Any source
Pro vs. con view
979 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down...

    Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

    WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power. To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe. And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES. My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol ) So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push , curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ? 1) Contraceptions are free and widely available 2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions : if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity : also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also ) 3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect : the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education. 4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle ) Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage" .... "Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol check out these links http://cgge.aag.org... It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact http://www.childtrends.org... this deals with children of educated parents research http://www.nytimes.com... psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child

  • PRO

    1] Why were the predictions so confident back then. ......

    Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

    Thanks to Con for accepting this debate. The resolution covers many issues, and that will make it difficult to discuss comprehensively. The virtue is that it exposes how many assumptions are stacked to get to the present policies of heavily subsidizing uneconomic green energy and discouraging the exploitation of fossil fuels. 1. Increasing warmth and CO2 are most likely beneficial The average temperature of the earth has risen about 1 degree C in the past hundred years. [1] The earth was much warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) about a thousand years ago. [2] That's when Greenland was actually green and grapes grew in Scotland. The MWP was a prosperous time in human history because the growing season was longer in the temperate zone. Temperatures were warmer still during the Holocene Maximum, 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. That is when the great civilizations of the world began in China, India, and the Middle East. It was another very prosperous time. Going back in geological time, earth is currently none of the lowest points of both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. [3] The current average global temperature is about 14.5 C (58 F). [4] For most of the period of the evolution of life forms, average global temperature was around 22 C. Life flourished. CO2 levels are now around 380 ppm, less than a tenth of early levels. [3] The main depletion of CO2 is from the microscopic skeletons of plankton capturing the CO2 in carbonates which end up in limestone at the bottoms of the oceans. Because plants evolved in conditions of high CO2, they are now relatively starved. Commercial greenhouse operators artificially raise CO2 to about double current atmospheric levels, There are a few exceptions, but nearly all plant species grow faster at higher CO2 levels. This fact is supported a vast number of peer reviewed studies. More plant growth means more food, and that's good. Humans adapt much more readily to warmer climates than cold. [6] That's apparent from the distribution of human populations. The same is true of animal species. Of course, there are extremes that cannot be tolerated, but the climate change controversy is mostly about CO2 causing changes of 1 - 4 degrees C. Warmer is better. The largest disadvantage of warmth is the rise in sea level. The latest IPCC report predicts and expected rise of nine inches in the next hundred years. 2. Climate predictions are unreliable The global warming panic peaked around 2000, when confident predictions were made that the world would fry by the year 2010. In the decade since then, the world has actually cooled. [1] Why were the predictions so confident back then. The logic was as follows: (a) the earth warmed substantially from 1980 to 2000, (b) CO2 increased during that period, (c) all other factors affecting climate had been accounted for -- it wasn't the sun, volcanoes, changes in the earth orbit or anything else, (d) therefore CO2 caused the warming. The physics of CO2 alone did not explain the warming, so a multiplying effect was hypothesized and the multiplier was found to be high. About two-dozen computer models using various models built on the same principles were used to predict the decade of 2001-2010. What actually occurred was below the error band of all the model predictions. [7] One factor that was omitted was the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a roughly-60 year cycle that peaked in the 1880s, 1930s, and 2000s, producing widespread melting of Arctic Ice at each peak. Taking the PDO into account, many now predict we are in for two or three decades of cooling. [7. 8] Last month, I attended a pitch for M.I.T.'s new effort to rebuild climate science into something reliable. [9] The prof started by saying, "I just returned from a week-long conference at Princeton. We all agreed on two things: the troposphere is warming, and we don't know why." For example, a critical element in climate models is the rate of energy transfer between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. Recent work suggests the previous assumptions are off by a factor of ten or twenty. There are many other known deficiencies. Because climate models have been proven wrong, and wrong in the direction of wildly exaggerating CO2 effects, they should not be used a basis for public policy. We should continue research until the models prove reliable. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect Let's suppose for a moment that CO2 alarmists are correct in worrying about CO2 increases. China has 23% of the CO2 emissions, the us 18%. However, the Chinese are increasing consumption at 11% per year, while the US is about stable. World consumption is growing at 5.6%, with most of the growth in developing countries. Per capita consumption in China is a quarter that of the US. India is about 1/30. There is no possibility that China, India, and the developing world are going to stay in poverty over fear of global warming. Let's suppose the US cut it's CO2 emissions in half. Because the US population centers cover a large area, transportation needs are much greater than countries where the population is concentrated, so its a lot harder to cut energy use. If the US cut by half, India and China can be expected to grow rapidly. Their populations are now about eight times that of the US, their populations are growing faster, and they want to to advance their standard of living to US levels. The US's 18% of emissions will probably be less than 6% of the world total in 50 years. If we took drastic cuts, it might be 3%. Temperature is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. If the temperature rise were 1 degree, our policy of draconian cuts would be reduce the rise by 0.026 degree, That's negligible. There is no point in it. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Any measure that reduces CO2 and also cuts costs will be adopted by free markets independent of government policy. For example, fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars save money, so people are adopting them without a government policy forcing it. Forcing it costs an enormous amount of money. For example, there are 250 million passenger cars in the US. Replacing them with $25K hybrid vehicles would cost That's $6,5 trillion. Going to $40K electric cars would be $10 trillion. All the cars would ordinarily be replaced eventually, in about 20 years. Advancing that to replace them faster costs an amount proportional to the total. When the capital, backup, distribution costs are counted, wind power costs about five times as much as conventional power and solar power about seven times as much. Hence the green upgrade is the cost to replace all the power plants in the country, times about six. The UX needs about 900,000 megawatt. [12] A new 300 megawatt coal plant is roughly $1 billion. [13] A green energy upgrade would be about $18 trillion. On the other side of the ledger, the US has about $300 trillion worth of fossil fuels that would become worthless. [14] The GDP is $14 trillion. We cannot afford the costs, so the policy would fail. --------------------- 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk... 2. http://www.geocraft.com... 3. http://www.geocraft.com... 4. http://www.currentresults.com... 5, http://www.co2science.org... 6. http://anthro.palomar.edu... 7. http://clivebest.com... 8. http://notrickszone.com... 9. http://paoc2001.mit.edu... 10. http://www.thegwpf.org... 11. http://factspluslogic.com... 12. http://www.eia.gov... 13. http://www.jsonline.com... 14. http://factspluslogic.com...

