NEG1NCs1NC vs. Conservation Sustainable development is a lie policies about sustainability are proposed based on whether or not they are economically beneficial, NOT on whether or not they help the environment the concept of sustainability as presented by the aff is a mask to continue the policing of political discourse by capitalist institutions our reframing of sustainability solves the aff

Gridwood 07 - School of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business @ The University of Sydney (John, January 2007, Rethinking sustainability, neo-liberalism and environmental managerialism in accounting, p. 4-5, http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/56614/Rethinking_neoliberalism.pdf)

Using an analytics of government perspective foregrounds how sustainability over recent decades has emerged not as a concept with an "essentialist" meaning in policy making but as an important enabling and organizing concept (Miller & O'Leary, 1994). It has been constituted by processes and practices and their historical circumstances such as systems of environmental political thought including 'sustainable development' or 'ecological modernization' (Dryzek, 1997). Sustainability has mobilized dividing practices of management regimes that include and exclude truth claims of policy debates in political discourse by being deemed (un)sustainable solutions to environmental management problem solving. In political discourse on the environment, sustainability is made a contingent nodal point of neo- liberal discursive formations in and around which, forms of political discourse and their truth claims are articulated, voiced and dispersed or marginalized and silenced. Corporate policy strategy, for example, is often the artifact of making green politics necessary for policy making, like 'environmental sustainability' and 'corporate social responsibility (CSR)' (Barry, 2004). Further, in contemporary political discourse on environmental management, sustainability is often staled in the form of policy statements of, amongst others, a government, political party or corporation connected to an ideal slate, like a green state (Eckersley, 1992), an ideal society, a set of principles, a social movement or a political theory of environmental practice (Eckersley, 1992). The making of the apocalyptic 'global ecological crisis' in political discourse on the future of planet earth, unless linked to slate responsibility and 'sustainability development' (Barry & Eckersley, 2005) is often marginalised and absolutely or partly denied or silenced in environmental management policy debates about political projects mobilized by a desire for sustainability variously defined (Dryzek, 1997). Thus, in these historical circumstances of political discourse on the environment and green politics, sustainability emerges as an enabling concept linked closely to political discourses on 'sustainable development' and to a lesser extent, 'ecological modernization' (Dryzek, 1997) with an array of calculated and partisan meanings that reinforce specific truth claims. On the other hand, a truth claim deemed to be unsustainable is an attempt to disable, weaken, marginalize and sometimes silence an argument and rationale about environmental management. Given a multitude of possible perspectives and historical circumstances, a meaning of sustainability in a location with its milieu is usually associated with competing truth claims of political discourse on how to make the future political security of economic terrains (the earth, nations, multinational corporations, SME enterprises, households) manageable. In this way it is not understood as inherently or essentially a radical enabling concept in the way it enables discursive struggle over policy truth claims but contingent on the political milieu of their historical circumstances. Hence, sustainability needs to be understood in relation to the historical circumstances of systems of dispersion and translation, including global governmentality (Lamer & Walters, 2004) and the political project of governing international and other hybrid spaces (Baxter & Chua, 2003). In this context, sustainability enables the transgression of limits of dominant political regimes of truth about the desired progress and futures of parts (geopolitical terrains, the oceans and seas, the atmosphere, etc.) or the whole curved, morphing surface of the earth. Here the earth is understood to be an historically contingent assembled artifact of a shifting ensemble of forces without any essential intrinsic nature.

Attempts at an anthropogenic environment result in domination of the planet --making the environment a second priorityturns case

Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

To preserve the various ecologies of the planet on a global scale, as many environmental groups assert, the inhabitants of each human community must rethink the entire range of their economic and technological interconnections to their local habitats, as national discourses of green geo-politics and grey geo-economics illustrate, in terms of how they are meshed into the regional, national, and international exchange of goods and services. Beginning this strategic review immediately poses the question of protecting all existing concrete "bioregions" in first nature, or the larger biosphere of the planet, within which the ecologies of any and all human communities are rooted. Bioregions historically have constituted the particular spatial setting of human beings' social connections to specific lands, waters, plants, animals, peoples, and climates from which their communities culturally constitute meaningful places for themselves in the "first nature" of the natural biosphere.37 The "domination of nature" is not so much the total control of natural events in the environment as much as it is the willful disregard of such localized ecological conditions in building human settlements.38 The abstract "technoregions" constructed within the human fabrications of "second nature," or the always emergent technosphere of the planet, within which modernizing human communities are now mostly embedded, operate by virtue of environmental transactions that often are over, beyond, or outside of rough equilibria of their natural habitats. These transactions create new anthropogenic ecological contexts, which typically generate an artificial hyperecology of an ultimately unsustainable type.39 A great deal of time and energy might be expended in core capitalist countries upon environmental regulations, resource surveys, ecological studies, and conservation policies, but these initiatives almost always are consumerist campaigns, aiming to reform the costs and regulate the benefits of these unsustainable flows of goods and services through the hyperecologies of second nature.40 Consumer society constitutes an entirely new system of objects out on the terrains of second nature. Baudrillard shrewdly aspires to be recognized as second nature's Linneaus, asserting that second nature plainly has a fecundity or vitality of its own: Could we classify the luxuriant growth of objects as we do a flora or fauna, complete with tropical and glacial species, sudden mutations, and varieties threatened by extinction? Our urban civilization is witness to an ever-accelerating procession of generations of products, appliances and gadgets by comparison with which mankind appears to be a remarkably stable species. This pollulation of objects is no odder, when we come to think about it, than that to be observed in countless natural species.41 Finding a rationality and systematicity in this quickening procession of products, Baudrillard believes his new technified taxonomies for every object (products, goods, appliances, gadgets, etc.) of the system permits us to plumb the system of objects propounded by contemporary economies of mass production/mass consumption. To do so, however, one must push past the silences of the silent majorities, and decipher the meanings of mass consumption as the consuming masses reveal them. Exploring consumption of objects in particular might disclose "the processes whereby people relate to them and with the systems of human behavior and relationships that result thereform," and thereby allowing anyone to reach "an understanding of what happens to objects by virtue of their being produced and consumed, possessed and personalized."42 Here is where habitus emerges from the systems of objects and objects of systems compounded with the technosphere. Bourdieu asserts habitus emerges out of "the capacity to produce classifiable practices and works, and the capacity to differentiate and appreciate these practices and products (taste), that the represented social world, i.e., the space of life-styles, is constituted."43 Yet, the dual dimensionality of habitus as a structured and structuring structure parallels the properties of habitat, which when taken in environmental terms, provides a scheme of systems generating classifiable practices and products as well as a scheme for systems of appreciating and comprehending within and amidst specific settings. Consequently, the habitats of second nature out on the technoregionalized ranges of anthropogenic technospheres are formed out of habitus, or the system of distinctive signs in practices and works driving lives styled by the system of objects. In these new spaces, terraformative hyperecologies can be monitored to judge their relative success or failure in terms of abstract mathematical measures of consumption, surveying national gains or losses by the density, velocity, intensity, and quantity of goods and services being exchanged for mass consumption. Here one finds geo-economists pushing for wiser uses of all biotic assets in all anthropogenic exchanges. Consumption is outsourced from many different planetary sites by using varying levels of standardized energy, natural resources, food, water and labor inputs drawn from all over the Earth through transnational commodity, energy, and labor markets.44 Geo-economic forms of state power and/or market clout, in turn, allegedly will provide the requisite force needed to impose these costs on the many outside for the benefit of the few inside. By substituting "Earth Days" for real ecological transformation, the hyperecologies of transnational exchange are successfully repacking themselves in green wrappers of ecological concern; but, they still often involve the profligate waste of energy, resources, and time to maintain the abstract aggregate subjectivity of "an average consumers" enjoying "the typical standard of living" in the developed world's cities and suburbs. Yet, if this is indeed happening, then how did these patterns develop?

