args

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Happy to think with you today. With such a character limited debate (3k) I'm going to have to be brief on each of these complex points. If it feels I'm being terse, Please understand that is why. The debate over climate change does not exist. It is changing. The debate is on how much of an effect humans have on it. 98% of climate scientists say we have an effect. The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. Some catastrophes are worse than others. If we can diminish a $4T catastrophe to a $2T catastrophe by spending $1T this is worth it. And that is only if you're prioritizing MONEY not MORALS. The more we spend now to diminish the catastrophe the more we save in the long term when the catastrophe peaks. And again, As a species, Much less a country, Preserving our environment ought to be a priority. It is not about money itself. So, Saying 'delayed' is wrong. It is about the magnitude. A 1. 5C increase in global climate temperatures will be a small catastrophe. A 3C increase is massive. A 4C increase would see much of our current pleasures destroyed. Here's a bit of a list of consequences. Feel free to select several to expand on. 1. Sea levels rise. This reduces available land. It puts many coastal cities underwater, Causing many people to be forced to move and many billions in damage over the course of the next 100 years. 2. Saltwater increases globally due to the melted ice. Freshwater may become tainted. Results in less drinking water. 3. The reduction in land will swallow up many islands, Forcing entire countries to become refugees. If you think we have an immigration problem now, Wait until the crisis occurs. 4. Animals go extinct or have habitats reduced drastically. Breaking the food chain can have consequences all the way up that chain, Including us. 5. The reduction in land decreases available farmland. The increase in climate temperature changes the locations of optimal growing areas for crops. Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even optimal farmland available. This results in lower food production which results in famine and malnutrition. 6. The increased distance of sea before hurricanes hit land would empower hurricanes as well has have them hit locations that are not used to hurricanes. Associated costs, Again. More powerful hurricanes than we've seen before. 7. Increased temperatures would likely lead to droughts and increases in wildfires. Resulting in less trees to absorb pollutants and give us oxygen, Increasing air pollution. Associated costs can already be felt in California where the air is causing real human problems. These are a small fraction of the problems. All of which can be reduced or empowered based on the decision of the US. To say that terraforming the planet that we live on, That changing the global climate is an issue that should be a LOW priority for the US is absolutely absurd. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

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

This is the last round and I will condense this debate. First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. This is the complete list of disagreements: 1. Is the UN part of the US? 2. Will Cap and Trade work? If both are yes, then you vote PRO. Else, you vote CON. 1. As we look at the structure of the website, it immediately becomes clear that the section "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." is separate from the section "Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change." http://my.barackobama.com... All of Obama's goals are not included in Obama's Cpap and Trade Policy. For example, Obama's tax policy is not part of Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a domestic program and has no direct effect on other countries. Its indirect effect is driving our emmissions overseas, which is also part of this planet and therefore has a net effect of zero on the global climate. Overall temperature difference after Obama Cap and Trade = -0.118584 degrees Fahrenheit. This is much less than .25 Degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, this effect is not significant. Though international policy may or may not effect climate as well, this is not part of his cap and trade plan. The full details of his plan are: "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families." This is his plan. Cap and Trade is, again, domestic (in the U.S. only). 2. Oil and Gas companies were only one example of companies that will just go oversees when taxed out of this country. There is a lessening reason for them to stay here as regulation and taxation increase. A company plans to max out profits. In order to do this, they will go to a country with less regulation and less taxation. No problem. More profits. No matter what country they are in, they cannot go without pollution. A government policy isn't going to change that. My opponent has also made the claim that oil companies make big profits and would not be effected to a major degree by this program. However, this is not true, either. Oil companies already pay more in taxes than they make as profits. http://seekingalpha.com... However, some countries do not tax oil companies, but subsidize them instead. So, a smart oil company that wants to maximize profits would... I urge voters to drop bias and vote CON because Cap and Trade's purpose is lost. It has such a minimal effect on climate and has such a harmful effect on the economy. I thank my opponent for this debate.

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.   

