CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case

NEG

Index

Coral Reef Exploration Negative

Coral Reef Exploration Negative

1NC Frontline: Inherency [1/1]................................................................................................2

1NC Frontline: Harms [1/2].....................................................................................................3
1NC Frontline: Harms [2/2].....................................................................................................4
1NC Frontline: Solvency [1/3]..................................................................................................5
1NC Frontline: Solvency [2/3].................................................................................................6
1NC Frontline: Solvency [3/3]..................................................................................................7
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Inherency [1/1]..................................................................................8
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms #1 Private Sector [1/2].....................................................9
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms #1 Private Sector [2/2]...................................................10
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms #2 Reefs Resilient [1/1]..................................................11
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #1 Alternative Causes [1/1].........................................12
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #2 Technology Fails [1/1]...........................................13
2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #3 Discourse Fails [1/1]..............................................14

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case
1/1
NEG

1NC Frontlines

1NC Frontline: Inherency [1/1]

1. The affirmative is not inherent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Associations Coral Reef Conservation Program ensures coral reef protection in the
status quo.
CSO 2014
[The Coastal States Organization. FY 2015 Coral Reef Conservation 2014 http://www.coastalstates.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/CSO_CRCP_FY15_Appropriations_FS.pdf]

To address threats to coral reef ecosystems, NOAAs Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) provide
on-the-ground and in- the-water actions, emphasizing place-based management and conservation
planning to protect and maintain these rich ecosystems. CRCP addresses management needs analyzing
the impacts of fishing, land-based sources of pollution and climate change. The Coral Reef Institutes
yield a proven track record for outstanding science research focused on state and regional priorities.
The Coral Reef Conservation Program was established in 2000 to help fulfill NOAAs responsibilities
under the Coral Reef Conservation Act and Presidential Executive Order 13089 on coral reef protection.
CRCP brings expertise from more than 30 offices within NOAA for a multidisciplinary approach to
understanding and managing coral reefs, and facilitates and supports many partnerships with scientific,
private, government, and nongovernmental groups. CRCP also serves as the Secretariat and co-chair for
the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, which includes 12 federal agencies and 7 states and territories.

2. Inherency is a voting issue because its a stock issue that the affirmative must
meet, and because if the status quo includes the plan then the negative is unable to
argue in favor of the status quo.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case
1/1
NEG

1NC Frontlines

1NC Frontline: Harms [1/2]

1. The plan is unnecessary the private sector is increasing its investment in coral
reef restoration.
Broad 2014
[William. Science Journalist at the NYT. Billionaires with Big Ideas are Privatizing American Science The New York
Times, 3/15/14 available via Lexis-Nexis]

In the traditional world of government-sponsored research, at agencies like the National Science
Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, panels of experts pore over grant applications to decide
which ones get financed, weighing such factors as intellectual merit and social value. At times, groups of
distinguished experts weigh in on how to advance whole fields, recommending, for instance, the
construction of large instruments and laboratories costing billions of dollars. By contrast, the new science
philanthropy is personal, antibureaucratic, inspirational. For Wendy Schmidt, the inspiration came in
2009, from a coral reef in the Grenadine islands of the Caribbean. It was her first scuba dive, and it
opened her eyes to the riot of nature. She talked it over with her husband, Eric, the executive chairman of
Google, and the two decided that marine science needed more resources. (The governments research
fleet, 28 ships strong in 2000, has shrunk by about a third and faces further cuts.) So they set up the
Schmidt Ocean Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., and poured in more than $100 million. The centerpiece is a
ship nearly the length of a football field that, unlike most research vessels, has a sauna and a helicopter
pad.<<picture removed>> We want to rapidly advance scientific research, to speed it up, Mrs. Schmidt
said in an interview. The philanthropists projects are as diverse as the careers that built their fortunes.
George P. Mitchell, considered the father of the drilling process for oil and gas known as fracking, has
given about $360 million to fields like particle physics, sustainable development and astronomy
including $35 million for the Giant Magellan Telescope, now being built by a private consortium for
installation atop a mountain in Chile. The cosmos, Mr. Mitchell said in an interview before his death last
year, is too big not to have a good map. Eli Broad, who earned his money in housing and insurance,
donated $700 million for a venture between Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to
explore the genetic basis of disease. Gordon Moore of Intel has spent $850 million on research in physics,
biology, the environment and astronomy. The investor Ronald O. Perelman, among other donations, gave
more than $30 million to study womens cancers money that led to Herceptin, a breakthrough drug for
certain kinds of breast cancer. Nathan P. Myhrvold, a former chief technology officer at Microsoft, has
spent heavily on uncovering fossil remains of Tyrannosaurus rex, and Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater
Associates, a hedge fund, has lent his mega-yacht to hunts for the elusive giant squid. The availability of so
much well-financed ambition has created a new kind of dating game. In what is becoming a common
narrative, researchers like to describe how they begged the federal science establishment for funds, were
brushed aside and turned instead to the welcoming arms of philanthropists. To help scientists bond
quickly with potential benefactors, a cottage industry has emerged, offering workshops, personal
coaching, role-playing exercises and the production of video appeals.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case
1/1
NEG

