Geoengineering Case Neg

1NC
 I-Law DA
Large scale unilateral geoengineering violates CIL
Wilson 13 (Grant S., J.D., Professional Associate at the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, “Murky
Waters: Ambiguous International Law for Ocean Fertilization and Other Geoengineering”, 49 Tex. Int’l
L.J. 3 533, http://www.tilj.org/content/journal/49/num3/Wilson507.pdf, CH)

Finally, customary international law, which is binding on all states, may also regulate ocean fertilization.203
Were wide-scale ocean-fertilization activities to cause transboundary harm to other countries, such as
by harming their marine ecosystems, such activities may be in violation of the duty to not cause
significant transboundary harm, which arises from c ustomary international law.204 Karen N. Scott argues that
this is the case especially if environmental damage from ocean fertilization is serious or irreversible ,
although she concedes that such harms may be balanced against climate-change mitigation.205 Other relevant duties arising from
customary international law potentially include the obligation to prevent pollution, the obligation to
protect vulnerable ecosystems and species, and the precautionary principle (or approach).206 The CBD recognizes
the relevance of customary international law in geoengineering but notes that such law does not appear to be an adequate basis of regulation.

Only enhancing customary international law can protect ASAT malfunctions from
escalation – US adherence to CIL is key
Koplow 09 (David, Georgetown University Law Center, “ASAT-isfaction: Customary International Law
and the Regulation of Anti-Satellite Weapons,” Michigan Journal of International Law, Summer 2009, 30
Mich. J. Int’l L. 1187-1272, http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1452&context=facpub, CH)

IV. GENERAL CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ASATs In light of the failure, for some decades now, to address ASAT issues
effectively via treaty law, the various stakeholders should now begin to consider alternative vehicles.
This Article presents one such possibility: enhancement of customary international law. Non-lawyers,
and even lawyers who are not schooled in public international law specifically, may not fully appreciate
the power and stature of CIL. This Part there fore defines this jurisprudence, explains how it is created and how it operates, and examines the extent to which it might
substitute for or complement formal treaty negotiations in pursuit of PAROS objectives. CIL is an ancient, albeit somewhat murky, form of

obligation, arising from the unwritten practice of States; it is nonetheless a leading, well-respected
source of international law, fully on par with treaties.1" CIL is specified in the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as an appropriate set
of obligations for the court to apply,"2 and the ICJ regularly does so, as do the federal courts in the United States."4 Although CIL is often less “definite” than

treaty law—it can be difficult to ascertain the precise content of a putative CIL rule, to deter mine that it
has actually achieved the status of CIL, and to know on which States it is binding—it is nonetheless an
important, dynamic, and prominent component of the international legal structure, routinely adduced
and applied with decisive effect. In the words of the American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, CIL emerges “from a
general and consistent practice of states, followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.”"6 Two elements must thus be established to create a binding rule: the “objective” criterion seeks
a widespread, longstanding pattern of concordant state practice; the “subjective” or “psychological” criterion seeks to attribute that pattern of practice to a “sense of obligation,” rather than

of CIL does not demand absolute unanimity

merely to habit, courtesy, indifference, or political expediency. A. The Objective Element The objective element

or perfect consistency in the emerging custom, but the more States participate, the better, and the
behavior of the “leading” States (those that are most active in the particular field, or most affected by it)
will count extra."7 As the ICJ observed in the Nicaragua vs. United States case in 1986, The Court does not consider that, for a rule to be established as customary, the
corresponding practice must be in absolutely rigorous conformity with the rule. In order to deduce the existence of customary rules, the Court deems it sufficient that the conduct of States
should, in general, be consistent with such rules, and that instances of State conduct inconsistent with a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches of that rule, not as
indications of the recognition of a new rule. In addition, the traditional requirement that the observed pattern of state behavior must be “longstanding” has also been tempered in the modern
era. If the consensus among States is truly widespread and deep, its relatively short duration may be overlooked. In particular sectors where technology emerges rapidly, or where States
quickly alter their policies and attitudes, the oxymoron “instant customary law” may be installed. A leading illustration of that phenomenon, according to the Restatement, was the rapid
crystallization of a rule allowing coastal States to exert exclusive claims to the resources of the contiguous oceanic continental shelf."9 As the ICJ explained in the 1969 North Sea Continental
Shelf Cases, “the passage of only a short period of time is not necessarily, or of itself, a bar to the formation of a new rule of customary international law.” To evaluate the relevant behavior of

CIL contemplates the full range of a country’s words as well as deeds , silences as well as inactions,
States,

and oral as well as written statements. Diplomatic communications, comments in public fora, and, of
course, overt exertions of military, economic, or political power are all taken into account. The relevant
actions may be unilateral or undertaken in concert with others. Silence or passivity, however, is often difficult to construe; should it be
interpreted as acquiescence to the emerging norm, or as a failure to notice it? Most of the relevant state behaviors would ordinarily be exerted by a country’s executive branch, but in suitable
circumstances, the legislative and judicial branches can play their roles, too. Sometimes, even non state actors (the United Nations or non-governmental organizations such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross) can undertake actions that could contribute to the growth of CIL. These days, some very active States promulgate so much internationally relevant “behavior” that
other countries must attend diligently to the torrent, lest their failure to respond be interpreted as acceptance. B. The Subjective Element The subjective element of CIL (the “opinio juris sive
necessitatisis”) is often even more problematic. First, it can be impossibly difficult to discern why a particular State has behaved in a particular way—was it “from a sense of legal obligation” or
for other lesser motivations? States do not routinely announce their motivations, and multiple, conflicting factors may contribute to a national decision-making process. At a deeper level, this
psychological factor poses something of a conundrum—it appears that an emerging pattern of state behavior counts as CIL only if States behave in that concordant fashion out of a sense that
they are already legally obligated to do so. If they instead perceive themselves to be undertaking merely voluntary behaviors, from which they remain legally free to depart at any point
without incurring international legal liability, then when can a CIL standard emerge? One path for escaping that conundrum is to suggest that a CIL norm may evolve slowly or gradually, as the
pattern of state behavior creeps from “voluntary” toward “compulsory” That is, an individual State may act in a particular way purely for self-interested reasons, with no suggestion that it (or
others) would be obligated to do so. But perhaps other States, appreciating the wisdom and virtue of that behavior, begin to similarly adopt it as their own. And perhaps over time that
emerging “pattern” of behavior is followed (still voluntarily) by additional States, gradually accreting into a common thread. At some point, States may come to “expect” that others will
continue to follow the pattern; they may come to “rely” on that continuity; they may eventually come to feel that it is “legitimate” to do so and “improper” to depart. Eventually, the
conformity may rise to the level where the international consensus is deemed to have “crystallized” or “hardened” into a binding rule of CIL, departure from which is then no longer simply
“unwelcome” or “regrettable,” but positively “illegal.” Any particular State may be surprised to discover that what had begun as purely a voluntary and individual practice had ripened into a
binding and universal international rule, but that is the law-making process of CIL. C. Weighing the Objective and Subjective Elements of Customary International Law Scholars debate the
relative importance of the objective and subjective elements of CIL. Some “positivists” argue for emphasis on the naked facts of state behavior, focusing strictly on the actions that States
undertake in the world, discounting any inquiry into the underlying rationale, justification or motivation. For example, the International Law Association in 2000 adopted a “Statement of
Principles” espousing that postulate, asserting that “it is not usually necessary to demonstrate the existence of the subjective element before a customary rule can be said to have come into
being.” Some prominent case law demonstrates a similar bent. In The Paquete Habana, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1900 first articulated the principle that international law is part of our law,
and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For
this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations. To ascertain the
relevant rights in that case (involving the seizure as prizes of war of two fishing vessels operating out of Havana at the outbreak of the Spanish-American War), the Court surveyed some 500
years of maritime history to discern whether a pattern of state practice had become sufficiently entrenched to exempt from seizure certain categories of coastal fishing ships. In that
painstaking exegesis, the Court inquired into the cognizable actions of England, Japan, and other States, but commented little on their articulated reasons or the perception of legal compulsion
justifying those externally observable actions. In contrast, the Restatement and most other contemporary authorities continue to emphasize the subjective as well as the objective elements,
differentiating mere habit or comity from binding law. In fact, some authorities would elevate the subjective element to primacy, suggesting that if States generally believe something to be
illegal (or permitted, or mandatory, depending on how the norm is phrased) it is less important that their actual behavior conform to that standard. To that effect is Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the
famous Second Circuit 1980 Alien Tort Claims Act case that opened U.S. courts to human rights suits seeking redress for state-sponsored torture conducted in a foreign land. There, the court
relied on “the universal condemnation of torture” in numerous global and regional human rights treaties and on “the renunciation of torture as an instrument of official policy” in the national
constitutions of at least fifty-five States. On the other hand, the court had to acknowledge that this outlawry of torture was “in principle if not in practice,” and it dropped a footnote explaining
that “[t]he fact that the prohibition of torture is often honored in the breach does not dimin ish its binding effect as a norm of international law.” In this view, the fact that States generally
proclaim the illegality of torture outweighs, for purposes of adducing a CIL standard, the fact that many of them continue to employ it as a frequent tool of national policy. The ICJ continues to
espouse both elements as required for CIL. In its remarkable 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the ICJ observed that nuclear weapons had not
been employed in combat since 1945, a span of half a century of zero use. (Eight countries have conducted 2051 explosive tests of nuclear weapons since 1945.) Despite that objective pattern
of restraint, the court was unable to find a CIL prohibiting nuclear weapons, because the opinio juris element was absent. The nuclear weapons-possessing States had asserted that, pursuant
to the policy and practice of deterrence, they had always reserved the legal right to threaten, and even to use, their nuclear weapons in the exercise of self-defense. In addition, numerous
treaties regulate—but manifestly do not purport to ban completely— nuclear weapons, an implicit acknowledgement of their lawfulness. As the ICJ characterized the argument, the abstention
from use of nuclear weapons “is not on account of an existing or nascent custom but merely because circumstances that might justify their use have fortunately not • 137 arisen. D. Customary

Treaties Although treaties and customary international law norms are of equivalent legal
International Law and

weight, there is one sense in which CIL is even more assertive and far-reaching than the written
instruments. That is, once a CIL norm is established (through the above-described arcane objective and subjective criteria), it becomes
automatically binding on all States— even those that did not participate in the emerging pattern, that
may not have been fully cognizant that a trend was developing, and that may not be fully supportive of
the rule, if they took the occasion to think about it seriously. In fact, new countries (e.g., former colonies) that
were not even in existence at the time a prior CIL norm had emerged are nonetheless bound by it—a
new State may have some ability to pick and choose which treaty obligations of its former regime should
continue to apply to the new entity, but it is generally deemed to have consented automatically to the
entire corpus of CIL that exists on the date of its independence . The only exemption from CIL is available to a “persistent objector.” That is,
a State that publicly and consistently repudiates a newly arising norm of CIL, from the time that it emerges through its effectuation as law, is not bound by it. There are, however, few examples
of successful invocation of this exception; it is rare for a State to be sufficiently prescient and conscientious to preserve its autonomy as a new CIL rule advances. In contrast, of course, any
State may avoid any treaty obligation simply by deciding not to sign or ratify it. Treaties rarely directly implicate the rights and responsibilities of non-parties, and passivity or inaction therefore
results in the absence of legal responsibility. With CIL, on the other hand, the “default position” is reversed. The relationship between treaty and CIL is also intricate with respect to sequencing.