The alternative is to radically alter the way we live environmental issues arent about large macro-level problems but rather the mentalities and actions that we take in our lives thats key to environmental change

Luke 03 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., 2003, Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation, interview with Aurora Online Magazine, http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)

Timothy Luke: I don't know about that. I think we can get out of it. The question is, how do you get out of it? You could have a nuclear war. You could have a big bio-terrorist accident or attack. You could have an asteroid hit things and mess it up. There's a lot of ways to disrupt the global economy globally, which would get you out of it. You'd have to start back at some previous state. But making a conscious choice to get from where we're at now to whatever would seem to be a more "rational, ecological" way of doing things, will basically require, sadly enough, a value change. People have to value doing things differently. I think over time, in the past what, 50 years there has been a radical value change in terms of how we deal with the environment. There's far more environmental awareness now than there was 50 years ago. Are things better environmentally now than they were 50 years ago? In some ways they are. So in some sense, keeping on this general track of self-reflection and change is not an inconsiderable development. But what really needs to be done is, as we probably know, a complete new reconstitution of the way we live. Which gets us back to not thinking about environmental issues solely as environment. In many ways, the problems with how we live are right there in front of you with the urban structure of this city. It's miles across, and to do things in your day you might have to consume a lot of hydrocarbon energy to do things. You buy stuff that comes here from all over the world, much of which could maybe be made or produced pretty much closer to here. But that doesn't happen, because all of us are encouraged not to make or produce things close to where you live, because that's what losers do. You don't want to be a loser, you want to be a winner. The whole script and package of everyday life contains the environmental crisis within it. How do you get people to see that and then decide to live differently, and make it their problem, not somebody else's problem, i.e. "Oh that's good for somebody else to do, but not for me. I've got mine jack and stick it where the sun don't shine for you, because I'm not going to change." Which has been the traditional problem of environmental change. I'm on top and I'm going stay there. Maybe my children or your children can live a life where everybody rides a bicycle, eats granola, and has no TV. But right now, this is pretty good. So that's a big problem. It's a value change and if it's going to start it starts here, it starts in North America.

1NC vs. ExploitationEco-managerialism turns nature into resources for capitalism it ensures that people who dont benefit from the extraction of these resources will continue to suffer and be oppressed

Luke 03 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., 2003, Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation, interview with Aurora Online Magazine, http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)

So to conclude, each of these wrinkles in the record of eco-managerialism should give its supporters pause. The more adaptive and collaborative dimensions of eco-managerial practice suggest its advocates truly are seeking to develop some post extractive approach to ecosystem management that might respect the worth and value of the survival of non-human life in its environments, and indeed some are. Nonetheless, it would appear that the commitments of eco-managerialism to sustainability maybe are not that far removed from older programs for sustained yield, espoused under classical industrial regimes. Even rehabilitation and restoration managerialism may not be as much post extractive in their managerial stance, as much as they are instead proving to be a more attractive form of ecological exploitation. Therefore, the newer iterations of eco-managerialism may only kick into a new register, one in which a concern for environmental renewability or ecological restoration just opens new domains for the eco-managerialists to operate within. To even construct the problem in this fashion, however, nature still must be reduced to the encirclement of space and matter in national as well as global economies - to a system of systems, where flows of material and energy can be dismantled, redesigned, and assembled anew to produce resources efficiently, when and where needed, in the modern marketplace. As an essentially self contained system of biophysical systems, nature seen this way is energies, materials, in sites that are repositioned by eco-managerialism as stocks of manageable resources. Human beings, supposedly all human beings, can realize great material goods for sizeable numbers of people if the eco-managerialists succeed. Nonetheless, eco-managerialism fails miserably with regard to the political. Instead, its work ensures that greater material and immaterial bads will also be inflicted upon even larger numbers of other people, who do not reside in or benefit from the advanced national economies that basically have monopolized the use of the world's resources. This continues because eco-managerialism lets those remarkable material benefits accrue at only a handful of highly developed regional municipal and national sites. Those who do not benefit, in turn are left living on one dollar or two dollars a day, not able, of course, at that rate of pay, to pay for eco-managerialism. So I'll stop there.

Attempts at an anthropogenic environment result in domination of the planet where all efforts to preserve it become commodified into methods to promote capitalism, making the environment a second priorityturns case

Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

To preserve the various ecologies of the planet on a global scale, as many environmental groups assert, the inhabitants of each human community must rethink the entire range of their economic and technological interconnections to their local habitats, as national discourses of green geo-politics and grey geo-economics illustrate, in terms of how they are meshed into the regional, national, and international exchange of goods and services. Beginning this strategic review immediately poses the question of protecting all existing concrete "bioregions" in first nature, or the larger biosphere of the planet, within which the ecologies of any and all human communities are rooted. Bioregions historically have constituted the particular spatial setting of human beings' social connections to specific lands, waters, plants, animals, peoples, and climates from which their communities culturally constitute meaningful places for themselves in the "first nature" of the natural biosphere.37 The "domination of nature" is not so much the total control of natural events in the environment as much as it is the willful disregard of such localized ecological conditions in building human settlements.38 The abstract "technoregions" constructed within the human fabrications of "second nature," or the always emergent technosphere of the planet, within which modernizing human communities are now mostly embedded, operate by virtue of environmental transactions that often are over, beyond, or outside of rough equilibria of their natural habitats. These transactions create new anthropogenic ecological contexts, which typically generate an artificial hyperecology of an ultimately unsustainable type.39 A great deal of time and energy might be expended in core capitalist countries upon environmental regulations, resource surveys, ecological studies, and conservation policies, but these initiatives almost always are consumerist campaigns, aiming to reform the costs and regulate the benefits of these unsustainable flows of goods and services through the hyperecologies of second nature.40 Consumer society constitutes an entirely new system of objects out on the terrains of second nature. Baudrillard shrewdly aspires to be recognized as second nature's Linneaus, asserting that second nature plainly has a fecundity or vitality of its own: Could we classify the luxuriant growth of objects as we do a flora or fauna, complete with tropical and glacial species, sudden mutations, and varieties threatened by extinction? Our urban civilization is witness to an ever-accelerating procession of generations of products, appliances and gadgets by comparison with which mankind appears to be a remarkably stable species. This pollulation of objects is no odder, when we come to think about it, than that to be observed in countless natural species.41 Finding a rationality and systematicity in this quickening procession of products, Baudrillard believes his new technified taxonomies for every object (products, goods, appliances, gadgets, etc.) of the system permits us to plumb the system of objects propounded by contemporary economies of mass production/mass consumption. To do so, however, one must push past the silences of the silent majorities, and decipher the meanings of mass consumption as the consuming masses reveal them. Exploring consumption of objects in particular might disclose "the processes whereby people relate to them and with the systems of human behavior and relationships that result thereform," and thereby allowing anyone to reach "an understanding of what happens to objects by virtue of their being produced and consumed, possessed and personalized."42 Here is where habitus emerges from the systems of objects and objects of systems compounded with the technosphere. Bourdieu asserts habitus emerges out of "the capacity to produce classifiable practices and works, and the capacity to differentiate and appreciate these practices and products (taste), that the represented social world, i.e., the space of life-styles, is constituted."43 Yet, the dual dimensionality of habitus as a structured and structuring structure parallels the properties of habitat, which when taken in environmental terms, provides a scheme of systems generating classifiable practices and products as well as a scheme for systems of appreciating and comprehending within and amidst specific settings. Consequently, the habitats of second nature out on the technoregionalized ranges of anthropogenic technospheres are formed out of habitus, or the system of distinctive signs in practices and works driving lives styled by the system of objects. In these new spaces, terraformative hyperecologies can be monitored to judge their relative success or failure in terms of abstract mathematical measures of consumption, surveying national gains or losses by the density, velocity, intensity, and quantity of goods and services being exchanged for mass consumption. Here one finds geo-economists pushing for wiser uses of all biotic assets in all anthropogenic exchanges. Consumption is outsourced from many different planetary sites by using varying levels of standardized energy, natural resources, food, water and labor inputs drawn from all over the Earth through transnational commodity, energy, and labor markets.44 Geo-economic forms of state power and/or market clout, in turn, allegedly will provide the requisite force needed to impose these costs on the many outside for the benefit of the few inside. By substituting "Earth Days" for real ecological transformation, the hyperecologies of transnational exchange are successfully repacking themselves in green wrappers of ecological concern; but, they still often involve the profligate waste of energy, resources, and time to maintain the abstract aggregate subjectivity of "an average consumers" enjoying "the typical standard of living" in the developed world's cities and suburbs. Yet, if this is indeed happening, then how did these patterns develop?