1NC Frontlines

1NC Frontline: Harms [2/2]

2. Their impact is overblown. Reefs are resilient to acidification.
Carter 2011
[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 DAleo, 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]

While some corals exhibit a propensity to bleach and die when sea temperatures rise, others exhibit a
positive relationship between calcification, or growth, and temperature. "Such variable bleaching
susceptibility implies that there is a considerable variation in the extent to which coral species are adapted
to local environmental conditions" (Maynard et al., 2008). The latest research suggests corals have
effective adaptive responses to climate change, such as symbiont shuffling, that allow reefs in some areas
to flourish despite or even because of rising temperatures. Coral reefs have been able to recover quickly
from bleaching events as well as damage from cyclones. Bleaching and other signs of coral distress
attributed to global warming are often due to other things, including rising levels of nutrients and toxins
in coastal waters caused by runoff from agricultural activities on land and associated increases in
sediment delivery. The IPCC expresses concern that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are
lowering the pH values of oceans and seas, a process called acidification, and that this could harm aquatic
life. But the drop in pH values that could be attributed to CO2 is tiny compared to natural variations
occurring in some ocean basins as a result of seasonal variability, and even day-to-day variations in many
areas. Recent estimates also cut in half the projected pH reduction of ocean waters by the year 2100
(Tans, 2009). Real-world data contradict predictions about the negative effects of rising temperatures,
rising CO2 concentrations, and falling pH on aquatic life. Studies of algae, jellyfish, echinoids, abalone,
sea urchins, and coral all find no harmful effects attributable to CO2 or acidification.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case
1/1
NEG

1NC Frontlines

1NC Frontline: Solvency [1/3]

1. Things like overfishing, climate change, warmer water and hurricanes all hurt
coral reefs the plan cannot account for these things.
Dellamore 2012
[Christine. Editor at National Geographic. Caribbean Coral Reefs Mostly Dead, IUCN Says National Geographic,
9/6/12 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/06/caribbean-coral-reefs-mostly-dead-iucn-says/]

