1AC

Plan: The United States federal Government should provide uncapped

NOAA Community Based Removal Grants for nanotechnological
recycling programs.

Contention 1: Marine Debris
Increasing amounts of plastic Marine Ocean debris pose a significant physical and
toxicological threat to all ocean life

Environmental Research Web 14
7-17/14 Microplastics in ocean causing rising concern amongst leading scientists
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/57926
Woods Hole, Mass, July 18, 2014 Microplastics microscopic particles of plastic debris are of
increasing concern because of their widespread presence in the oceans and the potential
physical and toxicological risks they pose to organisms. This is the view of two of the worlds most eminent
authorities on the subject, Professor Kara Lavender Law, of Sea Education Association (Woods Hole, MA), and Professor Richard
Thompson of Plymouth University (UK). In an article published today in the journal Science, the two scientists have
called for urgent action to turn off the tap and divert plastic waste away from the marine
environment. Microplastics have now been documented in all five of the oceans subtropical gyres and have even been
detected in Arctic sea ice with some of the highest accumulations occurring thousands of miles from land. These plastic bits
have been found in organisms ranging in size from small invertebrates to large mammals,
and are known to concentrate toxic chemicals already present in seawater. This raises concern about
the potential consequences to marine organisms. Our scientific understanding of this environmental problem is accelerating rapidly,
with many new research efforts that go well beyond simply documenting the presence of plastic in the ocean, said Professor Law,
who led a 2008 paper in Science describing widespread plastic contamination in the North Atlantic Ocean from more than 25 years of
data collected by Sea Education Association faculty and undergraduate students. Most studies of ocean microplastic focus on the
debris that floats at the sea surface, but this leaves other potential collections of plastic unaccounted for. Major unanswered
questions remain about the amounts of microplastic debris that might be accumulating on the seafloor, said Professor Thompson,
whose 2004 paper in Science first coined the term microplastics. We also know very little about where, geographically, are the
largest inputs of plastic to the marine environment. Despite open questions such as these, the authors say that microplastics are
already something to worry about, and that efforts are needed to divert the source of this debris away
from the ocean, or to turn off the tap. This was the message that Professor Thompson delivered to Senator John
Kerry last month at the US State Departments Our Oceans Conference: Marine Pollution
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a5MADQuxBU&feature=youtu.be). Both say that plastic waste should be viewed as a valuable
resource to be captured and re-used, which would simultaneously reduce the amount entering the environment. Policy initiatives have
been gaining momentum at municipal, state, and national levels in the U.S. In June this year Illinois passed legislation banning
microbeads (microplastics used in cosmetic products that enter the environment through wastewater), with similar legislation pending
New York and California, and recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. In April this year the European Parliament
voted to reduce the consumption of single use plastic carrier bags and phase out bags that fragment rather than degrade. We have
been conducting an unintended experiment with the addition of large amounts of this man-made material into the environment, said
Law. But this is a solvable problem. By each of us making small changes in our daily habits by carrying reusable water
bottles and coffee mugs, for example we can collectively reduce our dependence on disposable items that might ultimately be lost
to the environment.

Meanwhile, U.S. marine debris recycling rates and innovation techniques have
stagnated. Thus, waste rates are on the rise

