remain if anthropogenic emissions were to cease. Advances in modeling have led to improved AtmosphereOcean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) as well as to Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs). Although a detailed representation of the climate system changes on regional scales can only be provided by AOGCMs, the simpler EMICs have been shown to be useful, particularly to examine phenomena on a global average basis. In this work, we use the Bern 2.5CC EMIC (see Materials and Methods and SI Text), which has been extensively intercompared to other EMICs and to complex AOGCMs (3, 4). It should be noted that, although the Bern 2.5CC EMIC includes a representation of the surface and deep ocean, it does not include processes such as ice sheet losses or changes in the Earth’s albedo linked to evolution of vegetation. However, it is noteworthy that this EMIC, although parameterized and simplified, includes 14 levels in the ocean; further, its global ocean heat uptake and climate sensitivity are near the mean of available complex models, and its computed timescales for uptake of tracers into the ocean have been shown to compare well to observations (16). A recent study (17) explored the response of one AOGCM to a sudden stop of all forcing, and the Bern 2.5CC EMIC shows broad similarities in computed warming to that study (see Fig. S1), although there are also differences in detail. The climate sensitivity (which characterizes the long-term absolute warming response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) is 3 °C for the model used here. Our results should be considered illustrative and exploratory rather than fully quantitative given the limitations of the EMIC and the uncertainties in climate sensitivity. Results One Illustrative Scenario to 2050. In the absence of mitigation policy, concentrations of the three major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide can be expected to increase in this century. If emissions were to cease, anthropogenic CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere by a series of processes operating at different timescales (18). Over timescales of decades, both the land and upper ocean are important sinks. Over centuries to millennia, deep oceanic processes become dominant and are controlled by relatively well-understood physics and chemistry that provide broad consistency across models (see, for example, Fig. S2 showing how the removal of a pulse of carbon compares across a range of models). About 20% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years (with a range across models including the Bern 2.5CC model being about 19 4% at year 1000 after a pulse emission; see ref. 19), until much slower weathering processes affect the carbonate balance in the ocean (e.g., ref. 18). Models with stronger carbon/climate feedbacks than the one considered here could display larger and more persistent warmings due to both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases, through reduced land and ocean uptake of carbon in a warmer world. Here our focus is not on the strength of carbon/climate feedbacks that can lead to differences in the carbon concentration decay, but rather on the factors that control the climate response to a given decay. The removal processes of other anthropogenic gases including methane and nitrous oxide are much more simply described by exponential decay constants of about 10 and 114 y, respectively (1), due mainly to known chemical reactions in the atmosphere. In this illustrative study, we do not include the feedback of changes in methane upon its own lifetime (20). We also do not account for potential interactions between CO2 and other gases, such as the production of carbon dioxide from methane oxidation (21), or changes to the carbon cycle through, e.g., methane/ozone chemistry (22). Fig. 1 shows the computed future global warming contributions for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide for a midrange scenario (23) of projected future anthropogenic emissions of these gases to 2050. Radiative forcings for all three of these gases, and their spectral overlaps, are represented in this work using the expressions assessed in ref. 24. In 2050, the anthropogenic emissions are stopped entirely for illustration purposes. The figure shows nearly irreversible warming for at least 1,000 y due to the imposed carbon dioxide increases, as in previous work. All published studies to date, which use multiple EMICs and one AOGCM, show largely irreversible warming due to future carbon dioxide increases (to within about 0.5 °C) on a timescale of at least 1,000 y (3–5, 25, 26). Fig. 1 shows that the calculated future warmings due to anthropogenic CH4 and N2O also persist notably longer than the lifetimes of these gases. The figure illustrates that emissions of key non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as CH4 or N2O could lead to warming that both temporarily exceeds a given stabilization target (e.g., 2 °C as proposed by the G8 group of nations and in the Copenhagen goals) and remains present longer than the gas lifetimes even if emissions were to cease. A number of recent studies have underscored the important point that reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are an approach that can indeed reverse some past climate changes (e.g., ref. 27). Understanding how quickly such reversal could happen and why is an important policy and science question. Fig. 1 implies that the use of policy measures to reduce emissions of short-lived gases will be less effective as a rapid climate mitigation strategy than would be thought if based only upon the gas lifetime. Fig. 2 illustrates the factors influencing the warming contributions of each gas for the test case in Fig. 1 in more detail, by showing normalized values (relative to one at their peaks) of the warming along with the radiative forcings and concentrations of CO2 , N2O, and CH4 . For example, about two-thirds of the calculated warming due to N2O is still present 114 y (one atmospheric lifetime) after emissions are halted, despite the fact that its excess concentration and associated radiative forcing at that time has dropped to about one-third of the peak value.