That is, sometimes CIL can precede, and lead to, a treaty: if the world develops a growing sense that a
particular form of state behavior ought to be obligatory (or permitted, or prohibited), that consensus
can generate, as we have seen, a CIL norm. Later (or simulta neously) that same sentiment can inspire countries
to negotiate a treaty, reducing the inchoate CIL rules to explicit written text.
Space debris results in accidental nuclear war with Russia – extinction
Lewis 04 (Jeffrey Lewis, Ph.D. in International Security and Economic Policy from the University of
Maryland, Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for
Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, adjunct faculty member at
Georgetown University and a research scholar at the Center for International and Security Studies at the
University of Maryland School of Public Policy (CSSIM), "What if space were weaponized?", 2004, Center
for Defense Information, p. 18-21)
As we have noted in an earlier section, the United States canceled its own ASAT program in the 1980s over concerns that the deployment of
these weapons might be deeply destabilizing. For
all the talk about a “new relationship” between the United States
and Russia, both sides retain thousands of nuclear forces on alert and configured to fight a nuc lear war.
When briefed about the size and status of U.S. nuclear forces, President George W. Bush reportedly asked “What do we need all these weapons
the forces remain on alert to conduct a number of possible
for?”43 The answer, as it was during the Cold War, is that
contingencies, including a nuclear strike against Russia. This fact, of course, is not lost on the Russian
leadership, which has been increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons to compensate for the country’s
declining military might. In the mid-1990s, Russia dropped its pledge to refrain from the “first use” of
nuclear weapons and conducted a series of exercises in which Russian nuclear forces prepared to use
nuclear weapons to repel a NATO invasion. In October 2003, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov
reiterated that Moscow might use nuclear weapons “preemptively” in any number of contingencies ,
including a NATO attack.44 So, it remains business as usual with U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. And
business as usual includes the occasional false alarm of a nuclear attack. There have been several of
these incidents over the years. In September 1983, as a relatively new Soviet early-warning satellite moved into position to monitor
U.S. missile fields in North Dakota, the sun lined up in just such a way as to fool the Russian satellite into reporting that half a dozen U.S.
missiles had been launched at the Soviet Union. Perhaps mindful that a brand new satellite might malfunction, the officer in charge of the
command center that monitored data from the early-warning satellites refused to pass the alert to his superiors. He reportedly explained his
caution by saying: “When people start a war, they don’t start it with only five missiles. You can do little damage with just five missiles.”45 In
January 1995, Norwegian scientists launched a sounding rocket on a trajectory similar to one that a U.S. Trident missile might take if it were
launched to blind Russian radars with a high altitude nuclear detonation. The incident was apparently serious enough that, the next day,
Russian President Boris Yeltsin stated that he had activated his “nuclear football” – a device that allows the Russian president to communicate
with his military advisors and review his options for launching his arsenal. In this case, the Russian early-warning satellites could clearly see that
no attack was under way and the crisis passed without incident.46 In both cases, Russian observers were confident that what appeared to be a
“small” attack was not a fragmentary picture of a much larger one. In the case of the Norwegian sounding rocket, space-based sensors played a
crucial role in assuring the Russian leadership that it was not under attack. The
Russian command system, however, is no
longer able to provide such reliable, early warning. The dissolution of the Soviet Union cost Moscow
several radar stations in newly independent states, creating “attack corridors” through which Moscow
could not see an attack launched by U.S. nuclear submarines .47 Further, Russia’s constellation of early-
warning satellites has been allowed to decline – only one or two of the six satellites remain operational,
leaving Russia with early warning for only six hours a day. Russia is attempting to reconstitute its
constellation of early-warning satellites, with several launches planned in the next few years. But Russia
will still have limited warning and will depend heavily on its space-based systems to provide warning
of an American attack.48 As the previous section explained, the Pentagon is contemplating military missions in
space that will improve U.S. ability to cripple Russian nuclear forces in a crisis before they can execute
an attack on the United States. Anti-satellite weapons, in this scenario, would blind Russian reconnaissance
and warning satellites and knock out communications satellites. Such strikes might be the prelude to a
full-scale attack, or a limited effort, as attempted in a war game at Schriever Air Force Base, to conduct “early deterrence strikes” to signal
U.S. resolve and control escalation.49 By 2010, the United States may, in fact, have an arsenal of ASATs (perhaps
even on orbit 24/7) ready to conduct these kinds of missions – to coerce opponents and, if necessary,
support preemptive attacks. Moscow would certainly have to worry that these ASATs could be used in
conjunction with other space-enabled systems – for example, long-range strike systems that could
attack targets in less than 90 minutes – to disable Russia’s nuclear deterrent before the Russian
leadership understood what was going on. What would happen if a piece of space debris were to disable
a Russian early-warning satellite under these conditions? Could the Russian military distinguish between
an accident in space and the first phase of a U.S. attack? Most Russian early-warning satellites are in elliptical Molniya
orbits (a few are in GEO) and thus difficult to attack from the ground or air. At a minimum, Moscow would probably have some tactical warning
of such a suspicious launch, but given the sorry state of Russia’s warning, optical imaging and signals intelligence satellites there is reason to ask
the question. Further, the advent of U.S. on-orbit ASATs, as now envisioned 50 could make both the more
difficult orbital plane and any warning systems moot. The unpleasant truth is that the Russians likely
would have to make a judgment call. No state has the ability to definitively determine the cause of the
satellite’s failure. Even the United States does not maintain (nor is it likely to have in place by 2010) a sophisticated
space surveillance system that would allow it to distinguish between a satellite malfunction, a debris
strike or a deliberate attack – and Russian space surveillance capabilities are much more limited by
comparison. Even the risk assessments for collision with debris are speculative, particularly for the
unique orbits in which Russian early-warning satellites operate. During peacetime, it is easy to imagine
that the Russians would conclude that the loss of a satellite was either a malfunction or a debris strike .
But how confident could U.S. planners be that the Russians would be so calm if the accident in space
occurred in tandem with a second false alarm, or occurred during the middle of a crisis? What might
happen if the debris strike occurred shortly after a false alarm showing a missile launch? False alarms
are appallingly common – according to information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S.-Canadian North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) experienced 1,172 “moderately serious” false alarms between
1977 and 1983 – an average of almost three false alarms per week. Comparable information is not
available about the Russian system, but there is no reason to believe that it is any more reliable .51
Assessing the likelihood of these sorts of coincidences is difficult because Russia has never provided data
about the frequency or duration of false alarms; nor indicated how seriously early warning data is taken
by Russian leaders. Moreover, there is no reliable estimate of the debris risk for Russian satellites in
highly elliptical orbits.52 The important point, however, is that such a coincidence would only appear suspicious if the United States
were in the business of disabling satellites – in other words, there is much less risk if Washington does not develop
ASATs. The loss of an early-warning satellite could look rather ominous if it occurred during a period of
major tension in the relationship. While NATO no longer sees Russia as much of a threat, the same
cannot be said of the converse. Despite the warm talk, Russian leaders remain wary of NATO expansion,
particularly the effect expansion may have on the Baltic port of Kaliningrad. Although part of Russia,
Kaliningrad is separated from the rest of Russia by Lithuania and Poland. Russia has already complained
about its decreasing lack of access to the port, particularly the uncooperative attitude of the Lithuanian
government.53 News reports suggest that an edgy Russia may have moved tactical nuclear weapons into
the enclave.54 If the Lithuanian government were to close access to Kaliningrad in a fit of pique, this
would trigger a major crisis between NATO and Russia. Under these circumstances, the loss of an early-
warning satellite would be extremely suspicious. It is any military’s nature during a crisis to interpret
events in their worst-case light. For example, consider the coincidences that occurred in early September 1956, during the
extraordinarily tense period in international relations marked by the Suez Crisis and Hungarian uprising.55 On one evening the White House
received messages indicating: 1. the Turkish Air Force had gone on alert in response to unidentified aircraft penetrating its airspace; 2. one
hundred Soviet MiG-15s were flying over Syria; 3. a British Canberra bomber had been shot down over Syria, most likely by a MiG; and 4. The
Russian fleet was moving through the Dardanelles. Gen. Andrew Goodpaster was reported to have worried that the confluence of events
“might trigger off … the NATO operations plan” that called for a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. Yet, all of these reports were false. The
“jets” over Turkey were a flock of swans; the Soviet MiGs over Syria were a smaller, routine escort returning the president from a state visit to
Moscow; the bomber crashed due to mechanical difficulties; and the Soviet fleet was beginning long-scheduled exercises. In an important
sense, these were not “coincidences” but rather different manifestations of a common failure – human error resulting from extreme tension of
an international crisis. As one author noted, “The detection and misinterpretation of these events, against the context of world tensions from
Hungary and Suez, was the first major example of how the size and complexity of worldwide electronic warning systems could, at certain critical
times, create momentum of its own.” Perhaps most worrisome, the United States might be blithely unaware of the degree to which the
Russians were concerned about its actions and inadvertently escalate a crisis. During the early 1980s, the Soviet Union suffered a major “war
scare” during which time its leadership concluded that bilateral relations were rapidly declining. This war scare was driven in part by the
rhetoric of the Reagan administration, fortified by the selective reading of intelligence. During this period, NATO conducted a major command
post exercise, Able Archer, that caused some elements of the Soviet military to raise their alert status. American officials were stunned to learn,
after the fact, that the Kremlin had been acutely nervous about an American first strike during this period.56 All of these incidents have a
common theme – thatconfidence is often the difference between war and peace. In times of crisis, false
alarms can have a momentum of their own . As in the second scenario in this monograph, the lesson is
that commanders rely on the steady flow of reliable information. When that information flow is
disrupted – whether by a deliberate attack or an accident – confidence collapses and the result is panic
and escalation. Introducing ASAT weapons into this mix is all the more dangerous, because such
weapons target the elements of the command system that keep leaders aware, informed and in control.
As a result, the mere presence of such weapons is corrosive to the confidence that allows national
nuclear forces to operate safely.
 Warming K
Apocalyptic representations of climate change are an ineffective rhetorical strategy that
produces a self-fulfilling prophecy
Hulme (Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research) 6
(Mike, Chaotic world of climate truth, 4 November,
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm)

The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year's global
assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To state
that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not
emerge from empirical or theoretical science. Is any amount of climate change catastrophic?
Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?
The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective
communication or inducement for behavioural change. This has been seen in other areas of
public health risk. Empirical work in relation to climate change communication and public
perception shows that it operates here too. Framing climate change as an issue which
evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we
exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off. The careless (or
conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for
WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions. We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our
society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-
productive pathway. The IPCC scenarios of future climate change - warming somewhere
between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius by 2100 - are significant enough without invoking catastrophe
and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioural change. I
believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe
is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.  

And, if successful, apocalyptic representations of climate change lead to great power war –
regional interventions and arms races
Brzoska (Inst. for Peace Research and Security Policy @ Hamburg) 8
(Micahel, “The Securitization of climate change and the power of conceptions of security” ISA Convention Paper)

In the literature on securitization it is implied that when a problem is securitized it is difficult to limit this to an increase in
attention and resources devoted to mitigating the problem (Brock 1997, Waever 1995). Securitization regularly leads to all-round
‘exceptionalism’ in dealing with the issue as well as to a shift in institutional localization towards ‘security experts’ (Bigot 2006),
such as the military and police. Methods and instruments associated with these security organizations – such as more use of
arms, force and violence – will gain in importance in the discourse on ‘what to do’. A good example of securitization was the
period leading to the Cold War (Guzzini 2004 ). Originally a political conflict over the organization of societies, in the
late 1940s, the East-West confrontation became an existential conflict that was
overwhelmingly addressed with military means, including the potential annihilation of
humankind. Efforts to alleviate the political conflict were, throughout most of the Cold War, secondary to improving military
capabilities. Climate change could meet a similar fate. An essentially political problem concerning the
distribution of the costs of prevention and adaptation and the losses and gains in income arising from change in the human
environment might be perceived as intractable, thus necessitating the build-up of military and
police forces to prevent it from becoming a major security problem. The portrayal of climate change as a
security problem could, in particular, cause the richer countries in the global North, which are
less affected by it, to strengthen measures aimed at protecting them from the spillover of
 violent conflict from the poorer countries in the global South that will be most affected by climate
change. It could also be used by major powers as a justification for improving their
military preparedness against the other major powers, thus leading to arms races. This
kind of reaction to climate change would be counterproductive in various ways. Firstly, since more border
protection, as well as more soldiers and arms, is expensive, the financial means compensate for the negative economic
effects of reducing greenhouse gas emission and adapting to climate change will be reduced. Global military
expenditure is again at the level of the height of the Cold War in real terms, reaching more than US $1,200 billion in 2006 or 3.5
percent of global income. While any estimate of the costs of mitigation (e.g. of restricting global warming to 2°C by 2050) and
adaptation are speculative at the moment,1 they are likely to be substantial. While there is no necessary link between higher
military expenditures and a lower willingness to spend on preventing and preparing for climate change, both policy areas
are in competition for scarce resources.

