args

Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

"The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. " Developed nations have obligation to clean up, but developing countries don't? This does not really make sense to me. "Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century." How can we take action if we do not even know if global warming exists? There is evidence both for and against this. "the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN" In my last argument, I said that as oil prices rise, people can't afford it and instead start buying alternate fuels. This could be caused by that. The government did not need to do anything. "If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge" The terrorists are only indirectly caused by oil. Plus, not all oil cause terrorism. Here are some examples of places that have a lot of oil and little terrorists: U.S (3rd) Canada (6th) U.K. (19th) [1] "Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation." Again, so developing nations don't need to? "They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked." You misunderstood my point: Oil gets more expensive as it gets scarcer, so people will switch to green energy without even the government telling them to do so. My point is the government is not required to tell people to do so as they will do it, NOT that big oil corporations will go bankrupt. Green energy sure does help, but that is another separate topic. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...