PRNews 10/30/13 http://www.prnewschannel.com/2013/10/30/new-report-on-us-recycling-rates-reveals-poor-20-year-
record/
The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) has just released its signature report on container recycling rates and trends in the United
States. Based on more than two dozen data sources, from the beverage market to U.S. census tables, Bottled Up: Beverage Container
Recycling Stagnates (2000-2010), shows that sales of disposable beverage containers have grown dramaticallyup by 22 percent
from 2000-2010with per capita consumption soaring by 8 percent over the same period. Yet even as beverage sales increased, the
rate at which we recycled the empty containers declined. Of the 243 billion beverage packages sold in the
U.S. in 2010glass bottles, plastic bottles and aluminum cans as well as foil pouches, gabletop cartons and other nontraditional
containers153 billion were either landfilled, littered or incinerated. This put the national wasting rate for 2010 at 63 percent, a
nearly 10-percent increase over 2000, when the wasting rate stood at 59 percent, and a whopping 20 percent jump since 1990, when
our non-recycling rate for containers stood at approximately 52 percent. In other words, between 1990 and 2010a period that saw
almost feverish growth and investment in municipal recycling programs, education and infrastructureAmericans have
persisted in wasting more beverage containers than theyve recycled. The report suggests numerous
reasons for this imbalance, among them the surge in bottled water sales (up more than 400 percent since 2000) and sales of beverages
consumed away from home. Recycling rates have stagnated in large part due to a dramatic increase
in consumption of these beverages, especially at businesses and in public spaces where
recycling bins are scarce, said Susan V. Collins, president of the Container Recycling Institute. Another key factor in the
decline in recycling rates is the unwillingness of state legislatures to enact effective recycling policies, especially new or expanded
container deposit laws. Our failure to recycle nearly two out of every three containers has
monumental environmental impacts. As the report notes, every beverage container that is not
recycled must instead be replaced with a new container made from virgin raw materials.
Extracting and processing these materials requires far more energyand generates more pollutantsthan making containers from
recycled feedstock. For example, if the 153 billion containers wasted in 2010 had been diverted back to the manufacturing stream, the
U.S. could have saved the equivalent of 203 trillion BTUs of energy enough to power nearly all the homes in the cities of Los
Angeles and Chicago combined. This level of recycling would also have eliminated the release of 11.6 million tons of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissionthats roughly one-fifth of total GHG represented by Americas municipal solid waste, and equivalent to taking
nearly 2.3 million cars off the road. To realize meaningful energy savings and reduce the GHG
emissions associated with beverage consumption, beverage container recycling must
dramatically increase across the country, added Collins. As the report points out, minor percentage changes in
recycling rates wont cut it. If we are to adequately reduce the environmental consequences of extracting, processing, manufacturing
and shipping billions of short-lived containers, national recycling rates for all major container materials must edge above 90 percent.
And the only recycling method shown to achieve anywhere near that level of recovery is the refundable container deposit, an early
form of extended producer responsibility.

This plastic debris is the oceans poison pill. Kills countless species-Coral in
particular

Reuseit 14
(www.reuseit.com, IMPACT OF PLASTIC WASTE ON OCEANS, BEACHES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2014,
http://www.reuseit.com/facts-and-myths/facts-and-myths.htm)
OVERVIEW We assume a few of you have heard about the "Texas-sized plastic island" off California's west coast...but how about the
disturbing news of plastic beaches and plastic sand? Plastic is accumulating at an alarming rate in our
oceans, wreaking havoc on wildlife, polluting our beaches and entering our food chain. Our
addiction to use-and-toss items is one of the major causes of this growing problem. AS REPORTED BY NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
The success of the convenient plastic bag has meant a dramatic increase in the amount of sacks found floating in
the oceans where they choke, strangle, and starve wildlife and raft alien species around the
world, according to David Barnes, a marine scientist with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England, who studies the
impact of marine debris. Barnes has said that plastic bags have gone "from being rare in the late 80s and early 90s to being almost
everywhere from Spitsbergen 78 degrees North [latitude] to Falklands 51 degrees South [latitude], but I'll bet they'll be washing up in
Antarctica within the decade." DID YOU KNOW? Plastic bags are among the top two items of debris found most often in coastal
cleanups. (Ocean Conservancy) Plastic bags wrap around living corals, quickly "suffocating" and
killing them. (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Plastic pieces outweigh surface zooplankton in the
Central North Pacific by a factor of 6 to 1. (Algalita Marine Research Foundation) Plastic pieces can attract and hold hydrophobic
elements like PCB and DDT up to 1 million x background levels. As a result, floating plastic is like a poison pill.
(Algalita Marine Research Foundation) Approximately 500 nautical miles off the California coast sits a growing
"plastic island," a gargantuan patch of floating plastic trash held together by currents stretching
across the northern Pacific almost as far as Japan. This "plastic island" is made up of about 7 billion pounds of
plastic garbage, and measures about twice the size of Texas. Each year, enough trashmost of it plasticfloats down the Los
Angeles River to fill the Rose Bowl two stories deep. (Los Angeles Times, "Altered Oceans") Of 500,000 albatross
chicks born each year on Midway Atoll, about 200,000 die of starvation. Adult albatrosses mistake
plastic trash for food and end up feeding it to their chicks. (L.A. Times) On a single day in 2007, nearly
400,000 volunteers around the world picked up more than 6 million pounds of trash. A majority of the items were single-use
disposable plastic items, such as plastic bags and Styrofoam containers. (Ocean Conservancy International) Since water keeps the
plastic cool and algae blocks ultraviolet rays, "every little piece of plastic manufactured in the past 50
years that made it into the ocean is still out there somewhere." (Research Triangle Institute)