No risk of offence – Total environmental collapse is inevitable even if warming is solved –

their focus on warming trade off with broader environmental protections
Crist (Prof in Department of Science and Technology in Society @ Virginia Tech) 7
(Eileen, Beyond the Climate Crisis: A Critique of Climate Change Discourse, Telos 4 (Winter 2007): 29–55)

While the dangers of climate change are real, I argue that there are even greater dangers in
representing it as the most urgent problem we face. Framing climate change in such a
manner deserves to be challenged for two reasons: it encourages the restriction of proposed
solutions to the technical realm, by powerfully insinuating that the needed
approaches are those that directly address the problem; and it detracts attention from
the planet’s ecological predicament as a whole, by virtue of claiming the lime- light for the
one issue that trumps all others.
Identifying climate change as the biggest threat to civilization, and ushering it into center stage as the
highest priority problem, has bolstered the proliferation of technical proposals that address the specific
challenge. The race is on for figuring out what technologies, or portfolio thereof, will solve “the
problem.” Whether the call is for reviving nuclear power, boosting the installation of wind turbines,
using a variety of renewable energy sources, increasing the efficiency of fossil-fuel use, developing
carbon-sequestering technologies, or placing mirrors in space to deflect the sun’s rays, the narrow
character of such proposals is evident: confront the problem of greenhouse gas emissions by
technologically phasing them out, superseding them, capturing them, or mitigating their heating
effects. In his The Revenge of Gaia, for example, Lovelock briefly mentions the need to face climate
change by “changing our whole style of living.”_6 But the thrust of this work, what readers and policy-
makers come away with, is his repeated and strident call for investing in nuclear energy as, in his
words, “the one lifeline we can use immediately.”_7 In the policy realm, the first step toward the
technological fix for global warming is often identified with implementing the Kyoto protocol. Biologist
Tim Flannery agitates for the treaty, comparing the need for its successful endorsement to that of the
Montreal protocol that phased out the ozone-depleting CFCs. “The Montreal protocol,” he submits,
“marks a signal moment in human societal development, representing the first ever victory by
humanity over a global pollution problem.”_8 He hopes for a similar victory for the global climate-
change problem.
Yet the deepening realization of the threat of climate change, virtually in the wake of stratospheric
ozone depletion, also suggests that dealing with global problems treaty-by-treaty is no solution to the
planet’s pre- dicament. Just as the risks of unanticipated ozone depletion have been followed by the
dangers of a long underappreciated climate crisis, so it would be naïve not to anticipate another
(perhaps even entirely unforesee- able) catastrophe arising after the (hoped-for) resolution of the
above two. Furthermore, if greenhouse gases were restricted successfully by means of
technological shifts and innovations, the root cause of the ecological crisis as a whole
 would remain unaddressed. The destructive patterns of production, trade, extraction,
land-use, waste proliferation, and consump- tion, coupled with population growth,
would go unchallenged, continuing to run down the integrity, beauty, and biological richness of the
Earth. Industrial-consumer civilization has entrenched a form of life that admits virtually no limits to its
expansiveness within, and perceived entitlement to, the entire planet._9 But questioning this
civilization is by and large sidestepped in climate-change discourse, with its single-minded quest
for a global-warming techno-fix.20 Instead of confronting the forms of social organization that
are causing the climate crisis—among numer- ous other catastrophes—climate-change literature often
focuses on how global warming is endangering the culprit, and agonizes over what tech- nological
means can save it from impending tipping points.2_
The dominant frame of climate change funnels cognitive and pragmatic work toward
specifically addressing global warming, while muting a host of equally monumental
issues. Climate change looms so huge on the environmental and political agenda today that it has
contributed to downplaying other facets of the ecological crisis: mass extinction of
species, the devastation of the oceans by industrial fishing, continued old-growth deforestation,
topsoil losses and desertification, endocrine dis- ruption, incessant development, and so on, are
made to appear secondary and more forgiving by comparison with “dangerous anthropogenic
inter- ference” with the climate system.
In what follows, I will focus specifically on how climate-change discourse encourages the continued
marginalization of the biodiversity crisis—a crisis that has been soberly described as a holocaust,22 and
which despite decades of scientific and environmentalist pleas remains a virtual non-topic in society,
the mass media, and humanistic and other academic literatures. Several works on climate change
(though by no means all) extensively examine the consequences of global warming for biodiver- sity,23
but rarely is it mentioned that biodepletion predates dangerous greenhouse-gas buildup by
decades, centuries, or longer, and will not be stopped by a technological resolution of
global warming. Climate change is poised to exacerbate species and ecosystem losses—indeed, is
doing so already. But while technologically preempting the worst of climate change may
temporarily avert some of those losses, such a resolution of the cli- mate quandary will not put an end
to—will barely address—the ongoing destruction of life on Earth.

Our alternative is to reject the Aff’s representations of climate catastrophe

As communication scholars we have an obligation to determine effective rhetorical strategies

for our policy proposals – apocalyptic reps of climate change must be rejected as an utter
failure
Foust and Murphy (Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University
of Denver; doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver) 9
(Christina R. Foust & William O'Shannon Murphy, Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming
Discourse, Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, pages 151-167,Volume 3, Issue 2,
2009)

In conclusion, an apocalyptic structure permeates the global warming narrative in the

American elite and popular press, with the potential to force the predicted tragedy into being,
due to its limitations on human agency. We echo the call for communication scholars of all
methodological commitments to join environmental advocates , climate scientists, and
others, in their efforts to build a collective will to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Moser &
Dilling, 2007). A great part of this effort is in reframing the way the press constitutes climate
change discourse (Boykoff, 2007b). These efforts also must extend beyond the media to include
other arenas in which an active public is aroused, from kitchen tables and water coolers, to board
rooms and classrooms. By providing the public, agenda-setting professionals (e.g., public
relations practitioners and journalists), and community leaders with ways to structure
communication that promote agency, rhetoricians might advance widespread public
action on climate change.The apocalyptic frame, particularly in its tragic version, is not an
effective rhetorical strategy for this situation. It has been developed over at least the last
decade of press coverage, a time in which the US has refused all but the most paltry
political action on greenhouse gas reductions. Tragic apocalyptic discourse encourages
belief in prophesy at the expense of practicing persuasion, even as it provokes resignation in the
face of a human-induced dilemma. Given the tragic apocalyptic frame's ineffectiveness at inspiring
action-or, at least its persistent evacuation of agency-we must promote more action-oriented rhetorical
strategies. Together, we may advance the climate change narrative from an apocalyptic tragedy to a
more comic telos for humanity.
 Warming
Turn – ocean fertilization causes iron to be absorbed by one type of plankton – makes
carbon eating plankton require less iron and suck up less carbon
Romm 13 (Joe, Ph.D. in Physics from MIT, Senior Fellow at American Progress, former assistant
secretary at the Department of Energy, “Yet Another Geoengineering Scheme, Ocean Iron Fertilization,
Could Backfire,” Published July 10, 2013,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/10/2150931/another-geoengineering-scheme-ocean-iron-
fertilization-could-backfire/, CH)

Can we save the planet by ruining it (even more)? Argonne

National Laboratory reports that “A new study on the feeding
habits of ocean microbes calls into question the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and
offset rising global levels.” Four years ago, the journal Nature published a piece arguing that “fertilizing
the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
and export carbon to the deep sea — should be abandoned.” Now Argonne Lab reports so-called iron
fertilization “may have only a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce
over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap .” The more you know about geo-engineering, the less sense it makes (see
Science: “Optimism about a geoengineered ‘easy way out’ should be tempered by examination of currently observed climate changes”). The most “plausible”
approach, massive aerosol injection, has potentially catastrophic impacts of its own and can’t possibly substitute for the most aggressive mitigation — see here. And
for the deniers, geo-engineering is mostly just a ploy — see British coal industry flack pushes geo-engineering “ploy” to give politicians “viable reason to do nothing”
about global warming. Geoengineering is a problem in search of a problem. As the NY Timesreported in 2011: At the influential blog Climate Progress, Joe Romm, a
fellow at the Center for American Progress, has made a similar point, likening geo-engineering to a dangerous course of chemotherapy and radiation to treat a
condition curable through diet and exercise — or, in this case, emissions reduction. You can find my previous writings on geo-engineering here. See in particular
Martin Bunzl on “the definitive killer objection to geoengineering as even a temporary fix.” Geo-engineering is a “smoke and mirrors solution,” though most people
understand that the “mirrors” strategy is prohibitively expensive and impractical. One of the few remaining non-aerosol strategies still taken seriously by some is
ocean fertilization. But it is no better than the rest As the 2009 Nature piece explained: The intended effect of ocean iron fertilization for geoengineering is to
significantly disrupt marine ecosystems. The explicit goal is to stimulate blooms of relatively large phytoplankton that are usually not abundant, because carbon
produced by such species is more likely to sink eventually to the deep ocean. This shift at the base of the food web would propagate throughout the ocean
ecosystem in unpredictable ways. Moreover, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus would sink along with the carbon, altering biogeochemical and ecological
relationships throughout the system. Some models predict that ocean fertilization on a global scale would result in large regions of the ocean being starved of
oxygen, dramatically affecting marine organisms from microbes to fish. Ecological disruption is the very mechanism by which iron fertilization would sequester
carbon. Argonne’s study finds another problem — ocean iron fertilization may have no positive climate impact
and might even make things worse: These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that
absorb C02 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide nutrients for marine life. But
one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the
extra in its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of phytoplankton conducted at the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to
support the carbon-eating plankton…. Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal
blooms, the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take up even more iron to
build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, they sink to the ocean floor , sequestering the iron
and starving off the diatom’s plankton peers. Over time, this reduction in the amount of iron in surface
waters could trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less iron for nutrients, reducing
the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in CO2 and to feed marine life. If only there were
a way to prevent catastrophic global warming that didn’t risk making things worse ….

Analysis shows even if the ocean were fertilized forever with sufficient iron only 1/8 of
emissions would be sequestered
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 
Given that the efficacy and indirect effects of ocean fertilization for geoengineering cannot be tested directly without altering the ocean on
unprecedented scales, we must resort to using global-ecosystem models to predict its promise and pitfalls. Many
modelling analyses
have shown that iron fertilization cannot reduce atmospheric CO2 enough to significantly alter the
course of climate change. A model published in 2008 (K. Zahariev et al. Prog. Oceanogr. 77, 56–82; 2008), which is as convincing as
any available, found that even if the entire Southern Ocean were fertilized forever with iron sufficient to
eliminate its limitation of phytoplankton production, less than 1 gigatonne of carbon a year of CO2 of
probable future emissions (currently about 8 gigatonnes a year) would be sequestered, and that amount
for only a few years at best. This level of effort is simply not going to happen . We think the idea of geoengineering
by iron fertilization persists because of the blurry line between it and small-scale ocean fertilization experiments that address specific
hypotheses.

Turn – ocean acidification – ocean fertilization accelerates the acidification of the

oceans
Denman 08 (Kenneth, PhD in Ocean Physics, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University
of Victoria, “Climate change, ocean processes and ocean iron fertilization,” Published July 29, 2008, 364
Mar Ecol Prog Ser, http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v364/p219-225/, CH)

The fourth known possible side effect of large-scale iron fertilization is the issue of increasing ocean
acidity; CO2 added to the ocean rapidly dissolves and dissociates into bicarbonate and carbonate ions,
adding H+ ions (i.e. protons) to the oceans, thereby reducing pH and increasing acidity. Stimulating
increased sequestration of CO2 to the oceans through widespread successful iron fertilization would
increase the cumulative acidity more rapidly and would change the depth distribution of
remineralization back to DIC. Arguments that this CO2 will end up in the ocean eventually even without
fertilization ignore the scientific issue of how quickly marine organisms can adapt , through diversity of
species occupying an ecological niche (e.g. calcifiers such as coccolithophores), diversity within species
(physiological ‘plasticity’), and through genetic mutations. The more rapidly pH decreases, either in the
surface layer or at depth where there is increased remineralization due to fertilization, the more likely it
is that organisms will be unable to adapt , both to the increased acidity and, in the subsurface zones of
increased remineralization, to the related decrease in dissolved oxygen.

