2 sources
Pro vs. con view
86 arguments retrieved in 0.0 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

    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

    Moreover these same places are the countries that have...

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat climate change.

    It is the developed world that has the capability to combat climate change. It is they that have most to cut per capita. More importantly it is these developed countries that have the research capabilities to come up with the necessary technology to make the economy greener, to produce renewable energy, to mitigate against the effects of disasters. Moreover these same places are the countries that have the finance available to fund these activities; not only funding the research into the solutions but also the financial resources to put them into action all around the world. Poor countries turn to the powerful financial centres such as London and New York to finance large projects, the same will be the case with projects to mitigate climate change. Finally these countries have the expertise to put these new inventions and projects into practice; they have the experts to work out the best places to build, to advise on building, and make sure the project does not have unintended side effects. As the nations with the greatest capability, developed nations have an increased responsibility to act.

  • PRO

    I would first recommend reading [The Green New...

    CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

    I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.

  • PRO

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

  • PRO

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat climate change.

  • PRO

    Developed countries must combat climate change while...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Developed countries must combat climate change while developing countries have more pressing concerns

  • PRO

    Climate change is already costing lives

    as the developed world, fund African climate adaptation

    Climate change is already costing lives

  • PRO

    This is of course wrong, it is a view taken because the...

    Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of combating climate change

    By taking on disproportionate amount of obligation, developed nations intrinsically claim that developing ones are not capable of finding solutions.  This is demeaning to developing countries by as it assumes that the developing world lacks the creativity and the innovation to lead the way on solving climate change. This approach is unlikely to incentivise developing nations to do their own research into cutting emissions. This will lead to less emission cuts over all as developing nations see that they are not considered capable of contributing. This is of course wrong, it is a view taken because the assumption is that the solutions are technological so the developed world with its large science and research infrastructure will have to be the ones to make the breakthroughs. This is however not always the case. Small solutions can potentially have a big effect in developing nations. For example changing cooking stoves in the developing world for only $25 per stove will not only improve health but will also cut emissions.[1] Other low cost solutions to climate change are just as likely to come from the developing world as from the developed world. [1] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010, http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/21/clinton_is_promoting_c...

  • PRO

    Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from...

    as the developed world, fund African climate adaptation

    Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change

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

    Developing nations are just as capable as developed...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of combating climate change

  • CON

    The idea that pinning responsibility on developed nations...

    Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of combating climate change

    This is not paternalistic because developed states are the most capable of cutting emissions. Techniques developed by the developed world will be made available to developing nations, who do have a responsibility at that point. Moreover that developing nations may have the capability to create their own solutions to climate change does not mean that they should have the responsibility to do so. The idea that pinning responsibility on developed nations will somehow stunt the efforts of developing nations is absurd. Solutions such as cheap stoves will continue to be developed regardless because such solutions are beneficial in all sorts of ways and so it makes good business sense to look for such low cost solutions.

  • CON

    When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear...

    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

    It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions[i]. It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant. It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard. [i] http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm

  • CON

    You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just...

    CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

    First off, I sort of reject a lot of your premises involving bipartisanship. I don't think there are enough republicans serious about trying to be bipartisan to actually pass any meaningful climate change bills with 60+ votes. If dems try to be bipartisan, it's primarily a stalling tactic by the GOP to ensure that nothing gets done for long enough that they can run on the "look how ineffective the democrats are". Related to this, bipartisanship is *not* the only way to get things done. They can also try to get rid of the filibuster. You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just like we can debate whether bipartisanship is actually a good idea, but it is a path forward. That said, even to get 50 votes, you still need moderate Democrats like Manchin who are almost certainly unlikely to be interested in the green new deal. So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which is notably not an actual bill that's currently under consideration to become law, and is more a set of goals. What can actually pass should be a practical consideration when actually legislating, but it's silly to try and argue that people shouldn't even clearly state *what they actually want*. Anything that actually passes will surely be a compromise, bit you don't help your cause in a negotiation by dumbing down your opening offer to try and avoid having to negotiate entirely. You start with what you want and work from there. Now, you could make a strong case that there are democratic figures that treat the green new deal as an all-or-nothing no compromise purity test and use it to attack other Democrats in ways that are pretty unproductive. But that's a critique of those Democrats, not the green new deal itself, which is a pretty accurate platform of what a lot of people on the left genuinely want.

  • 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.