Environment Disadvantage -4wkj-ndi

Affirmative

Loss of Biodiversity Inevitable

Biodiversity loss inevitable- Five warrants

Eniscuola 13 (The Eniscuola project was created by eni together with the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in 2000. Its goal is to give students qualified extensive information on energy and environment issues. The Eniscuola project has been acknowledged by UNESCO’s Italian National Commission and is part of the U.N.’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, by contributing to spread its goals and ideals, “Causes of the Loss of Biodiversity”, May 2013, http://www.eniscuola.net/en/life/contenuti/biodiversity/left/loss-of-biodiversity/causes-of-the-loss-of-biodiversity/) BC The main cause of the loss of biodiversity can be attributed to the influence of human beings on the world’s ecosystem, In fact human beings have deeply altered the environment, and have modified the territory, exploiting the species directly, for example by fishing and hunting, changing the biogeochemical cycles and transferring species from one area to another of the Planet. The threats to biodiversity can be summarized in the following main points: Alteration and loss of the habitats: the transformation of the natural areas determines not only the loss of the vegetable species, but also a decrease in the animal species associated to them. Refer to “Alteration and loss of the habitats”. Introduction of exotic species and genetically modified organisms; species originating from a particular area, introduced into new natural environments can lead to different forms of imbalance in the ecological equilibrium. Refer to, “Introduction of exotic species and genetically modified organisms”.

Pollution: human activity influences the natural environment producing negative, direct or indirect, effects that alter the flow of energy, the chemical and physical constitution of the environment and abundance of the species; Climate change: for example, heating of the Earth’s surface affects biodiversity because it endangers all the species that adapted to the cold due to the latitude (the Polar species) or the altitude (mountain species). Overexploitation of resources: when the activities connected with capturing and harvesting (hunting, fishing, farming) a renewable natural resource in a particular area is excessively intense, the resource itself may become exhausted, as for example, is the case of sardines, herrings, cod, tuna and many other species that man captures without leaving enough time for the organisms to reproduce.

Biodiversity loss unstoppable

Clark et. al. 13 (Jeannine Cavender-Bares, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA, James Heffernan, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, and Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, Elizabeth King, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, and University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Stephen Polasky, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA Patricia Balvanera, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Morelia, Me´xico William C Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, Elsevier Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, “Sustainability and Biodiversity”, 2013, http://ac.els-cdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/B9780123847195003907/3-s2.0-B9780123847195003907-main.pdf?_tid=87968c3c-f337-11e2-a336-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1374543239_d5d085ef90d9efb74e77823438456a7c)BC Biological systems exhibit extraordinary diversity, whether considering the genetic variation within species, the differences among the more than 8 million recognized species found on the Earth, or the range of environments inhabited and shaped by those organisms. Over the past two centuries, the expansion of human populations, resource demands, and influence on the Earth’s landscapes is the driving force behind a dramatic, planet-wide reduction in biodiversity at all of these levels (genes, species, and ecosystems). Estimates of species extinction over that time period range from 100 to 1000 times background levels (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), a magnitude of biodiversity loss that has been matched only five times in Earth’s history, and the first mass extinction known to be caused by a living species. That this catastrophic loss of diversity is linked with a dramatic increase in both the human population and its overall wellbeing raises fundamental questions for efforts to provide for human needs and preserve the planet’s biodiversity, including whether the human population and its well-being can be maintained in the face of declining biodiversity. Exploitation of ecosystems for human gain has usually ignored sustainability and often depleted biodiversity

Biodiversity loss inevitable- alt causes

Epoch Times 11 (The Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media organisation. As a newspaper, the Times has been publishing in Chinese since May 2000. Headquartered in New York City, the newspaper has local news bureaus and a network of local reporters throughout the world. It is either sold or distributed free-of-charge in roughly 35 countries worldwide, and maintains editions in English, Chinese, nine other languages in print, and 21 on the internet,“Global Biodiversity Loss Inevitable With Protected Areas Only”, July 28, 2011