No extinction – empirically denied
Carter 11– Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Susan Crockford, evolutionary biologist with a specialty in skeletal taxonomy , paleozoology and vertebrate evolution, Joseph D’Aleo, 30 years of experience in professional meteorology, former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, Indur Goklany, independent scholar, author, and co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of Agriculture, Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, Anthony Lupo, Department Chair and Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Mitch Taylor (Canada) (March 8th, “Surviving the Unpreceented Climate Change of the IPCC” http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html) Jacome
On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present," describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate.
There are multiple Feedbacks:
First is N Screw – nitrogen from emissions checks warming – their models don’t assume this
Carter 10– Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Susan Crockford, evolutionary biologist with a specialty in skeletal taxonomy , paleozoology and vertebrate evolution, Joseph D’Aleo, 30 years of experience in professional meteorology, former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, Indur Goklany, independent scholar, author, and co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of Agriculture, Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, Anthony Lupo, Department Chair and Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Mitch Taylor (Canada) (October 6th 2010, “The Effect of Nitrogen Deposition on Forest Soil Respiration” http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/oct/06oct2010a4.html) Jacome
Janssens et al. (2010) write that "atmospheric deposition of reactive nitrogen, originating mainly from fossil-fuel burning and artificial fertilizer applications, has increased three- to five-fold over the past century," and they say that "in many areas of the globe, nitrogen deposition is expected to increase further." This phenomenon stimulates plant growth and the uptake of carbon from the atmosphere, contributing to climate change mitigation; and they state that Magnani et al. (2007) demonstrated nitrogen deposition to be "the dominant driver of carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems," although there has been what they describe as "intense debate" about the magnitude and sustainability of the phenomenon and its underlying mechanisms.
In an effort designed to further explore the subject, Janssens et al. conducted "a meta-analysis of measurements in nitrogen-addition experiments, and a comparison of study sites exposed to elevated or background atmospheric nitrogen deposition."
The work of the fifteen scientists revealed, in their words, that "nitrogen deposition impedes organic matter decomposition, and thus stimulates carbon sequestration, in temperate forest soils where nitrogen is not limiting microbial growth." What is more, they find that "the concomitant reduction in soil carbon emissions is substantial," being "equivalent in magnitude to the amount of carbon taken up by trees owing to nitrogen fertilization."
For those worried about the (highly unlikely) prospect of CO2-induced global warming, these findings should be good news; for in the concluding sentence of their paper, Janssens et al. state that "the size of the nitrogen-induced inhibition of below-ground respiration is of the same order of magnitude as the forest carbon sink." And they state in the concluding sentence of their paper's introduction that "this effect has not been included in current carbon-cycle models," suggesting that when it is included, it will contribute much to "climate change mitigation."
Second is M screw – co2 solves methane emissions which cause warming
Carter 1-10 – Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Susan Crockford, evolutionary biologist with a specialty in skeletal taxonomy , paleozoology and vertebrate evolution, Joseph D’Aleo, 30 years of experience in professional meteorology, former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, Indur Goklany, independent scholar, author, and co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of Agriculture, Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, Anthony Lupo, Department Chair and Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Mitch Taylor (Canada) (January 2012, “Environmental Stresses and Plant Methane Emissions”http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jan/10jan2012a4.html) Jacome
Concluding from a review of the scientific literature that "aerobic CH4 [methane] emissions from plants may be affected by O2 stress or any other stress leading to ROS [reactive oxygen species] production," authors Wang et al. (2009) sought to determine whether physical injury would also affect CH4 emissions from plants. Their work revealed that "physical injury (cutting) stimulated CH4 emissions from fresh twigs of Artemisia species under aerobic conditions," and that "more cutting resulted in more CH4 emissions," as did hypoxia in both cut and uncut Artemisia frigida twigs.
