args

The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

Thank you for your response! "Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent." I certainly hope that you read my source #2 (relisted here for your convenience as source [1]). That very clearly spelled out what scientists know. The burden of proof therefore lies upon you to disprove those facts laid out by the EPA. "This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true." I bring you, again, to the EPA site that I sourced. "So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt." I have addressed both these claims. "I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently." I totally agree. Luckily I proved it. "For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic" Check your link. I find it completely unnecessary to address this argument, but I will just for fun. August of 2008, as of when this article was written, was the month that saw the fastest loss of Arctic ice in recorded history [2]. "Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact." That is an argument that I've never understood. If there is any speculation at all that humans are a major cause of global warming, shouldn't we stay on the safe side? If it turns out it wasn't caused by humans, we won't really be affected (other than maybe being a little smarter, healthier and happier), and if it is caused by humans, well, we would have saved the planet. On the other hand, if you choose not to protect the environment, if you're right then nothing will happen, but if you're wrong then you will have allowed something horrible to happen that was largely or completely preventable. We only have one planet, so we should respect it. "I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million." I apologize. That was part typo and part stupid mistake. I often argue this for Oregon, which does have approximately 3 million people. In any case, I meant to say 300 million, and that only makes my point stronger. "If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable." Time out. I never said the government should regulate their private life. The government can't do that. The reforms which I proposed were all corporate and governmental. Through availability and convenience, the people will naturally change what they do. "Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are?" Obviously they won't completely go away, I'm not an idealist. But I can guarantee you that their use will diminish very substantially. If you have to pay for every single bag you get from the grocery store, obviously people will be much more inclined to reduce and reuse. I don't think anybody could truthfully deny that. "So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly?" Taxes are the right answer. Even if they weren't, it would probably increase recycling substantially if all states had deposits on their bottled and canned beverages (I have gotten quite a bit of money returning cans and bottles). But taxing would work. And your "idea," well, see the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. "When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem." See my argument about taking initiative. "Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org......) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy." First of all, that link shows Antarctic ice. Arctic ice has decreased. Also, I really don't know what to say to those statistics, other than the fact that 2009 was an El Nino year, which affects different parts of the world differently. In the case of Antarctica, it actually cools it down a bit. Now, here is where your logical fallacy comes into place. El Nino events are caused by the heating of the East Pacific. We have seen more El Nino years than ever recently, and the only explanation for that is climate change (and that is exactly why I don't call it global warming, even though the mean temperature had steadily increased [3]). The fact is, you have very little evidence rejecting climate change, yet there is as plethora of evidence supporting it [Every single source I posted]. If you don't believe me, ask Mohammed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives, who has to handle a very unique situation. See, the country that he leads is very literally in danger of disappearing to rising sea levels [5]. "In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world." Not per capita. Yes, the whole world needs to change, but America is grossly overstepping its bounds, so it is high time that we lead the rest of the world in changing what we do. "So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not?" You seem very set in the idea that we're being "punished." It is not in any way a punishment to lead our country in doing the right thing. "And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us"." You may call them scare tactics, but, as Mohammed Nasheed or any Maldivian will tell you, unless people realize the full scope and potential of the issue, people will die. There will be very real devastating effects of climate change. You may write them off as scare tactics, but I am simply stating very blunt facts in a very blunt way, and I feel that that is warranted. I could mention that warmer oceans make more (and stronger) hurricanes and other extreme weather events [6], but I'm not going to because those are "scare tactics." I am eagerly awaiting your response! 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.treehugger.com... (look familiar?) 3. http://www.stormfax.com... 4. http://www.newscientist.com... 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 6. http://www.epa.gov...