args

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent is correct the Earth's temperature has been hotter a long time ago. This falls into the stage 4a of climate change denial. [2] Meaning my opponent accepts the first part of the resolution but rejects the second half. The problem is not the temperature itself, but the rate of change. High rate of temperature change historically has lead to mass extinction. In summary, species including humans will struggle to adapt to such changes, if adaptation to such a change is even possible. [3] Impact, high rate of temperature change equals mass extinctions, which are a threat. Next my opponent uses information sourced from an ultra conservative website called the dailycaller.com I will first attack the source of the argument and then the argument itself. The dailycaller is an ultra-conservative website. You can verify this yourself by seeing the news story against Hilary placed first on the dailycaller.com. "ultra-conservative Daily Caller" [4] Next, lets take a look at the argument. Basically this is a reiteration of the first argument and again falls into stage 4a of denial. [2] Yes, not all the predictions came true. Yet, the overall premise, that co2 and temperature are rising an alarming rates is true. Thank you for taking the time to debate. I think it takes real courage to speak what you perceive is the truth against the majority. Sources. 2. http://grist.org... 3. http://grist.org... 4. http://www.newscorpse.com...

CNN is giving 2020 Democrats 7 hours to talk about climate change

CNN will host a seven-hour marathon of interviews with 10 presidential candidates about climate change on Wednesday beginning at 5 pm Eastern as part of its climate crisis town hall. A live stream of the town hall will air on CNN.com. You can also stream it via CNN apps on iOS, Android, Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Chromecast, and Android TV. The forum will also be broadcast on SiriusXM Channels 116, 454, 795, and the Westwood One Radio Network.

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

For the purpose of this debate I propose the following definitions. Developed countries is a term used to identify the wealthiest nations in the world, which include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. (ww Norton & co. economics textbook) Moral obligation is a duty arising out of considerations of right and wrong (Princeton University) For our framework, we will be using utilitarianism, which is that actions should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. Specifically, according to utilitarian philosophers Peter Singer and Henry Sidgwick, "there are moral assertions that we recognise intuitively as true... suffering is intrinsically bad, and... people's preferences should be satisfied." To the topic, this means that mitigating the effects of climate change is necessary for providing the greatest happiness to the most people. Contention 1: Developed countries are largely responsible for climate change It is common truth that industrialized nations bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because over the years, dating back to the Industrial revolution, humans have been producing greenhouse gases that have influenced Earth's atmosphere. As such it would be unfair to ask developing countries to act similarly as developed countries. "When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated ... the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. ... [T]his principle recognized that "The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; "Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; "The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) As a result, Today's developed nations are responsible for global warming and the effects of which we see today. And it is unfair to expect undeveloped world to make the same emissions reductions. Contention 2: Developed countries are the only ones with the capabilities to act on climate change No only do developed nation have the most to cut per capita, but they are also the only ones that have the technological advancements and resources to combat climate change. As such they have an obligation to use these resources to fix their planet. More importantly, the developed countries have the research capabilities to create the technology to make a green self-sustaining economy. For example, Italy for the first time has been able to utilize solar power to produce more electricity than wind power, thus accounting for nearly 3.2% of their total energy needs. In addition, by being at the forefront of this technology, Italy, a country constantly on the brink of economic disaster, has been able to become more stabilized and focus its energy on expanding its renewable energy market.(renewable energy world) Further, the developed world has the finance and expertise to develop these projects and implement and manage them all around the world. As the nations with the greatest capability, the developed world has the increased responsibility to act for the betterment of all. Contention 3: The greatest impact will come when the largest emitters of greenhouse gases make reductions. Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China's 5.3 tons per person. If reductions are made in such nations, then we will see a much bigger impact in the climate than if it came from developing nations. In addition, the developed countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce output through lifestyle changes. For example, biking to work instead of taking the car or cutting back on the junk food now and then. For developing nations, changes like that can not be made. They would have to change their entire economy and route to development to meat such needs even though they don't produce all that much in the first place. In the future, these developing nations will look to the actions of the developed world to plan for their future. By combating climate change, we ensure that everyone will eventually reach a point in which we can eliminate emissions all together. Now onto my opponents case. His first part of his case talks about the term for developed countries being to broad, but yet offered a definition for it that narrows it down to the most developed. to counter this is will offer 5 of the most developed countries that I will be basing my arguments off of for this debate. 1. Norway 2. Australia 3. Netherlands 4. United States 5. New Zealand Now onto my opponents first contention, his first contention only talks about the cost, yet cooling the ocean floor they average will only cost about 14 billion dollars and make 30 billion dollars back in agriculture growth. His second contention then talks about how climate change is uncontrollable, once again you can go back to the fact that cooling the ocean floor or simply reducing are CO2 intake will drastically decrease the weather. his 3rd contention talks about how the mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation where he talks about how Norway is in debt almost $644.5 billion dollars, this is just giving us more of a reason to put this into place. Not only will we save money from this but we will also stop the temperatures from causing anymore mass destruction. In Conclusion Global warming is an outcome of human activities rather than a natural disaster. Without maximum action from the developed world, all countries will be ultimately affected, including the rich countries. I would also like to mention that the temperatures in afghanistan reached almsot 145 degrees over this last summer, for are soldiers that type of weather is hard to bare. Their temperatures have been increasing over 11% every year now for the last 3 years, this amount of increase could lead to world destruction by the year 2018. the time is now to take action.