The Caribbeans coral reefs have collapsed, mostly due to overfishing and climate change, according to a
new report released by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In the most
comprehensive study yet of Caribbean coral reefs, scientists have discovered that the 50 to 60 percent
coral cover present in the 1970s has plummeted to less than 10 percent. Im sad to tell you its a dire
picture, Carl Gustaf Lundin, director of IUCNs Global Marine and Polar Programme, said at a news
briefing Friday at the World Conservation Congress in Jeju Island, South Korea. Called Natures
Olympics, the conference will explore five environmental themes over five days. Todays theme is
Nature+ Climate, which focuses on how to combat global warming. A Caribbean Sea reef off Belize.
Photograph by Mazyar Jalayer, My Shot Much of the decline is caused by a massive die-off of sea urchins
in the 1970spossibly due to disease. Without these reef grazersthe cows in the field that keep
vegetation in checkthe number of algae and grasses have skyrocketed, dominating reefs and pushing
corals aside, Lundin said. Whats more, overfishing of grazer species such as parrotfish or surgeonfish is
allowing more algae to take over and outcompete the coral, said Ameer Abdulla, IUCN senior advisor on
Marine Biodiversity and Conservation Science. Coral reef communities are just like human
communitiesthere are different roles that are fundamental to keeping the system going, Abdulla said.
For example, if all the engineers were taken out of a human society, that would affect how the society
functions. The same phenomenon is happening with the loss of the Caribbeans grazers, he said.
Parrotfish are like the cows of the sea, keeping algae in check. Photograph by Chriskraska Kraska, My
Shot Global Warming Also at Play The scientists also said that warmer wateroften caused by
hurricanes blowing throughhave harmed reefs. When the water gets too hot, algae that live inside coral,
called zooxanthellaeabandon their hosts, causing the coral themselves to bleach and eventually die.
Though some reefs can bounce back from such periods of warmer water, notably in the Indian Ocean, We
have heating happening with much higher frequency and for longer duration, Lundin told National
Geographic News. For instance, some 500-to-a-thousand-year-old corals in the Indian Ocean have died
due to warmer water.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case
1/1
NEG

1NC Frontlines

1NC Frontline: Solvency [2/3]

2. The affirmatives focus on mineral accretion and conservation trades off with
adaptation.
Bradbury 2012
[Roger. Ecologist and Resource Management at the Australian National University. A World without Coral Reefs
The New York Times, 7/13/12 available via Lexis-Nexis]

Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution are pushing coral reefs into oblivion. Each of those forces
alone is fully capable of causing the global collapse of coral reefs; together, they assure it. The scientific
evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal, but there seems to be a collective reluctance to accept the
logical conclusion that there is no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem. What we hear instead
is an airbrushed view of the crisis a view endorsed by coral reef scientists, amplified by
environmentalists and accepted by governments. Coral reefs, like rain forests, are a symbol of
biodiversity. And, like rain forests, they are portrayed as existentially threatened but salvageable. The
message is: There is yet hope. Indeed, this view is echoed in the consensus statement of the justconcludedInternational Coral Reef Symposium , which called on all governments to ensure the future of
coral reefs. It was signed by more than 2,000 scientists, officials and conservationists. This is less a
conspiracy than a sort of institutional inertia. Governments dont want to be blamed for disasters on their
watch, conservationists apparently value hope over truth, and scientists often dont see the reefs for the
corals. But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs have a future, we grossly misallocate the funds
needed to cope with the fallout from their collapse. Money isnt spent to study what to do after the reefs
are gone on what sort of ecosystems will replace coral reefs and what opportunities there will be to
nudge these into providing people with food and other useful ecosystem products and services. Nor is
money spent to preserve some of the genetic resources of coral reefs by transferring them into systems
that are not coral reefs. And money isnt spent to make the economic structural adjustment that
communities and industries that depend on coral reefs urgently need. We have focused too much on the
state of the reefs rather than the rate of the processes killing them. Overfishing, ocean acidification and
pollution have two features in common. First, they are accelerating. They are growing broadly in line with
global economic growth, so they can double in size every couple of decades. Second, they have extreme
inertia there is no real prospect of changing their trajectories in less than 20 to 50 years. In short, these
forces are unstoppable and irreversible. And it is these two features acceleration and inertia that have
blindsided us. Overfishing can bring down reefs because fish are one of the key functional groups that
hold reefs together. Detailed forensic studies of the global fish catch by Daniel Paulys lab at the University
of British Columbia confirm that global fishing pressure is still accelerating even as the global fish catch is
declining. Overfishing is already damaging reefs worldwide, and it is set to double and double again over
the next few decades. Ocean acidification can also bring down reefs because it affects the corals
themselves. Corals can make their calcareous skeletons only within a special range of temperature and
acidity of the surrounding seawater. But the oceans are acidifying as they absorb increasing amounts of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research led by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of
Queensland shows that corals will be pushed outside their temperature-acidity envelope in the next 20 to
30 years, absent effective international action on emissions. We have less of a handle on pollution. We do
know that nutrients, particularly nitrogenous ones, are increasing not only in coastal waters but also in
the open ocean. This change is accelerating. And we know that coral reefs just cant survive in nutrientrich waters. These conditions only encourage the microbes and jellyfish that will replace coral reefs in
coastal waters. We can say, though, with somewhat less certainty than for overfishing or ocean
acidification that unstoppable pollution will force reefs beyond their survival envelope by midcentury.
This is not a story that gives me any pleasure to tell. But it needs to be told urgently and widely because it
will be a disaster for the hundreds of millions of people in poor, tropical countries like Indonesia and the
Philippines who depend on coral reefs for food. It will also threaten the tourism industry of rich countries
with coral reefs, like the United States, Australia and Japan. Countries like Mexico and Thailand will have
both their food security and tourism industries badly damaged. And, almost an afterthought, it will be a
tragedy for global conservation as hot spots of biodiversity are destroyed.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Coral Reefs Case
1/1
NEG