The alternative is to radically alter the way we live environmental issues arent about large macro-level problems but rather the mentalities and actions that we take in our lives thats key to environmental change

Luke 03 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., 2003, Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation, interview with Aurora Online Magazine, http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)

Timothy Luke: I don't know about that. I think we can get out of it. The question is, how do you get out of it? You could have a nuclear war. You could have a big bio-terrorist accident or attack. You could have an asteroid hit things and mess it up. There's a lot of ways to disrupt the global economy globally, which would get you out of it. You'd have to start back at some previous state. But making a conscious choice to get from where we're at now to whatever would seem to be a more "rational, ecological" way of doing things, will basically require, sadly enough, a value change. People have to value doing things differently. I think over time, in the past what, 50 years there has been a radical value change in terms of how we deal with the environment. There's far more environmental awareness now than there was 50 years ago. Are things better environmentally now than they were 50 years ago? In some ways they are. So in some sense, keeping on this general track of self-reflection and change is not an inconsiderable development. But what really needs to be done is, as we probably know, a complete new reconstitution of the way we live. Which gets us back to not thinking about environmental issues solely as environment. In many ways, the problems with how we live are right there in front of you with the urban structure of this city. It's miles across, and to do things in your day you might have to consume a lot of hydrocarbon energy to do things. You buy stuff that comes here from all over the world, much of which could maybe be made or produced pretty much closer to here. But that doesn't happen, because all of us are encouraged not to make or produce things close to where you live, because that's what losers do. You don't want to be a loser, you want to be a winner. The whole script and package of everyday life contains the environmental crisis within it. How do you get people to see that and then decide to live differently, and make it their problem, not somebody else's problem, i.e. "Oh that's good for somebody else to do, but not for me. I've got mine jack and stick it where the sun don't shine for you, because I'm not going to change." Which has been the traditional problem of environmental change. I'm on top and I'm going stay there. Maybe my children or your children can live a life where everybody rides a bicycle, eats granola, and has no TV. But right now, this is pretty good. So that's a big problem. It's a value change and if it's going to start it starts here, it starts in North America.

LinksLink AquacultureAquacultures are capitalist mechanisms to devalue and exploit other organisms in a contained environment

Clark and Clausen 08 (Brett Clark, assistant professor of sustainability at the university of Utah, Rebecca Clausen, monthlyreview author, 7-1-08, capitalism and the degradation of marine ecosystem http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine-ecosystem mp)

The massive decline in fish stocks has led capitalist development to turn to a new way of increasing profits intensified production of fishes. Capitalist aquaculture represents not only a quantitative change in the intensification and concentration of production; it also places organisms life cycles under the complete control of private for-profit ownership.31 This new industry, it is claimed, is the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the world. It boasts of having ownership from egg to plate and substantially alters the ecological and human dimensions of a fishery.32 Aquaculture (sometimes also referred to as aquabusiness) involves subjecting nature to the logic of capital. Capital attempts to overcome natural and social barriers through its constant innovations. In this, enterprises attempt to commodify, invest in, and develop new elements of nature that previously existed outside the political-economic competitive sphere: As Edward Carr wrote in the Economist, the sea is a resource that must be preserved and harvested.To enhance its uses, the water must become ever more like the land, with owners, laws and limits. Fishermen must behave more like ranchers than hunters.33 As worldwide commercial fish stocks decline due to overharvest and other anthropogenic causes, aquaculture is witnessing a rapid expansion in the global economy. Aquacultures contribution to global supplies of fish increased from 3.9 percent of total worldwide production by weight in 1970 to 27.3 percent in 2000. In 2004, aquaculture and capture fisheries produced 106 million tons of fish and aquaculture accounted for 43 percent.34 According to Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, aquaculture is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. Hailed as the Blue Revolution, aquaculture is frequently compared to agricultures Green Revolution as a way to achieve food security and economic growth among the poor and in the third world. The cultivation of farmed salmon as a high-value, carnivorous species destined for market in core nations has emerged as one of the more lucrative (and controversial) endeavors in aquaculture production.35 Much like the Green Revolution, the Blue Revolution may produce temporary increases in yields, but it does not usher in a solution to food security (or environmental problems). Food security is tied to issues of distribution. Given that the Blue Revolution is driven by the pursuit of profit, the desire for monetary gain trumps the distribution of food to those in need.36 Industrial aquaculture intensifies fish production by transforming the natural life histories of wild fish stocks into a combined animal feedlot. Like monoculture agriculture, aquaculture furthers the capitalistic division of nature, only its realm of operation is the marine world. In order to maximize return on investment, aquaculture must raise thousands of fish in a confined net-pen. Fish are separated from the natural environment and the various relations of exchange found in a food web and ecosystem. The fishs reproductive life cycle is altered so that it can be propagated and raised until the optimum time for mechanical harvest. Aquaculture interrupts the most fundamental metabolic processthe ability of an organism to obtain its required nutrient uptake. Because the most profitable farmed fish are carnivorous, such as Atlantic salmon, they depend on a diet that is high in fishmeal and fish oil. For example, raising Atlantic salmon requires four pounds of fishmeal to produce every one pound of salmon. Consequently, aquaculture production depends heavily on fishmeal imported from South America to feed the farmed carnivorous species.37 The inherent contradiction in extracting fishmeal is that industries must increase their exploitation of marine fish in order to feed the farm-raised fishthereby increasing the pressure on wild stocks to an even larger extent. Such operations also increase the amount of bycatch. Three of the worlds five largest fisheries are now exclusively harvesting pelagic fish for fishmeal, and these fisheries account for a quarter of the total global catch. Rather than diminishing the demands placed on marine ecosystems, capitalist aquaculture actually increases them, accelerating the fishing down the food chain process. The environmental degradation of populations of marine species, ecosystems, and tropic levels continues.38 Capitalist aquaculturewhich is really aquabusinessrepresents a parallel example of capital following the patterns of agribusiness. Similar to combined animal feedlots, farmed fish are penned up in high-density cages making them susceptible to disease. Thus, like in the production of beef, pork, and chicken, farmed fish are fed fishmeal that contains antibiotics, increasing concerns about antibiotic exposure in society. In Silent Spring of the Sea, Don Staniford explains, The use of antibiotics in salmon farming has been prevalent right from the beginning, and their use in aquaculture globally has grown to such an extent that resistance is now threatening human health as well as other marine species. Aquaculturists use a variety of chemicals to kill parasites, such as sea lice, and diseases that spread quickly throughout the pens. The dangers and toxicities of these pesticides in the marine environment are magnified because of the long food chain.39 Once subsumed into the capitalist process, life cycles of animals are increasingly geared to economic cycles of exchange by decreasing the amount of time required for growth. Aquabusiness conforms to these pressures, as researchers are attempting to shorten the growth time required for fish to reach market size. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) has been added to some fish feeds to stimulate growth in fishes in aquaculture farms in Hawaii. Experiments with fish transgenicsthe transfer of DNA from one species to anotherare being done to increase the rate of weight gain, causing altered fish to grow from 60 percent to 600 percent larger than wild stocks.40 These growth mechanisms illustrate capitalist aquacultures drive to transform nature to facilitate the generation of profit. In addition, aquaculture alters waste assimilation. The introduction of net-pens leads to a break in the natural assimilation of waste in the marine environment. The pens convert coastal ecosystems, such as bays, inlets, and fjords, into aquaculture ponds, destroying nursery areas that support ocean fisheries. For instance, salmon net-pens allow fish feces and uneaten feed to flow directly into coastal waters, resulting in substantial discharges of nutrients. The excess nutrients are toxic to the marine communities that occupy the ocean floor beneath the net-pens, causing massive die offs of entire benthic populations.41 Other waste products are concentrated around net-pens as well, such as diseases and parasites introduced by the caged salmon to the surrounding marine organisms. The Blue Revolution is not an environmental solution to declining fish stocks. In fact, it is an intensification of the social metabolic order that creates ruptures in marine ecosystems. The coastal and marine support areas needed for resource inputs and waste assimilation [is]50,000 times the cultivation area for intensive salmon cage farming.42 This form of aquaculture places even more demands upon ecosystems, undermining their resiliency. Although aquabusiness is efficient at turning fish into a commodity for markets given the extensive control that is executed over the productive conditions, it is even more energy inefficient than fisheries, demanding more fuel energy investment than the energy produced.43 Confronted by declines in fish stock, capital is attempting to shift production to aquaculture. However, this intense form of production for profit continues to exhaust the oceans and produce a concentration of waste that causes further problems for ecosystems, undermining their ability to regenerate at all levels.