Coral is key to sustain crucial fish species and human survival

McMichael 03
(Anthony J, National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health Director, Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and
Responses, p. 254,
http://books.google.com/books?id=tQFYJjDEwhIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=coral+reefs+critical+human+survival&source=we
b&ots=PpvyXNZ_Ve&sig=HuTi0RaOUUfhEhs1_zYoDQhJFz0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#
PPP1,M1)

Coral reefs are one of the most threatened global ecosystems and also one of the most
vital. They offer critical support to human survival, especially in developing countries,
serving as barriers for coastal protection; major tourist attractions; and especially as a
productive source of food for a large portion of the population (39, 40). Coral reefs supply
a wide variety of valuable fisheries, including both fish and invertebrate species (41).
Some fisheries are harvested for food, others are collected for the curio and aquarium
trades. Reefs have been an abundant and productive source of food for millennia. In
many nations, particularly those of the Pacific islands, reefs provide one of the major sources of
animal protein in the human diet, with over 100 kilos of fish consumed per person per
year. In the case of many small island developing nations, the majority of fisheries harvest is small-scale and subsistence in
nature; however, commercial fisheries have developed rapidly, for export markets as well as local sales. Target species include
grouper, lobster, parrotfish rabbitfish, emperors and snappers; and in areas with tourism, tourist preferences result in
concentration on conch fisheries as well as grouper, snapper, and lobster.

[FISHERIES IMPACT EV]

Ocean ecosystems and bio Diversity are key to human survival

Craig 3
Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2003
34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just
as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in
political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically
valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and
dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for
food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function
that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major
role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks
of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less
abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human
degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining
biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current
evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of
disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are
more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265]
Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among
component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies
that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex
and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef
system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to
maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for
marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez
oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine
wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or
even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of
how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine
ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it
was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is
occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every
problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and
policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea
and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the
United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in
the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean
we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its
once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish
and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864
More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the
ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands
destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266]
shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened
here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to
communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis.

Nano technological recycling solves while creating a stable source of carbon for
Carbon Nanotubes

PBS NewsHour 13
[ Public Broadcasting Service, the nations largest educational media service and stage for the
arts, Your plastic grocery bags can now be recycled into nanotechnology,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/your-plastic-grocery-bags-can-now-be-recycled-into-
nanotechnology/, Sept. 26, 2013, AR]
That grocery-store plastic bag you just threw away might be the future of nanotechnology.
Scientists at the University of Adelaide have developed a way to turn plastic bags into carbon
nanotube membranes. These membranes are sophisticated and costly, with the potential to be
used for energy storage and biomedical innovations. Plastic bags represent a huge threat to the
environment. They arent biodegradable, Americans use over 100 billion (yes, thats billion
with a b) of them, and only 1% are recycled. Thousands of marine animals die of plastic
pollution. And the environmental benefits to this upcycling (a play on recycling that means
converting a waste product into something more valuable) these plastic bags could be important,
at least according to Professor Dusan Losic, who led the team. Transforming these waste
materials through nanotechnological recycling provides a potential solution for
minimizing environmental pollution at the same time as producing high-added value
products. Similar research has been done before, Vilas Ganpat Pol at the Argonne
National Laboratory converted plastic bags into nanotubes suitable for use in lithium-ion
batteries. But Professor Dusan Losics method has broader applications, and uses a new method.
Heres the science: Dusan vaporized the plastic bags in a high-heat furnace, providing
nanoporous alumina membranes with carbon pores that allowed the carbon nanotubes to
grow. The process is extremely complex, but shows that carbon-based non-degradable
wastematerial [such] as commercial plastic bags can be directly used to produce such
sophisticated nanodevices as CNTs membranes. And in laymans terms, that could be a very
good thing.