1NC Frontlines

1NC Frontline: Solvency [3/3]

Bradbury continues, no text deleted
What we will be left with is an algal-dominated hard ocean bottom, as the remains of the limestone reefs
slowly break up, with lots of microbial life soaking up the suns energy by photosynthesis, few fish but lots
of jellyfish grazing on the microbes. It will be slimy and look a lot like the ecosystems of the Precambrian
era, which ended more than 500 million years ago and well before fish evolved. Coral reefs will be the
first, but certainly not the last, major ecosystem to succumb to the Anthropocene the new geological
epoch now emerging. That is why we need an enormous reallocation of research, government and
environmental effort to understand what has happened so we can respond the next time we face a disaster
of this magnitude. It will be no bad thing to learn how to do such ecological engineering now.

3. The affirmatives discursive framing of ocean acidification and climate change as

existential threats is counterproductive and does not achieve meaningful policy
change.
Feinberg and Willer 2011
[Matt and Robb. Profs of Psychology and Sociology, respectively, at UC-Berkeley. Apocalypse Soon? Dire Messages
Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs Psychological Science, Vol 22 N1. January
2011. Sage]

Although scientific evidence attests to the existence and severity of global warming, high percentages of
people in the United States and elsewhere increasingly see global warming as nonexistent, exaggerated, or
unrelated to human activity (BBC Climate Change Poll, 2010; Gallup Poll, 2009, 2010; Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, 2009). Because scientists agree that large-scale action will be
necessary to counteract the effects of global warming, environmental advocates often engage in public
appeals designed to increase rates of proenvironmental behaviors and promote support for initiatives
aimed at counteracting climate change. These appeals often emphasize the severity of potential
consequences, relying on messages that highlight the dire risks associated with unchecked global warming
(Kerr, 2007). But what if these appeals are in fact counterproductive? We contend that one cause of
skepticism concerning global warming may be that such dire messages threaten individuals need to
believe that the world is just, orderly, and stable, a motive that is widely held and deeply ingrained in
many people (Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978). Research shows that many individuals have a strong
need to perceive the world as just, believing that rewards will be bestowed on individuals who judiciously
strive for them and punishments will be meted out to those who deserve them (Dalbert, 2001; Furnham,
2003). Research on just-world theory has demonstrated that when individuals need to believe in a just
world is threatened, they commonly employ defensive responses, such as dismissal or rationalization of
the information that threatened their just-world beliefs (for reviews, see Furnham, 2003; Hafer & Bgue,
2005). Information regarding the potentially severe and arbitrary effects of global warming should
constitute a significant threat to belief in a just world, and discrediting or denying global warmings
existence could serve as a means of resolving the resulting threat. Many dire messages aimed at stopping
global warming make salient the impending chaos and unpredictable catastrophe that global warming will
bring with it. Moreover, these messages often emphasize the harm that will be done to children and future
generations who have done nothing themselves to cause global warming. Such messages contradict the
belief that the world is predictable and fair by suggesting that good people will suffer and that the
innocent will be the primary victims. Because these messages contradict just-world beliefs, individuals
who most strongly hold such beliefs should be the most threatened. When such people are exposed to dire
messages concerning global warming, they are thus likely to discount the evidence. By increasing
skepticism about global warming, these dire messages should, in turn, also reduce peoples willingness to
engage in behaviors aimed at combating global warming.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Inherency [1/1]

