Any source
Pro vs. con view
979 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    The American. ... March 2, 2010: "intuitively, it seems...

    Geoengineering ideas can help scare world into climate action

    Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "intuitively, it seems more likely that most people, when told about geoengineering, would be more inclined to support greater mitigation, not less, thinking: If such extreme measures are really being contemplated, surely we ought to more aggressively pursue other solutions."

  • PRO

    Cap and Trade is a fundamentally good idea. ... >There is...

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

    >I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. >I will be supporting Obama Cap and Trade. >Cap and Trade is a fundamentally good idea. As my opponent notes, global temperature has been increasing recently. Cap and Trade would limit these effects by limiting the emissions causing this. To support my point, while global temperature has increased by a degree in one hundred years, ocean temperatures have risen one half a degree since the 1970s. Also, the process has accelerated slightly recently as the 8 warmest years in history have all been since 1998. >The Obama Cap and Trade is very vague, but the general concepts would be beneficial to the Earth and to the rising temperatures. >There is not much more I can say at the moment, I await my opponent's arguments.

  • PRO

    George Monbiot, Visiting Professor of Planning at Oxford...

    Carbon capture and sequestration is one part of larger climate fight

    George Monbiot, Visiting Professor of Planning at Oxford Brookes University, wrote in his 2007 book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning: "The difficulties I have encountered with investigating the other [low-carbon] technologies have persuaded me that carbon capture and storage - while it cannot provide the whole answer - can and must be one of the means we use to make low-carbon electricity."

  • PRO

    Let me start with definitions, then if you don't mind,...

    Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

    Let me start with definitions, then if you don't mind, I'd like to see you propose your point of vision as con. Defintions: Money: any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits. [1] Spend:to use up, consume, or exhaust [2] Cimate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. [3] Crisis:a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. [4] Military: of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy [5] Force: power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power [6] Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com...

  • PRO

    hello everybody, I've just started a new debate. I would...

    Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

    hello everybody, I've just started a new debate. I would like to say thanks in advance for my opponent. -max arguments 8.0000 chacters -time to argue 3 day -rounds 4 -voting period 1 week 1st round does not have to be acceptance

  • PRO

    Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." ... That in turn would...

    Cellulosic ethanol land-use harms forests, environment, climate

    David Schneider. "Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." IEEE Spectrum. January 2010: "Carpeting the continent with enough switchgrass to displace all that petroleum use is theoretically possible—but it would be an environmental catastrophe on many counts. For one, it would devastate what’s left of the already besieged wilderness. And according to estimates that Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University and his colleagues published in the journal Science in 2008, it would also exacerbate the world’s greenhouse-gas problem, not help solve it. That’s because even if switchgrass agriculture were limited to established cropland, we’d end up having to convert forests and other land to agriculture just to feed ourselves. That in turn would release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

  • PRO

    It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field...

    Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements

    The renewable sector is a rapidly changing market moving in between micro-renewables and massive offshore projects. It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field but it lacks stability both in terms of technology and investment. Realistically nuclear power is going to have to play an important role in bridging the gap – at the very least – on the road away from a carbon dependent economy[i]. The technology and funding is simply not in place for any renewable technology to take up the hard lifting from oil and coal yet. [i] G Paschal Zachary. “The Case for Nuclear Power”. SFGate (San Fransisco Chronicle). 5 February 2006.

  • PRO

    We can improve our food supply for the future if we...

    Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes.

    The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions.[1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation.[2]    In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.[3] [1]Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published  December 2007, http://www.icrisat.org/journal/SpecialProject/sp3.pdf, accessed 09/05/2011 [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/4871488837158955b.pdf, accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26food.html, accessed 09/02/2011

CON