Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources;...
developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
My thanks to my opponent for the debate, and I look forward to a fascinating dialogue. I must apologise for the poor quality of my response; I managed to misplace my AlphaSmart and shall be unable to locate it until Monday at the soonest. Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources; I am unable to locate the BBC article and the only Martin Anthony I could find teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Note that Con's arguments will be labeled C1, C2, C3, etc.; mine will be labeled P1, P2, P3, etc. C1: The EPA does not only deal with climate change. It also deals with endangered species (though not to a great extent), hazardous waste disposal, and non-climate related pollution[1]. Furthermore, the efficiency of the EPA is irrelevant to a debate as to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change, unless it is showed to be common to all attempts to deal with climate change. C2: The greenhouse effect is well supported[2]. We emit greenhouse gases. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases, and even possibly start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then logically this would reduce the greenhouse effect, lowering the amount by which the world warms. P1: The Maldives are currently trying to buy land in other countries, as they expect to be underwater if nothing is done about global warming. If they do purchase land (in, for instance, Australia, which is one of their potential targets), then they shall definitely cause a problem as they, and the country surrounding them, adjust to having another sovereign country in the middle of them. Not to mention the possibility that some people living there might not take kindly the Maldives moving in.[3][4] 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 4. http://www.guardian.co.uk...