1. The affirmative is not inherent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association has significantly expanded their Coral Reef Conservation Program,
which is protecting Coral Reefs in the status quo. The affirmative is not a
meaningful deviation from this thats our 1NC CSO evidence.
2. Inherency is a voting issue because its a stock issue that the affirmative must
meet, and because if the status quo includes the plan then the negative is unable to
argue in favor of the status quo. If we prove that the plan is accounted for in the
status quo, you should vote negative.
3. The status quo should be sufficient to solve the harms of the 1AC. NOAAs coral
reef protection strategies are impeccable
CSO 2014
[The Coastal States Organization. FY 2015 Coral Reef Conservation 2014 http://www.coastalstates.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/CSO_CRCP_FY15_Appropriations_FS.pdf]

The Task Force directed states, territories, and commonwealths to develop Local Action Strategies to
address the most pressing threats to coral reef ecosystems, including American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. These localized plans identify the key threats to reefs and develop site-specific strategies
to combat those threats. Since then, members have invested significantly in developing their Local
Action Strategies, which has increased coordination among local government partners and has engaged
hundreds of stakeholders. As a result of E.O. 13089, Congress also appropriated funds to support state
and region-based coral reef research initiatives, which resulted in the creation of four U.S. Coral Reef
Institutes: National Coral Reef Institute, Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute,
and Western Pacific Coral Reef Institute. The Coral Reef Institutes work together and with NOAA to
support resource management, build research capacity focused on coral reefs, and develop global
strategies to address coral reef decline. Because the institutes (centered at universities) are embedded
within local communities, they leverage federal funding and regularly interact with non-governmental
organizations and stakeholders. Management has clearly benefited from the research sponsored by the
Coral Reef Institutes, including: Assessing and restoring injured reefs Assessing the economic and
non-economic value of coral reefs Mapping the zones and habitats of coral reefs to better sustainably
plan usage areas Identifying the impact of land-based pollution sources on coastal ecosystems
Monitoring the effectiveness of herbivore and fishery replenishment areas Locating and monitoring
vulnerable fish spawning aggregations GIS-based modeling of land disturbance and sedimentary runoff Providing quantitative data to address alien and invasive species, improve water quality, and reduce
land-based sources of pollution.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms #1 Private Sector [1/2]

1. The private sector is increasing its investment in reef restoration in the status
quo. Philanthropists have the capital, the innovation, and the will-power to save
coral reefs. Thats our 1NC Broad evidence.
2. This is a comparatively more effective strategy than federal investment.
Diamond 2006
[Arthur. Professor Economics at Nebraska-Omaha. The Relative Success of Private Funders and Government
Funders in Funding Important Science. 2006.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/archives/Spring_06/Diamond.pdf]