  • PRO

    The 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.

  • PRO

    Burning CO2 emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...

    Burning coal emits carbon dioxide and harms climate.

    Burning CO2 emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other energy source. It is, therefore, a major contributor to climate change.

  • PRO

    We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

  • PRO

    The significant bulk of scientific research says it is...

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    The significant bulk of scientific research says it is happening

  • PRO

    Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only...

    Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

    I am surprised that such a novice at debate and at fact, yet you have such a large vocabulary. Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that climate change is not real by explaining evolution isn't real and you explained ozone isn't real by saying the earth isn't more than a couple thousand years old. When you are wrong or made a mistake in your argument instead of admitting it (a mistake about how you formed your argument), you are arrogant and reply with some vulgar word. You seem to believe that nothing can exist without you or the church seeing it, or without someone physically seeing it. This is false, if a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? YES. If there is a lightning storm, and no one is there to hear the clap of thunder, does it still happen? YES! I refuse to argue with someone that cannot argue against the current subject with any tactic besides somehow changing the subject or by saying you don't see it so it can't be real or by forming something from your imagination or form somewhere you read online (such as your fire example, fire needs oxygen, but it does not take in unlimited amounts, unless the planets atmosphere was for the most part lacking oxygen, fire would not be attracted to leaves as they don't need a new source of oxygen, they are getting there need).

CON

  • CON

    Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific...

    Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

    My apologies for the forfeit, my ability to devote time to a strictly recreational activity is limited, but I would like to continue the discussion in the forums where time-limits are not as dire. I will not introduce any new arguments in the final section, but I am going to dismiss Pro's concluding statements. Pro continues to maintain that "no one" can stand behind GCC. I provided an extensive list of the world's foremost relevant institutions, and they all stand behind GCC as good science. I do not wish to dilute this point in rhetoric, so I will leave it be. Our fossil fuel resources need not be wasted as Pro insists; there are other uses for it, after all. Perhaps China will not use us as an example, per se, but at the very least it would bring us out of the "complete hypocrite" position. We cannot make any headway as long as we are part of the problem. Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific institutions is suspect. I am honestly a little unsure as to what exactly he is trying to say: "if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed" - that seems to strengthen my position, doesn't it? His skepticism about Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific institutions is suspect. I am honestly a little unsure as to what exactly he is trying to say: "if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed" - that seems to strengthen my position, doesn't it? His skepticism about climate modelling doesn't seem to be shared by the scientific community, so what exactly makes him smarter than the world's scientists? His Gieger counter analogy is unconvincing, as it clearly doesn't reflect, analogously, the GCC policy scenario. A more convincing analogy would involve efforts to curb production of radioactive substances, not the proliferation of tracking mechanisms thereafter. Pro goes into internal politics with NASA to discredit their conclusions, and claims they have "lost all credibility." Pro's claims are conspiratorial in nature; he seems to indicate that political entities are putting biased people in key positions to influence the scientific literature they produce. This "Climate-Gate" tactic is all that the right-wing has left to battle the overwhelming amount of research coming out in favor of GCC. They cannot defeat the scientific community, so they simply discredit them in the eyes of the public. Since scientists are by nature powerless, their "consensus" is moot and nothing that they propose gets done. Pro criticizes my sources, which are in complete harmony with what any scientific institution or university would maintain, yet uses laughable sources himself. Wattsupwiththat.com? Alex Jones? What is this stuff? The good sources he does use are mostly just to either quote the pro-GCC community or to make indirect points to base external conclusions off of (e.g., citing how much was spent on AIDS). He rebuts my plant evolution argument by referencing a wiki page which says nothing about plants not being able to adapt to Earth's C02 levels in time (would any person actually believe that plants are mal-adapted to their biological environment?). He insists he's quoted "literally hundreds" of articles, but to that I would only reiterate his point that consensus does not yield truth. In my case, at least my consensus is that of the respected scientific community.