Link Biodiversity

Preserving biodiversity is rooted in a biopolitical desire to catalog life to the extent at which it benefits humans

Biermann & Mansfield 14 (Christine Biermann, Becky Mansfield, Department of Geography, Ohio State University, February 14, 2014, Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics, http://www.envplan.com/epd/fulltext/d32/d13047p.pdf)

The emergence of conservation biology as a crisis-oriented discipline in the late 20th century marks a significant shift in the American relationship with nature. Todays conservationists by and large aim to foster and protect the diversity of nonhuman life, taking as their object not individuals (eg, trees, charismatic animals, or geological formations) but populations, communities, and species. In colonial and early America, by contrast, nature was commonly viewed as something to be seized, possessed, and exploited (Nash, 2001). Landscapes of the New World were perceived as vast, dangerous, or, at best, useless, and settlers moved to conquer, tame, and improve them by clearing forests, hunting predators to near extinction, and forcing native people westwardall acts of seizure and sovereignty both over nonhuman nature and over those humans understood to be outside of the American body politic. We see in the moment of westward expansion the culmination of sovereign power in the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it (Foucault, 1990, page 136). By the late 19th century, as forests were cleared, prairies plowed, and Native American tribes defeated (in short, as there was less wilderness left to conquer), a new biopolitical desire to make nature live began to surface alongside sovereign control. In the emerging Romantic understanding, nature took on new salience, as a small but significant minority of Americans began to view it as sublime, sacred, and an essential part of American national identity (Nash, 2001; Runte, 1987). Acclaimed natural landscapes such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite Valley, and the geyser basins of Yellowstone served as proof of American exceptionalism, and although their preservation paved the way for the modern environmental movement, the early logic of this movement was one of monumentalism, not environmentalism (Runte, 1987, page 29). At the same time, conservationists such as Gifford Pinchot advocated a utilitarian and consumption-based approach to managing and stewarding natural resources for national development (Knight and Bates, 1995). In these ways, the initial steps toward biopolitical environmentalism were not a departure from sovereign power but rather an expansion of it, exemplifying Bruce Brauns claim that the government of life has revealed itself to be intimately related to the exercise and extension of sovereign power (2007, page 8). By the mid-20th century, the overt justification for the protection of nature had shifted away from American exceptionalism and toward ecological health and integrity (eg, Leopold, 1949). Ecology as a science developed to focus on interactions between organisms and their environments; with concepts such as ecosystems and the balance of nature, it became the central science associated with environmentalism (Worster, 1994). Conservation biology grew out of this intertwining of ecology, as a science, and the American environmental movement. The official formation of conservation biology as a discipline is cited as early evening on May 8, 1985, at the end of the Second Conference on Conservation Biology in Ann Arbor, Michigan. An informal motion established the Society for Conservation Biology along with a new academic journal Conservation Biology (Sarkar, 2009). Those instrumental in establishing the discipline sought to separate themselves from scientists who perceived the environment as a set of natural resources to be protected for human consumption (Sarkar, 2009; Soul, 1985). Whereas scientists in the natural resources and forestry worlds generally sought to manage a small number of highly valuable species (such as high-yield timber Conservation biology as biopolitics 263 species and wild fisheries), conservation biologists aimed to protect all species based on two somewhat conflicting ideas: the idea that nature has intrinsic value extending beyond its utility to human society, and the idea that natures diversity might someday be valuable to human society [eg, to adapt agricultural crops to climate change (Soul, 1985) ], even if not yet. Thus, the organizing principle is that it is not enough to know nature; one must also use that knowledge to effectively manage and even foster the diversity of life. While scientific knowledge is always shaped by social processes and dominant social metaphors (Law, 2004; Sismondo, 2010; Worster, 1994), conservation biology is distinct from many other fields in that practitioners aim not merely to uncover facts but also to develop recommendations and take action (Soul, 1985). The right of the sword over nature has not been replaced per se but has been permeated by a new right to make live and let die, manifest as the right and duty to catalog life at the level of the species, organism, and genome, make nonhuman species live, and preserve certain visions of natureall this while allowing abnormal or debilitated genes, individuals, and populations to die off (Soul, 1985, page 731). Biopower has not come to replace sovereign power, and the biological materiality of nature remains firmly tied to its political and social dimensions (Braun, 2007). Indeed, intervention in biological processes has both complemented and complicated humanand particularly capitalistexploitation of nature. Ultimately, however, the random element of life can never be fully brought into the realm of management, as the complexities of matters [make] governance and rule frighteningly unpredictable (Hinchliffe and Bingham, 2008, page 1534). In other words, lifeboth human and nonhumanconstantly escapes control, and to promote and protect life means to acknowledge the dynamism and inherent unpredictability of biological processes. Hinchliffe and Bingham (2008) explain that the challenge of securing life is a paradox, where the need for control is also the need for an absence of control (page 1547). This paradox lies at the root of conservation biology and associated fields

Categorization of bodies limits out an understanding of the non-human

Biermann & Mansfield 14 (Christine Biermann, Becky Mansfield, Department of Geography, Ohio State University, February 14, 2014, Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics, http://www.envplan.com/epd/fulltext/d32/d13047p.pdf)

As the idea of a biodiversity crisis gained traction in the 1980s and 1990s, the expectations for and of ecologists shifted toward action, prescription, and defense of life. The newfound missions for conservation were to promote life (synonymous with biodiversity), halt or slow extinction, and ensure that particular species continue to live and evolve. In a sense this new mission represented an extension of the preservationist logic at work in the US environmental movement of the early 20th century, in which discourses about American landscapes increasingly emphasized the protection of nature and the cultural and national importance of unique natural landscapes. Modern conservation science, however, extended this preservationist logic in new directions, incorporating the wholesale protection and promotion of the biology of the earth writ large (Western, 1992). This paper examines modern conservation science through the lens of biopower, which Michel Foucault conceptualized as the power to make live and let die (Foucault, 2003, page 241). We posit not just that biopower is a useful analytical tool for understanding governance of humannonhuman relationships but that failure to understand how nonhuman life has been the object of biopolitical concern risks privileging scientific knowledge and management as purely objective and apoliticalthat is, as outside the reach of power. Here, we renarrate core conservation knowledge, practices, and policies in the US as a form of liberal biopolitical rule. With its emphasis on making nature live, conservation science marks a shift from a sovereign form of rule that emphasized subduing and controlling nature. We focus on key concepts in conservation biology, such as populations, evolution, extinction, and biological diversity and purity, to demonstrate that acts of truth-telling about nature occur within, and are necessarily shaped by, the context of liberal biopolitical rule. By truth-telling we refer not to the discovery of objective facts but rather to the ways in which particular ideas about nature are designated normal, natural, and true through the circulation of scientific discourses (Foucault, 1990; 2008).(1) In particular, we show that modern conservation science is shaped by a biopolitical logic that emphasizes distinctions between biological kinds and develops interventions based on these distinctionsa logic that also informs racial, biological distinctions among humans. Ideas of abnormality and normality are produced and reproduced through racial projects, most of which are not racist per se but nonetheless engage in racial signification (Omi and Winant, 1994). In other words, biopolitical strategies rely on logics of racial difference (Moore et al, 2003, page 18) to delineate between their target population and others. Even as such sharp biological distinctions (ie, between races) are called into question when applied to human populations, distinctions between biological kinds are generally deemed both appropriate and scientific when applied to nonhuman populations. Conservation science is built upon distinctions between life forms, as it is these distinctions that constitute biodiversity and therefore must be defended and maintained. In the next section, we review the concept of Foucauldian biopower and discuss emerging scholarship on the biopolitics of nature. We add to this literature an explicit emphasis on racial differentiation and biological aberrance, arguing that understanding the let die part of biopolitics requires greater attention to the categorization of bodies. We then turn to conservation science to consider the underlying biopolitical logic and truth discourses of the field. Expanding on four themespopulations in crisis, evolution and its future orientation, extinction as death that is necessary for life, and diversity as purity we illustrate key assumptions, concepts, and practices (statistical and material) that work to secure biodiversity. The final section briefly discusses the implications of contemporary conservations biopolitical logic, including the continued relevance of sovereign power in biopolitical naturesociety relations.