Governmental organizations vary from the efficient to the totally corrupt. Non-profit orga- nizations vary
from the efficient to the totally corrupt. Here, I hypothesize that, in general, non-profit organizations will
be more efficient at providing a service than will the government. This is not because the people working
for non-profits are any better than those working for government. Rather, it is because there are
important differences in the incentive structure of non-profits and government. l. A private donor may
support a few organizations at relatively high levels, while her taxes are divided into small amounts that
go to support a great many government bureaus. It is less costly for the donor to monitor the activities of a
few organizations than many bureaus. 2. It is easier for the donor to act on information in the non-profit
sector than it is for the taxpayer to act on information in the government sector. This is for two reasons:
(a) In the government sector, the taxpayer must usually select from a limited number of package-deals.
Usually the voter votes for a package (or party platform) that includes government activities that the voter
is against, either on principle or because they are being inefficiently carried out. (b) In the non-profit
sector there are very frequently many organizations providing similar services. The greater number of
organizations competing for donor money results in greater efficiency of operations. It also increases the
likelihood that a donor will find an organization whose program of activities matches their own
preferences. The importance of incentives in government decision-making under uncertainty has been
studied by economists before. Sam Peltzman did a cost-benefit study of whether the benefits of the FDA in
preventing drugs like thalidomide were greater than the costs as measured by the delayed approval of
useful and life-saving drugs. He found that the costs of delaying the good drugs were many times higher
than the benefits of stopping the bad drugs. This does not imply that those working for the FDA are stupid
or incompetent, or uncaring. What it does imply is that they know that their careers will be over if they
approve thalidomide, whereas, generally, they will not be held so accountable for the delay of a useful
drug. (Although there may be exceptions to this as with the case of the vocal AIDs lobby.) Just as there are
high risks for the FDA in approving a drug before it has been thoroughly tested, there may be risks for a
government agency in funding scientific ideas before they have been admitted to the mainstream. 5 We do
not hold all the mistaken equally accountable for all of their mistakes. If someone makes a mistake that
everyone else in their position is making, then the presumption is that they could not have known better,
given the current state of knowledge. If someone makes a novel mistake, then they are out on a limb by
themselves, much more likely to be held accountable for their actions (see: Scharfstein and Stein). I know
of only six studies that present hard statistical evidence on the issue of the relative efficiency of nonprofits and government. Five of these studies focus on some aspect of health care; the sixth on higher
education. There are probably a couple of reasons that most of the studies are on health care. One is that
all three types of institution (for-profit, non-profit, and government) are active in providing health care.
Since all three types are present, health care presents a promising domain for testing the relative
efficiency of each type of institution. Another reason for the focus of` research on health care is that for
many years in the U.S., health care costs have been rising at a substantial rate. This has made research on
health care a high priority for those concerned about public policy. We lack the space to provide the
details of any of the six studies, but instead will highlight only the relevant conclusions.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms #1 Private Sector [2/2]

Diamond continues, no text deleted
The first focused on whether increased competition increased the efficiency of U.S. med- ical research
charities. Susan Feigenbaum (1987) examined the hypothesis that the level of competition among nonprofits will affect how much they spend on administrative costs, fund-raising costs, and "pass-through" to
the ultimate beneficiaries. Her systematic anal- ysis of the evidence indicates that increased competition
reduces administrative costs and increases fund-raising costs of' and pass-through to the beneficiaries.
Five other studies, three on nursing homes (Frech and Ginsburg, 1981; Bekele and Holt- mann, 1987;
Borjas, Frech, and Ginsburg, 1983), one on hospitals (Cowing and Holtmann 1983), and one on higher
education(LabandandLentz,2004),directly compare the efficiency of the three institutional types. Four of
these studies agree with one conclusion: that govern- ment institutions have higher costs than for-profit
firms. Two of the four studies (Bekele and Holtmann; and Cowing and Holtmann) also find evidence that
non-profit institutions have higher costs than for-profit firms. The other two studies(Frech and Ginsburg;
and Borjas, Frech, and Ginsburg) show mixed results on the relative costs of non-profits. One of these
(Borjas, Frech, and Ginsburg ), for instance, finds that church-related nursing homes actually have lower
costs than for-profit firms. The fifth study of the five that directly compare the efficiency of the three
institutional types (Laband and Lentz, 2004), is an outlier in failing o find that governmental institutions
of higher education have higher costs than for-profit in- stitutions. Applying their research design to their
data,7 Lab and and Lenz conclude that the only statistically significant result between the three
institutional types is that government institutions have higher costs than non-profit institutions. Although
the empirical evidence is mixed, it is at least not strongly inconsistent with the hypothesis sketched
earlier, that for-profit firms are the most efficient, non-profit organizations are the next most efficient,
and government organizations are the least efficient.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms #2 Reefs Resilient [1/1]