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

"The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. " Developed nations have obligation to clean up, but developing countries don't? This does not really make sense to me. "Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century." How can we take action if we do not even know if global warming exists? There is evidence both for and against this. "the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN" In my last argument, I said that as oil prices rise, people can't afford it and instead start buying alternate fuels. This could be caused by that. The government did not need to do anything. "If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge" The terrorists are only indirectly caused by oil. Plus, not all oil cause terrorism. Here are some examples of places that have a lot of oil and little terrorists: U.S (3rd) Canada (6th) U.K. (19th) [1] "Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation." Again, so developing nations don't need to? "They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked." You misunderstood my point: Oil gets more expensive as it gets scarcer, so people will switch to green energy without even the government telling them to do so. My point is the government is not required to tell people to do so as they will do it, NOT that big oil corporations will go bankrupt. Green energy sure does help, but that is another separate topic. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

Pro has introduced a very interesting and, on the surface, at least, a proposal that promises a new wave of openess in the Climate-Change controversy. Unfortunately, I have taken up the thankless task of refuting the proposal. As written, there are actually three different outcomes that would adequately refute the proposal; first, to successfully argue that governments NEED not impose a condition..., second that governments SHOULD not impose a condition..., and third that governments should impose a condition AGAINST... I contend that my arguments will satisfy at least two of the three options. I am not going to defend either side of the climate-change controversy. I will leave that for another debate. What I will show is the fallicy in assuming that a full public disclosure of of the raw data, the processes, the software, and the findings will somehow further the further the progress toward determining the truth of the facts. Furthermore, I will show how unlimited public access to all, and especially preliminary data will only serve to further fire the flames of rhetoric that serve to obscure what may well be the most crucial issue of our time. I am certain, no matter on which side of the climate-change question your allegience currently lies, by the end of Round 3, you will be convinced to vote CON on the resolution as proposed. My first refutation of the resolution is simple. There is no reason to believe that public disemination of the raw data, the processes used to qualify and quantify that data, the software used to accomplish those processes nor the daily findings that result from those processes would change the Public's perception of the issue. In fact, the polititions who must vote to fund this research (at least in the US) are very attuned to the pulse of the voters and their support or opposition to spending taxpayer money for it and, for the most part, those taxpayers do not rely on data or facts, they rely on someone to tell them how they feel about the question. Both the "Liberal" and the "Conservative" sides of the issue have their pundits to tell them whether to support the research or not, whether to believe what the other side tells them or not and no amount of facts are going to make a perceptable differencein the way a person feels. This is not an argument of opinion, it is an argument based upon historical precedents: In November of 1963, an assasin shot and killed the President of the United States in Dallas, TX. The Warren Commission reviewed the evidence of the investigation into that shooting and the background of the assasin, Lee Harvey Oswald and issued its findings almost a year later, in September of 1964. [http://www.archives.gov...] The report spelled out the facts of the case and drew the conclusion that Oswald had acted alone. But conspiracy theorists had made up their minds that there were more than one shooter, that Oswald was acting under orders of the USSR or Castro's Cuba or The CIA or the FBI or whatever else they could dream up. Finally, after a long investigation by the Assinations Records and Review Board, they published their findings in September of 1998, confirming what the Warren commission has stated 34 years earlier. [http://www.archives.gov...] Did that put an end to the conspiracy theory? In 1947, the US Air Force launched Project Sign, later to become known as Project Blue Book which listed the results of investigations of thousands of reports of UFO's from the Roswell, New Mexico incident through January 1969. In January of 1970, those files were made available to the public, on the assumption that the facts would end the arguments over the validity of UFO sightings and Alien Invasion fears. [http://www.bluebookarchive.org...] Didn't work. In 2009, the first draft of the National Health Care Reform Bill was published both in the Congressional Quarterly and on the Internet. Well, I guess that stopped all of the misconceptions about the bill, including the "government coming between you and your doctor" and the "Obama Death Panels." Also in 2009, the CDC issued the warning against H1N1 or "Swine" flu, urging people to take precautions. Later, they came out with a vaccine that their test data proved safe. Now, in December, after over 10,000 people have died from H1N1 inthe US, people are still convinced the vaccine is "bad" and refuse to get vaccinated or even have their children vaccinated. [http://news.cnet.com...] If governments require raw data (which almost always contains "flaws"), processed data (just another term for changing data or simply eliminating some of it), the software, (source code for analysis?) and findings within 30 days, both sides, pro and con, will have a field day pulling one line quotes, massaging figures, adding adjectives and just plain lying, and using the data they know nobody is really going to research to prove them wrong. They (both sides) will use this data to inflame the public and people, being people, are usually more afraid of change than keeping the status quo, so nobody wins and, many times there is a good chance the public is the ones that are going to get hurt.