Conventional Methods fail-Nanotechological recycling is the best solution

DOE 11 [United States Department of Energy, Governmental department whose mission is to
advance energy technology and promote related innovation in the United States, Developing a
Process to Transform Waste Plastic into a Valuable Commodity,
http://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=424, 4/5/11, AR]
Plastics productssuch as grocery bags, packaging foam, plates, and cupsare lightweight,
strong, and inexpensive to produce. However, because these products are not biodegradable, they
collect in landfills, litter the environment, and present a long-term environmental problem.
Through a new process developed by an Argonne scientist Vilas Pol, a wide range of waste
plastics can be converted into a fine black carbon powder or carbon nanotubes. This
carbon-based substance has numerous industrial applications, ranging from its use as an
anode material in manufacturing lithium-ion batteries to serving as a component in water
purification, tires, electronics, paints, and printer inks and toners. Plastic bags have become
a fact of life for businesses and consumers. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Americans use over 100 billion plastic bags annually, but only about 13% are
recycled. Plastics are not biodegradable. They collect in landfills and litter roadsides.
Scientists say plastics take more than 100 years to decompose. Conventional recycling
methods are ineffective because different types of plasticspolystyrene and polyethylene,
for examplecannot be mixed and the quality of recycled plastic is typically poor. At
Argonne, chemist Vilas Pol has devised an environmentally green method that breaks down
plastics and transforms them into a highly usable substance. In Dr. Pols solvent-free
process, plastic bags are inserted into a specially designed reactor and heated to 700 degrees
Celsius, forming a fine black powder. The powder contains tiny carbon spheres around 2 to 5
micrometers wide and one-twentieth the width of a human hair. If a cobalt-based catalyst is
added during the heating, the powder forms microscopic carbon nanotubes. Both
substancescarbon nanotubes and carbon sphereshave numerous industrial
applications. They are used to manufacture lithium-ion batteries, which power cell phones,
laptops, and other products. The batteries also serve as the power source for electric cars.
Moreover, the properties of carbon micropheres make them useful in water purification and the
tire industry, as well as in the manufacture of paint, printer inks, and toners.


Contention 2: Global Pandemic

Global pandemic inevitable and coming in the near future-Multitude of factors
cause new strain emergence and old reemergence and we are not prepared

Courage 10
(Katherine, Writer @ The Scientific American, Climate change will impact infectious diseases worldwide, but questions remain as to
how http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/03/03/climate-change-will-impact-infectious-diseases-worldwide-but-
questions-remain-as-to-how/)
As climatologists weatherthe IPCC controversy, another storm is brewing, and this one is filled with not with
bloggers but with beasts, bugs and bacteria. It is the potential plague of infectious
diseasesthreatened to be made worse, many scientists propose, by projected changes in the Earths climate.
At a symposium held yesterday at the New York Academy of Sciences, researchers from public health, climate, medicine and other
fields gathered to discuss some of the big questions that remain in uniting these evolving fields. "The relation between climate change
and infectious diseases is highly controversial to say the least," Richard Ostfeld, of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, said here.
Basic assumptions, such as the notion that rising temperatures will increase the number of mosquitoes that can transmit malaria among
humans (rather than just shift their range), have been the subject of painstaking parsing over the past decade. But to Otsfeld, who is a
disease ecologist, the question of whether climate change will expand the prevalence of infectious
diseases "is an unequivocal yes," he said. "Climate has a strong impact on the incidence of
disease." And now it is time to move on, the researchers noted, and start trying to develop
real-word strategies to curtail potential pandemics before they can get started.
Stemming the tide, however, depends on a thorough understanding of both the dynamics of
climate change and the behaviors of the more than 1,400 species of organisms that are
pathogenic to humansand, crucially, how the former might impact the latter.
Modeling the global climactic shifts itselfpast, present or futurehas proved to be no walk in the park, but the current science
nearly breaks down when scientists try to pinpoint forecasts for specific locations or specific years, noted NASA researcherGavin
Schmidt. "Climate change scientists are not fortune tellers," he said. But for public health officials, government decision makers and
even the biologists studying the diseases, the devil (and transmission rates) is in the details. Without a clear picture of how rainfall or
daily minimum temperatures are going to change in many areas of the globe, it has been difficult to establish predictions about just
how infectious diseases, such as malaria or Lyme disease, are likely to spreador plans about how to cope with them.
One thing that Schmidt is certain of is the unexpected: "We have a lot of confidence that
there are more surprises in the system," he said. Models can help predict some aspects of climate changebut only
to the extent that the researchers understand possible inputs and dynamics. "They cant tell you about the unknown unknowns,"
Schmidt said.
And the same might be said for the current understanding of many infectious diseases
especially those that might emerge or reemerge in the future. Even for a relatively well-
studied vector-borne disease such as malaria, crucial information about historical and
current case numbers are often shaky in the areas that need the most intervention. "You need to
know what the baseline isand that in itself has been a huge problem" in the field, noted Madeline Thomson, of Columbia
Universitys International Research Institute for Climate and Society.
As many of the researchers hastened to point out, however, climate is not the only force at work in increasing
the spread of infectious diseases into the future. Other factors, such as expanded rapid
travel and evolution of resistance, are already changing the ways pathogens infect people,
plants and animals. As climate change accelerates, it is likely to work synergistically with
many of these factors, especially in populations increasingly subject to massive migration and
malnutrition.
But as Thompson noted, despite its challenges, climate change can be a relatively solid rock on which to moor infectious disease
planning. Many functions of human populationsfrom geographical displacement to lifestyle changesthat influence disease
transmission can be exceedingly hard to track, she said. "Climate is one thing you can actually measure."

