args

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

Thank You for a timely response, I will first go over my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own. First, my opponent talked about how many countries are in debt, and are not in the position to mitigate climate change. However, Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report.- USA today. Judge, 20 trillion dollars is the biggest number in this debate, and you have to look to our side for this argument. Not only that, but my second argument clearly talks about how mitigating the effects of climate change can increase jobs in the renewable energy field. Obsviously, since the benefits outweigh the harms, developed countries should have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. Their second argument was that developing countries are the countries who wil suffer the worst and the have a huge incentive. However, my opponent is misunderstanding that point. This is about whether these countries should have a MORAL obligation, and as the pollution of CO2 emmissions from these developing countries are going to be pushed to the devloped countries, we have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the average atmospheric temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. By 2000, that increase was responsible for the annual loss of about 160,000 lives and the loss of 5.5 million years of healthy life, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. The toll is expected to double to about 300,000 lives by 2020. Judge, if my opponent can prove that the developed countries don't have a moral obligation to save so many lives, and if he can show the justification of the deaths of so many people because of climate change, then they should win. If he cannot, you have to vote for the pro. My opponents last argument was essentially that developing countries are the ones with the better ideas. However, my opponent gives not evidence or examples backing this claim up, so it should be disregared. Now, to my side. First, I want to go over that adaptation is still an option. Adapting is always an idea. Vaccines which can save 9 million lives is a significant way to adapt, which will lessen the impacts of climate change, therefore mitigating the effects of climate change. Second, global warming can cause harms to the economy, such as a price tag of 1.9 trillion dollars each year by 2100. Mitigating the effects will enable us to avoid this number, and create more money and jobs. Third, my switching to renewable energy, we can stop sending money to terrorist groups, greatly decreasing their proft. Fourth, the enviornment can be greatly saved, saving millions of human lives as well as near extinct species.