In discussing their findings, and those of previous studies that suggest, in their words, "that a variety of environmental stresses stimulate CH4 emission from a wide variety of plant species," Wang et al. concluded that "global change processes, including climate change, depletion of stratospheric ozone, increasing ground-level ozone, spread of plant pests, and land-use changes, could cause more stress in plants on a global scale, potentially stimulating more CH4 emission globally," while further concluding that "the role of stress in plant CH4 production in the global CH4 cycle could be important in a changing world."
Several things "could" be important in this regard, but the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is hard at work countering stress-induced CH4 emissions. Environmental stresses of all types do indeed generate highly-reactive oxygenated compounds that damage plants, but atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically boosts the production of antioxidant enzymes that scavenge and detoxify those highly-reactive oxygenated compounds. Thus, it can be appreciated that the historical rise in the air's CO2 content should have gradually been alleviating the level of stress experienced by Earth's plants; and this phenomenon should have been gradually reducing the rate at which the planet's vegetation releases CH4 to the atmosphere. In addition, it should have been doing it at an accelerating rate commensurate with the accelerating rate of the upward trend in the air's CO2 content.
Wang et al.'s way of thinking therefore suggests that the air's CH4 concentration should be rising ever faster, as "global change processes" lead to more plant stress, more ROS production in plants, and more CH4 emissions from Earth's vegetation, whereas a conflicting hypothesis suggests that the air's CH4 concentration should be rising ever slower, as higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 lead to less plant stress, more antioxidants that scavenge and detoxify ROS in plants, and less CH4 emissions from Earth's vegetation.
So which view is winning? A quick glance at the atmosphere's recent methane history - shown below - provides the answer.
Figure 1. Trace gas mole fractions of methane (CH4) as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Adapted from Schnell and Dlugokencky (2008).
As can be seen from this figure, the rate of increase in atmospheric methane abundance has steadily declined since the late 1980s, with near-zero increase from 1999 through the end of the record. Is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content responsible for knocking its biggest greenhouse-gas competitor (other than water vapor) entirely out of the picture with respect to future global warming? Or, will further increases in CO2 emissions actually cause the atmosphere's methane concentration to decline and thereby begin to counteract its (CO2's) own warming effect. Only time will tell.
Carter 11, Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Susan Crockford, evolutionary biologist with a specialty in skeletal taxonomy , paleozoology and vertebrate evolution, Joseph D’Aleo, 30 years of experience in professional meteorology, former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, Indur Goklany, independent scholar, author, and co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of Agriculture, Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, Anthony Lupo, Department Chair and Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Mitch Taylor (Canada) [“Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report,” September, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Published by The Heartland Institute]
In a contemporaneous study of aerosols, Carslaw et al. (2010) write, ―the natural environment is a major source of atmospheric aerosols, including dust, secondary organic material from terrestrial biogenic emissions, carbonaceous particles from wildfires, and sulphate from marine phytoplankton dimethyl sulphide emissions.‖ These aerosols ―have a significant effect on many components of the Earth system, such as the atmospheric radiative balance and photosynthetically available radiation entering the biosphere, the supply of nutrients to the ocean, and the albedo of snow and ice. With this background in mind, the authors reviewed ―the impact of these natural systems on atmospheric aerosols based on observations and models, including the potential for long term changes in emissions and feedbacks on climate.‖ Based on their review, the seven scientists report, ―the number of drivers of change is very large and the various systems are strongly coupled,‖ noting ―there have therefore been very few studies that integrate the various effects to estimate climate feedback factors.‖ However, they add, ―available observations and model studies suggest that the regional radiative perturbations are potentially several watts per square meter due to changes in these natural aerosol emissions in a future climate,‖ which is equivalent to the magnitude of climate forcing projected to result from increases in greenhouse gases but typically of the opposite sign.