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

Warming is beneficial Con does not dispute that warming is beneficial, and claims that what should be of concern is the rate of warming. Con offers no evidence that the rate of warming is important, he merely asserts that it is. Global temperature records have only been kept for about 130 years. [15. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Before that, temperature reconstructions are so coarse and uncertain that a claim about rates is pure speculation. Con's source for the speculation is a journalist without scientific credentials. The EPA, referencing the IPCC, contradicts Con explicitly. “Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates of 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age.” [16. http://www.epa.gov... ] Con claims that in the past, changes in CO2 were always biogenic and slow. He offers no evidence of that (e.g. volcanoes), and it's irrelevant. He didn't claim harm from rapid CO2 change, only temperature change. Con says he does not believe plants are relatively starved for CO2. My assertion was supported by a reference giving hundreds of studies proving my point, whether it's from evolution or not. A table of experiments in which CO2 levels are artificially increased by about 75% shows that growth usually increases by 25% to 50%. [17. http://www.co2science.org... ] It's only been 11,000 years since the last ice age. The time scale of plant evolution is millions of years, not thousands. [18. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Those who make the climate models agree they failed. "... articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability." [19. http://online.wsj.com... There are four main sources of global temperature data, two from satellites and two from ground stations. Three of the four agree that the last decade has shown cooling. The outlier is NASA, who keeps adjusting past data to make the world warmer. The satellite data is far more trustworthy because is doesn't suffer from a lack of stations in remote areas and it doesn't suffer from the excess warmth of heat islands in developed areas. The satellites show cooling as does the HADCru data compiled in England. Having a record warm year in 2010 does not invalidate the decade trend. The summer of 2009 was the coldest on record [20. http://www.prisonplanet.com... ] Since global temperatures have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, we would expect recent years to be among the warmest. Nonetheless, temperatures are way below what the CO2 climate models predict, so the models are invalid. The reference plotted the original data sources, and whether the site is biased or not, the data correctly shows the models were invalid. The story of an anomalous year works for a year of two, but not for a whole decade, especially when climate crisis advocates have claimed that they have accounted for everything that could possibly affect climate, Hansen's predictions are wildly at odds with the IPCC report and climate models, which are now known to be too extreme. Hansen says the oceans will rise by 25 meters, while the IPCC says nine inches. Temperatures have risen at the rate of about 1 degree per hundred years until now, so we are seeing the record highs for the hundred years. However, 1 degree per hundred years is not a problem either by temperature directly or rate of increase. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. I claimed that restrictions on fossil fuel usage in the US would have little effect. Con did not dispute my claim. If we make no policy decisions to cut our CO2 emissions, we'll drop from the present 18% of world emissions to less than 5%. Con says that while the restrictions are pointless from any practical viewpoint, Con says we should do it so we can proclaim how great we are. If it didn't cost anything, that might be nice, but it costs a whole lot. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Con appears to agree that an expense of $25 trillions or so in the US could lower the earth's temperature by only 0.026 degree. A reduction of only 0.026 is pointless, so clearly it is no grounds for being a policy objective. Con argues that we should aim for more modest cuts. Why, if dramatic cuts have no useful effect? EPA mandates recently imposed will cost $78 billion per year for the next 90 years. That's $7 trillion spread over the 90 years. In return, according to the EPA analysis, the earth's temperature will be reduced by 0.00375° C. http://wattsupwiththat.com... That is not measurable. We should not spend large sums to achieve a result that is not measurable. By comparison, $15.6 billion was spent on AIDS research in a recent year, a shortfall of $7.7 billion. [21. http://www.avert.org... ] There is no justifications for a policy that spends $78 billion on a result that cannot even be detected if successful while the money is much better spent on things that do measurable good. Con ignored the lost opportunity costs. The US has a critical dependence on foreign oil and badly needs jobs and tax revenues. Yet, over $300 trillion in energy reserves are locked away for no reason other than fear of CO2. The government gets about 40% of oil profits directly in taxes, and more from the incomes of employees in the energy business. Our deficit is about $15 trillion and the economy is a disaster. We need the revenue. 5. Con claims consensus Skeptics of CO2 crisis have long agreed global temperatures are rising. However, climate models predicting things like a six degree rise by 2010 are disproved. Con seems to agree that policies of inhibiting CO2 will cost trillions of dollars and have no practical effect. Statements of imminent danger do not change the basic fact that policies to suppress CO2 in the US are destroying the economy by draining resources and fostering foreign dependence, while having no measurable effect on climate. Scientists have no special authority to claim that pointless policies should be instituted. A far better approach is to allowi economic growth and use the prosperity to adapt to climate change, regardless of what causes climate change. Prosperity can support things like water projects that make a real difference in food production. That will have a much larger effect than a degree or two of warming. We should also continue research on climate. Climate engineering solutions have been offered than would artificially reduce world temperatures at relatively low cost. [22. http://www.usatoday.com... ] The objection to climate engineering is that climate is so poorly understood that the effects cannot be assessed. That claim is odd, since CO2 crisis claims involve climate being completely understood. The crisis advocates are on to something this time; climate is not well understood. Con tried a character attack on all MIT climate scientists, Calling them “nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists.” Con didn't respond to the reasons for the new effort. Even the biased Wikipedia came up with a list of 75 reputable climate scientists skeptical of CO2 crisis. [23. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The resolution is affirmed.