Turn – biodiversity – iron fertilization causes bloom of algae that produces neurotoxin
– kills marine mammals
Black 10 (Richard, environment correspondent, BBC News, internally cites study by Silver et al. 10,
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, “Climate 'fix' could poison sea life,”
Published March 16, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8569351.stm, CH)

Fertilising the oceans with iron to absorb carbon dioxide could increase concentrations of a chemical
that can kill marine mammals, a study has found. Iron stimulates growth of marine algae that absorb CO2 from the air, and has been touted as a
"climate fix". Now researchers have shown that the algae increase production of a nerve poison that can kill
mammals and birds. Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say this raises "serious concern" over
the idea. The toxin - domoic acid - first came to notice in the late 1980s as the cause of amnesiac shellfish poisoning.

It is
produced by algae of the genus Pseudonitzschia, with concentrations rising rapidly when the algae "bloom". Now, its
presence in seawater often requires the suspension of shellfishing operations, and is regularly
implicated in deaths of animals such as sealions. Domoic acid poisoning may also lie behind a 1961 incident in which flocks of
seabirds appeared to attack the Californian town of Capitola - an event believed to have shaped Alfred Hitchcock's interpretation of Daphne du
Maurier's The Birds in his 1963 thriller. Carbon focus Over the last decade, about 10 research projects have investigated iron fertilisation, with
mixed results. But only two of them measured domoic acid production, and only then as an afterthought, explained William Cochlan from San
Francisco State University, a scientist on the new project. "We had a number of major aims in this work; but one of them was to ask 'do you
normally find the species of algae that produce domoic acid, are they producing domoic acid, and will production be enhanced by iron?'," he
said. In studies conducted around Ocean Station Papa, a research platform moored in the north-eastern Pacific Ocean, the answers to all three
questions turned out to be "yes". Pseudonitzschia algae were present naturally; they were producing domoic acid, and experiments showed
that production increased during fertilisation with iron and copper. Also, under
iron-rich conditions, the Pseudonitzschia
algae bloomed at a rate faster than other types. The levels of domoic acid in iron-enriched water
samples were of the same order as those known to cause poisoning in mammals in coastal waters. Ailsa
Hall, deputy director of the Sea Mammal Research Institute at St Andrews University in Scotland, said
that domoic acid poisoning was already becoming a regular occurrence in some parts of the world.
"Ever since 1998 we've seen regular episodes of mass mortality and seizures in sea lions on the US
west coast," she said. The toxin accumulates in animals such as fish that are themselves immune.
"We've seen it in seals, pelicans and harbour porpoises; it does depend on how much they eat, but if a
sea lion or a pelican eats its way through a school of contaminated anchovies, then that would be
enough," Dr Hall told BBC News. Domoic acid's effect on other species was unknown, she said, but it would be
reasonable to think it would also affect marine mammals such as whales . Whether iron fertilisation ever will be
deployed as a "climate fix" is unclear. The last major investigation - last year's Lohafex expedition - found that despite depositing six tonnes of
iron in the Southern Ocean, little extra CO2 was drawn from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, one company - Climos - aims eventually to deploy
the technique on a commercial basis. A Climos spokesman agreed that further research on domoic acid production was needed. "Moving
forward, we need to understand exactly how deep-ocean phytoplankton respond to iron, be it naturally or artificially supplied; whether and in
what situations domoic acid is produced, and how the ecosystem is or is not already adapted to this," he said. For William Cochlan's team, the
potential impact on sea life is something that regulators and scientists must take into account when deciding whether to allow further studies
or deployment. "We saw some literature going around with claims like 'there is no indication of toxicity to sea life' - well, if you don't measure
it, of course there's no indication, and we have to keep that kind of legalese out of science," he said. "If
the end goal is to use it to
fight climate warming, then we have to understand the consequences for marine life ."

Iron fertilization intentionally disrupts the food chain of marine ecosystems – could
cause extreme loss of biodiversity
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 

Global impact The intended effect of ocean iron fertilization for geoengineering is to significantly disrupt
marine ecosystems. The explicit goal is to stimulate blooms of relatively large phytoplankton that are usually
not abundant, because carbon produced by such species is more likely to sink eventually to the deep ocean. This shift at the base of
the food web would propagate throughout the ocean ecosystem in unpredictable ways. Moreover,
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus would sink along with the carbon, altering biogeochemical
and ecological relationships throughout the system. Some models predict that ocean fertilization on a
global scale would result in large regions of the ocean being starved of oxygen, dramatically affecting
marine organisms from microbes to fish. Ecological disruption is the very mechanism by which iron
fertilization would sequester carbon.

No coral reefs or acidification impact – warming triggers adaptive responses and Co2
isn’t responsible.
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,”
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

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.

Increase in CO2 cannot increase ocean acidification

SPPI & Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 10 (A New Propaganda
Film by Natl. Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data Written by SPPI & Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Tuesday, 05 January 2010 14:00)
Why can’t rising atmospheric CO2 acidify the oceans? First, because it has not done so before. During the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago,
there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today: yet that is when the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. During
the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, there was again 20 times as much CO2 as there is today: yet that is when the delicate aragonite corals
first came into being. Secondly, ocean acidification, as a notion, suffers from the same problem of scale as “global warming”. Just as the
doubling of CO2 concentration expected this century will scarcely change global mean surface
temperature because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place, so it will scarcely change the acid-
base balance of the ocean, because there is already 70 times as much CO2 in solution in the oceans as there is in
the atmosphere. Even if all of the additional CO2 we emit were to end up not in the atmosphere (where it
might in theory cause a 4 very little warming) but in the ocean (where it would cause none), the quantity of CO2 in the
oceans would rise by little more than 1%, a trivial and entirely harmless change. Thirdly, to imagine that CO2
causes “ocean acidification” is to ignore the elementary chemistry of bicarbonate ions. Quantitatively, CO2 is only the seventh-largest
of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base balance, so that in any event its effect on
that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2 is different from all the other substances in that it acts as
the buffering mechanism for all of them, so that it does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the
oceans at all. Fourthly, as Professor Ian Plimer points out in his excellent book Heaven and Earth (Quartet, London, 2009), the oceans slosh
around over vast acreages of rock, and rocks are pronouncedly alkaline. Seen in a geological perspective, therefore, acidification of the
oceans is impossible. For these and many other powerful scientific reasons, compellingly explained in great detail in Craig Idso’s
masterly review of the scientific literature in this field, the acid-base balance of the oceans will remain in the future much as it has been in the
past and, even if it were to change by the maximum quantity imagined by the most lurid of the scientists who have tried to foster this particular
scare, the sea creatures that it is supposed to damage would either be unaffected by it or thrive on it.

Empirics disprove – corals have faced much worse.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,”
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

The Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change ¶ (NIPCC) disagreed with the IPCC in 2009, presenting ¶ a review of the
extensive literature on coral reefs ¶ showing, inter alia, that there was no simple linkage ¶ between high temperatures
and coral bleaching, that ¶ coral reefs have persisted through geologic time when ¶ temperatures were as
much as 10° – 15°C warmer ¶ than at present and when CO2 concentrations were ¶ two to seven times higher
than
 Solvency
They cite small-scale studies as proof that it would work scaled up – that’s not how
the ocean works
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 

The specific effects of global-scale ocean fertilization are hard to predict, because the ocean's response
is dependant on the scale at which such fertilization is done. Small-scale experiments are inherently
inadequate to verify model predictions of the long-term side effects of global fertilization . Large-scale
alteration of the ocean would be needed to resolve fundamental uncertainties about environmental
risks. Ocean fertilization for climate mitigation would have to be widespread and cumulative over
decades. Thus, properly field testing its geoengineering potential would entail fertilizing and sampling an
enormous swath of ocean. Assessment would be needed for between decades and a century or so to
demonstrate sequestration, and to document the downstream effects on ecosystem productivity —
"nutrient robbing" as described in the Royal Society report — and oxygen depletion. Such a test would have to be implemented
against the background of a dynamic ocean that would remain exposed to unprecedented climate
change, making the impacts of iron fertilization difficult to extract from other ongoing effects. In such a
global experiment, there could be no 'control patch'. Given that the efficacy and indirect effects of ocean fertilization for geoengineering cannot
be tested directly without altering the ocean on unprecedented scales, we must resort to using global-ecosystem models to predict its promise
and pitfalls.

Multiple alt causes to overcome in order to enhance the growth of phytoplankton

Scott 13 (Karen, Professor of Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, “International Law in the
Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge,” Published in 34 Mich. J. Int'l L. 2,
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=mjil, CH)
Thirteen small-scale iron fertilization experiments have been carried out to date, and while all have enhanced the growth of phytoplankton,
the effectiveness of fertilization as a climate change mitigation measure is yet unproven . Infertility in the
Southern Ocean and Pacific regions may well be caused by factors other than a lack of iron, including
limited light, seasonality, oxygen production, grazing by microzooplankton, and the presence of invasive
species.

Iron fertilization would have some awful side effects like ocean acidification, ghg
emissions, ozone depletion and biodiversity loss
Scott 13 (Karen, Professor of Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, “International Law in the
Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge,” Published in 34 Mich. J. Int'l L. 2,
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=mjil, CH)
Moreover, there is little evidence that any of the C02 drawn down to the surface of the ocean has actually been transported to, and
sequestered within, the deep ocean,  and there are no agreed-upon means by which to verify any such sequestration.  The
biological and
chemical responses to fertilization have been described as “variable and difficult to predict,”  but
possible effects include increased ocean acidification, the disruption of marine ecosystems,
eutrophication and anoxia,  the creation of toxic harmful algal blooms,  the generation of an increase in
the emission of other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide,  and a decrease in the effectiveness of the
Southern Ocean methyl bromide sink leading to a delay in the recovery of the ozone layer.

The IPCC and the UN both agree iron fertilization has potentially catastrophic side
effects and should not be used
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 

In the face of seemingly accelerating climate change, some have proposed tackling the problem with geoengineering:
intentionally altering the planet's physical or biological systems to counteract global warming. One such strategy — fertilizing the
oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and export carbon to the deep sea —
should be abandoned. It is already commonly accepted that ocean iron fertilization should not be
rushed into as a mitigation strategy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regards it as supported by
neither appropriate assessment of environmental side effects nor a clear institutional framework for
implementation. Similarly, last year, two United Nations conventions passed resolutions restricting
large-scale ocean iron fertilization activities, citing concerns about the environmental risks and lack of a
scientific basis on which to justify such activities — concerns that have been recognized for some time . A
Royal Society report released this month emphasized that the technique has a relatively small capacity to absorb
carbon, and comes with "probably deleterious ecological consequences". Yet concerns about the profound
consequences of global climate change have led to calls (see, for example, K. O. Buesseler et al. Science 319, 162; 2008) for field studies of iron
fertilization on larger and longer scales. Although we agree that the kinds of experiments being promoted have more to teach us about ocean
processes, we argue that they will not resolve any remaining debate about the risks of iron fertilization for geoengineering. Engaging in
experiments with the explicit purpose of assessing iron fertilization for geoengineering is both
unnecessary and potentially counterproductive, because it diverts scientific resources and encourages
what we see as inappropriate commercial interest in the scheme.
 Modelling
No action taken on climate change will be modelled internationally
Mead 10 (Walter Russell, Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College and Editor-at-
Large of The American Interest magazine, former Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign
Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, co-founder of the New America Foundation, “Global Green
Meltdown Gains Momentum” Published May 14, 2010, http://www.the-american-
interest.com/wrm/2010/05/14/global-green-meltdown-gains-momentum/, CH)