Turn – plan causes emissions and air pollution
Zycher 11 – visiting scholar at AEI (Benjamin, April 20, 2011, “The Folly of Renewable Electricity,” AEI, http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/alternative-energy/the-folly-of-renewable-electricity/)
These are among the reasons that the EIA estimates that wind and solar power cost 100-300 percent more than conventional power. This is consistent with a recent finding by Professor Constant Tra that each percentage-point increase in a renewable requirement raises commercial and residential rates by 4-10 percent. The proponents' claim that the 33 percent requirement will increase costs by only 7 percent is a pipe dream.¶ A cleaner environment is worth it, you say? Not so fast. As counterintuitive as it may seem, increased reliance on wind and solar power will hurt the environment, not because of such phony issues as endangered cockroaches, used by the environmental left as a tool with which to obstruct the renewable energy projects that they claim to support. Instead, this damage will be real, in the form of greater air pollution. The conventional generators needed to back up the unreliable wind and solar production will have to be cycled up and down because the system operators will be required to take wind and solar generation when it is available. This means greater operating inefficiency and more emissions. That is precisely what a recent engineering study of the effects of renewables requirements found for Colorado and Texas.
Solar power development destroys the environment – causes warming and kills biodiversity
Pizzo 11 – JD from the University of Colorado, attorney for the National Wildlife Federation (“When Saving the Environment Hurts the Environment: Balancing Solar Energy Development with Land and Wildlife Conservation in Warming Climate,” HeinOnline legal search engine)
Land Use and Ecosystem/Habitat Disturbance¶ Development of large-scale solar projects transforms the lands on which they are constructed and precludes most other uses.69 When used to generate electricity on a commercial scale, solar energy facilities require large tracts of land.70 The land requirements for CSP systems are approximately ﬁve to ten acres of land per megawatt of capacity." Thus, a single utility-scale solar plant may occupy up to forty-ﬁve square miles, or nearly 29,000 acres." To prepare land for construction of asolar facility, the ground is scraped and, when necessary, re-contoured to produce a level building site void of all vegetation. In addition, many existing utility-scale facilities have a regular program of herbicide application to keep the area under the collection devices tree of any growth that may block sunlight from reaching the mirrors.”¶ Furthermore, due to the size of utility-scale solar project areas and the extent of landscape disturbance, restoration and reclamation of the project site may not be feasible with current technology."¶ Construction, maintenance, and operation of utility-scale solar plants can have severe impacts on wildlife through direct habitat destruction and habitat fragmentation. Habitat destruction begins when the land within the solar collection ﬁeld is scraped in preparation for construction. The site remains unsuitable for wildlife for the life of the project because the large ﬁelds of solar collectors interfere with natural sunlight, rainfall, and drainage at the facility, causing microclimate alteration." For example, mirrors shield the ground from sunlight and wind, which reduces temperature and decreases wind speed and evapotranspiration beneath the reﬂecting mirrors." As one botanist has noted, “nothing will live under the mirrors?” Construction and maintenance activities also alter the composition, structure, and microclirnate of the land adjacent to the facility." In addition, the reﬂected light in solar-collecting ﬁelds may be increased from thirty percent to ﬁfty-six percent, super-heating the air above and around solar facilities.” These effects are compounded at large facilities due to the number of mirrors that cover and cool the ground while simultaneously reﬂecting light and heating the air. These habitat alterations have direct and indirect effects on wildlife, which may cause shifts in various plant and animal populations.”¶ Ecosystem disturbance and destruction are especially signiﬁcant to local organisms that rely on a limited area for sustenance." “Such species often have access to a particular resource in only one area and unless they abandon historical breeding or wintering grounds, [they are] unlikely to ﬁnd a replacement for the resource?” In addition, construction of solar facilities, roads, and transmission corridors causes habitat fragmentation, which forces wildlife to live on ever-shrinking islands of habitat where it is more difficult for them to ﬁnd food, water, shelter, mates, and protection from predators." Solar development may also affect migratory populations by cutting off migration corridors and eliminating staging grounds.“ Habitat fragmentation and migration disruption combine to limit genetic diversity by decreasing available mates and encouraging inbreeding. As a result, wildlife populations become more susceptible to extinction in the event of catastrophic events such as wildﬁre and disease. Thus, habitat fragmentation inevitably leads to smaller populations of wildlife, and threatens biodiversity by increasing the possibility of extinction for entire populations or species.”