Link Climate ChangeThe affs method of solving climate change re-entrenches capitalist systems as well as authoritarian governance empirics prove that their managerialism leads to the domination of human and non-human Others

Luke 09 Dept. of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy, 9/2/09-9/6/09, An Emergent Mangle of Practice: Global Climate Change as Vernacular Geoengineering, p. 2-3, Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450783&download=yes)

In view of today's ominous climate change trends, however, there now are many experts and interests at work trying to build some consensus around what "must be done." Much of the conflict here is no longer over "whether or not," but rather what must be done by whom, where, when, what, and how? Individuals and/or groups; states and/or societies; bureaucratic regulators and/or market mechanisms, manufacturers plus networks of consumers, designers, users, scientific experts and/or ordinary laypersons: the complexity of the players to be invited to address the problems further complicates the solutions. Yet. the ruse of rationality still positions the policy problematic as one of pure geoengineering in order to occlude, as capitalist systems of exchange as well as authoritarian modes of governance always have, the degree to which geoengineering implicitly but also inescapably, is much more, namely, socioengineering, ethnoengineering or archiengineering (Luke, 2005a). That is, any new twists in the modes of dominating nature necessarily imply fresh approaches to dominating men and women by reorganizing society, reconfiguring culture or reconstituting rulership. These two dynamics cannot be divided, and each presumes the other. Whether one looks at Rousseau, Smith, Marx or Polanyi, one insight about social power seems constant: a few men and women do tend to dominate most other human and nonhuman beings by perfecting the domination of nature (Luke, forthcoming 2010).

Link DeforestationThe aff only values forests insofar as their instrumental use for humanity forest protection is controlled by experts who exercise their professional-technical knowledge in order to sustain the system that cause their impact in the first place

Luke 96 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., Generating Green Governmentality: A Cultural Critique of Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation, p. 8-9, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim514a.PDF)

This infrastructuralization of the environment can be illustrated in Colorado State's Forest Science recruitment brochure, which casts its knowledge as being dedicated to "Valuing our Forests and Natural Resources" both inside the classroom and outside in the mountains. To imagine what forests are and do, the Department or Forest Science asks: Have you ever stopped to think how the health of our forests affects your own life.' without forests, there would be no wood for homes or fiber for countless paper products we use every day. forests also help maintain watersheds and keep our air tree of harmful pollutants. And, tor centuries, forests have been a very special place where people go to see and enjoy nature. Whether you live in a city or small town, forests impact your lite in many ways.23 Forests are represented as open infrastructural networks, or quasi-subjective agencies whose health, growth, and location are quasi-objective structures needed by human beings as building materials, watershed maintenance mechanisms, air cleaners, or human enjoyment zones. Moreover, the environmental infrastructure of our forests "need people who can understand and manage them" but, as Colorado State claims, "only with well-educated professionals can we ensure that our resources will be available for the benefit of present and future generations."24 So to rightly manage this vital green infrastructure it provides four concentrations of discursive understanding and applied practiceforest biology, forest fire science, forest management, and forest-businessto prepare environmental professionals. Learning about forests "from actual experience, not just from textbooks," Forest Science pledges comprehensive training as forest biology focuses "on the biology of trees and the ecology of forest;" forest fire science examines "fire as a forest management tool" as students "learn how prescribed fire can be used to enhance wildlife habitat, prepare seedbeds, control forest insects and disease, and reduce fuel hazards;" forest management concentrates on how state and commercial agencies exploit "forest productivity, economics, and conservation, along with the latest in computer- based management tools;" and, forest-business teaches business applications "if you seek employment with a private timber company, or you wish to develop your own forest business."25 Colorado State's Forest Science Program, therefore, promises to open doors to professional-technical jobs that oversee the technoscientific nexus of discipline/sovereignty/territoriality in managing forest resources as students either are able "to qualify as a professional forester and work with traditional national and international resource organizations" or find avenues that "pursue employment in fields such as land use planning, youth agency administration, natural resource communications, mining reclamation, business, law enforcement, or conservation biology."26 Indeed, forest science is a system of discursive truth production by which environmental professionals "learn to manage forests for maximum growth; to protect forests from fires and disease; and to conserve forest, soil, and water resources," because such knowing mediations of power do provide "a truly unique and rewarding opportunity"27 to exercise their professional-technical power/knowledge ecologically.

Link EcocritiquesTheir attempt to protect the environment from modernity misses the boat capitalism and technology have become an environment they have already enveloped and besieged all life on Earth this recognition is key to solving

Luke 99 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., 1999, Placing Ecocritique in Context: Technology, Democracy and Capitalism as Environment, p. 1-3, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim653.PDF)

Many of the most important political debates in this generation center upon working through the practical implications in a handful of discursive dualisms: Nature/Society, Ecology/Economy, Environment/Organism. With each couplet, on- going arguments contest the terms themselves: where one stops and the other starts, how the first limits the second, why each cannot exist without the other, what directives in the first guide the second, when the latter endangers the former are all questions sustaining innumerable intellectual exchanges. Because very little here is obvious as such, these terms are invested with new significance by every individual or group that deploys them as meaningful constructs in environmental analysis. The result of so much pushing and pulling against the values and practices implied by these discursive oppositions is a vast body of ecocriticism. Responding to the implications of these evergreen dualisms, in turn, produces many variants of "ecocritique," which articulate their visions of right conduct for individuals, how communities might safeguard their environments or why progress never comes to pass. In this context, many ecocritiques remain stuck in modernist ruts, assuming an operational terrain in which humans intervene in their natural environments in wayseither intended or unanticipatedthat turn out to be disastrous. Thus, technology, democracy, and capitalism are cast as anthropogenic forces that impinge, with deleterious effects, on the Earths theogenic, or, at least, autogenic environments. Whether they are nature laments or anti-industrial polemics, ecocritiques rarely reposition their analyses outside of modernitys constantly changing contexts. Why not reverse some of these rhetorical relations? Perhaps technology, democracy, and capitalism are now coevolving into forces that have many effects, some positive and some negative, including the fabrication of enduring anthropogenic environments. Instead of being seen as factors intruding upon the environment, their joint interaction effects can be seen as an environment in itself. If technology, democracy, and capitalism are recast as part and parcel of our environment, then their influence could be much greater and far different than what is attributed to them by other styles of ecocritique. Recognizing how the ensemble of technology/democracy/capitalism now exerts environing effects on a global scale and at a local level almost everywhere forces one to concede how thoroughly these social formations have become environmental in dimension and duration. Industrial production and by-production, popular democratization and structural undemocratization, market success and market failure all coexist as dense networks of interaction and fixed grids of inaction. Their net effects acquire a naturalized momentum and scope, turning them into an environment. As Beck (1992) notes, modernization must become reflexive at this juncture: a reality that has been reaffirmed implicitly by many environmental movements of the past generation. The fusion of conflict studies, environmental policy, and cultural change in some quarters of the academy implicitly endorses Beck's vision of "the risk society." That is, "the social production of wealth is systematically accompanied by the social production of risks." and, as a result, "the problems and conflicts relating to distribution in a society of scarcity overlap with the problems and conflicts that arise from the production, definition, and distribution of techno-scientifically produced risks" (Beck, 1992: 19). Modernization is forcing many agencies and structures, to become reflexive, because it is making, and it already has remade technology/democracy/capitalism into an environment. While the classical narratives of rationalization underpinning the modernization project presume greater command, control, communication, and intelligence will come from applying more rationality to life, the experiences of living amidst past, on- going, and planned exercises of rationalization actually find us living with many consequences beyond anyone's command, control, communication or intelligence. In other words, the growing calculability of instrumental rationality also brings along with it new measures of incalculability unintended and unanticipated out of instrumental irrationality.