1. Coral reefs are resilient. Some respond negatively to ocean acidification and
climate change, but others grow at a faster and more impressive rate. Their
argument over-simplifies the complexity of coral reefs and the ways that different
reefs react thats our 1NC Carter evidence.
2. Coral reefs are resilient to all sorts of disturbances.
McClanahan and Polunin 2002
[Timothy, of the Wildlife Conservation Society. And Terry of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Ecological
States and the Resilience of Coral Reefs 2002. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss2/art18]

Coral reefs can be resilient to multiple scales of disturbances (Pandolfi 1996, Connell 1997). One
important factor that determines the degree of resilience at a particular place is the scattered patchy
distribution of reefs throughout tropical ocean basins (IUCN/UNEP 1988). Individual reefs may be
replenished to a greater or lesser extent by recruitment from planktonic larvae derived from other reef
sources outside of the disturbed areas (Hughes et al. 1999a). Ocean-wide currents can potentially deliver
larvae across hundreds and thousands of kilometers (Roberts 1997), although actual dispersal may be
more limited (Cowen et al. 2000). Consequently, the combination of spatial heterogeneity and refugia of
reef systems, the temporal heterogeneity of dispersal, and a physically stable but moving transport system
of currents ensures the connectivity among reefs that is required for recovery. This is an important aspect
of ecological resilience.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #1 Alternative Causes [1/1]

1. Coral reefs are hurt by climate change, overfishing, and hurricanes. This has
caused the vast majority of the worlds reefs to die off in the last 50 years. It is
highly unlikely that any single solution could overcome all of these factors because
of the daunting degree to which reefs have already been hurt. Thats our 1NC
Dellamore evidence.
2. There are many threats to coral reefs the plan is not the silver bullet necessary
to overcome all of these hurdles.
CORIS 2012
[Coral Reef Information System - NOAA, "Hazards to Coral Reefs", CoRIS December 2012.
www.coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards]

Coral reefs face numerous hazards and threats. As human populations and coastal pressures increase, reef
resources are more heavily exploited, and many coral habitats continue to decline. Current estimates note
that 10 percent of all coral reefs are degraded beyond recovery. Thirty percent are in critical condition and
may die within 10 to 20 years. Experts predict that if current pressures are allowed to continue unabated,
60 percent of the world's coral reefs may die completely by 2050 (CRTF, 2000). Reef degradation occurs
in response to both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) stresses. Threats to coral reefs can be also
classified as either local or global: local threats include overfishing, destructive fishing practices, nutrient
runoff, sedimentation, and coral disease while global threats include mass coral bleaching produced by
rising sea surface temperature (worsened by climate change), and ocean acidification. Together, these
represent some of the greatest threats to coral reefs. Coral reef threats often do not occur in isolation,
but together, having cumulative effects on the reefs and decreasing its overall resiliency. Following
destructive natural events such as hurricanes, cyclones or disease outbreaks, reefs can be damaged or
weakened, but healthy ones generally are resilient and eventually recover. In many cases, however,
natural disturbances are exacerbated by anthropogenic stresses, such as pollution, sedimentation and
overfishing, which can further weaken coral systems and compromise their ability to recover from
disturbances. Conversely, a reef directly or indirectly affected by anthropogenic stresses may be too weak
to withstand a natural event. In addition, many scientists believe that human activities intensify natural
disturbances, subjecting coral reefs to stronger, more frequent storms, disease outbreaks and other
natural events.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #2 Technology Fails [1/1]

1. Mineral accretion fails and undermines the progress of adapting to ocean
acidification. Reef destruction has become a problem so prevalent that nothing we
do can save coral reefs the plan merely delays the inevitable at the expense of
forward-looking policies. Thats our 1NC Bradbury evidence.
2. Marine accretion is insufficient to save coral reefs
Gilhooly 2002k
[Robert. Staff Writer for the Japan Times. Citing Kimiaki Kudo, the Research Supervisor of the Marine Ecosystems
Research Department at the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center. Japanese scientists question mineralaccretion technique The Japan Times, 9/27/2000. Available via Lexis-Nexis]