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only-59685.html) BC

It is not enough to set aside "protected areas" to prevent global biodiversity loss. This message comes from a comprehensive assessment by North American scientists published today, July 28, in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.Biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate, despite extensive efforts to increase the number of protected areas over the past 30 years—now more than 100,000, covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers of ocean.This rate is expected to accelerate due to unsustainable demands on Earth’s ecological resources from human consumption and population growth.“Biodiversity is humanity’s life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilization,” explains lead author Camilo Mora of Hawaii University at Manoa in a press release.Ongoing losses have prompted strong calls to expand protected areas as a remedy."Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity," Mora says. "We need them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity problems.""We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of human overpopulation and consumption."Why Protected Areas Are Not EnoughThe minimum target for effective biodiversity conservation is 30 percent of the world’s ecosystems, but this is simply unachievable at their current growth rate: it will take 185 years for land and 80 years for oceans to reach this target, which is insufficient in the face of rapid climate change, habitat loss, and resource exploitation predicted to cause widespread species extinction before 2050.One limiting factor is funding for effective management of protected areas—the requisite $24 billion a year estimate is four times the current global expenditure. Despite strong support, budget growth is slow and probably will not rise significantly in the near future.Furthermore, even if the 30 percent target were reached, intense conflicts with humanity’s needs for housing and food would occur, displacing many people and impairing their livelihoods. A compromise between the two is unlikely to achieve biodiversity preservation. Another problem lies in the inability of protected areas to counteract human stressors on biodiversity. They are most effective against overexploitation and habitat loss. But climate change, pollution, and invasive species continue to cause losses, with 95 percent of land and 83 percent of ocean protected areas are vulnerable.Related ArticlesEurope’s First Sustainable Seaweed FarmMany current protected areas are not large enough to sustain viable populations, nor close enough to maintain a healthy exchange of species across protected populations.The study authors affirm that biodiversity loss is unlikely to stop without confronting humanity’s ecological footprint."The international community is faced with a choice between two paths," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations University’s Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health, in the release.

"One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss," he added. "That path will fail."

"The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population."

Even Despite protected areas, Biodiversity loss continues

UPI 11 (Since 1907, United Press International (UPI) has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers worldwide. UPI is a global operation with offices in Beirut, Hong Kong, London, Santiago, Seoul and Tokyo. Our headquarters is located in downtown Washington, DC, surrounded by major international policy-making governmental and non-governmental organizations. “Ongoing global biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, August 8, 2011 http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) BC Continued reliance on a strategy of setting aside land and marine territories as "protected areas" is insufficient to stem global biodiversity loss, according to a comprehensive assessment published in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series. Despite impressively rapid growth of protected land and marine areas worldwide - today totalling over 100,000 in number and covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers of oceans - biodiversity is in steep decline. Expected scenarios of human population growth and consumption levels indicate that cumulative human demands will impose an unsustainable toll on the Earth's ecological resources and services accelerating the rate at which biodiversity is being loss. Current and future human requirements will also exacerbate the challenge of effectively implementing protected areas while suggesting that effective biodiversity conservation requires new approaches that address underlying causes of biodiversity loss - including the growth of both human population and resource consumption.Says lead author Camilo Mora of University of Hawaii at Manoa: "Biodiversity is humanity's life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilization. Yet there is an increasingly well-documented global trend in biodiversity loss, triggered by a host of human activities." "Ongoing biodiversity loss and its consequences for humanity's welfare are of great concern and have prompted strong calls for expanding the use of protected areas as a remedy," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations University's Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health. "While many protected areas have helped preserve some species at local scales, promotion of this strategy as a global solution to biodiversity loss, and the advocacy of protection for specific proportions of habitats, have occurred without adequate assessment of their potential effectiveness in achieving the goal." Drs. Mora and Sale warn that long-term failure of the protected areas strategy could erode public and political support for biodiversity conservation and that the disproportionate allocation of available resources and human capital into this strategy precludes the development of more effective approaches. The authors based their study on existing literature and global data on human threats and biodiversity loss."The global network of protected areas is a major achievement, and the pace at which it has been achieved is impressive," says Dr. Sale. "Protected areas are very useful conservation tools, but unfortunately, the steep continuing rate of biodiversity loss signals the need to reassess our heavy reliance on this strategy." The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations: + Expected growth in protected area coverage is too slow While over 100,000 areas are now protected worldwide, strict enforcement occurs on just 5.8% of land and 0.08% of ocean. At current rates, it will take between 185 years in the case of land and 80 years for oceans to cover 30% of the world's ecosystems with protected areas - a minimum target widely advocated for effective biodiversity conservation. This slow pace contrasts sharply with the rapid growth of threats, including climate change, habitat loss and resource exploitation, predicted to cause the extinction of many species even before 2050. + The size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate To ensure species' survival, protected areas must be sufficiently large to sustain viable populations in the face of the inevitable mortality of some individuals trespassing their borders, and areas must be close enough together for a healthy exchange of individuals among protected populations. Globally, however, over 30% of the protected areas in the ocean, and 60% on land are smaller than 1 square kilometer - too small for many larger species. And they tend to be too far apart to allow a sufficient exchange among populations for most species. + Protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species. Yet protected areas are useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors. + Underfunding Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management. Effectively managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated. + Conflicts with human development Humanity's footprint on Earth is ever expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and food. If it did prove possible to place the recommended 30% of world habitats under protection, intense conflicts with competing human interests are inevitable - many people would be displaced and livelihoods impaired. Forcing a trade-off between human development and sustaining biodiversity is unlikely to lead to a solution with biodiversity preserved. Concludes Dr. Mora: "Given the considerable effort and widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised to find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of biodiversity loss. Clearly, the biodiversity loss problem has been underestimated and the ability of protected areas to solve this problem overestimated."The authors underline the correlations between growing world population, natural resources consumption and biodiversity loss to suggest that biodiversity loss is unlikely to be stemmed without directly addressing the ecological footprint of humanity. Based upon previous research, the study shows that under current conditions of human comsumption and conservative scenarios of human population growth, the cummulative use of natural resources of humanity will amount to the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050."Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity. We need them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity problems," adds Dr. Mora. "We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of human overpopulation and consumption." "Our study shows that the international community is faced with a choice between two paths," Dr. Sale says. "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss. That path will fail. The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population."

