Textbooks

2003-4 Ocean Policy Topic Guide

Printer Friendly Version

This free online textbook is available to all. No log-in is required to view any of the chapters and sections.

Within the essays there are links to other sections of our site such as blocks [bl], the evidence database [db], the CX Guide [cx], and lectures [l]. Subscription access is required to access those links.

Over the next few months the textbook will grow in size and we will be adding additional features for our Gold, Platinum, and Master multi

Introduction

As ships move from port to port across international waters they inevitably take on and discharge large volumes of water.  The water that is discharged is referred to as ballast water.  One problem with ballast water is that many of the species collected in the water are discharged in to the water in new environments, threatening the native species of those new environments.. 

U.S. Policy

Congress has undertaken efforts to try to limit invasive species in Ballast Water by appointing the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and passing the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANCPA) in 1990 which was amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.  The act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary in charge of the Coast Guard to draft voluntary ANS regulations.  To date, no mandatory regulations have been issued.  Carlton (2001) reports that the introduction of new species through ballast water continues on a massive scale.

Harms

The only harm that can be claimed from this area is species extinction due the introduction of Non-native species or aquatic nuisance species (ANS). Non-native species threaten marine natural resources by preying on existing species in the marine environment and disrupting the food chain.    The environmental group Earth Crash Earth Spirit notes a recent case where “the comb jellyfish, common along the Atlantic Coast, was transported to the Black Sea in the ballast of an American ship carrying grain.  The jellyfish caused the total collapse of a thriving commercial fishery in that sea” (ECES, 2001). 

Plans

McGee (2001) suggests technological and port-based solutions to the problem, such as treatment to neutralize the ANS. McConnel; (2002) argues that ships should be required to dump their ballast water in the open ocean to enable the oceans salinity to kill the fish, although crew safety issues related to that solution have been suggested.  The OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL (2000) recommends that ships should have to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit before discharging ballast water into coastal waters. 

Negative Strategy

Harms Answers

The harms will be very difficult, if not impossible, to defeat.  There is very good evidence that ANS species continue to enter U.S. waters and that they are a threat to native species and the overall ecosystems.

The negative can, however, reduce the overall risk of the harm by arguing that International Maritime Organization guidelines to manage ballast water discharges as well as Coast Guard regulations have reduced ballast water discharge.

Solvency Answers

The solvency answers you choose to make are obviously somewhat dependent on the plan.  Advocates of one approach will often be critical of others.  Treatment, for example, is criticized because one treatment mechanism is unlikely to kill all species and over-treatment with chemicals can result in pollution. 

Disadvantages

The best disadvantages are regulation-bad based disadvantages, such as Business Confidence and Politics.  There is also some evidence that ANS regulations have a tendency to undermine safety because the whole reason ballast water is exchanged is to balance the ship for proper seagoing.  Undermining efficient ballast water exchange could increase the risk of ship accidents. These accidents could be impacted with “affirmative” oil spills bad evidence.

Counterplans

The best counterplan to run against this case is the voluntary counterplan.  As discussed in the section on U.S. policy, the United States has already directed the Secretaries of Transportation the Coast Guard to develop a voluntary program.  This program could be enhanced. Business Confidence and Politics are excellent net-benefits to this counterplan.

Kritiks

Most of the kritiks discussed in this book link to the plans discussed because the plans do not fundamentally change our orientation/outlook toward environmental protection.

Study Questions

1. What is ballast water?
2. What are aquatic nuisance species?  Why are they a problem?
3. What is being done in the status quo to control ANS?  Is it effective?
4. What disadvantages link to all of the plans to control ANS?
5. What is the best disadvantage?  Why do you think it is the best disadvantage?
6. What counterplan competes with all of the plans discussed above?  Why does it compete?
7. What is the best negative strategy against ANS control?  Why?
8. How do you think the affirmative will try to defeat this strategy?  What are your answers to their arguments?
9. Do you think ANS control is a strong affirmative case?  Why or why not?

Video Lectures