3 sources
Pro vs. con view
182 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    1] While attributing individual events to climate change...

    Climate change is already costing lives

    Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year.[1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses.  This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people.[2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear.   [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, http://www.daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf, p.17 [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013, http://phys.org/news/2013-03-human-climate-big-factor-somali.html

  • PRO

    This list, and a larger list of G20 states, includes both...

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

    US, Japan, China, Germany, India, and Brazil are among the largest and most powerful countries in the world. This list, and a larger list of G20 states, includes both developed and developing nations. China, India, and Brazil are the most notable large developing nations in the G20. Due to their size, economic power, and emissions (now and in the future), they share an equal responsibility to fight global warming. For the same reason, they share an equal responsibility with developed nations to apply their leadership role in their respective regions to lead the fight against climate change. If they do not, surrounding countries - fearing a loss of competitiveness in particular - will not take strong actions to combat global climate change. Therefore, it is important that all of the most powerful nations in the world - developed or developing - lead their regions in the fight on global climate change.

  • PRO

    It is through heavy industrialisation that developed...

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

    It is through heavy industrialisation that developed countries are developed – since they contributed more to climate change, they have a greater obligation to resolve it. Climate change has largely been caused by long-term emissions by developed countries. While China is now the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and other developing countries emissions are rapidly rising historically the vast majority of emissions have been from developed nations. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[1] As CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for a long time, about 50% will be removed within 30 years, but 20% or more may remain for thousands of years, the history of emissions is as relevant as current emissions.[2] Since they contribute more of the damage, and since each nation has a responsibility for the harm it has caused, developed nations have an increased obligation to combat climate change. [1] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions... [2] Inman, Mason, ‘Carbon is forever’, Nature Reports Climate Change, 20 November 2008, http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

  • PRO

    Any investment put in nuclear is investment taken away...

    Nuclear energy undermines renewable solutions to climate change

    "The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Any investment put in nuclear is investment taken away from renewable energy, the proven climate change solution. Nuclear energy distracts governments from taking the real global action necessary to tackle climate change and meet people’s energy needs."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Nuclear_energy
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.94
      climate: 17.27
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.10 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.85)
      change: 11.67
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.85)
  • PRO

    The Atlantic. ... In India, rainfall levels might...

    Consequences of geoengineering could be worse than climate change

    Graeme Wood. "Re-Engineering the Earth." The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly. 'Plausibly, 6 billion people would benefit and 1 billion would be hurt,' says Martin Bunzl, a Rutgers climate-change policy expert. The billion negatively affected would include many in Africa, who would, perversely, live in a climate even hotter and drier than before. In India, rainfall levels might severely decline; the monsoons rely on temperature differences between the Asian landmass and the ocean, and sulfur aerosols could diminish those differences substantially."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.01
      climate: 17.57
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 10.44
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. ... Considering...

    The Lisbon Treaty pays too little attention to climate change

    "An alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty". Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. - "Climate Change The Irish government has made great play of its “success” in having Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. - "Climate Change The Irish government has made great play of its “success” in having climate change introduced into the Treaty. However, this “addition” amounts to a mere 6 words that do not empower the EU to do anything it could not currently do under existing Treaty provisions. The relevant article states, “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.” Indeed the current EU Climate Change package is based on the existing provisions. Considering the urgency of the climate change crisis, the fact the Irish government could only secure these six words, and nothing additional to the existing provisions, is an indication of the lack of seriousness in regard to this issue."

  • PRO

    The Ghink Chronicle. ... Each $7 spent on basic family...

    Better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering

    Lisa Hymas. "We need birth control, not geoengineering." The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; climate change is serious enough that it requires all of our best efforts in all arenas. But it may be that many of the technologies with the most potential for averting climate change already exist -- the Pill, the condom, the IUD. We just need to spread them far and wide. Baby stroller crossed-out in greenGINK: green inclinations, no kidsBetter still, providing contraception to women who lack it is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a metric ton, while achieving that same reduction with the leading low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32, according to a recent study by the London School of Economics [PDF], commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.25
      climate: 16.20
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". ... June 23, 2009:...

    Mars reveals more to scientists about climate change

    Buzz Aldrin. "Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". CNN. June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of climate change, of how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Mission_to_the_Moon_or_Mars%3F
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.06
      climate: 16.02
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.90 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.50)
      change: 11.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.50)
  • PRO

    6. ... Unless the geopolitics of global warming change...

    Humans already change climate; geoengineering not new

    Bryan Wassh. "6. Geoengineering". Time, What's Next in 2008: "the truth is, we're already performing an unauthorized experiment on our climate by adding billions of tons of man-made carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering%2C_solar_shading
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.78
      climate: 15.90
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.62 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 10.88
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    Money for nothing, and your climate for free." ... If...

    Fossil fuel subsidies contradict fight against climate change.

    Steve Kretzmann. "Money for nothing, and your climate for free." Oil Change International. September 16th, 2011: "The principle is simple and clear: You can’t really say you’re committed to the fight against climate change if you’re still funding oil and coal. If you’re in a hole, stop digging."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Phasing_out_fossil_fuel_subsidies
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.36
      climate: 15.88
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 10.47
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.92)

CON

  • CON

    Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to...

    Climate change is already costing lives

    Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is. 

  • CON

    It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused...

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

    It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused climate change until the 1980s – over a century after the industrial revolution. Developing nations were not initially aware of the damage they were causing, therefore the harm was unintentional. It is unfair to retrospectively punish these nations for something that was unknown to be harmful when it was done. The responsibility should therefore be based upon either current emissions or at most emissions from the period in which the damage caused was known and emissions could have been reduced.

  • CON

    Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate...

    CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

    Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate change is to stop doing things that negatively effect the environment, but you seem to have completely forgotten about climate control. I'd argue that it's far more likely, given humanity's propensity for technological solutions to problems and the rate at which we've developed so far, that we end up creating ways to control our environment, as opposed to stopping causing damage to it. While I appreciate this isn't physically possible right now, theoretically it is. And we already have certain elements of climate control like cloud bursting nailed. That is certainly one way we can fight climate change without making any (or perhaps very few) of the compromises you went through.

  • CON

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

  • CON

    Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    "Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate change

  • CON

    Developed states are doing everything they can on climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Developed states are doing everything they can on climate change

  • CON

    States should contribute equally to combating climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    States should contribute equally to combating climate change.

  • CON

    China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal obligations

  • CON

    Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on climate change.

  • CON

    Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    "Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change