  • CON

    Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that...

    global climate change is human caused

    For the record- I believe in Global Warming (not all theories, but the basic premise of most). What I don't believe in is feeding the conservative view of global warming with lackluster arguments in favor like "humans are causing the rise in global temperatures" which can be easily debated against. I will debate against my opponents simple statements with simple statements of my own, as well as a rebuttal. "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -This is impossible. Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that our collective body temperatures are somehow raising global temperatures, then this statement cannot be true. " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." -The natural cycle of global warming cannot be stopped. For thousands of years the Earth has had a warming period in which the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, and weather patterns are drastically affected which in result cause global cooling- the Earth's natural protection mechanism which brings about periodic ice ages. Because of the dynamic between our atmospherical makeup, our proximity to the sun, and other factors like the moon's effect on tides- global warming cannot be stopped.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/global-climate-change-is-human-caused/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.72
      climate: 10.40
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 1.20 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.01)
      change: 8.33
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.99)
  • CON

    People made statements that humans are to blame and then...

    The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

    I would like to thank my opponent for starting this wonderful debate topic. I know it is an issue he and I are both very passionate about, though on opposing sides and I look forward to a wonderful debate with lots of information over the next three rounds. Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent. He claims "[1]. Scientists are certain that climate change, at least very significantly, caused by humans [2]. As I always say when I debate religion, you can believe whatever you want, but it's ridiculous to say that the scientific consensus is wrong when you have little to no evidence." This could not be further from the truth. In point of fact, there is little to no evidence that global warming is caused by humans. A random statement, such as, "Pigs on mars are blue" cannot be stated and then give the burden of proof to the opposing side and request that they are the ones who provide proof that you are wrong. This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true. So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. My opponent continues by saying "Now, since we know that global warming is caused by humans..." and once again, I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently. For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic (http://www.treehugger.com...). A main claim by global warming supporters is that this ice is melting due to global warming, so if it is now freezing, has global warming ended?! I find it to be important to be clear on this point, global warming caused by humans has not yet been proven. Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact. I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million. If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable. I understand that my opponent thinks taxes will fix the problem. While taxes on shopping bags and businesses could limit the way they they practice, it is by no means a guarantee. Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are? Absolutely. So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly? Or should they continue to increase taxes higher and higher on those who don't comply until they finally submit? When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem. Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org...) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy. In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world. So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not? I cannot stress strongly enough, without clear proof from the opposition, American citizens not be singled out and punished any more than they already are. And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us". I don't find this to be the place for such tactics, surely not for something so unproven, but maybe that's just me.

  • CON

    This debate is already going on here. ......

    Climate Change is real and caused by humans

    This debate is already going on here. (http://www.debate.org...) Please don't vote.

