Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate so quickly. I would like to begin my rebuttal
of the three main counterarguments made in my opponent's last round. 1. Global Warming
is real and a threat As I recall, in my opening round I never proclaimed that there was global
warming; merely that there is rapid changes in the Earth's climate as never before
documented or noticed in geological records. There is a definite warming in specific
parts of the world, [1] but there are also other areas with the same -- or even colder
-- temperatures as when weather recording began in the U.S.A. in 1869. [2] Climate
change is not only occurring, according to many scientific studies, but will be a
threat if these trends continue. My opponent says that the temperature has not risen
since 1995, and all months since have been colder on average. This statement is valid.
However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by
increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years [3], as well as droughts that
will soon rival the Dustbowl of the 1920s (which was a major factor in the Great Depression).
[4] As for the possible benefits of climate change, this massive release of CO2 may, in the short term, bring benefits to organisms
that undergo photosynthetic processes, but we must remember that more than carbon
dioxide is released through the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon, for example, provided 33% of
America's energy needs in 2011 [5]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of this fuel
source in the common steam-turbine is only 35%. Heat is wasted, and adding more heat may increase the efficiency of combustion, but it continues
to produce more waste heat and requires even more input energy, raising the output
energy by a maximum of 5%. [6] To save time, I will only discuss air pollutants of
coal burning. Over 20 toxic impurities are released through this process, including
arsenic, lead, mercury, and fly ash. [7] 2. Humans are the cause of global warming
climate change* There are many ways to prove either side of this point. Geological evidence shows
that there have been shifts in the Earth's mean temperature many times. The most notable
being that of the Carboniferous era from 359.2 (± 2.5) m.y.a. (1*) to 299 (± .8) m.y.a.
This era had an atmospheric content of 1,173 ppm (2*), which spurred plant growth
unrivaled by any other era. [8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions of years, and is actually a decrease from any previous time. During this time, the mean temperature in the Cambrian Era fell from 21 degrees centigrade
to 14 degrees centigrade, which shows a correlation between carbon content and average
temperature. [10] Now that I have shown the connection between atmospheric carbon
and temperature, allow me to refute Con's argument. Not only is the planet being filled with more atmospheric carbon faster than ever before, but
it can only continue to worsen as the ice caps laden with carbon dioxide and methane
melt. [11] This additional CH4 and CO2 will increase the pace of ice melt, releasing
more gas. These ice caps would naturally melt on their own terms, but not as quickly
as they currently are. The rapid nature of this melt is set off by humans adding tons of gases each year to the atmosphere that trap heat,
and melt the ice. Human induced climate changes also change the temperature of the air and water that flows to the poles, hindering the ability
to create seasonal ice in the first place. [12] We must also remember that this post-wartime
economic boom was based in industry, not in the fact that there was a sudden release
of CO2. This boom was man made, in the fact that people owed us money, and we had
all the goods we could need (for the time being). 3. It should be stopped--specfically
with green energy As of today, we cannot just drop all our fossil fuel consumption.
It may be at least two more decades before we can have a 50-50 split between cheap
renewable energy and fossil fuel combustion. In the last 10 years, however, we have
made many strides forward in the efficiency. My opponent's points are accurate, but
we do not currently need to rely soley on renewable energy so we do not, as consumers,
need to worry about the inefficiency of the current sources. Within the next few years
we will be up to par with our dream energy production, but until then the best a normal
person can do to acheive this goal is push for legislation to mandate cleaner sources and support current research. To
give up on these new sources now would be illogical, and prove our years of prior
research to have been frivilous. In Conclusion: I have rebutted all of my opponent's
points which were based on interperatable data and sources, in effect, proving that
Climate Change is a threat, it is aided in growth by humans, and we can stop it with more efficient energy. Thank you.
[1] http://www.climate-charts.com... [2] http://www.nws.noaa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[5] "Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation". Electric Power Annual
with data for 2008. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 21 January 2010. Retrieved
7 November 2010. [6] "Fossil Power Generation". Siemens AG. Retrieved 23 April 2009.
[7] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. [8] Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J.
G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0521786738. [9] Cossey, P.J. et al (2004) British Lower Carboniferous
Stratigraphy, Geological Conservation Review Series, no 29, JNCC, Peterborough (p3)
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] Thompson, Elvia. "Recent Warming of Arctic May
Affect Worldwide Climate". Nasa.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2012. [12] http://www.epa.gov... (1*) m.y.a.- Million Years Ago (2*) ppm- Parts Per Million
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
