Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewThe Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all...
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.
>I thank my opponent for his response and continuation of this debate. >My opponent has notified you, reader, that nature has climate change at 0. For the purposes of this debate, however, climate change at its current rate is about +1.6 degrees Fahrenheit per 50 years (as I have already established). >My opponent established that the US adoption of Obama Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate ON ITS OWN. He then goes on to say that the rest of the plan cannot be used in this debate. This is where my opponent is wrong. Though the title of this debate is actually "The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate," my opponent cannot prove that the US adopting this will not have an affect on the other countries on Earth. Barack Obama's website achieves this in saying: "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families. Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change. Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues." This is exactly as it appears on the Obama website (http://my.barackobama.com...). Obama obviously wants to achieve one through the other. His goal is to " Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change" and "create a Global Energy Forum of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues" by first "[Implementing] an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050" (in the US). Therefore, Obama's dealing with the UN are relevant towards this debate. >I accept all of my opponent's calculations with one addition (which I mentioned last round): 0.25 – 0.118584 = 0.131416 This is the remaining needed amount of climate change (which will be global). Again, as I have already said: 82.4 – 27 = 55.4(%) 0.45(0.554) = 0.2493 0.131416/0.2493 = 45.8(%) Because the above calculations still apply to this debate, Obama needs to create at least 45.8% of a difference in emissions under the assumption that he plans to create this conference for just 10 countries. If the number of countries is more, the percentage need is less. >Now that my opponent is apparently at least partially satisfied with the mathematics behind Cap and Trade, we will discuss how it will work and if it will work. My opponent claims that the Obama Cap and Trade plan is impractical because it will be a detriment to oil and gas companies. 4 of the top 5 US corporations in revenue are oil and gas companies (I am counting Shell even though it is technically based in the Netherlands). They can afford to lose some of their billions of dollars of profit to keep global warming in check. Jobs will not go overseas because the income of theses companies would still be extremely high. >I again thank my opponent for his timely responses and wish him luck in his last rebuttal.
