args

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

To begin with, the definition of developed countries is incorrect. A developed country is a highly industrialized country. Your first contention states that developed countries are largely responsible for climate change. However, this is a broad generalization. Many of the countries that contribute to climate change are still developing because of their large debts. Also, there is a generalization that every country release a significant amount of of CO2. My opponent's case focuses on global warming rather that climate change. My opponent is ignoring that climate change is also caused by uncontrollable changes in our orbit around the sun and solar emissions. My opponent's second argument is that Developed countries are the only one's with capabilities to act on climate change. However, most Developed Countries do have a large national debt. We need to focus on the country's success before fixing the world. His last contention states that the greatest impact will come from when the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses make reductions. However, again this is a huge generalization. Not all developed countries release a signifigant amount of CO2 or even can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change. Your example of the US is irrevlevant. The United States cannot afford to cut back on the use of nonrenewable resources. You provide solutions that are inconvenient. For example, what if you live far from work, or couldn't afford organic foods. My opponent states that cooling the ocean floor only costs $14 billion. However most countries, with a massive debt cannot afford this. For example, take my previous argument that Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. Shouldn't the country try to fix itself before fixing the world? The Norway example does not support the Pro argument. He states that it is more of a reason mitigate the effects of climate change. However, isn't it more of a reason to fix ourselves before the world. My opponent conceptualizes the view of how to mitigate the effects of climate change without providing a valid solution. Obviously $14 billion is not cheap and we should not invest in the world when our own country has economic issues that are not caused by Climate Change. Moreover, the action to mitigate climate change is more of a moral right to an individual rather than a country.