Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Hello, Mac, and I am glad you instigated this debate. My opponent’s arguments rely
on three main contentions: 1) Global warming is real and is a threat 2) Global warming
is caused by human activity 3) We should attempt to stop global warming I will refute
them as follows: 1. Global warming is real and a threat My opponent’s main point here
is the expected sea level rise. However, some scientific papers have been released
showing the sea level rise has been over predicted and that in many parts of the world,
sea level rise isn’t happening at all. The IPCC’s data claiming massive sea level
rise has been grossly exaggerated and is utterly incorrect. For example, Bangladesh
should have been engulfed in water, or should be seeing significant problems. In 2007,
the IPCC proclaimed their doomsday. However recent data shows the sea levels there
are not rising [1]. My opponent also forgets the possible benefits of Global Warming.
For example, parts of Canada, Russia, and Argentina too cold for industrialization
and farming would become reachable. Historically, warmer temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere acted as a benefit for the Vikings. Greenland and Iceland’s productivity
rose, the increased rain caused better harvests, and lead to the Vikings making landfall
in the New World. The increased CO2 would make plant growth easier and enhance the
world, making it muck more habitable. Some of the warmest periods in our history,
the world flourished with resources aplenty; a warmer climate could easily be good for you and me [2]. My opponents other point here is the reality
of global warming, and here I agree. There has been an overall warming trend since
1850, however I dispute current warming. Global warming stopped in 1997, with an overall
decrease in temperature since then. Using NOAA data starting from 2000, to avoid the
El Niño year in 1998 (which ‘refutes’ the global warming stopped theory) shows no
change. A slight decrease in temperature, although the trend is less. There has been no
warming since 1997, and no statistically significant warming since 1995 [3]. 2. Humans
are the cause of global warming This is the main contention of the debate; if it is
awful, but natural, we can’t stop it: changing our ways of life would be worthless.
If it is still happening but is natural, we can’t stop it and changing would, again,
be a pointless exercise. So, I explain the reasoning on why claiming humans cause
global warming is illogical. First, CO2 and other emissions increase during a good
economy. After the 1940’s, a post-war economic boom occurred. At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said humans first began to have
a large impact on global warming. Interestingly, temperatures decreased at this time. Alarmists have tried to counter
these claims, but their logic fails to hold up [4]. Either way, my opponent has only
assumed humans are the main cause of the warming; he has given little evidence himself
that we are the cause. Correlation is always an argument in this debate. People have
argued there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, however this is
simply untrue. CO2 only correlates r= .44, with 1 being perfect and 0 being none at
all. This means the correlation rates fair to poor. The sun scores better, with an
r= .57, meaning it rates to fair to good. And the PDO correlates the best, with an
0.83 rating good [5]. It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails
to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate
much better then it. Further, the current warming should have been predicted, as according
to Singers 1,500 sun cycle the current warming was right on time. The majority of
geologists—about 50%—believe global warming is a natural cycle and the current warming
is right on time [6]. Other explanations, like cosmic rays, also seems like a possible
factors. In short wording: Humans likely do not play a major role in global warming,
although we likely exacerbate the situation a little bit. 3. It should be stopped—specifically
with green energy If my opponent wishes to bring up another solution, I am all ears.
However he currently argues green energy is the solution. Lets go down the list: a)
Wind power There is a simple problem with wind: the fact that wind is not always blowing,
and its upfront capital costs more then outweighs the fact that wind, itself, is free.
Wind itself has lees value then its fossil fuel competitors and must be placed in
areas with constant (or higher then average) wind amounts, limiting its universality.
Unlike Fossil fuel plants, which can be planted anywhere. There is other, in my opinion
more real, issues then global warming. Wind stations kill the avian populations and
take up a lot of space, often ruining natural beauty. Many rodents actually like the
wind farms and live inside the fan. Rodents—a food source for many predators—get killed
trying to eat them. And, obviously, other birds will fly through the places and get
whacked and die. Some Wind projects take 10 billion pounds of raw materials. If we
assume global warming is man made, the CO2 created by the mining and construction
often times shrinks the overall benefit. b) Solar Potential market chare for solar
has been overestimated time and time again and the subsidies that the industry relies
on—because it is not competitive with fossil fuel because the marker does not favor
it—costs millions of dollars, even more then the Wind subsidies. Thermal solar plants
need 1,000 times more the resources fossil fuel plants need. Some studies argue: “Solar
Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity
as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar
generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial
risks--as with nuclear power--and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may
attract opposition.”[7] Other Solar industries (there are many) require millions of
dollars to operate and to even be on the market and commercialize their products.
Many environmentalists have a actually given up on some solar markets, like photovoltaic,
in favor of nuclear (something they usually despise) because of the destruction of
those solar plants. c) Hydro Even environmentalists have left hydro power, uttering
the power source in the same breath as they do natural gas, coal, and nuclear. From
a conservative standpoint, the construction of Hydro power is actually very invasive
on the surrounding community and cost millions. On a more liberal note, the hydro
plants take a lot of resources to build and kill and disturb many fish populations.
The cost of current hydro plants are 5-6 times more expensive per kilowatt hour then
other fossil fuels. d) Case study: Michigan There has been no net job growth because
of their green energy, they have created jobs in one sector but have taken them away
from another. Their energy prices have increased and their prices continue to increase.
Other states, like North Dakota, have welcomed fossil fuels and have had a net job
growth and prices fall. Studies have shown for every one job created in their oil
industry, another three are created because of decreased energy costs [8]. CONCLUSION:
I have proven my opponents premises to be incorrect and his solution of green energy
is impractical, harmful to the economy, and, sometimes, not even green. (longest url's
shortened to make room) 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://www.stanford.edu... 3.
http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...; 5. http://wattsupwiththat.com...
6. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.:
Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.heritage.org...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
