args

First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

===Definitions=== First world countries will refer broadly to the U.S., Canada, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most European countries such as the UK, France, Denmark, and Spain. These countries are differentiated from third world countries by their relative wealth and well being of their citizens. To have a moral obligation implies that one has some legitimate moral duty or a legitimate requirement to take others into consideration under certain conditions. This would be predicated on some conception of right and wrong. ===Framework=== The ethical standard by which I propose to hold the resolution to will be standard utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative philosophy which supports actions which result in overall happiness, or "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" of people. Under utilitarianism, one's ethical duties will stem from whether they are capable of performing actions to bring about net happiness or to reduce the amount of unhappiness. My contention will be that (a) climate change has negative effects in regards to human happiness and (b) that first world countries alone have the ability to mitigate these effects, thereby imposing an obligation to do so. Contention I. The Reality of Climate Change I'll try to be brief in detailing the causes and effects of global warming. I'm not a scientist or by any measure an expert on the topic though so bear with me. The basic line of thought goes that rising CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to trap heat which in turn causes more energy to become trapped in the atmosphere then is being released back out to space. This all causes the planet's total heat to increase. Empirical evidence for rising CO2 emissions on the planet[1], the causal relationship between this and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere[2], and the empirical evidence for a rising global temperature[3] is all available and provides conclusive evidence for the reality of climate change. Contention II. Negative Effects of CC on Humanity Some may allow for the existence of climate change while still denying that it will bring about any cataclysmic effects. However, scientists at the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the Met Office released a study predicting a global temperature rise of 4C within the next 50 or so years without actions taken to reduce climate change. The effects of such a rise would surely be catastrophic. Such a rise would threaten numerous animal species, raise water levels which would negatively effect coastal areas, and threaten a large portion of the water supply[4]. Contention III. The Position of FWC to Mitigate such Effects It should be prima facie acceptable that those countries which are better off and have access to a larger amount of resources and international trade as first world countries are would be in a much better position to mitigate the effects of climate change. Lower developed countries more than likely lack the resources to stop the process of global warming even if they didn't have more looming problems to deal with. Furthermore first world countries (especially the U.S.) are in a special position in regards to CC since it is those first world countries that are responsible for up to 48% of global CO2 emissions[5]. Since this is the case, policies or measures taken to reduce those emissions would be better and more easily handled by the U.S. and other developed countries. ===Conclusion=== As we can see, from a utilitarian perspective, the U.S. and other first world countries have an obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Not only is climate change a looming threat which threatens the well being of millions of people, but it is in large part through the actions of first world countries that CO2 emissions are so high in the first place. It is clear that leaving the responsibility for mitigating climate change to poorly developed or developing nations is an unsatisfactory solution since they have a smaller share in the ultimate cause of the problem and because they lack the necessary resources and international pull to accomplish such a task. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. ===Sources=== [1] http://zfacts.com... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [3] http://www.pnas.org... (Figures 1 & 5 seem most relevant) [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://epa.gov... (Sec. Emissions by Country)

Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate so quickly. I would like to begin my rebuttal of the three main counterarguments made in my opponent's last round. 1. Global Warming is real and a threat As I recall, in my opening round I never proclaimed that there was global warming; merely that there is rapid changes in the Earth's climate as never before documented or noticed in geological records. There is a definite warming in specific parts of the world, [1] but there are also other areas with the same -- or even colder -- temperatures as when weather recording began in the U.S.A. in 1869. [2] Climate change is not only occurring, according to many scientific studies, but will be a threat if these trends continue. My opponent says that the temperature has not risen since 1995, and all months since have been colder on average. This statement is valid. However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years [3], as well as droughts that will soon rival the Dustbowl of the 1920s (which was a major factor in the Great Depression). [4] As for the possible benefits of climate change, this massive release of CO2 may, in the short term, bring benefits to organisms that undergo photosynthetic processes, but we must remember that more than carbon dioxide is released through the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon, for example, provided 33% of America's energy needs in 2011 [5]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of this fuel source in the common steam-turbine is only 35%. Heat is wasted, and adding more heat may increase the efficiency of combustion, but it continues to produce more waste heat and requires even more input energy, raising the output energy by a maximum of 5%. [6] To save time, I will only discuss air pollutants of coal burning. Over 20 toxic impurities are released through this process, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and fly ash. [7] 2. Humans are the cause of global warming climate change* There are many ways to prove either side of this point. Geological evidence shows that there have been shifts in the Earth's mean temperature many times. The most notable being that of the Carboniferous era from 359.2 (± 2.5) m.y.a. (1*) to 299 (± .8) m.y.a. This era had an atmospheric content of 1,173 ppm (2*), which spurred plant growth unrivaled by any other era. [8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions of years, and is actually a decrease from any previous time. During this time, the mean temperature in the Cambrian Era fell from 21 degrees centigrade to 14 degrees centigrade, which shows a correlation between carbon content and average temperature. [10] Now that I have shown the connection between atmospheric carbon and temperature, allow me to refute Con's argument. Not only is the planet being filled with more atmospheric carbon faster than ever before, but it can only continue to worsen as the ice caps laden with carbon dioxide and methane melt. [11] This additional CH4 and CO2 will increase the pace of ice melt, releasing more gas. These ice caps would naturally melt on their own terms, but not as quickly as they currently are. The rapid nature of this melt is set off by humans adding tons of gases each year to the atmosphere that trap heat, and melt the ice. Human induced climate changes also change the temperature of the air and water that flows to the poles, hindering the ability to create seasonal ice in the first place. [12] We must also remember that this post-wartime economic boom was based in industry, not in the fact that there was a sudden release of CO2. This boom was man made, in the fact that people owed us money, and we had all the goods we could need (for the time being). 3. It should be stopped--specfically with green energy As of today, we cannot just drop all our fossil fuel consumption. It may be at least two more decades before we can have a 50-50 split between cheap renewable energy and fossil fuel combustion. In the last 10 years, however, we have made many strides forward in the efficiency. My opponent's points are accurate, but we do not currently need to rely soley on renewable energy so we do not, as consumers, need to worry about the inefficiency of the current sources. Within the next few years we will be up to par with our dream energy production, but until then the best a normal person can do to acheive this goal is push for legislation to mandate cleaner sources and support current research. To give up on these new sources now would be illogical, and prove our years of prior research to have been frivilous. In Conclusion: I have rebutted all of my opponent's points which were based on interperatable data and sources, in effect, proving that Climate Change is a threat, it is aided in growth by humans, and we can stop it with more efficient energy. Thank you. [1] http://www.climate-charts.com... [2] http://www.nws.noaa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] "Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation". Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2010. [6] "Fossil Power Generation". Siemens AG. Retrieved 23 April 2009. [7] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. [8] Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J. G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521786738. [9] Cossey, P.J. et al (2004) British Lower Carboniferous Stratigraphy, Geological Conservation Review Series, no 29, JNCC, Peterborough (p3) [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] Thompson, Elvia. "Recent Warming of Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate". Nasa.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2012. [12] http://www.epa.gov... (1*) m.y.a.- Million Years Ago (2*) ppm- Parts Per Million