Wrong to fight climate change through environment-damaging nuclear.

It is true that nuclear energy is 0-emission in its inherent processes, but it is wrong to sacrifice one environmental principle (local ecosystems and human safety) in order to push another (climate change).

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

Thank you opponent My opponent has two main arguments and I will refute them both and show how I win this debate. 1. Their first main argument is that developing countries should have the moral obligation as well This is wrong because 1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation 2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating. 3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related. 2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. 3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. Also, a citizen of a developed country represents a developed country because if you leave the USA during lets say World War 2. If you get arrested, in Germany, you probably were arrested because you were American (no racial/ethnic discrimination intended) Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention. If anyone (judge/judges or opponent) wants any evidence sites from my case, just ask. Thanks you for your time, opponent and judge/judges Please vote for the pro/aff

Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

I am strongly in favor of the motion that developed countries are obliged to give aid to developing countries in the fight against climate change. We need change in the economy all around the world independent of where it is working, in order to have any chance of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants to a level that results in a conservation of our planet for later generations. The contributing factors to these emissions have to be tackled and therefore they first have to be differentiated. We have the contribution of developed countries like the US and the states of Europe which is huge and besides the contribution of China one of the major problems which need attendants. The thing is that in these countries we have sufficient technological advances and also an economy that is capable of switching over to a sustainable economy. This is obviously not an easy task and needs both incentives and requires a great amount of recourses to enable this change, but even if it is done the problem is, that such a change is absolutely futile, if it isn"t coupled with a similar change in developing countries. And here we have to differentiate again between countries like China which is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the moment, but has a working economy which is able to pay for such a change and has also the incentives to create the change, and the other developing countries just barely beginning to build an economy that is competitive and where the technological advances as well as the technological knowhow just lacks. While the first category is one of the most influential in a fight against climate change, we have good reason to hope, that with the right incentives in the developed world and the increasing change to a sustainable economy there, it will lead to a change in the economy as they need to stay in the market and in the technological race. The major problem, that the developed world can"t change with its own action without the use of direct financial and material aid, is in the last case of the countries just beginning to industrialize into having economies that are competitive. In these cases we have an economy that needs mostly a fast rate of growth and that is also growing fast already. The thing is that for a fast growth you need cheap energy and at the moment coal or gas are still the cheapest way of obtaining energy. Therefore those countries with a weak economy won"t care about whether or not the energy they use is sustainable or friendly to the environment, but they will just use them, as they have no incentive to change their behavior. This will be happening especially due to the fact that they feel to have the right to use those sources of energy similar to us as we have used them for a long time, making us the main contributors to global warming. They feel it