Link EcotourismEcotourism turns nature into a spectacle for humanity it has to be carefully managed through elitist knowledge production in order to maximize its recreational value - this legitimizes authoritarianism in the name of expertise

Luke 96 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., Generating Green Governmentality: A Cultural Critique of Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation, p. 11-13, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim514a.PDF)

Schools of environmental studies also must prepare their students for more tertiary uses of Nature as recreational resources. As the USDA says about its managed public lands, the natural environment is "a land of many uses," and mass tourism, commercial recreation, or park administration all require special knowledges end powers to be conducted successfully. Instead of appraising Nature's resources as industrial production resource reserves, recreationist managerialism frames them as resource preserves for recurring consumption as positional goods, scenic assets, or leisure sites. The entire idea behind national parks or protected areas is to park certain unique sites or particular undeveloped domains beyond the continuous turnover of industrial exploitation for primary products or agricultural produce. Yet, the recreational pursuits of getting to, using, and appreciating such ecological assets are mass produced through highly organized sets of practices. Consequently, recreationist managerialism "develops expertise in managing public lands and waters and in providing quality outdoor recreation experiences to their visitors."*' As Colorado State University's Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism puts it, "there is an exciting trend to establish park and outdoor recreation programs worldwide."** So this graduate program moves beyond undergraduate studies of "recreationists and tourists" to examine other publics, like "concessionaires, private land owners, policy-makers, agency personnel, communities, and special interest groups," which need to be managed as part of providing "quality outdoor recreation experiences" to visitors of parks and protected areas.** This focus upon "the human dimensions of natural resources" in recreationist management, in turn, permits this disciplinary unit to tout its Human Resources Survey Research Lab to prospective enrollees, assuring them that this "state of the art telephone survey lab helps to develop skills in measuring preferences, perceptions, and behaviors among outdoor recreationists."* Armed with this sort of knowledge about recreationist management, graduates are assured secure professional placement with some power center because the program "is oriented to employment with federal and state agencies, counties, and municipalities."1' Beyond the recreationist management functions of governmental resource management agencies, this graduate program also underscores a U.S. Department of Commerce study that forecasts tourism will be the world's largest industry by 2000. Hence, prospective students are assured how easily recreationist managerial knowledge can be pitched to "that sector of the tourism industry that is dependent on natural resources: park and recreation concessionaires, adventure and tour guide companies, private campgrounds and hunting/fishing preserves, destination resorts, ecotourism establishments, and tourism development boards and advertising companies"*1 to embed green governmentality into private sector pursuits. The obligation to supervise human recreationists rightly in "the conduct of their conduct" within the natural environments is aptly summarized by Yale's Dean Cohon, who characterizes environmental studies as almost another mode of police work, or "helping to protect and manage the integrity and survival of natural systems and human health globally," because recreationist management, like all environmental studies, needs skilled people "who are focused, informed, and dedicated to leading."'1 Discourses of green governmentality give dedicated students the right disciplinary paths for leading others to the right kind of information produced by professional schools of the environment. Their power/knowledge foci, in turn, authorize and legitimate the acts taken by "a corps of professionals" whose policing of anthropogenic environmental crises will bring about more positive recreational experiences.

Link Environmental ProtectionDiscourse of environmental protection renders nature in commodities, legitimating capitalist consumption

Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

The actions of the Worldwatch Institute, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club are frameworks within which a new habitus with its own environmentalized relations of production and consumption has come alive by guarding habitat as con- sumer goods. As Baudrillard observes, "The great signified, the great referent Nature is dead, replaced by environment, which simultane- ously designates and designs its death and the restoration of nature as simulation model. . . . We enter a social environment of synthesis in which a total abstract communication and an immanent manipu- lation no longer leave any point exterior to the system."89 Rendering air, water, biodiversity, habitat, and nature into complex new systems of rare goods in the name of environmental protection, and then regulating the social consumption of them through ecological activism, shows how mainstream environmentalists can serve as agents of social control in the global economy by reimagining the in- tractable equations of (un) wise (ab) use along consummational rather than consumptive lines. Putting Earth first establishes ecological capital as the ultimate basis of life. Infrastructuralizing nature renders everything on Earth, or "humanity's home," into capital - land, labor, animals, plants, air, water, genes, ecosystems - allowing mainstream environmentalism to operate as a very special kind of "home economics" to manage hu- manity's indoors and outdoors household accounts. Household con- sumption ironically is always home consumption, because human economics rests upon terrestrial ecologies. The roots of ecology and economics intertwine in sustainability and development, revealing their double significance. Sustainably managing the planet is the same thing as reproducing terrestrial stocks of infrastructorialized green capital. Whether or not environmentalists prevent the unwise abuse or promote wise use of natural resources is immaterial; every- thing they do optimizes the sign value of green goods and revalorizes global capital as environmentalized sites, stocks, and spaces - an out- come that every Worldwatch Institute State of the World report or Sierra Club ecotour confirms. Likewise, the scarcity measures of Na- ture Conservancy or World Wildlife Fund scare campaigns under- score how everything now has a price, including wildlife preservation or ecological degradation, which global markets will mark and meet in their (un) wise (ab) use of environmentalized resources. Foucault's views on governmentality fit these activities. State power is not "an entity which was developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence," because its power/knowledge has indeed evolved "as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form, and submitted to a set of very specific patterns."90 Producing discourses of ecological living, articulating designs of sustainable development, and prop- agating definitions of environmental literacy for contemporary individuals simply adds new twists to the "very specific patterns" by which the state formation constitutes "a modern matrix of individualiza- tion"91 out of environmental justice. The emergent regime of green biopower, in turn, operates through ethical systems of identity as much as it does the policy directives of governmental bureaus within any discretely bordered territory. Ecology resonates with effects from "one of the great innovations in the techniques of power in the eigh- teenth century"; namely, "the emergence of 'population' as an eco- nomic and political problem."92 Once demography emerges as a science of statist administration, its statistical attitudes diffuse into the quantitative surveillance of na- ture, or Earth environments and their nonhuman inhabitants, as well as the study of culture, or society and its human members. In ecogra- phies written by worldwatchers, technoscientific experts can steer effects exerted from their astropanopticons through nature conser- vancies, wildlife funds, and sierra clubs.93 Government, in the medi- ations of superpowered statist ecology, preoccupies itself with "the conduct of conduct," particularly in contemporary consumerism's "buying of buying" or "purchasing of purchasing." Habitus is habitat, as any good product semanticist or psychodemographer knows all too well. Environments - both the yet-to-be-built in "nature" or the already-built in "society" - are spaces under police supervision, expert management, risk avoidance, or technocratic control.94 The ethical concerns of family, community, and nation continue to guide how conduct is to be conducted; yet, at this juncture, the activities of the Worldwatch Institute, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club show how "the environment" increasingly serves as another decisive ground for normalizing each individual's behavior through consumerism. Habitus is habitat, but habitat also defines, delimits, and directs habitus. Conservationist ethics, re- source managerialism, and green rhetorics congeal as an unusually cohesive power/knowledge formation, whose (un) wise (ab) use op- erates smoothly within this new order of social normalization.