Diseases will catch us off guard and cause extinction

Discover 2k
(Twenty Ways the World Could End by Corey Powell in Discover Magazine, October 2000,
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld)
8 Global epidemics If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs
and people have always coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack. The Black
Plague killed one European in four during the 14th century; influenza took at least 20
million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS epidemic has produced a similar death toll
and is still going strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58 percent. Old diseases
such as cholera and measles have developed new resistance to antibiotics. Intensive agriculture and land development is
bringing humans closer to animal pathogens. International travel means diseases can spread faster
than ever. Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health, described
the situation as "like trying to swim against the current of a raging river." The grimmest
possibility would be the emergence of a strain that spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that
resists all chemical means of control, perhaps as a result of our stirring of the ecological pot.
About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions swept through the Americas.
Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely virulent
disease, which humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.

Even if the disease doesnt kill us, the resulting global instability makes conflict
inevitable

FSB 6
Financial Stability Board Forum, he FSB has been established to coordinate at the international level the work of national
financial authorities and international standard setting bodies and to develop and promote the implementation of effective
regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies. It brings together national authorities responsible for financial
stability in significant international financial centres, international financial institutions, sector-specific international
groupings of regulators and supervisors, and committees of central bank experts.
(Macroeconomic and financial stability issues raised by a global influenza pandemic, April 25, 2006)
Any estimate of the macroeconomic costs of a flu pandemic must necessarily be very rough, given the many uncertainties
surrounding the timing and severity of the pandemic and the reaction to it by authorities and the public. An important variable would
be the duration of pandemic conditions. A severe global pandemic, which could include several waves,
could last from 12 to 36 months. Impacts are likely to vary from one wave to the next, both geographically and in
terms of morbidity and mortality. One can nevertheless identify some of the channels through which effects may occur. For one
thing, the economy may become substantially less productive. Possible supply-side effects
include the following: The need to destroy poultry stocks has already caused
reductions in trade and rural output in some poor and middle-income countries.
Widespread illness will reduce labour force participation among those who are ill and
members of their families. Healthy people may stay away from work as well, whether
because of official bans on travel, because of breakdowns in public transportation
networks or voluntarily from fear of infection. Telecommuting could allow a fraction (probably small) of the
workforce to continue doing their jobs, assuming communications infrastructure can be maintained. For those who continue
working, labour productivity may suffer, because of insufficient workplace staffing. At the same
time, increased effort among those at work may help to dampen the impact of absences. FINANCIAL STABILITY FORUM 4
Distribution networks may be less reliable. This would be a particular problem for firms that rely on just-in-time inventory
management, but, if the pandemic is pervasive enough, disruptions to supply chains could affect much of the economy. There
may also be a sharp fall in aggregate demand: External trade and travel could fall
precipitously, hurting tourism, export-dependent sectors and those which require
imported inputs. Reduced travel will hinder business activity. Travel and tourism now
make up about 4% of global GDP, with a much higher share in some countries.
Restrictions on transport, and perhaps tighter controls on imported goods at ports, could
act as de facto barriers to international trade. Fear of infection may reduce spending on
activities involving public contact, including restaurants, cinema, use of public
transportation, and non-essential retail trade. Falling demand, reduced international
trade, and increased uncertainty are likely to cause a decline in business investment. There
may be some countervailing demand effects as spending switches from external to domestic suppliers and between different
components of spending. For example, there will of course be sharply increased spending on medical products and services. The
amount will depend on the spread and severity of disease, as well as decisions about pre-stockpiling of vaccines and medication. If
a severe pandemic overwhelms the existing capacity of hospitals (both hospital beds and equipment), the cost of increasing capacity
at short notice will be very high. The US Centres for Disease Control has estimated direct US medical costs of $166 billion (1.3% of
GDP) for a medium-level epidemic, not including the cost of vaccines. The experience of SARS suggests that
the psychological impact of a pandemic could produce economic consequences even more
severe than the medical impact. As noted above, while the disease had a high mortality rate, the infection rate and the
total number of cases were quite low. Nevertheless, sharp declines in travel and tourism briefly
brought growth to a standstill in some countries. A study by Oxford Economic Forecasting estimated the
total cost of the epidemic in East Asia at 0.6% of GDP for the 2nd quarter of 2003, or about $18 billion.