  • CON

    Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    Happy to think with you today. With such a character limited debate (3k) I'm going to have to be brief on each of these complex points. If it feels I'm being terse, Please understand that is why. The debate over climate change does not exist. It is changing. The debate is on how much of an effect humans have on it. 98% of climate scientists say we have an effect. The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. Some catastrophes are worse than others. If we can diminish a $4T catastrophe to a $2T catastrophe by spending $1T this is worth it. And that is only if you're prioritizing MONEY not MORALS. The more we spend now to diminish the catastrophe the more we save in the long term when the catastrophe peaks. And again, As a species, Much less a country, Preserving our environment ought to be a priority. It is not about money itself. So, Saying 'delayed' is wrong. It is about the magnitude. A 1. 5C increase in global climate temperatures will be a small catastrophe. A 3C increase is massive. A 4C increase would see much of our current pleasures destroyed. Here's a bit of a list of consequences. Feel free to select several to expand on. 1. Sea levels rise. This reduces available land. It puts many coastal cities underwater, Causing many people to be forced to move and many billions in damage over the course of the next 100 years. 2. Saltwater increases globally due to the melted ice. Freshwater may become tainted. Results in less drinking water. 3. The reduction in land will swallow up many islands, Forcing entire countries to become refugees. If you think we have an immigration problem now, Wait until the crisis occurs. 4. Animals go extinct or have habitats reduced drastically. Breaking the food chain can have consequences all the way up that chain, Including us. 5. The reduction in land decreases available farmland. The increase in climate temperature changes the locations of optimal growing areas for crops. Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even optimal farmland available. This results in lower food production which results in famine and malnutrition. 6. The increased distance of sea before hurricanes hit land would empower hurricanes as well has have them hit locations that are not used to hurricanes. Associated costs, Again. More powerful hurricanes than we've seen before. 7. Increased temperatures would likely lead to droughts and increases in wildfires. Resulting in less trees to absorb pollutants and give us oxygen, Increasing air pollution. Associated costs can already be felt in California where the air is causing real human problems. These are a small fraction of the problems. All of which can be reduced or empowered based on the decision of the US. To say that terraforming the planet that we live on, That changing the global climate is an issue that should be a LOW priority for the US is absolutely absurd. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

  • CON

    Cap and Trade is a domestic program and has no direct...

    The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

    This is the last round and I will condense this debate. First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. This is the complete list of disagreements: 1. Is the UN part of the US? 2. Will Cap and Trade work? If both are yes, then you vote PRO. Else, you vote CON. 1. As we look at the structure of the website, it immediately becomes clear that the section "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." is separate from the section "Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change." http://my.barackobama.com... All of Obama's goals are not included in Obama's Cpap and Trade Policy. For example, Obama's tax policy is not part of Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a domestic program and has no direct effect on other countries. Its indirect effect is driving our emmissions overseas, which is also part of this planet and therefore has a net effect of zero on the global climate. Overall temperature difference after Obama Cap and Trade = -0.118584 degrees Fahrenheit. This is much less than .25 Degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, this effect is not significant. Though international policy may or may not effect climate as well, this is not part of his cap and trade plan. The full details of his plan are: "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." This is his plan. Cap and Trade is, again, domestic (in the U.S. only). 2. Oil and Gas companies were only one example of companies that will just go oversees when taxed out of this country. There is a lessening reason for them to stay here as regulation and taxation increase. A company plans to max out profits. In order to do this, they will go to a country with less regulation and less taxation. No problem. More profits. No matter what country they are in, they cannot go without pollution. A government policy isn't going to change that. My opponent has also made the claim that oil companies make big profits and would not be effected to a major degree by this program. However, this is not true, either. Oil companies already pay more in taxes than they make as profits. http://seekingalpha.com... However, some countries do not tax oil companies, but subsidize them instead. So, a smart oil company that wants to maximize profits would... I urge voters to drop bias and vote CON because Cap and Trade's purpose is lost. It has such a minimal effect on climate and has such a harmful effect on the economy. I thank my opponent for this debate.

  • CON

    That’s an increase, but by far not as much as the...

    Unconventional oil increases climate change

    Research done by independent energy consultants IHS CERA finds that unconventional oil from Canada’s tar sands would emit 5% to 15% more carbon dioxide ‘from well to wheel’ than regular crude (Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and US Oil Supply, 2010). That’s an increase, but by far not as much as the opposing side claims. Moreover, new technologies like carbon capture and storage can mitigate the extra emitted carbon dioxide, making this a feasible alternative.   

  • CON

    This could be caused by that. ......

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

    "The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. " Developed nations have obligation to clean up, but developing countries don't? This does not really make sense to me. "Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century." How can we take action if we do not even know if global warming exists? There is evidence both for and against this. "the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN" In my last argument, I said that as oil prices rise, people can't afford it and instead start buying alternate fuels. This could be caused by that. The government did not need to do anything. "If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge" The terrorists are only indirectly caused by oil. Plus, not all oil cause terrorism. Here are some examples of places that have a lot of oil and little terrorists: U.S (3rd) Canada (6th) U.K. (19th) [1] "Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation." Again, so developing nations don't need to? "They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked." You misunderstood my point: Oil gets more expensive as it gets scarcer, so people will switch to green energy without even the government telling them to do so. My point is the government is not required to tell people to do so as they will do it, NOT that big oil corporations will go bankrupt. Green energy sure does help, but that is another separate topic. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...