Link Fossil FuelsThe affs privilege of short-term economic gains over the environment justifies the on-going destruction of the environment in the name of economic nationalism prefer our evidence because fossil fuel lobbies influence theirs

Luke 2k Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., A Rough Road Out of Rio: The Right-Wing Reaction in the United States Against Global Environmentalism, p. 21-22, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim599.PDF)

The efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, losses of biodiversity, and ozone destroying compounds can be dismissed as being based upon shoddy science and/or devious diplomacy: both of which certainly seem aimed at curtailing American sovereignty. Consequently, any additional attempts to impose unwanted environmental regulations must be, according to America's new anti-globalists, held before the demanding bar of an enlightened nationalism. The purposes of economic and environmental policy in the United States are not "to proper [hu]mankind--but Americans first: our workers, farmers, businessmen, manufacturers. And what is good for the Global Economy is not automatically good for America" (Buchanan, 1998: 284). Grassroots opposition such as this to major international agreements on the environment also affects many higher level policy deliberations. Before the U.S. delegation departed to the conference on the global climate in Kyoto during 1997, the Senate unanimously passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which states the United States must not sign any agreement on greenhouse gas emissions unless it stipulates specific commensurate reductions for developing nations. Sponsored by Senators Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia and Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska, this bipartisan resolution has influenced the debates and negotiations over the December 1997 treaty at home and abroad (Passacantando, 1998: C5). On one level, this resolution marks an intense level of lobbying by coal, gas, and oil interests in the Unites States, who do not want their markets to shrink until Mexico, India, China, and Brazil also agree to reduce their consumption of dirty fossil fuels.

Link GeneralThe affs discourse of environmental sustainability becomes distorted into a form of green geo-politics allowing the state to justify biopolitical managerialism

Luke 97 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 18-22, 1997 The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm)

A political, economic, and technical incitement to talk about ecology, environments, and Nature, first surfaced as the social project of "environmentalism" during the 1960s in the United States, but it plainly has become far more pronounced in the 1990s. Not much of this takes the form of general theory, because most of its practices have been instead steered toward analysis, stock taking, and classification in quantitative, causal, and humanistic studies. Nonetheless, one can follow Foucault by exploring how mainstream environmentalism in the United States operates as "a whole series of different tactics that combined in varying proportions the objective of disciplining the body and that of regulating populations."3 The project of "sustainability," whether one speaks of sustainable development, growth or use in relation to Earth's ecologies, embodies this new responsibility for the life processes in the American state's rationalized harmonization of political economy with global ecology as a form of green geo-politics. These interconnections become even more intriguing in the aftermath of the Cold War. Having won the long twilight struggle against communist totalitarianism, the United States is governed by leaders who now see "Earth in the balance," arguing that global ecologies incarnate what is best and worst in the human spirit. On the one hand, economists, industrialists, and political leaders increasingly tend to represent the strategic terrain of the post-1991 world system as one on which all nations must compete ruthlessly to control the future development of the world economy by developing new technologies, dominating more markets, and exploiting every national economic asset. However, the phenomenon of "failed states," ranging from basket cases like Rwanda, Somalia or Angola to crippled entities like Ukraine, Afghanistan or Kazakhstan, often is attributed to the severe environmental frictions associated with the (un)wise (ab)use of Nature by ineffective strategies for creating economic growth.4 Consequently, environmental protection issues--ranging from resource conservation to sustainable development to ecosystem restoration--are getting greater consideration in the name of creating jobs, maintaining growth, or advancing technological development. Taking "ecology" into account, then, creates discourses on "the environment" that derive not only from morality, but from rationality as well. As humanity has faced "the limits of growth" and heard "the population bomb" ticking away, ecologies and environments became something more than what one must judge morally; they became things that state must administer. Ecology has evolved into "a public potential; it called for management procedures; it had to be taken charge of by analytical discourses," as it was recognized in its environmentalized manifestations to be "a police matter"--"not the repression of disorder, but an ordered maximization of collective and individual forces."

Link ManagementManaging resources ensures exploitation and the constant expansion of capital to the point of ecological degradation

Luke 03 (Timothy Luke, Professor of Political Science @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2003, Aurora Online, Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation, http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)

Resource managerialism can be read as the essence of today's enviro-mentality. While voices in favour of conservation can be found in Europe early in the 19th century, there is a self-reflexive establishment of this stance in the United States in the late 19th century. From the 1880's to the 1920's, one saw the closing of the western frontier. And whether one looks at John Muir's preservationist programs or Gifford Pinchot's conservationist code, there is a spreading awareness of modern industry's power to deplete nature's stock of raw materials, which sparks wide-spread worries about the need to find systems for conserving their supply from such unchecked exploitation. Consequently, nature's stocks of materials are rendered down to resources, and the presumptions of resourcification become conceptually and operationally well entrenched in conservationist philosophies. The fundamental premises of resource managerialism in many ways have not changed over the past century. At best, this code of practice has only become more formalized in many governments' applications and legal interpretations. Working with the managerial vision of the second industrial revolution, which tended to empower technical experts like engineers or scientists, who had gotten their degrees from agricultural schools, mining schools, technology schools like the one I work at, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, which prides itself as they say on producing the worker bees of industry. Or, on the shop floor and professional managers, one found corporate executives and financial officers in the main office, who are of course trained in business schools. Put together, resource managerialism casts corporate administrative frameworks over nature in order to find the supplies needed to feed the economy and provision society through national and international markets. As scientific forestry, range management, and mineral extraction took hold in the U.S. during this era, an ethos of battling scarcity guided professional training, corporate profit making, and government policy. As a result, the operational agendas of what was called sustained yield were what directed the resource managerialism of the 20th century. In reviewing the enabling legislation of key federal agencies, one quickly discovers that the values and practices of resourcification anchor their institutional missions in a sustained yield philosophy. As Cortner and Moote observe, the statutory mandates for both the Forest Service, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the National Forest Management Act, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, for example, specifically direct these agencies to employ a multiple use sustained yield approach to resource management. More often than not, however, these agencies adjusted their multiple use concept to correspond to their primary production objective -- timber in the case of the Forest Service, grazing in terms of the Bureau of Land Management. Although sustained help is not specifically mentioned in the legislated mandate of agencies such as the National Parks Service or the Bureau of Reclamation, they too have traditionally managed for maximum sustained yield of a single resource - visitor use in the case of the parks, water supply in the case of water resources. So the ethos of resourcification imagined nature as a vast input/output system. The mission statements of sustained yield pushed natural resource management towards realizing the maximum maintainable output up to or past even the point where one reached ecological collapse, which in turn of course caused wide-spread ecological degradation, which leads to the project of rehabilitation managerialism. The acknowledgement of ecological degradation is not tremendously difficult. Indeed, the will to manage environments arises from this wide-spread recognition back in the 19th century. One obvious outcome of building and then living around the satanic mills of modern industrial capitalism was pollution of the air, water, and land. As it continued and spread, the health of humans, plants, and wildlife obviously suffered, while soils and waters were poisoned. Yet the imperatives of economic growth typically drove these processes of degradation until markets fell, technologies changed, or the ecosystem collapsed. At that juncture, business and government leaders, working at the local, regional, and national level, were faced with hard choices about either relocating people and settlements in industry to start these cycles of degradation anew, or maybe rehabilitating those existing economic and environmental assets to revitalize their resource extractive or commodity producing potential. Rehabilitation management then is about keeping production going in one way or another. Agricultural lands that once produced wheat might be turned to dairy production or low-end fibre outputs. Polluted water courses, poisoned soils, and poverty-stricken workers can all be remobilized in environmental rehabilitation schemes to revive aquatic ecologies, renew soil productivity, and replenish bank accounts. The engagements of rehabilitation management are to find a commodifiable or at least a valuable possibility in the brown fields of agricultural excess and industrial exhaustion. Even after decades of abuse, there are useful possibilities that always lie dormant in slag heaps, derelict factories, overused soil, polluted waterways, and rust belt towns. Management must search for and then implement strategies for their rehabilitation. Such operations can shift agricultural uses, refocus industrial practices, turn lands into eco-preserves, and retrain workers. But the goals here are not return ecosystems to some pristine natural state. On the contrary, its agendas are those of sustaining the yields of production. Of course, what will be yielded and at what levels it is sustained and for which environmental ends all remains to be determined. On the one hand, the motives of rehabilitation management are quite rational, because these moves delay or even cancel the need to sacrifice other lands, air, and soil preserves at other sites. Thus nature is perhaps protected elsewhere or at large by renewing industrial brown fields in agriculturalized domains for some ongoing project of industrial growth. On the other hand, rehabilitation managerialism may only shift the loci and the foci of damage, rehabilitating eco-systemic degradation caused in one commodity chain, while simply redirecting the inhabitants of these sites to suffer new, albeit perhaps more regulated and rational levels, of environmental contamination in other commodity chains. If one doesn't want to rehabilitate what has been ruined, one can then perhaps get into restoring it.