No matter what the commission does, the

world will continue to walk away from the corpse of the global climate
change movement of the past decade.  The structure of the international system, the different agendas
and timetables of the different countries involved in negotiations, and the clumsy architecture of the
UN’s cumbersome treaty-making procedures ensure that any global treaty will be an anti-climax: too
weak to work, too poorly designed to be cheap or efficient, too vague to be effectively enforced, too
inflexible and too clumsy to serve as a policy guide as knowledge and circumstances change, and, it it
achieves anything substantive at all, it will be too unpalatable to win the two thirds majority needed for
ratification in the United States Senate.
Case Defense
 Aff Evidence Takeouts
They cite small-scale studies as proof that it would work scaled up – that’s not how
the ocean works
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 

The specific effects of global-scale ocean fertilization are hard to predict, because the ocean's response
is dependant on the scale at which such fertilization is done. Small-scale experiments are inherently
inadequate to verify model predictions of the long-term side effects of global fertilization . Large-scale
alteration of the ocean would be needed to resolve fundamental uncertainties about environmental
risks. Ocean fertilization for climate mitigation would have to be widespread and cumulative over
decades. Thus, properly field testing its geoengineering potential would entail fertilizing and sampling an
enormous swath of ocean. Assessment would be needed for between decades and a century or so to
demonstrate sequestration, and to document the downstream effects on ecosystem productivity —
"nutrient robbing" as described in the Royal Society report — and oxygen depletion. Such a test would have to be implemented
against the background of a dynamic ocean that would remain exposed to unprecedented climate
change, making the impacts of iron fertilization difficult to extract from other ongoing effects. In such a
global experiment, there could be no 'control patch'. Given that the efficacy and indirect effects of ocean fertilization for geoengineering cannot
be tested directly without altering the ocean on unprecedented scales, we must resort to using global-ecosystem models to predict its promise
and pitfalls.
 Solvency
Multiple alt causes to overcome in order to enhance the growth of phytoplankton
Scott 13 (Karen, Professor of Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, “International Law in the
Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge,” Published in 34 Mich. J. Int'l L. 2,
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=mjil, CH)
Thirteen small-scale iron fertilization experiments have been carried out to date, and while all have enhanced the growth of phytoplankton,
the effectiveness of fertilization as a climate change mitigation measure is yet unproven . Infertility in the
Southern Ocean and Pacific regions may well be caused by factors other than a lack of iron, including
limited light, seasonality, oxygen production, grazing by microzooplankton, and the presence of invasive
species.

Iron fertilization would have some awful side effects like ocean acidification, ghg
emissions, ozone depletion and biodiversity loss
Scott 13 (Karen, Professor of Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, “International Law in the
Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge,” Published in 34 Mich. J. Int'l L. 2,
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=mjil, CH)
Moreover, there is little evidence that any of the C02 drawn down to the surface of the ocean has actually been transported to, and
sequestered within, the deep ocean,  and there are no agreed-upon means by which to verify any such sequestration.  The
biological and
chemical responses to fertilization have been described as “variable and difficult to predict,”  but
possible effects include increased ocean acidification, the disruption of marine ecosystems,
eutrophication and anoxia,  the creation of toxic harmful algal blooms,  the generation of an increase in
the emission of other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide,  and a decrease in the effectiveness of the
Southern Ocean methyl bromide sink leading to a delay in the recovery of the ozone layer.

The IPCC and the UN both agree iron fertilization has potentially catastrophic side
effects and should not be used
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 

In the face of seemingly accelerating climate change, some have proposed tackling the problem with geoengineering:
intentionally altering the planet's physical or biological systems to counteract global warming. One such strategy — fertilizing the
oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and export carbon to the deep sea —
should be abandoned. It is already commonly accepted that ocean iron fertilization should not be
rushed into as a mitigation strategy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regards it as supported by
neither appropriate assessment of environmental side effects nor a clear institutional framework for
implementation. Similarly, last year, two United Nations conventions passed resolutions restricting
large-scale ocean iron fertilization activities, citing concerns about the environmental risks and lack of a
scientific basis on which to justify such activities — concerns that have been recognized for some time . A
Royal Society report released this month emphasized that the
technique has a relatively small capacity to absorb
carbon, and comes with "probably deleterious ecological consequences". Yet concerns about the profound
consequences of global climate change have led to calls (see, for example, K. O. Buesseler et al. Science 319, 162; 2008) for field studies of iron
fertilization on larger and longer scales. Although we agree that the kinds of experiments being promoted have more to teach us about ocean
processes, we argue that they will not resolve any remaining debate about the risks of iron fertilization for geoengineering. Engaging
in
experiments with the explicit purpose of assessing iron fertilization for geoengineering is both
unnecessary and potentially counterproductive, because it diverts scientific resources and encourages
what we see as inappropriate commercial interest in the scheme.
 Ocean Acidification I/L Defense
Turn – Ocean fertilization accelerates the acidification of the oceans
Denman 08 (Kenneth, PhD in Ocean Physics, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University
of Victoria, “Climate change, ocean processes and ocean iron fertilization,” Published July 29, 2008, 364
Mar Ecol Prog Ser, http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v364/p219-225/, CH)

The fourth known possible side effect of large-scale iron fertilization is the issue of increasing ocean
acidity; CO2 added to the ocean rapidly dissolves and dissociates into bicarbonate and carbonate ions,
adding H+ ions (i.e. protons) to the oceans, thereby reducing pH and increasing acidity. Stimulating
increased sequestration of CO2 to the oceans through widespread successful iron fertilization would
increase the cumulative acidity more rapidly and would change the depth distribution of
remineralization back to DIC. Arguments that this CO2 will end up in the ocean eventually even without
fertilization ignore the scientific issue of how quickly marine organisms can adapt , through diversity of
species occupying an ecological niche (e.g. calcifiers such as coccolithophores), diversity within species
(physiological ‘plasticity’), and through genetic mutations. The more rapidly pH decreases, either in the
surface layer or at depth where there is increased remineralization due to fertilization, the more likely it
is that organisms will be unable to adapt , both to the increased acidity and, in the subsurface zones of
increased remineralization, to the related decrease in dissolved oxygen.
 Warming I/L Defense
Turn – ocean fertilization causes iron to be absorbed by one type of plankton – makes
carbon eating plankton require less iron and suck up less carbon
Romm 13 (Joe, Ph.D. in Physics from MIT, Senior Fellow at American Progress, former assistant
secretary at the Department of Energy, “Yet Another Geoengineering Scheme, Ocean Iron Fertilization,
Could Backfire,” Published July 10, 2013,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/10/2150931/another-geoengineering-scheme-ocean-iron-
fertilization-could-backfire/, CH)

Can we save the planet by ruining it (even more)? Argonne

National Laboratory reports that “A new study on the feeding
habits of ocean microbes calls into question the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and
offset rising global levels.” Four years ago, the journal Nature published a piece arguing that “fertilizing
the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
and export carbon to the deep sea — should be abandoned.” Now Argonne Lab reports so-called iron
fertilization “may have only a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce
over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap .” The more you know about geo-engineering, the less sense it makes (see
Science: “Optimism about a geoengineered ‘easy way out’ should be tempered by examination of currently observed climate changes”). The most “plausible”
approach, massive aerosol injection, has potentially catastrophic impacts of its own and can’t possibly substitute for the most aggressive mitigation — see here. And
for the deniers, geo-engineering is mostly just a ploy — see British coal industry flack pushes geo-engineering “ploy” to give politicians “viable reason to do nothing”
about global warming. Geoengineering is a problem in search of a problem. As the NY Timesreported in 2011: At the influential blog Climate Progress, Joe Romm, a
fellow at the Center for American Progress, has made a similar point, likening geo-engineering to a dangerous course of chemotherapy and radiation to treat a
condition curable through diet and exercise — or, in this case, emissions reduction. You can find my previous writings on geo-engineering here. See in particular
Martin Bunzl on “the definitive killer objection to geoengineering as even a temporary fix.” Geo-engineering is a “smoke and mirrors solution,” though most people
understand that the “mirrors” strategy is prohibitively expensive and impractical. One of the few remaining non-aerosol strategies still taken seriously by some is
ocean fertilization. But it is no better than the rest As the 2009 Nature piece explained: The intended effect of ocean iron fertilization for geoengineering is to
significantly disrupt marine ecosystems. The explicit goal is to stimulate blooms of relatively large phytoplankton that are usually not abundant, because carbon
produced by such species is more likely to sink eventually to the deep ocean. This shift at the base of the food web would propagate throughout the ocean
ecosystem in unpredictable ways. Moreover, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus would sink along with the carbon, altering biogeochemical and ecological
relationships throughout the system. Some models predict that ocean fertilization on a global scale would result in large regions of the ocean being starved of
oxygen, dramatically affecting marine organisms from microbes to fish. Ecological disruption is the very mechanism by which iron fertilization would sequester
carbon. Argonne’s study finds another problem — ocean iron fertilization may have no positive climate impact
and might even make things worse: These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that
absorb C02 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide nutrients for marine life. But
one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the
extra in its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of phytoplankton conducted at the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to
support the carbon-eating plankton…. Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal
blooms, the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take up even more iron to
build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, they sink to the ocean floor , sequestering the iron
and starving off the diatom’s plankton peers. Over time, this reduction in the amount of iron in surface
waters could trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less iron for nutrients, reducing
the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in CO2 and to feed marine life. If only there were
a way to prevent catastrophic global warming that didn’t risk making things worse ….

Analysis shows even if the ocean were fertilized forever with sufficient iron only 1/8 of
emissions would be sequestered
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 
Given that the efficacy and indirect effects of ocean fertilization for geoengineering cannot be tested directly without altering the ocean on
unprecedented scales, we must resort to using global-ecosystem models to predict its promise and pitfalls. Many
modelling analyses
have shown that iron fertilization cannot reduce atmospheric CO2 enough to significantly alter the
course of climate change. A model published in 2008 (K. Zahariev et al. Prog. Oceanogr. 77, 56–82; 2008), which is as convincing as
any available, found that even if the entire Southern Ocean were fertilized forever with iron sufficient to
eliminate its limitation of phytoplankton production, less than 1 gigatonne of carbon a year of CO2 of
probable future emissions (currently about 8 gigatonnes a year) would be sequestered, and that amount
for only a few years at best. This level of effort is simply not going to happen . We think the idea of geoengineering
by iron fertilization persists because of the blurry line between it and small-scale ocean fertilization experiments that address specific
hypotheses.
 BioD I/L Defense
Turn – biodiversity – iron fertilization causes bloom of algae that produces neurotoxin
– kills marine mammals
Black 10 (Richard, environment correspondent, BBC News, internally cites study by Silver et al. 10,
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, “Climate 'fix' could poison sea life,”
Published March 16, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8569351.stm, CH)

Fertilising the oceans with iron to absorb carbon dioxide could increase concentrations of a chemical
that can kill marine mammals, a study has found. Iron stimulates growth of marine algae that absorb CO2 from the air, and has been touted as a
"climate fix". Now researchers have shown that the algae increase production of a nerve poison that can kill

mammals and birds. Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say this raises "serious concern" over
the idea. The toxin - domoic acid - first came to notice in the late 1980s as the cause of amnesiac shellfish poisoning.