Natural gas’s net GHG emissions are negative – this assumes methane release
Abby W. Schachter (Writer for the Weekly Standard and the New York Post) June 2012 “We've got to become energy independent to slow terrorism-fracking is the key” http://www.zimbio.com/Fracking+Lawsuits/articles/2ymubk5GzT3/ve+got+become+energy+independent+slow+terrorism
As for Howarth’s research on fracking’s carbon footprint, his conclusions were quickly debunked by fellow researchers at Cornell as well as by other scientists. As Lawrence M. Cathles of Cornell’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences concluded in his rebuttal, “The data clearly shows that substituting natural gas for coal will have a substantial greenhouse benefit under almost any set of reasonable assumptions. Methane emissions must be five times larger than they currently appear to be before gas substitution for coal becomes detrimental from a global warming perspective on any time scale.” The debate over fracking has gotten so extreme, in fact, that reasonable environmentalists are beginning to complain. As Andrew Revkin, one of the deans of environmental reporting in the United States, recently noted, fracking opponents sound so intransigent that he questions whether there is any resource to which the anti-gas advocates would say yes. The great irony is that only a few short years ago, many environmentalists were promoting natural gas as the cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The theory was that natural gas would provide a temporary bridge from pollutants such as oil and coal to so-called clean tech (wind and solar electricity generation, some nuclear power, and electric cars). Now that natural gas is cheap and plentiful, however, many openly worry that there may never be a full-scale transition to wind and solar because there won’t be a need. Gas is cleaner than coal and oil, it is equally or more efficient, it has the same applications as coal and oil, and it can be exported. Wind and solar haven’t proven to be cost-effective, nor are they easy to transport or possible to export. This realization has led to near hysterical opposition to fracking. As Howarth himself argued recently, “It is pure folly to view shale gas [as] a bridge fuel to a green future.” These are the arguments, moreover, that help explain the otherwise inexplicable rejection of natural gas extraction in New York, a state that could desperately use new industry and new revenues. There is gas from the Marcellus Shale under the state’s southern tier, and there are gas companies that came into the state nearly five years ago to lease land for potential drilling. But in 2007, the state decided that, absent new regulations for hydraulic fracturing, no new permits for natural gas wells would be issued. The moratorium continues to this day, even as Andrew Cuomo, the state’s governor, keeps promising that his Department of Environmental Conservation will produce new drilling rules—once its experts have had sufficient time to study the issue.
No price spike – any rise would be gradual
Myra Saefong (writer for Market Stream) August 31, 2012 “Hurricanes don’t scare natural gas anymore Abundance of shale gas dulls the industry’s blow from Isaac” http://stream.marketwatch.com/story/markets/SS-4-4/SS-4-10173/
Gas South’s Greiner pointed out that natural-gas storage is nearly at full capacity, and, with the summer almost over, “there is no reason to believe a sustained heat wave will drain storage and lower supply.” Gas in storage stands at 3.4 trillion cubic feet as of the week ended August 24 — 361 billion cubic feet above the five-year average, the EIA reported Thursday. “Even if we lost an average 3 billion cubic feet of supply a day for 15 days, it would be a welcome loss of supply for the natural-gas markets,” said MLV & Co.’s Pacanovsky. Even that “would not come anywhere close to erasing the overage.” Price prospects All told, there isn’t much of a chance for natural-gas prices to see a significant gain in the near future, but there is the potential for a gradual longer-term climb. “We’ll see sub-$2 [prices] again within a month or two as we move through the fall shoulder period where cooling loads tail off and heat loads haven’t ramped up yet,” said Beth Sewell, managing partner at Houston-based Quantum Power & Gas Services. “We have plenty of production that will be looking for a home.” Some early forecasts are calling for a very cold winter, and “if winter turns out to be really cold, then prices will start to rise again,” she said. However, given that shale production has added a “tremendous amount of supply to the market and we lack the ability to export much of it to higher-priced markets overseas, demand for gas will need to continue to grow … for a long-lasting rally to occur,” Sewell said. Regulatory restrictions on other energy markets, such as coal, may contribute to consistent gains in natural-gas prices, said Andrew Schrage, co-owner of Money Crashers Personal Finance, explaining that restrictions could continue to constrain those other industries, and companies, in turn, “will look to natural gas for their energy needs.” Regulations linked to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — a process of extracting natural gas from shale — can also potentially ease natural-gas supplies. Fracking is a practice that has met with a lot of controversy because of environmental concerns. “If there were draconian legislation passed to limit the use of fracking … this would cut supply and goose prices,” said James Hug, senior portfolio manager at Yorkville Capital. Hug, though, added that he doesn’t think such a scenario is likely. Still, he said, “on the demand side, natural-gas use will pick up over time, so the price will probably creep higher in response to export potential and increasing adoption by the petrochemical industry.”