is their good right also to use their resources to grow their economy. Sadly we can"t allow them to do that because if every developing country were allowed to use as much and as long those energy sources as we have, the environment would be damaged beyond repair as well as for all future generations. Therefore we have to prevent them from using these energy sources even though they rightly have the feeling that it is their good right to use them just as much as we did. We therefore need incentives. One is given by nature in reaction to the destruction of our environment and climate change, as it is especially affecting those countries in development. As this isn"t sufficient we have to give the other part of the incentive which can be nothing but financial aid in order to pay for them to build a sustainable economy helping our climate. We can"t not do it, because else all our work in our own economy is not helping as other developing countries with the growing economy due to them being able to produce cheaper with the cheaper energy, will just emit even more bringing no net benefit. To your points. Firstly you say that it is futile to help them, as there won"t be sufficient progress. While I have to agree that the progress is not enough, I have to answer that it isn"t enough anywhere in the world. In order to bring about bigger effects in their industry, leading to better results for our climate it takes even more incentive and especially cheaper technology in order for them to use it. The problem is that we cannot say that, because we haven"t changed everything and our work hasn"t been as efficient, we will stop the effort as any action against global warming in our industry is absolutely dependent upon the success even if gradually as it else destroys once more all our progress. Your second point seems to be more in favor of aid going to the developing countries. While they are increasingly dependent upon the aid as their economy is weak we have the problem that withdrawing financial aid, won"t benefit their economy. They would still be dependent upon the aid but just wouldn"t get it, leading to their economy breaking down. The problem is that their economy isn"t competitive if compared to the developed world and they won"t be able to grow or device better technology in order to increase the stability of their economy. The only thing they can do is produce things cheaper, which is done by exploiting workers and using cheap energy leading to climate change. Therefore the reduction of aid won"t bring a strong economy in those countries, but rather a collapse leading to even more use of cheap energy affecting our climate. Therefore we need to strengthen our financial aid for those countries in order for their economy to work on a sustainable basis. Now to your last point. While it is true that developed countries having more money and more impact also have to work with other problems, I don"t agree with your conclusion that they therefore can"t afford this help. Less developed countries spend less in total, but they are also poorer. You have to look at it in light of what their financial power is and in this respect you will see that developing countries actually have even less to spend on it and still do so. The developed countries such as the US or the states of Europe use much of their financial power on other issues which are important, but they not just should but have to have and take the resources in order to fight climate change. This is because firstly they themselves have lived upon our environment destroying it up to a great extend and therefore have a duty to pay to other countries if they don"t want them to do the same what they would have every right to. Secondly because they have the greatest financial power they have again the duty to pay the most for a problem that has to be solved for the whole world. It is also absolutely necessary as else all money spend on preventing climate change is wasted, as it won"t have any effect. Therefore we have to pay it in order to actually use our money. For those reasons I conclude that it is absolutely vital that the developed countries keep up their support and also increase it.

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.