It is
produced by algae of the genus Pseudonitzschia, with concentrations rising rapidly when the algae "bloom". Now, its
presence in seawater often requires the suspension of shellfishing operations, and is regularly
implicated in deaths of animals such as sealions. Domoic acid poisoning may also lie behind a 1961 incident in which flocks of
seabirds appeared to attack the Californian town of Capitola - an event believed to have shaped Alfred Hitchcock's interpretation of Daphne du
Maurier's The Birds in his 1963 thriller. Carbon focus Over the last decade, about 10 research projects have investigated iron fertilisation, with
mixed results. But only two of them measured domoic acid production, and only then as an afterthought, explained William Cochlan from San
Francisco State University, a scientist on the new project. "We had a number of major aims in this work; but one of them was to ask 'do you
normally find the species of algae that produce domoic acid, are they producing domoic acid, and will production be enhanced by iron?'," he
said. In studies conducted around Ocean Station Papa, a research platform moored in the north-eastern Pacific Ocean, the answers to all three
questions turned out to be "yes". Pseudonitzschia algae were present naturally; they were producing domoic acid, and experiments showed
that production increased during fertilisation with iron and copper. Also, under
iron-rich conditions, the Pseudonitzschia
algae bloomed at a rate faster than other types. The levels of domoic acid in iron-enriched water
samples were of the same order as those known to cause poisoning in mammals in coastal waters. Ailsa
Hall, deputy director of the Sea Mammal Research Institute at St Andrews University in Scotland, said
that domoic acid poisoning was already becoming a regular occurrence in some parts of the world.
"Ever since 1998 we've seen regular episodes of mass mortality and seizures in sea lions on the US
west coast," she said. The toxin accumulates in animals such as fish that are themselves immune.
"We've seen it in seals, pelicans and harbour porpoises; it does depend on how much they eat, but if a
sea lion or a pelican eats its way through a school of contaminated anchovies, then that would be
enough," Dr Hall told BBC News. Domoic acid's effect on other species was unknown, she said, but it would be
reasonable to think it would also affect marine mammals such as whales . Whether iron fertilisation ever will be
deployed as a "climate fix" is unclear. The last major investigation - last year's Lohafex expedition - found that despite depositing six tonnes of
iron in the Southern Ocean, little extra CO2 was drawn from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, one company - Climos - aims eventually to deploy
the technique on a commercial basis. A Climos spokesman agreed that further research on domoic acid production was needed. "Moving
forward, we need to understand exactly how deep-ocean phytoplankton respond to iron, be it naturally or artificially supplied; whether and in
what situations domoic acid is produced, and how the ecosystem is or is not already adapted to this," he said. For William Cochlan's team, the
potential impact on sea life is something that regulators and scientists must take into account when deciding whether to allow further studies
or deployment. "We saw some literature going around with claims like 'there is no indication of toxicity to sea life' - well, if you don't measure
it, of course there's no indication, and we have to keep that kind of legalese out of science," he said. "If
the end goal is to use it to
fight climate warming, then we have to understand the consequences for marine life ."
Iron fertilization intentionally disrupts the food chain of marine ecosystems – could
cause extreme loss of biodiversity
Strong et al. 09 (Aaron Strong, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science at Stanford, Sallie Chisholm,
PhD in Biology, Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, Charles Miller, PhD in Physical Chemistry,
Research Scientist at the JPL at NASA, John Cullen, PhD in Biological Oceanography, Research Professor
at Dalhousie University, “Ocean fertilization: time to move on,” Published in Nature, Nature 461, 347-
348 (17 September 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461347a.html#a1,
CH) 

Global impact The intended effect of ocean iron fertilization for geoengineering is to significantly disrupt
marine ecosystems. The explicit goal is to stimulate blooms of relatively large phytoplankton that are usually
not abundant, because carbon produced by such species is more likely to sink eventually to the deep ocean. This shift at the base of
the food web would propagate throughout the ocean ecosystem in unpredictable ways. Moreover,
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus would sink along with the carbon, altering biogeochemical
and ecological relationships throughout the system. Some models predict that ocean fertilization on a
global scale would result in large regions of the ocean being starved of oxygen, dramatically affecting
marine organisms from microbes to fish. Ecological disruption is the very mechanism by which iron
fertilization would sequester carbon.
 Reef/Acidification Defense

No coral reefs or acidification impact – warming triggers adaptive responses and Co2
isn’t responsible.
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,”
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

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.

Increase in CO2 cannot increase ocean acidification

SPPI & Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 10 (A New Propaganda
Film by Natl. Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data Written by SPPI & Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Tuesday, 05 January 2010 14:00)
Why can’t rising atmospheric CO2 acidify the oceans? First, because it has not done so before. During the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago,
there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today: yet that is when the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. During
the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, there was again 20 times as much CO2 as there is today: yet that is when the delicate aragonite corals
first came into being. Secondly, ocean acidification, as a notion, suffers from the same problem of scale as “global warming”. Just as the
doubling of CO2 concentration expected this century will scarcely change global mean surface
temperature because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place, so it will scarcely change the acid-
base balance of the ocean, because there is already 70 times as much CO2 in solution in the oceans as there is in
the atmosphere. Even if all of the additional CO2 we emit were to end up not in the atmosphere (where it
might in theory cause a 4 very little warming) but in the ocean (where it would cause none), the quantity of CO2 in the
oceans would rise by little more than 1%, a trivial and entirely harmless change. Thirdly, to imagine that CO2
causes “ocean acidification” is to ignore the elementary chemistry of bicarbonate ions. Quantitatively, CO2 is only the seventh-largest
of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base balance, so that in any event its effect on
that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2 is different from all the other substances in that it acts as
the buffering mechanism for all of them, so that it does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the
oceans at all. Fourthly, as Professor Ian Plimer points out in his excellent book Heaven and Earth (Quartet, London, 2009), the oceans slosh
around over vast acreages of rock, and rocks are pronouncedly alkaline. Seen in a geological perspective, therefore, acidification of the
oceans is impossible. For these and many other powerful scientific reasons, compellingly explained in great detail in Craig Idso’s
masterly review of the scientific literature in this field, the acid-base balance of the oceans will remain in the future much as it has been in the
past and, even if it were to change by the maximum quantity imagined by the most lurid of the scientists who have tried to foster this particular
scare, the sea creatures that it is supposed to damage would either be unaffected by it or thrive on it.

Empirics disprove – corals have faced much worse.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,”
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

The Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change ¶ (NIPCC) disagreed with the IPCC in 2009, presenting ¶ a review of the
extensive literature on coral reefs ¶ showing, inter alia, that there was no simple linkage ¶ between high temperatures
and coral bleaching, that ¶ coral reefs have persisted through geologic time when ¶ temperatures were as
much as 10° – 15°C warmer ¶ than at present and when CO2 concentrations were ¶ two to seven times higher
than
PTX
 Unpopular
Geoengineering frowned upon by public
Morello 12 (Lauren, “Geoengineering Could Turn Skies White,” Published June 1, 2012, Scientific
American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-could-turn-skies-white/, CH)

Majority frowns on geoengineering -- poll Meanwhile, a poll released this week by the Brookings Institution suggests that
Americans are concerned about the safety and effectiveness of geoengineering. Sixty-five percent of
participants said they somewhat or strongly disagree that if global warming takes place, "scientists would be
able to find ways to alter the climate in a way that limits problems ." A slimmer majority, 45 percent, disagreed with the
notion that scientists could develop "atmospheric engineering" methods to cool the planet. But most of the 887 participants in the survey -- 69
percent -- said they "strongly" or "somewhat" believed the harm from adding material to the atmosphere would outweigh the benefits. The poll
carries a margin of error of 3.5 percent. "If
you look across the survey, one big challenge for anyone who's
proposing geoengineering methods is how to even begin to explain this to the general public, and then
begin to make this credible," said Barry Rabe, a professor at the University of Michigan's Gerald Ford School of Public Policy. Rabe,
who conducted the survey with Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, said public opinion research
on geoengineering is limited. That makes it hard to compare concerns about geoengineering to attitudes about other controversial
technologies, like nanotechnology or genetically modified organisms. But what is interesting about the new results, Rabe said, is that few
respondents indicated they were neutral about geoengineering. "One thing that surprised us a bit is the percentage of people who responded
with an opinion," he said. "In every case, we gave them the option to say 'not sure.' I frankly expected more people to punt on this one."

Climate change action is controversial—lack on consensus splits the party

Sheppard, 6/18, (Kate, “Republican Former EPA Chiefs Try To Convince Senate GOP That Climate
Change Is Real,” Huffington Post, 06/18/2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/epa-
republicans-climate_n_5509048.html)//erg

WASHINGTON -– Four Republican former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency had a message for the
Senate on
Wednesday on climate change: It's real, it's bad and the United States should do something about it. But
their fellow Republicans at the hearing largely ignored that position , instead repeating a variety of
arguments about why the U.S. should not address the greenhouse gas emissions causing the planet to
warm up. The hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety focused on new
EPA standards for reducing emissions from power plants. The standards, released on June 2, have been a major point of
contention for congressional Republicans. "We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate
change, but no legitimate debate over the facts of the earth's warming or over man's contribution ," said
William Ruckelshaus, who served as the EPA administrator under both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Christine Todd Whitman, who served
as the agency's administrator during the first years of George W. Bush's presidency, expressed frustration at critics who argue the EPA
doesn't have authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions.

No global consensus on how to act on climate change makes it controversial

Phillips, 7/13, (Ari, Reporter for climate progress, “Rupert Murdoch Says Climate Change Should Be
Approached With Great Skepticism,” Climate Progress, JULY 13, 2014,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/13/3459584/rupert-murdoch-climate-change-rubbish/)//erg

Rupert Murdoch is chairman and CEO of News Corporation, one of the world’s largest media
conglomerates, which includes Fox News and The Wall Street Journal . Since launching The Australian newspaper 50
years ago he has also become one of the richest people in the world. In a wide-ranging interview aired Sunday in Australia to mark this 50-year
anniversary, Murdoch reflected
candidly on climate change, saying he thought it should be approached with
great skepticism. “At the moment the north pole is melting but the south pole is getting bigger,” he said. “Things are
happening. How much of it are we doing, with emissions and so on? As far as Australia goes? Nothing in the overall picture.” While Antarctica
has been losing ice more slowly than the Arctic, and the
geopolitical implications are less salient, studies show that
parts of the massive continent’s ice sheet have entered irreversible decline and that melting is likely to
accelerate. Australia is one of the most greenhouse gas intense economies in the world, relying heavily on coal exports. The country passed
a carbon price in 2011 but since last year the conservative government led by Murdoch-supported prime minister Tony Abbott has been trying
to repeal it. The
latest attempt ended in disarray last week after several senators rebelled at the last
minute. Murdoch said that if temperatures rose under the worst case scenario 3C (5.4F) over the next 100 years ”at the very most one of
those [degrees] would be manmade.”

Climate Change issues are controversial in Congress

Atkin, 7/9, (Emily, “Kentucky Senator: Climate Change Is Fake Because ‘We All Agree’ Mars Is Warming
Too,” Climate Progress, JULY 9, 2014, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/09/3458131/smith-
mars-climate-change/)//erg

A prominent Kentucky state Senator on Thursday gave a glimpse of detail on why he doesn’t accept that
global warming exists and is caused by humans, and his argument is a bit out of this world. At a hearing to discuss
how the state could deal with the Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed greenhouse gas
regulations for coal plants, Majority Whip Brandon Smith (R-Hazard) argued that carbon emissions from coal
plants can’t be causing climate change because Mars is also experiencing a global temperature rise — and
there are no coal plants emitting carbon on Mars. “I think that in academia, we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here.
Nobody will dispute that,” Smith said. “Yet there are no coal mines on Mars, there’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of. So I think what
we’re looking at is something much greater than what we’re going to do.” Watch it here: At first glance, it seems as
though Smith was saying that the temperature on Mars is exactly the same as it is on Earth, an argument that is both incorrect and makes no
sense, as many other news outlets have already pointed out. Smith clarified his comments on Twitter on Thursday, however, saying he meant
not to imply that temperatures were the same, but that climate shifts on Earth and Mars have been the same. His implication, really, is that
climate change is a solar system-wide phenomena, and can’t be caused by humans on Earth .
 Popular
Research into geoengineering supported by wide margin
Gersmann 11 (Hanna, “Public supports geoengineering research, survey finds” Published October 24,
2011, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/24/geoengineering-survey-
public-support, CH)

The British, American and Canadian public is largely in favour of research into engineering the planet's
climate to combat global warming, according to a study published on Monday. But critics said the paper was "not exactly
disinterested science" because one of the authors is the founder and president of a geoengineering company. The first international survey on
the perception of geoengineering, published in the Environmental Research Letters of the Institute, comes at a critical stage as a major UK test
project was recently postponed. Scientists from Cambridge, Oxford, Reading and Bristol universities had planned to send a balloon with a hose
attached 1km into the sky above Norfolk within months, to test the future feasibility of pumping hundreds of tonnes of minute chemical
particles a day into the thin stratospheric air to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. But late in September, they delayed the test, citing the need
to "allow time for more engagement with stakeholders." The
new 18-question, internet-based survey, was "designed to
ascertain how widespread public knowledge of geoengineering was and how the public actually
perceived it." Some 72% of the 3,105 participants in the UK, US and Canada said they "somewhat" or
"strongly" supported general research when asked: "Do you think scientists should study solar radiation management?"