A Japanese researcher who conducted a project in Okinawa to explore the effectiveness of growing reefs
via mineral accretion in 1989, says he remains unsure of the effectiveness of the technique. From a
scientific, data-collecting viewpoint, the results were good, said Dr. Kimiaki Kudo, research supervisor of
the Marine Ecosystems Research Department at the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center in
Kanagawa Prefecture, of the four-year experiment. But it was impossible to say if this was due to the
(mineral-accretion) method, he added. The project was instigated by the Okinawa Prefectural
Government and an Okinawa-based shipbuilding firm, who asked Kudo to look into an alternative coralgrowing technology that might help Okinawas rapidly diminishing reefs recover. In the 12 years after
Okinawas return from U.S. military to Japanese control in 1972, studies showed that about 90 percent of
Okinawas coral reefs had been killed off by development, Kudo said. According to a document issued by
The Marine Parks Center of Japan, another contributory factor was the extensive presence of the crownof-thorns starfish, which can destroy by predation entire coral communities. These two factors were at
the root of Kudos experimental project, which Okinawa officials hoped might lead to a method of
recovering and growing corals. Kudo and a team of marine experts set a pyramid-shaped, three-tier
structure on the seabed just off the southeast coast of Okinawas main island. The three tiers were fixed
at 1-meter intervals onto a 6-sq.-meter concrete base. On each tier were fixed mesh sheets, onto which
healthy corals from nearby reefs were transplanted. One section was wired to take an electric current,
and within a short time thick layers of limestone could be found on the structure, Kudo said. After a year,
however, the growth of coral transplanted there was not significantly greater than other areas that were
not wired, Kudo said. An ecosystem is very complex, and there is no one factor that determines its wellbeing, he explained. I saw nothing to indicate that better growth is guaranteed just by creating a clean
base, such as that created by the mineral-accretion technology. Furthermore, he argued, new limestone
might act as a deterrent for growth. While transplanted adult corals will grow on virtually anything, baby
coral invariably settle on objects with a history, he said.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Affirmative
Topicality
AFF
AFF

2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #3 Discourse Fails [1/1]

1. Their method is ineffective and counterproductive. Using the discourse of ocean
acidification, reef destruction, and global extinction to promote the adoption of
mineral accretion technology makes the harms of the 1AC seem too big to
conceptualize and too severe to resolve. This causes apathy and disempowerment
thats our 1NC Feinberg and Willer evidence.
2. Ocean acidification may be a threat, but the way the 1AC framed it undermines the
most effective solutions.
Foust et al 2008
[Christina. Asst Prof Communications at Denver. Et Al. Global Warming and Apocalyptic Rhetoric: A Critical Frame
Analysis of US Popular and Elite Press Coverage from 1997-2007. Environmental Communication Division of the
National Communication Association, November 2008.
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/0/1/2/pages260125/p260125-22.php]

Elements of an apocalyptic frame could be said to exist in most of the articles we read, though all elements
were not present in each article. Nonetheless, apocalyptic framing should give us pause, for it threatens to
hinder progress in forming a political will to change the carbon-based energy economy (and thus mitigate
the consequences of global warming). To announce the coming of the apocalypse creates despair as people
feel they cannot stop such an event, but can only hope that they are among the chosen few to be saved (if
they believe in the immanence of the end). Apocalyptic framing also creates denial, as when people fail to
exit the movie theater because they have heard fire yelled once too often. There may also be a sense of
denial in terms of the effectiveness of solutions: Why make changes to our lifestyle, if the world is going to
end quickly and our actions dont make a difference anyway? If the end is, indeed, the total destruction of
earth, wont our efforts to make change now be in vain? As Brummett suggests of pre-millennial
apocalyptic rhetoric (which assumes that the world will be destroyed after a judgment day), the cosmically
mandated telos of catastrophe overshadows any efforts to change the trajectory of the narrative. The only
place for human agency within such rhetoric is the capacity to agree with prophesies, against the polarized
opposition of non-believers. By agreeing with the prophesies, believers feel a sense of control over the
situation because they are right, not necessarily because they are taking collective and personal steps to
resolve the issue.