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

Thank You for a timely response, I will first go over my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own. First, my opponent talked about how many countries are in debt, and are not in the position to mitigate climate change. However, Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report.- USA today. Judge, 20 trillion dollars is the biggest number in this debate, and you have to look to our side for this argument. Not only that, but my second argument clearly talks about how mitigating the effects of climate change can increase jobs in the renewable energy field. Obsviously, since the benefits outweigh the harms, developed countries should have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. Their second argument was that developing countries are the countries who wil suffer the worst and the have a huge incentive. However, my opponent is misunderstanding that point. This is about whether these countries should have a MORAL obligation, and as the pollution of CO2 emmissions from these developing countries are going to be pushed to the devloped countries, we have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the average atmospheric temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. By 2000, that increase was responsible for the annual loss of about 160,000 lives and the loss of 5.5 million years of healthy life, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. The toll is expected to double to about 300,000 lives by 2020. Judge, if my opponent can prove that the developed countries don't have a moral obligation to save so many lives, and if he can show the justification of the deaths of so many people because of climate change, then they should win. If he cannot, you have to vote for the pro. My opponents last argument was essentially that developing countries are the ones with the better ideas. However, my opponent gives not evidence or examples backing this claim up, so it should be disregared. Now, to my side. First, I want to go over that adaptation is still an option. Adapting is always an idea. Vaccines which can save 9 million lives is a significant way to adapt, which will lessen the impacts of climate change, therefore mitigating the effects of climate change. Second, global warming can cause harms to the economy, such as a price tag of 1.9 trillion dollars each year by 2100. Mitigating the effects will enable us to avoid this number, and create more money and jobs. Third, my switching to renewable energy, we can stop sending money to terrorist groups, greatly decreasing their proft. Fourth, the enviornment can be greatly saved, saving millions of human lives as well as near extinct species.

The political science of climate change

I did not respond to your arguments because you didn’t make any arguments. What you did is make a bunch of assertions which you failed to support with reasons or evidence. However, since you seem eager to have address your arguments, I'll give it a go. Green Guilt CON has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses propaganda in order to create green guilt. This is simply a bald assertion; I’m not sure what evidence CON has to support this claim, but I am interested to see it. As an intergovernmental organization, the IPCC is not tied down to the politics of a particular nation or religion, and its reports do not prescribe policy [1]. Again, I am interested to see CON’s evidence. Eugenicists CON has claimed that the term “global warming” is used by “modern eugenicists.” I’m not sure that there are any significant numbers of eugenicists around these days, but if they are I am saddened that they are trying to hijack the phrase referring to this great threat. I actually don’t know how to respond to this because CON has again failed to provide any evidence; either for the existence of actual groups of eugenicists or to their goals related to their use of the term in question. However, even if CON’s claim is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of global warming. Globalist Elite Finally, CON has made the claim that believers in anthropogenic global warming are being manipulated by the “globalist elite,” whoever that is. First, I would like to point out that, again, CON has made claims that he has not backed up with evidence. However, I would like to make the point that those who believe in global warming are following the evidence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. CON is also claiming that these alleged “elite” are trying to manipulate global population to make it more closely resemble themselves. Perhaps CON provide some arguments and evidence in support of this claim as well. Final Thoughts The instigator of this debate has provided very little in the way of supporting arguments, and has failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever for his claims. Instead, he has made numerous bald assertions. I am interested to see the arguments along with supporting evidence CON will provide in the next round. Sources: (Note: Whenever possible, I have linked to the full article, however, this was not always possible as some scholarly journals require a subscription to view them. In these cases, I have linked to the abstracts.) [1] http://www.ipcc.ch... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] http://www.nature.com... [4] http://www.sciencemag.org... [5] http://www.pnas.org... [6] http://www.sciencemag.org... [7] http://academic.evergreen.edu... [8] http://www.ecd.bnl.gov... [9] http://courses.washington.edu... [10] http://www.nature.com... [11] http://www.geneseo.edu...

White House threat assessment: Climate change as dangerous as terrororism

President Obama’s new national-security strategy ranks combating climate change as a priority alongside more traditional threats such as terrorism, biological emergencies and nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states. The White House released an outline Friday of Mr. Obama’s updated national-security strategy, the administration’s first revision in five years. Along with confronting terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and working to reverse automatic budget cuts for national defense, the administration cited climate change as a top priority. President Obama