Early detection and treatment capabilities make Nanotech key to solve

TREDDER&PHOENIX 7
Mike Treder, AND Chris Phoenix, Center For Responsible Nanotechnology, Results of Our Ongoing Research, Last Updated April
16, 2007. http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm

New diseases will be stopped quickly. New diseases continue to be a threat to the human
race. Naturally occurring diseases could be far worse than SARS, and an engineered
disease could conceivably wipe out most of the human race. It will be increasingly
important to have a technology base that can detect new diseases even before symptoms
appear, and create a cure in a matter of days. MM will enable just such a rapid
response. With complete genomes and proteomes for humans and for all known
pathogens, plus cheap, highly parallel DNA and protein analysis and sufficient computer
resources, it will be possible to spot any new pathogen almost immediately. (There is
already a project under way to sequence the DNA of every organism in the Sargasso Sea.) Curing a new infectious disease
will require some method of detecting and stopping the pathogen. Robert Freitas has described over a dozen
nanotechnological ways to disable or destroy pathogens. Diagnosis and treatment may be
semi-automated. The practice of medicine today involves a lot of uncertainty. Doctors must
guess what condition a patient has, and further guess how best to treat it without upsetting the rest of the body's systems. By
contrast, when pathogens and chemical imbalances can be directly detected, many conditions will be treatable with no
uncertainty, allowing the use of computer-selected treatment in common cases. This may further reduce the cost of medical care,
although doctors, regulatory agencies, or the patients themselves may resist the practice initially.

Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) in particular are key to track and identify mutations

Grohol 9
(John M. Grohol, Doctor of Psychology, Carbon nanotubes that detect disease-causing mutations developed by Pitt researcher,
2/21/2009, PsychCentral, http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-01/uop-cnt012506.html)
University of Pittsburgh researcher Alexander Star and colleagues at California-based company Nanomix, Inc., have
developed devices made of carbon nanotubes that can find mutations in genes causing hereditary diseases,
they report in the Jan. 16 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. This method is less
expensive and takes less time than conventional techniques. Carbon nanotubes are rolled-up sheets of
graphite only a few nanometers wide-about the width of a molecule of DNA. The researchers used these nanotubes'
electrical properties to find a particular mutation in the gene that causes hereditary hemochromatosis, a disease
in which too much iron accumulates in body tissues. "The size compatibility between the detector and the
detected species-DNA molecules in this case-makes this approach very attractive for further
development of label-free electronic methods," said Star, who is an assistant professor of chemistry at Pitt. Star
and his colleagues at Nanomix also tested fluorescently labeled DNA molecules in order to confirm that DNA had attached to the
nanotube surfaces and was subsequently hybridized, or matched to its complementary DNA. "We have found that
electrical measurement of carbon nanotube devices produce sensor results that are
comparable to state-of-the-art optical techniques," Star said. He added, "The applications
of our method for detection of other, more serious genetic diseases can be seen." Label-free
electronic detection of DNA has several advantages over state-of-the-art optical techniques,
including cost, time, and simplicity. "Our technology can bring to market hand-held, field-ready
devices for genetic screening, as opposed to laboratory methods using labor-intense labeling and
sophisticated optical equipment," Star said. This research was partially supported by the National Science Foundation's
Small Business Innovation Research program.

Contention 3: Solvency

Government investment spur innovation, create opportunities for research, and lead
to effective development