At Current Rate Biodiversity loss is inevitable

Phys Org 10 (PhysOrg is a science, research and technology news website specializing in the hard science subjects of physics, space and earth science, biology, chemistry, electronics, nanotechnology and technology in general. It is known for timely updates of scientific breakthroughs and press releases from major research labs and universities across the world. The site also publishes daily reports,[1] blogs and exclusive comprehensive articles[2] on new peer-reviewed scientific papers. It also runs the website MedicalxPress, which features medical news stories.“Continuing biodiversity loss predicted but could be slowed” October 26, 2010, http://phys.org/news/2010-10-biodiversity-loss.html#nRlv)BC A new analysis of several major global studies of future species shifts and losses foresees inevitable continuing decline of biodiversity during the 21st century but offers new hope that it could be slowed if emerging policy choices are pursued. Led by experts Henrique Miguel Pereira and Paul Leadley, the 23-member scientific team from nine countries, under the auspices of DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC and the secretariat of the CBD compared results from five recent global environmental assessments and a wide range of peer-reviewed literature examining likely future changes in biodiversity. Published today in the journal Science, the analysis found universal agreement across the studies that fundamental changes are needed in society to avoid high risk of extinctions, declining populations in many species, and large scale shifts in species distributions in the future Says Dr. Leadley, of the University Paris-Sud, France: "There is no question that business-as-usual development pathways will lead to catastrophic biodiversity loss. Even optimistic scenarios for this century consistently predict extinctions and shrinking populations of many species." He notes that the target of stopping biodiversity loss by 2020 "sounds good, but sadly isn't realistic." Among the brightest spots of hope: recent scenarios show that slowing climate change and deforestation can go hand-in-hand to reduce biodiversity loss thanks to "significant opportunities to intervene through better policies, such as those aimed at mitigating climate change without massive conversion of forests to biofuel plantations" says Dr. Leadley. But action must be taken quickly, as the study indicates the window of opportunity is closing rapidly, as differences in policy action taken now could either lead to an increase in global forest cover of about 15% in the best case or losses of more than 10% in the worst case by 2030. The authors say the creation of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-like mechanism for biodiversity (to be called the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services -- IPBES) is "extremely important" for achieving commonly-agreed definitions and indicators for biodiversity and to inform decision making."The issues are so urgent and the stakes for humanity so important, scientists need to coalesce through the IPBES to inform policy-makers with a unified, authoritative voice," states Dr. Pereira, of the Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.IPBES could also play an important role in organizing the scientific co-operation to reduce uncertainty in biodiversity scenarios. Models foresee extinction rates ranging from less than 1% per century (close to the current rate of extinctions) to more than 50%. "The degree of both land use and climate change explains a substantial fraction of the range of projected extinctions, but incomplete understanding of species ecology is also an important source of uncertainty," says Dr. Leadley. Among the key issues is the lack of consensus defining the length of time involved in species' extinction - which may be decades or millennia - leading to "considerable uncertainty in models and substantial disagreement within scientific community concerning the likelihood of massive extinctions over the coming century." Furthermore, the researchers note that changes in species distributions and population sizes should receive more attention because they are likely more critical to human well-being and better short-term indicators of the pressures of humans on ecosystems.For example the continuing overall decline in populations of large-bodied fish species due to over-fishing, the poleward migration of marine species at a rate of more than 40 km per decade due to climate change, and the 10 to 20% decline in the abundance of terrestrial species by mid-century primarily due to land-use change.The analysis also concludes that the difficulty of trade-offs between meeting human wants and needs and protecting biodiversity is likely to intensify."Future extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is much more than extinctions," says Dr. Pereira. "Much of what will happen to biodiversity in 21st century is not global extinctions, but major changes in the abundance of species and the composition of communities".