Link Marine Protected AreasMarine protected areas begin with the question of how they will benefit humans, enforcing a mindset of control over nature

Orton 99 (David Orton, coordinator of the Green Web environmental research group, Earth First! Journal Vol.20 No.2, December 1999, Marine Protected Areas: A Human-Centric Concept, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/mpa.htm)

The proposal to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), made by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), under the new 1996 Oceans Act needs to apply deep ecology to an actual environmental issue. The literature that I have seen on MPAs seems to appeal to human economic self-interest, such as how fishers can benefit. Yet fishers seem to feel that they have some proprietary lock on the oceans from which the public is excluded. It seems a stupid strategy to try and mollify fishers while trying to establish MPAs. In order to create fully protected, extensive ocean sanctuaries which are not undercut by fishing or fossil fuel interests there must be a new social base, including more than just fisher people. Conservation must raise an all-species perspective and oppose anthropocentrism. The primary issue in any MPA discussion should be philosophical, trying to change how humans look at the oceans and their life forms. Choices in life are driven by philosophy, although few of us think about how our actions and philosophies are related. Those who support deep ecology believe that there has to be a fundamental change in consciousness of how humans relate to the natural world. This requires a change from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric perspective-seeing humans as a species with no superior status. All other species have a right to exist, irrespective of their usefulness to the human species. Humans cannot presume dominance over all non-human species of life and see nature as a resource for our utilization. We have to extend the ethical circle outwards, towards the oceans and the Earth. All life is one. The true conservationist, or Earth-citizen, must be prepared to oppose his/her own self-interest for the benefit of other creatures and their habitats. The justification for MPAs should not be one of self-interest. Protection of marine areas should not be based on which (human) shareholders shout the loudest in opposition. A fundamental question about MPAs is whether to appeal to economic interests or to rise above this, by promoting overall ecological and social interests. A Marine Protected Area must mean full ecological protection from human exploitive interests, otherwise the term itself becomes debased. Degrees of restriction of the human use of an oceans area could be encompassed, using another term such as Marine Regulated Area, rather than using, and debasing, the term "protected area." According to the Oceans Act, MPAs rest on an assertion of ownership over the internal waters, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. In a press release December 19, 1996, the federal fishing minister said the passage of the Oceans Act "reaffirms Canada's sovereign ocean rights..." Supporters of deep ecology believe no one can own the Earth, whether from a state, individual or collective point of view. Asserted ownership is ultimately a convenient social fiction deriving from a human society bent on enforcing a claim of control over other creatures and the Earth itself. The Oceans Act is not based on deep ecology. According to this Act, Canada's Ocean Management Strategy (of which MPAs are a part) is to be based on support for the principles of sustainable development. This concept, which sanctifies continuous economic growth and consumerism, should not be accepted. We need to drastically scale back economic growth and consumerism not expand it. Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, in their 1996 book Our Ecological Footprint, though presenting quite a human-centered perspective, point out that to live sustainably, we must ensure "that we use the essential products and processes of nature no more quickly than they can be renewed, and that we discharge wastes no more quickly than they can be absorbed." Moreover, they point out that if everyone on Earth had the average Canadian or American lifestyle, then three planets would be needed for a sustainable lifestyle for the world's population. The Oceans Act uses the word "resource" to cover non-human creatures living in the oceans. The automatic assumption that nature is a resource for corporate and human use is an indication of our total alienation from the natural world. It implies a human- centered, utilitarian world view and that humans are somehow the pinnacle of evolution. The word "stakeholder" means anyone interested in MPAs, lumping together those who want to exploit the oceans with people who have ecological and social interests. It makes no distinction between, say, inshore fishers who have a long term personal commitment to living off of the oceans, and oil and gas companies who pack up and move whenever richer fields are found. The concept seems to imply that out of the various competing interests, a lowest common denominator, general good will emerge. Ultimately, we are all stakeholders in a planetary well-being sense, yet non-human stakeholders are not considered. In terms of MPAs, who has more at stake than the seals, the fish and the algae? The Oceans Act says that its legislation upholds existing treaty rights of aboriginal peoples as outlined in the Constitution Act of 1982, under section 35. Translated, this means that a MPA can be subject to exploitation by aboriginal peoples. This puts ecology subordinate to human society. The DFO seems to have replaced Parks Canada as the leading federal agency in marine protection, yet it has been intimately concerned with promoting corporate exploitive interests in fisheries policies. Put another way, the DFO does not question the assumption that marine ecology should serve the industrial capitalist economy. For Parks Canada, maintenance of ecological integrity was considered the first priority in park zoning and visitor use. The nature of our capitalist society influences how we think about MPAs. I support protecting marine areas, but free of human exploitation. MPAs need to become a reflection of ecocentric thinking. The question is: Will MPAs be the beginning of a new ecological way of preservation or a subterfuge for the continued industrial exploitation of the oceans using greenwashing? A step in choosing marine areas to protect is to assess all the stakeholders. Humans are one group-those with a direct economic interest being only a sub-group. After all, the term protected area implies protection from humans. The other stakeholders, who usually remain voiceless at meetings, are the marine animals, plants and other organisms. Their interests have to be given more weight than human concerns. MPAs cannot be just minor set-asides. We cannot have dead zones between them. MPAs are not about creating wildlife reservations, because the nature of our society influences life inside these areas. Wider phenomena, like global warming, do not stop at MPA boundaries. Therefore a new, global, marine vision is necessary. Why don't we set aside oceans giving them protected status and then have workshops and meetings about which small areas should be opened up for human exploitation, of course, done sustainably?

Link New ColoniesThe creation of new habitable spaces for humans operates by assuming control over natural spaces

Luke 97 (Timothy W. Luke, department of political science at Virginia polytechnic institute, March 18-22, 1997, The (Un)Wise (Ab)use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerism? http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm mp)

To preserve the various ecologies of the planet on a global scale, as many environmental groups assert, the inhabitants of each human community must rethink the entire range of their economic and technological interconnections to their local habitats, as national discourses of green geo-politics and grey geo-economics illustrate, in terms of how they are meshed into the regional, national, and international exchange of goods and services. Beginning this strategic review immediately poses the question of protecting all existing concrete "bioregions" in first nature, or the larger biosphere of the planet, within which the ecologies of any and all human communities are rooted. Bioregions historically have constituted the particular spatial setting of human beings' social connections to specific lands, waters, plants, animals, peoples, and climates from which their communities culturally constitute meaningful places for themselves in the "first nature" of the natural biosphere. The "domination of nature" is not so much the total control of natural events in the environment as much as it is the willful disregard of such localized ecological conditions in building human settlements.38 The abstract "technoregions" constructed within the human fabrications of "second nature," or the always emergent technosphere of the planet, within which modernizing human communities are now mostly embedded, operate by virtue of environmental transactions that often are over, beyond, or outside of rough equilibria of their natural habitats. These transactions create new anthropogenic ecological contexts, which typically generate an artificial hyperecology of an ultimately unsustainable type.39 A great deal of time and energy might be expended in core capitalist countries upon environmental regulations, resource surveys, ecological studies, and conservation policies, but these initiatives almost always are consumerist campaigns, aiming to reform the costs and regulate the benefits of these unsustainable flows of goods and services through the hyperecologies of second nature.40

Link Pollution ReductionTheir attempt to remove pollution from the environment fails because pollution has become the environment it is a byproduct of capitalist industrial activity rejecting the affs view of pollution and our environment is key to solve

Luke 99 Department of PoliSci @ Virginia Tech (Timothy W., 1999, Placing Ecocritique in Context: Technology, Democracy and Capitalism as Environment, p. 15-16, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim653.PDF)

As Smith suggests, toxic wastes are "a by-product of energy development, agriculture, and most industrial activity," which now "are found throughout the environment, in our air, water, and soil" (1995: 170). Every modern industrial economy creates these outputs as intrinsic parts of ordinary everyday life. They are centered nowhere, but their circumference is everywhere. While, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment believes that "there are m