Plan popular-Washington wants to stop climate change (especially because of ocean

acidification)
Valentine, 7/15, (Katie, reporter for Climate Progress, “Congressional Candidate: Most Energy
Problems ‘Are Caused By Environmentalists’,” Climate Progress, JULY 15, 2014,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460398/congressional-candidate-environment/)//erg

But though Cicotte drew on what he thinks of as Biblical principles to back up his environmental views, not all Christians think the
planet was created for humans to use however they wish . The Evangelical Environmental Network has pushed climate
change as an issue conservatives should care about, especially conservative Christians. And in 2013, 200 self-identified evangelical scientists
sent a letter that urged Congress to reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment, using Biblical
references to back up their argument . “Our changing climate threatens the health, security, and well-
being of millions of people who are made in God’s image ,” the letter read. “The threat to future generations
and global prosperity means we can no longer afford complacency and endless debate . We as a society risk
being counted among ‘those who destroy the earth’ (Revelation 11:18).” Cicotte’s statements on Earth’s purpose also ignore the threat
climate change poses to Washington, a state that’s battled numerous wildfires in the past few weeks. Ocean
acidification has taken its toll on Washington’s oyster industry , with one oyster company in the state sending their
oyster larvae growing operations to Hawaii due to water in Willapa Bay, WA becoming too acidic. Sea level rise, beetle
infestations, and water shortages due to decreased snowpack also pose a threat to the state in coming
years, according to the National Climate Assessment
 Cap Link
Geoenginnering leads to war, massive inequality and endless capitalism
Corner 9
(a Research Associate in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University)
(Dr Adam, GEO-ENGINEERING: DENIAL ON A GLOBAL SCALE, http://climatedenial.org/2009/06/02/geo-
engineering-denial-on-a-global-scale/)

Dr Adam Corner argues that geo-engineered solutions to climate change are ‘capitalism’s
ultimate parlour trick….an impressive leap from a desperate denial of the causes of climate change, to a
triumphant denial of the consequences’ In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein joined the dots between
the commercial manufacture of military weaponry, the marketing of anti-flu pandemic drugs and the foreign
construction firms drafted in to rebuild Iraq – three happy projects bound by the shared philosophy of
‘disaster capitalism’. It may be time to add another enterprising scheme to this rather opportunistic
programme of panic-driven profit making: Geo-engineering – the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the
earth and its ecosystems in response to human-caused climate change. In an impressive leap from a
desperate denial of the causes of climate change, to a triumphant denial of the consequences, frontier
capitalism may have stumbled across its best idea yet. The loose band of technologies that offer the mouth-
watering prospect of engineering our way out of the climate crisis are straight out of science fiction, yet are
being taken seriously by scientists and investors alike. Schemes vary from injecting the atmosphere with
sulphate particles to induce cooling, to fertilising algal blooms with iron filings to cause increased CO2
sequestration, to chemically ‘scrubbing’ CO2 out of the air. As the Royal Geographical Society event on geo-
engineering last week link showed, many are seduced by science that dangles the carrot of a technological fix
to climate change in front of their noses. The event provided a fascinating window into the way in which geo-
engineering is currently perceived by the scientific community. Professor David Keith link…, a keen advocate
(although far from an evangeliser) of geo-engineering called for a responsible, measured research
programme into the possibilities of geo-engineering. The problem with this proposal, however, is that even
toying with the idea of geo-engineering opens a Pandora’s Box of climatic and socio-political uncertainty. As
the Greenpeace scientist Dr Paul Johnston noted at the same event , even the most elementary
research into geo-engineering will involve real-world experiments with the global
commons. Jim Thomas, campaigner with the Canadian ETC Group has observed that if control over this
global commons appears even remotely feasible, international conflict will inevitably
ensue link… . Environmental scientists like David Keith are undoubtedly well-meaning in their pursuit of
technological solutions to climate change, but their research does not take place in a vacuum – it is
conducted in a world that is defined by a deeply unsustainable and inequitable socio-economic system.
What hope is there that geo-engineering will be benignly applied for the greater good ? Will
the consent of the developing world be sought when we conduct our climatic experiments with their natural
resources? Will we share our new found knowledge with everyone, or only those who can afford to buy our
patented designs? As philosophers like John Gray have repeatedly observed, an unwavering faith in human
progress often amounts to little more than a secular replacement of religious fervour. In response to
accusations that that geo-engineering research would involve taking unprecedented risks with the planet’s
fragile eco-system, Professor David Keith replied “This isn’t 1750” – the implication being that while pre-
industrial revolution scientists did not foresee the consequences of their actions, today’s crop of experts are
too wise to act so carelessly. But while few in the environmental science community would seek to take
unquantifiable risks with the climate, there is a hardy band of disaster capitalists that would happily take the
risk for them. Worryingly, several experiments with algal blooming have been driven by
commercial pressure from companies keen to sell credits into the emerging carbon-trading
market. Never mind that artificial algal blooms are yet to deliver any proven CO2
reductions – large scale geo-engineering projects could be capitalism’s ultimate parlour
trick: The design and manufacture of machines, on which we ultimately become
dependent, to neutralise the waste produced by a society of consumption-driven economic
growth. The lure of geo-engineering – colonic irrigation for the planet – is almost irresistible. What if it
worked – what if we really could scrub the skies of carbon, and without having to reduce our carbon
emissions? Unfortunately, the question of technical proficiency is a red herring. We know we can
design technologies that can alter the climate – that’s the problem we’re trying to solve. The more
important issue is whether we can engineer our way out of trouble in a way that does not
exacerbate existing inequalities. Tackling climate change is perhaps the most critical test of our
commitment to social justice we will ever encounter – what could be more fundamental than the intentional
management and division of the earth’s natural resources? But unless significant changes in how scientific
knowledge is shared and distributed are achieved , geo-engineering simply cannot address climate
change in an equitable way. To believe that the unprecedented power of geo-engineering
will not be wielded by the rich and the powerful at the expense of the weak and the
vulnerable is more than simply wide-eyed techno-optimism: It amounts to a comprehensive denial
of political reality.
Iron Fertilization Neg
 Case Answers
No Solvency, They don’t account for plankton respiration and zooplankton circulation
Dean, 09 (Jennie, Manager of Marine Conservation at National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Science
Instructor at Ocean Institute, Senior Policy Associate at Global Ocean Comission, “Iron Fertilization: A
Scientific Review with International Policy Recommendations”, 2009,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/32/2/dean.pdf, 7/23/14)

It is not surprising that proponents of iron fertilization push for its incorporation in the carbon credit
systems established by the Kyoto Protocol. They defuse concerns about monitoring and verification by
citing the ability to track phytoplankton blooms from space with satellites. However, a closer
examination reveals that there are problems with this optimism and that the negative consequences of
iron fertilization far outweigh the potential benefits. Addressing the monitoring and verification aspects
first, the satelites that proponents refer to merely assess or interpret the amount of chlorophyll present
in the very top layer of the Ocean. While chlorophyll concentrations is related to phytoplankton
biomass, a direct mathematical relationship cannot be derived because chlorophyll to carbon ratios vary
by species and by the ambient environmental conditions. Satellites are unable to identify which types of
plankton are present in each bloom or if the composition changes with depth. Furthermore, the
satellites are unable to to detect the amount of carbon that is released back into the atmosphere
through phytoplankton respiration. The re-release of carbon back into the atmosphere is a problem not
only in the short term through respiration but over longer time scales as well. There is concern over the
destination of the phytoplankton once they have sequestered the carbon; if they sink, then the carbon
will be sequestered, but if they are merely eaten by zooplankton, then a lot of the carbon will be re-
released through the metabolic processes of the zooplankton, and only a small amount will make it to
the deep ocean through fecal pellets.

No Solvency, No way to control natural ocean circulation

Dean, 09 (Jennie, Manager of Marine Conservation at National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Science
Instructor at Ocean Institute, Senior Policy Associate at Global Ocean Comission, “Iron Fertilization: A
Scientific Review with International Policy Recommendations”, 2009,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/32/2/dean.pdf, 7/23/14)

44There is also concern over environmental factors that will limit the drawdown of the carbon to the
deep ocean. Drawdown to the deep ocean is highly dependent on vertical mixing and the currents found
in the HNLC regions. The vertical overturn of the water determines not only how quickly the carbon
absorbed by the ocean makes it to the deep ocean, but also how frequently the nutrients are returned
to the HNLC regions. As such, it is a key factor in the effectiveness of iron fertilization in decreasing
atmospheric CO 2 concentrations.45 If the carbon drawn down from the atmosphere does not make it
to the deep ocean, then it has not been effectively or "permanently" sequestered.46 Changes in vertical
mixing rates or the weather can greatly affect carbon transport. For example, in the 1993 IronEx I
experiment, an unexpected change in the mixed layer resulted in a cessation of the benefits of the
added iron simply because the enriched water was placed out of the photic zone necessary for
planktonic growth.47 Since the HNLC regions, especially the Southern Ocean, are so variable in their
physical and biological characteristics, spatially and temporally, the effects of iron fertilization on carbon
sequestration will be inconsistent. For example, one model predicted that only 2-44% of the initial
carbon sequestered using iron fertilization techniques would be removed from the atmosphere for a full
100 years.48 Difficulties with drawdown to the deep ocean are only expected to worsen in the coming
years as global warming progresses. As the ocean's temperature rises, its ability to absorb carbon
dioxide through the solubility pump will be reduced because gases are less soluble in warmer waters.
Furthermore it has been suggested that the warmer waters will result in a shutdown of many of the
planet's currents, both across ocean surfaces and between different ocean layers. 49 The shutdown of
currents will have obvious negative consequences for nutrient recycling, biological distributions, and
water temperatures.

They overestimate bottle experiments

Dean, 09 (Jennie, Manager of Marine Conservation at National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Science
Instructor at Ocean Institute, Senior Policy Associate at Global Ocean Comission, “Iron Fertilization: A
Scientific Review with International Policy Recommendations”, 2009,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/32/2/dean.pdf, 7/23/14)

Beyond these understudied, hypothetical concerns regarding adverse side effects, there have been
many measurable failures of iron fertilization experiments to meet their projected results. The first of
these failures is the ratio of iron incorporated versus the amount added to the ocean. So much iron is
added in the experiments that unless the conditions are perfect, a lot of iron is lost due to clumping and
sinking before it can be utilized by phytoplankton.63 Changes in environmental conditions out of human
control such as the amount of sunlight, presence of fronts, and vertical mixing can greatly affect this
incorporation rate. The second failure of the experiments was assuming that bottle experiments
accurately reflect natural conditions. The initial large projections of what iron fertilization was capable of
were based upon the observed rates of bottled experiments. In general the bottle experiments
consisted of adding particulate iron to -liter containers of seawater collected from the HNLC regions and
observing the phytoplankton growth and change in CO 2 concentration. It does not take an
oceanographer to realize that it is not guaranteed that the representation of species within the small
experiment bottle would reflect the full range present in the ocean. 64 Additionally, with a bottle, there
is no escaping through sinking, so the iron can be more fully utilized than it would be in the real
ocean.65 Thus projections from solely bottle experiments overestimate the drawdown potential of iron
fertilization.66 The overestimates from bottle experiments and models have been reflected in the in-situ
experiments as well. It was initially hypothesized that iron fertilization could result in the drawdown of
30,000-110,000 tons of carbon for every ton of iron added to the ocean. However, the actual
experiments proved less promising, sequestering only about 1000 tons of carbon for every ton of iron
added.67 This was not an isolated or atypical finding; most of the twelve experiments saw less-than-
predicted drawdown rates, with only three conclusively demonstrating any sequestration had been
achieved.68 Though part of this lack of demonstration is due to the short period during which the
cruises were able to observe the fertilized area (only a couple of weeks), 69 it is troubling that even on
the short time scale, very little sequestration activity occurred. 70 If this deep-sea sequestration is not
attained through drawdown, then the ultimate purpose of iron fertilization has been lost because the
carbon initially absorbed by the phytoplankton bloom will simply be re-released for reasons discussed
previously.
 Link Turns
Causes Ocean Acidification and hurts corals
Robock, 06 (Alan, Climatologist, Profesor of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers university, IPXX lead
author when awarded Nobel Peace Prize, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad idea”,
May/June 2008, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf, 7/23/14