Matsuura 6
(Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School
in Dayton, Ohio, Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide, July 2006,
http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160965, AC)
Regulation can both directly and indirectly influence the direction and scope of research in the field
of nanotechnology. Regulation asserts direct influence over the direction and scope of research when, for example, it prohibits
or severely restricts research in certain fields. An example of this type of direct regulatory impact on research is
presented by U.S. government limitations on stem cell research funding. Indirect impact on research
can exist when regulatory oversight as to certain forms of research or certain research practices becomes substantial enough to make
work in those fields notably cumbersome, thus providing disincentive for research on those topics. Another example of an
indirect regulatory impact on nanotechnology research occurs when regulators require
additional information regarding the effects of nanotechnology on the environment,
humans, and society. That need for accurate, timely information on nanotechnology effects creates a demand
for research in certain fields. That demand provides an example of indirect support for research. Another example of
indirect influence on research involves research that aims to work around government restrictions. For instance, when the U.S.
government placed restrictions on funding for stem cell research, many researchers took an
interest in developing lines of research that could be scientifically productive, while also
avoiding some of the ethical concerns that led the U.S. government to impose the research
limitations. One method through which regulation affects research involves incentives or barriers to research associated with
specific topics. If government prohibits or denies government research funding for particular fields of work, clearly those fields will
not be explored as fully or as quickly as they could be with government support. In contrast, if government establishes
research priorities, those topics will thrive, as they attract significant research attention.
Government funding and encouragement play a critical role in the direction of
nanotechnology research. Even without government funding or support for certain fields of research, private funding
sources may step in to facilitate research; however, research advances will likely be delayed by government restrictions on research.
Government policies, laws, and regulations create incentives and barriers for research at many different levels. Note that government
incentives and disincentives can be expressed in forms other than funding and direct prohibitions. For example, if national, local, state,
or regional governments provide tax law incentives for research, those tax benefits provide encouragement for research. If a local
government imposes real estate zoning ordinances that prohibit or restrict certain forms of research, those real estate laws create a
barrier to research. In the United States, the public in the state of California voted to enact a legal plan that allocated substantial public
resources to support and facilitate stem cell research in the state, even though that initiative ran generally counter to national policy in
the United States. Expect a similar range of legal and public policy actions by national, regional, and local governments aimed at
facilitating, and limiting, work involving nanotechnology. Regulation can also create opportunities for
nanotechnology research. To the extent that some regulatory requirements in fields such as environmental protection
require specific technical capabilities that may be satisfied through use of nanotechnology, regulatory requirements could
provide incentives for research into nanotechnology applications that facilitate compliance.
The traditional regulatory framework in the fields of environmental protection, health and safety, and other categories now focuses on
those instances, if any, in which the movement to nanoscale materials and processes requires new regulatory requirements. The
assessment of the extent to which such nano-specific rules are necessary requires a broad foundation of research. Regulators around
the world are now conducting and supporting research to determine what additional forms of regulation may be needed in order to
protect the public interest from any special threats posed by nanoscale activities. This research presents a significant opportunity for
nanotechnology researchers. For example, substantial attention is now directed toward potential toxic
threats posed by nanotechnology applications. A wide range of parties, including
governments, private industry, and public interest groups now urge substantially more
research in the field of nanotoxicology. They contend that such research is necessary to provide an
effective foundation for future regulation. Without the research, effective regulation will not
be possible. This situation presents a significant opportunity for research, encouraging
research into both potential applications for nanotechnology and potential consequences of
nanotechnology use. Nanotechnology and its applications are in their early stages of development; accordingly, the impact of the
technology remains unclear. Continuing research into nanotechnology impact will likely remain an important field of research for
many years. To date, the global trend has been to encourage diverse nanotechnology research and commercialization. The United
States and other nations implemented legislative and regulatory provisions actively encouraging and promoting basic nanotechnology
research and exploration of potential commercial development. The current international environment is highly supportive of
nanotechnology research, and it generally provides effective incentives for research in those fields. As nanotechnology
research advances, we are likely to see additional emphasis by governments on supporting
and encouraging research into specific fields, such as the environmental, health, and safety
implications of widespread nanotechnology use in diverse applications. Regulators,
nanotechnology proponents, and the public should all remain mindful that regulation and
policies at all levels of government have a significant impact on research. They should also recognize
that the impact on nanotechnology and other forms of research is caused by both direct and
indirect regulatory action. Rules, laws, and policies, in fields as diverse and as seemingly distantly removed from
research, such as taxation and real estate, significantly affect research. All those involved in nanotechnology development and
regulation should pay particular attention to this wide range of influences on nanotechnology research.