No impact to job loss – it actually helps the economy
AIER, 08 – American Institute for Economic Research (http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/898-unemployment-trends-and-economic-recovery, “Unemployment Trends and Economic Recovery”)
Recent unemployment numbers have conjured up the fear of a coming new Great Depression. A careful look, however, suggests no economy-wide collapse in employment. In addition, some unemployment during an economic downturn is actually essential for a stable economic recovery. The Department of Labor said December 11 that around 573,000 people applied for unemployment insurance payments, up from 515,000 the week earlier. While these initial claims seem large, the job loss occurred in a non-farm U.S. workforce of more than 135 million people, with 4.4 million currently collecting unemployment insurance claims. The vast majority of the working population remains employed and earning a living. In November 2008, non-farm employment was only 1.4 percent below the level of a year earlier, based on Labor Department data. Even subtracting government jobs from this total, private sector non-farm employment was only down 1.8 percent from the previous year. While there has been a decline in employment across much of the economy, it has been far from even. As the table below shows, the highest rates of job loss are clustered in a handful of sectors. At the same time, there have been industries where employment has grown, despite the economic downturn. Not surprisingly, the largest job loss has been in residential housing construction, automobile production, and textile manufacturing. The burst of the housing bubble has sent the home construction industry into a nose dive, with 11.4 percent fewer jobs compared to last year. Employment in the motor vehicle and parts industry has fallen 14.9 percent over the last year. In the auto dealer retail trade, 9.3 percent fewer people are now employed. Most of this decline has been experienced among the Big Three American automakers. The textile mills are employing 13.9 percent fewer workers compared to November of last year. Apparel industry employment has decreased by 8.9 percent. This primarily is the result of the continuing growth of global competition and the cost-efficiencies foreign suppliers provide. With consumers adjusting their budgets to a post-boom environment, other retail businesses such as electronic and appliance stores, and clothing and department stores have reduced the number of workers they employ. These cuts have been far more modest, in the range of 4 and 5.5 percent compared to last November. Other sectors as the data in the table indicate, have reduced the level of employment from a year earlier only in the range of 1 to 3 percent for the most part. Even in the commercial banking sector employment has declined by only 1 percent, according to the Labor Department’s data over the last year. On the other hand, since November of 2007, employment has continued to increase in the oil, gas and coal industries, with employment growing in these sectors in the range of 9.4 to 9.7 percent. This positive employment trend has continued even as energy prices rapidly declined over the last four months. Employment also has continued to grow, perhaps not surprisingly, in government and in those industries that rely heavily on various forms of social welfare spending such as health care and education. Direct government jobs at the local, state and federal levels have grown between 1 and 1.6 percent over the last year. Employment in educational services went up by 3.6 percent and in health care and related services by 2.9 percent. As difficult as it is to experience, unemployment is a necessary and healthy part of an economic recovery process that follows the bursting of the bubbles of an economic boom. The Federal Reserve followed an extremely aggressive monetary policy over the last five to seven years, creating a huge increase in the money supply that artificially lowered interest rates to practically zero and filled the banks with plenty of cash to lend to both the credit and uncredit worthy, as I detailed in an earlier commentary on “The Financial Bubble was Created by Central Bank Policy." The housing and consumer spending booms were bound to end when the inflationary bubbles popped. Investment resources, capital, and portions of the labor force were drawn into employments that could only last for as long as the inflationary boom. When the downturn began, it was inevitable that many of the employments created during the boom would begin to disappear. Where the bubbles were biggest is where, inescapably, the greatest amount of employment would be lost. The task ahead is to ensure a healthy economic recovery by allowing the market to find correct prices, wages, and asset values. This will enable people to discover what things are worth in the post-boom era, and where sustainable employments may be found.