Continued ocean acidification. If humans adopted geoengineering as a solution to global warming, with
no restriction on continued carbon emissions, the ocean would continue to become more acidic,
because about half of all excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is removed by ocean uptake. The
ocean is already 30 percent more acidic than it was before the Industrial Revolution, and continued
acidification threatens the entire oceanic biological chain, from coral reefs right up to humans.
 Warming Case Turn
Geoengineering is risky and encourages more consumption

Robock, 06 (Alan, Climatologist, Profesor of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers university, IPXX lead
author when awarded Nobel Peace Prize, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad idea”,
May/June 2008, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf, 7/23/14

There’s no going back. We don’t know how quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a
geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the event of excessive climate cooling from large
volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them.
12. Human error. Complex mechanical systems never work perfectly. Humans can make mistakes in the
design, manufacturing, and operation of such systems. (Think of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, airplane
crashes, and friendly fire on the battlefield.) Should we stake the future of Earth on a much more
complicated arrangement than these, built by the lowest bidder? 13. Undermining emissions mitigation.
If humans perceive an easy technological fix to global warming that allows for “business as usual,”
gathering the national (particularly in the United States and China) and international will to change
consumption patterns and energy infrastructure will be even more difficult. 18 This is the oldest and
most persistent argument against geoengineering.11. There’s no going back. We don’t know how
quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the
event of excessive climate cooling from large volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols
into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them.
 Bio-D Disad/Case Turn
Coral Resilient to Ocean Acidifciation Now
Parker and Ross, 12 (Laura, Executive director of Ocean Matters, a nonprofit that brings young people
togerther to save threatened marine resources, Pauline, Climate Change Professor at University of
Western Sydney, “How Adult Oyster Exposure to ocean Acidification Impacts the Response of Their
offspring to Elevated Atmospheric C02”, 5/23/12, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N21/B3.php,
7/23/14)

The authors write that studies on the impact of ocean acidification on marine organisms that have been
conducted to date "have only considered the impacts on 'adults' or 'larvae', ignoring the potential link
between the two life-history stages and the possible carry-over effects that may be passed from adult to
offspring," citing the work of Dupont et al. (2010), Hendriks et al. (2010) and Kroeker et al. (2010). What
was done To begin to fill this research void, Parker et al. placed adults of wild-collected and selectively-
bred populations of the Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata) - which they obtained at the
beginning of reproductive conditioning - within seawater equilibrated with air of either 380 ppm CO2
(near-ambient) or 856 ppm CO2 (predicted for 2100 by the IPCC) that produced seawater pH values of
8.2 and 7.9, respectively, after which they measured the development, growth and survival responses of
the two sets of larvae. What was learned The six scientists found that the larvae spawned from adults
living in the "acidified" seawater were the same size as those spawned from adults living in near-
ambient seawater; but they report that "larvae spawned form adults exposed to elevated CO2 were
larger and developed faster." In addition, they say that "selectively bred larvae of S. glomerata were
more resilient to elevated CO2 than wild larvae," noting that "measurement of the standard metabolic
rate (SMR) of adult S. glomerata showed that at ambient CO2, SMR is increased in selectively bred
compared with wild oysters," and that it is further increased "during exposure to elevated CO2." What it
means Parker et al. say their findings suggest that "previous studies that have investigated the effects of
elevated CO2 on the larvae of molluscs and other marine organisms [whose predecessors had not been
exposed to elevated CO2] may overestimate the severity of their responses," concluding that the results
of their work suggest that "marine organisms may have the capacity to acclimate or adapt to elevated
CO2 over the next century."

Corals Will Acclimate to Ocean Accidification Rates Now

LIMS,12 (Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences Funded by the European Project on Ocean Acidification,
“Global Change biology”, March 2012, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2011.02583.x/abstract, 7/24/14)

Ocean acidity has increased by 30% since preindustrial times due to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2
and is projected to rise by another 120% before 2100 if CO2 emissions continue at current rates. Ocean
acidification is expected to have wide-ranging impacts on marine life, including reduced growth and net
erosion of coral reefs. Our present understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine life,
however, relies heavily on results from short-term CO2 perturbation studies. Here, we present results
from the first long-term CO2 perturbation study on the dominant reef-building cold-water coral Lophelia
pertusa and relate them to results from a short-term study to compare the effect of exposure time on
the coral's responses. Short-term (1 week) high CO2 exposure resulted in a decline of calcification by
26–29% for a pH decrease of 0.1 units and net dissolution of calcium carbonate. In contrast, L. pertusa
was capable to acclimate to acidified conditions in long-term (6 months) incubations, leading to even
slightly enhanced rates of calcification. Net growth is sustained even in waters sub-saturated with
respect to aragonite. Acclimation to seawater acidification did not cause a measurable increase in
metabolic rates. This is the first evidence of successful acclimation in a coral species to ocean
acidification, emphasizing the general need for long-term incubations in ocean acidification research. To
conclude on the sensitivity of cold-water coral reefs to future ocean acidification further
ecophysiological studies are necessary which should also encompass the role of food availability and
rising temperatures.

Leads to Bio-D loss through Hypoxia, Ecosystem Imbalance, Invasive Species ,

Dean, 09 (Jennie, Manager of Marine Conservation at National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Science
Instructor at Ocean Institute, Senior Policy Associate at Global Ocean Comission, “Iron Fertilization: A
Scientific Review with International Policy Recommendations”, 2009,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/32/2/dean.pdf, 7/23/14)

Second, the addition of iron is likely to cause hypoxia in non-surface waters.51 Hypoxia, or lack of
oxygen, would result from the iron-induced phytoplankton bloom blocking sunlight to deeper waters, as
well as from overloading the bacterial decomposers, which remove oxygen from the water as they
consume the sinking, dead phytoplankton 2 This process is similar to that seen in the Dead Zone in the
Gulf of Mexico.5 3 In the Antarctic region, it is hypothesized that hypoxia could result in increased
mortality rates of many different organisms, but most notably krill eggs, which serve as the foundation
of the Southern Ocean ecosystem. Third, the addition of iron could shift the type of plankton and other
species that survive, favoring fast growing species. This shift could adversely effect the natural balance
of the ecosystem. For example, some experiments have shown populations of toxic plankton dominating
the blooms. If fertilization projects proceed at the scale that some desire, this short-term change could
become a long term one, potentially causing the local extinction of certain species, This shift in species
could also adversely influence the positive-feedback, DMS system discussed previously. Instead of
supporting a population of phytoplankton that produces DMS, populations could produce greenhouse
gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Since these gases have a greater global warming potential
than carbon dioxide, the benefits of iron fertilization would be lost and the global warming situation
could actually be worsened. Fourth, the addition of foreign iron could result in invasive species
introductions. The chemical differences between iron that naturally reaches these HNLC regions and
that used in executed experiments have already been documented. 60 There is potential that these
foreign iron sources also contain unidentified, microscopic organisms that could wreak havoc on the
ecosystem in a similar manner as was seen in the Caribbean when microorganisms present in dust
blown in from Saharan Africa destroyed fragile coral reefs.61 Finally, increasing the amount of carbon
dioxide stored in the ocean will harm the creatures that live within it. It has already been documented
that the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the oceans, termed ocean acidification, has
slowed growth rates in calcium carbonate based organisms such as coral reefs and crustaceans.

Unknown risks and Encourages Further Emissions

Robock, 06 (Alan, Climatologist, Profesor of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers university, IPXX lead
author when awarded Nobel Peace Prize, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad idea”,
May/June 2008, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf, 7/23/14

There’s no going back. We don’t know how quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a
geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the event of excessive climate cooling from large
volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them.
12. Human error. Complex mechanical systems never work perfectly. Humans can make mistakes in the
design, manufacturing, and operation of such systems. (Think of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, airplane
crashes, and friendly fire on the battlefield.) Should we stake the future of Earth on a much more
complicated arrangement than these, built by the lowest bidder? 13. Undermining emissions mitigation.
If humans perceive an easy technological fix to global warming that allows for “business as usual,”
gathering the national (particularly in the United States and China) and international will to change
consumption patterns and energy infrastructure will be even more difficult. 18 This is the oldest and
most persistent argument against geoengineering.11. There’s no going back. We don’t know how
quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the
event of excessive climate cooling from large volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols
into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them.
 Links
(spending link or solvency deficit)

Too Expensive to implement

Robock, 06 (Alan, Climatologist, Profesor of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers university, IPXX lead
author when awarded Nobel Peace Prize, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad idea”,
May/June 2008, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf, 7/23/14

Cost. Advocates casually claim that it would not be too expensive to implement geoengineering
solutions, but there have been no definitive cost studies, and estimates of large-scale government
projects are almost always too low. (Boston’s “Big Dig” to reroute an interstate highway under the
coastal city, one of humankind’s greatest engineering feats, is only one example that was years overdue
and billions over budget.) Angel estimates that his scheme to launch reflective disks into orbit would
cost “a few trillion dollars.” British economist Nicholas Stern’s calculation of the cost of climate change
as a percentage of global GDP (roughly $9 trillion) is in the same ballpark; Angel’s estimate is also orders
of magnitude greater than current global investment in renewable energy technology. Wouldn’t it be a
safer and wiser investment for society to instead put that money in solar power, wind power, energy
efficiency, and carbon sequestration?

(International Law Disad)

Geoengineering is illegal under international law

Robock, 06 (Alan, Climatologist, Profesor of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers university, IPXX lead
author when awarded Nobel Peace Prize, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad idea”,
May/June 2008, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf, 7/23/14

Conflicts with current treaties. The terms of ENMOD explicitly prohibit “military or any other hostile use
of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the
means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party.” Any geoengineering scheme that
adversely affects regional climate, for example, producing warming or drought, would therefore violate
ENMOD.

US would violate Environmental Modification Convention under articles 1 and 2

ICRC, 14 (International Committee of the Red Cross, “Convention on the prohibition of military or any
hostile use of environmental modification techniques, 10 December 1976”, 2014,
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/460, 7/25/14)
Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976, the
ENMOD Convention, of which the UN Secretary-General is the Depositary, was opened for signature at
Geneva on 18 May 1977 and entered into force on 5 October 1978. It consists of ten articles and an
Annex concerning the Consultative Committee of Experts. In its Article I the Convention, which is part of
disarmament efforts, prohibits the Contracting Parties from engaging in "military or any other hostile
use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the
means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party". Article 2 specifies what is meant
exactly by the term "environmental modification techniques". It should be noted that the adjectives
"widespread" "long-lasting" and "severe" are echoed (widespread, long-term, severe) in 1977 Protocol I
additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 35, para. 3 and Article 55, para. 1) and in preambular
para. 4 to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. Whilst in these two instruments the term
"environment" is preceded by the adjective "natural", the ENMOD Convention speaks of the
"environment" without any attributive. In addition, the drafters of the ENMOD Convention adopted
"Understandings" which are not incorporated into the Convention but which provide additional
explanations with regard to some provisions (Articles I, II, III and VIII). The Understanding relating to
Article I gives to the terms "widespread", "long-lasting" and "severe" an interpretation limited to the
ENMOD Convention and one which is not intended to prejudice the interpretation of the same or similar
terms if used in connection with any other international agreement. Article VIII of the ENMOD
Convention makes provision for review conferences to be held at intervals of not less than five years.
The first Review Conference took place in Geneva in September 1984.