Biodiversity loss inevitable – 5 warrants prove

Bacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation

Senior Research and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown University, “UN study says biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, July 28, 2012, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php , MS) The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations. The first of these limitations is that "protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats." ¶ "Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species," according to the study. "Yet protected areas are useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors." ¶ This conclusion by the scientists echoes one of the key criticisms of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative - the "marine protected areas" created by this widely-contested process don't comprehensively protect the ocean from the main threats to the ocean and marine life in California. These threats include massive water diversions out of the Bay-Delta Estuary, water pollution, oil spills and drilling, wave and wind energy projects, military testing, habitat destruction and all other human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering. ¶ Ironically, even before the imposition of these largely redundant ocean closures that are now being contested by coalition of fishing organizations in court, California marine and anadromous fisheries had the strictest recreational and commercial fishing regulations on the entire planet. MLPA advocates refuse to acknowledge the existence of one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, the Rockfish Conservation Area, that encompass the entire continental shelf of California from the Oregon border to the Mexican border! ¶ A second limitation cited in the study is "underfunding." "Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management," the assessment notes. ¶ "Effectively managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated," according to the report. ¶ Again, the assessment echoes the criticism by fishermen and grassroots environmentalists that there is not sufficient funding for enforcement of new marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The game wardens refer to these new MPAs as "marine poaching areas," since they will only spread a force of wardens already unable to effectively monitor existing reserves even thinner. In fact, Jerry Karnow, the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, has repeatedly asked the California Fish and Game Commission to not create new marine protected areas unless sufficient funding is provided to hire new wardens. ¶ The three other limitations pinpointed by the scientists are: ¶ • the expected growth in protected area coverage is too slow ¶ • the size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate ¶ • conflicts with human development.

Biodiversity loss inevitable

Wright 10 (George Wright, first chief of the wildlife division of the U.S. National Park, “Continuing biodiversity loss inevitable, but could be slowed, scientists say”, October 26, 2010, http://www.georgewright.org/node/2701 MS)

ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2010) — A new analysis of several major global studies of future species shifts and losses foresees inevitable continuing decline of biodiversity during the 21st century but offers new hope that it could be slowed if emerging policy choices are pursued.¶ Led by experts Henrique Miguel Pereira and Paul Leadley, the 23-member scientific team from nine countries, under the auspices of DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC and the secretariat of the CBD compared results from five recent global environmental assessments and a wide range of peer-reviewed literature examining likely future changes in biodiversity.

Biodiversity loss inevitable

Bacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation

Senior Research and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown University, “UN study says biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, July 28, 2012, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php , MS)"Humanity's footprint on Earth is ever expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and food," the scientists stated. "If it did prove possible to place the recommended 30% of world habitats under protection, intense conflicts with competing human interests are inevitable - many people would be displaced and livelihoods impaired. Forcing a trade-off between human development and sustaining biodiversity is unlikely to lead to a solution with biodiversity preserved."

Biodiversity is already declining at a rapid rate and is still able to recover

Science Daily 2 (University of Texas, Austin, “Extinction Rate Across the Globe Reaches Historical Proportions,” 1/10/2002, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm) Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth. "The numbers are grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past." Biological diversity ultimately recovered after each of the five past mass extinctions, probably requiring several million years in each instance. As for today's mass extinction, Levin said some ecologists believe the low level of species diversity may become a permanent state, especially if vast tracts of wilderness area are destroyed.