And, it would be regulated if introduced into the policy realm

HARPER 4 (Founder of the CMP Cientifica, Executive Director of the European NanoBusiness Association, Advisor to US NanoBusiness
Alliance, nanotechweb.org, EU Regulation: Will Brussels ban our nanotech?, http://nanotechweb.org/articles/column/3/4/1/1)
However, the two areas of real interest, especially to business, were regulation and toxicology. There has been a lot of discussion about
toxicology and nanotechnology recently, with various studies indicating that a variety of
fullerenes and nanoparticles have toxicities ranging between those of water and dioxins,
which doesnt really help us. A question raised by some of the worlds top toxicologists at the meeting was whether it is the reactivity of nanoparticles, their size or their
surface morphology that is the cause of inflammation. This is further complicated by the large variations in toxicity
depending on the surface treatment of particles. This is something I have observed in a
number of projects, with slight and poorly understood variations in the properties of
materials containing fullerenes of different batches from the same source. The upside is
that if we can understand and control this effect it paves the way for the neutralization
and safe disposal of materials. From a medical viewpoint, control over toxicity is a
beneficial thing - compounds that are highly toxic at one dose can in some cases be highly
effective drugs at another. So we have plenty of work still to do. Regulation always rears
its head when nanotechnology meets policymakers. While there is an impression that Europe tends to be somewhat overzealous when it
comes to regulation, this is an area where business and regulators are keen to co-operate. From a
business standpoint, we simply want to know what the rules are, or will be.

The nature of nano means one type spillsover

AZONANO 8Azonano, nanotech news website, 6/24/08, June 24th, 2008 http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6647
"The natural synergy of scientific and technological problems of electronics, photonics
and renewable energy based on commonly used materials, such as semiconductors,
ceramics and organic polymers will stimulate cross-disciplinary exchanges of ideas and
potential solutions," said Dr. Mascher. "Technology and business leaders will be able to
accelerate the transfer of ideas from 'lab to fab' and to use the meeting as a convenient
way to review new developments and innovations."

Incentivizing specific applications like recycling key

RUTTAN 8Vernon W. Ruttan, Regents Professor Emeritus, Department of Applied Economics and the Department of Economics, University of
Minnesota, April 2008, GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY, REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY, AND TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY
Staff Paper P08-3
In a series of seminal papers Bresnahan and Trajtenberg addressed the problem of how to establish a link between the economic incentives for
developing specific technologies and the process of growth (1995: 84). They suggested that at any point in
time a limited number of general purpose technologies, characterized by pervasive use
across a wide range of sectors, account for a relatively large share of productivity growth.
As a GPT evolves and advances it spreads throughout the economy, bringing about and
fostering generalized productivity gains (1995: 84). Electric power and information
technology have been regarded as the prototypic general purpose technologies (Jovanovic
and Rosseau 2005).

NOAA has a marine debris program to provide funding now, it just doesnt include
nanotechnological removal or recycling programs because its based on grassroots

NJ.gov 13
(ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, 2014,
http://www.nj.gov/dep/docs/2014marine-debris-ffo.pdf)
A principal objective of the NOAA Marine Debris Program is to provide federal financial
and technical assistance to grass-roots, community-based activities that improve living
marine resource habitats through the removal of marine debris and promote stewardship
and a conservation ethic for NOAA trust resources. NOAA trust resources include living
marine resources and their habitats, including commercial and recreational fishery
resources (marine fish and shellfish); coastal habitats; diadromous fish species; endangered
and threatened marine species; marine mammals and marine turtles; marshes, mangroves,
seagrass beds, coral reefs, other coastal habitats; areas identified by NOAA Fisheries as
essential fish habitat (EFH); and areas within EFH identified as Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern (HAPC). NOAA trust resources can also include marine habitats and resources associated with National Marine
Sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, and areas under state coastal management programs, including Areas of Concern
within the Great Lakes.
The program aims to foster collaboration among diverse entities and groups (e.g., public
and nonprofit organizations, citizen and watershed groups, anglers, boaters, industry,
corporations and businesses, youth conservation corps, students, landowners, academics,
and local, state, and federal government agencies) in order to cooperatively implement safe,
impactful, and cost-effective marine debris removal projects. In order to track project success, funded
projects will need to be able to report the total amount of debris removed (metric tons), total area or extent cleaned or restored (acres
and/or miles), types of debris encountered, and volunteer hours involved.
B. Program Priorities
NOAA is interested in improving marine and coastal habitat through on-the-ground
removal of marine debris. Marine debris is defined as "any persistent solid material that is
manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally,
disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or the Great Lakes" (15 CFR Part 909). The highest
program priorities for this solicitation are the removal of derelict fishing gear and the removal of medium- to large-scale marine debris
that have a negative impact on important habitat areas, particularly to habitats frequently used by threatened and endangered species
listed under the Endangered Species Act or those species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Proposals must have a primary emphasis on debris removal to benefit NOAA trust resources and must clearly lay
out the direct links to such resources.