The Instigator
WesternGuy2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,769 times Debate No: 26637
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

WesternGuy2

Pro

AFF- I want to thank the oppoent for their time
Honorable Judges
Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Definitions

First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies.

Standard- The standard of today’s debate, or weighing mechanism, should be deontology. Since this topic is about moral obligations and deontology is about the morality of actions and its justification, we believe that the team that adheres to this standard should win this debate.

1. Adaptation
Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating.
Since today’s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to “adapt” to the effects of climate change.

According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death.
One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a
child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually.

The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate.

2. Moral Obligation
Developed countries have the obligation to fix the mess that they created. After all, it is the developed country’s fault, and they should fix it. The United states is making nearly 5,500 million tonnes CO2 emissions (Guardian).
Developed Countries should also have the moral obligation to not contribute to campaigns that kill human beings. For example, terrorism:

It is oil money that enables Saudi Arabia [and many other countries] to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levey, testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing." - Institute for the Analysis of Global security.
Over 12,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks in 2011- according to the National Counter Terrorism Center

Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives.

The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created, and also to try and save the lives of their own citizens from acts like terrorism, by trying to mitigate the effects of climate change.

3. The Environment
Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects.
According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5°C.

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

The Impact is that if the Earth’s temperatures rises just the slightest amount, millions might die! We must mitigate these effects before it is too late.

Thanks and please vote for the Aff/Pro
jh1234l

Con

I accept this challenge.

My first argument is that the governments of developed countries is not the only way we can solve this problem. There are
things like individuals, organizations and more that can help.

For example, fossil fuels like gasoline, when burned, indirectly cause climate change due to CO2. However, gas prices are going up, and people will switch to greener alternatives as they cannot afford gas.

Plus, developed countries are not producing all the pollution in the world, but climate change is a global issue, and just developed nations is not enough.

For example, the US actually produces less co2 than China, which produces 7,031,916 thousand metric tons per year, compared to the U.S. 5,461,014 thousand tons.[1]

So, all developed nations do produce a lot of CO2, but a lot of CO2 is from other nations. Climate change is a global problem, but you are just thinking that developed nations should not only remove their impact, but also impacts from other nations. Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? (No personal attack intended.)

"Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives."

As I said before, as gas prices rise, they will get less profit as more people switch to other energy. Plus, you are talking about renewable energy, which is linked but a separate topic.

"The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created."

But lot's of CO2 are from developing countries! And you said only developed nations should do this, so they have to clean up someone else's mess.

"Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects.
According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5"C.
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die."

Global warming has many deadly consequences, but this does not mean that developed nations should clean up someone else's mess.

You said " Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created.", but this is not completely the fault of developed nations.

In conclusion, all nations, not just developed nations, have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
WesternGuy2

Pro

Thanks for debating.

I will first refute my opponents arguments and strengthen our own.

Their first contention was that other individuals and organizations can helo
They stated how Gas comapnies will lose their industries.


My response is
1. 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.
This completly outweighs their gas companies going out of buisness
2. the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN
3. If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge

Their second contention was that developed countries shouldn't be the only ones mitigating.

My response is
1. 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.
2. 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.

Now they refuted my case

They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked.

My responses are
1. 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.
This completly outweighs their gas companies going out of buisness
2. the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN
3. If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge

They said against my moral obligation impact that developing nations should do this too

My response is
1. 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.
2. 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.

They said that someone should not clean someone else's mess
My response is
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. This has nothing to do with the contention at hand.

They said to my moral obligation and mess argument that developed nations shouldn't clean up someone else's mess
My response is
1. 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.
2. 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.

Thus as you can see, we are saving many lives with vaccines, controlling the enviorment, and through terrorism.

Thanks for debating, opponent and thanks for Judging this round, Judge/Judges
jh1234l

Con

"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...
Debate Round No. 2
WesternGuy2

Pro

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 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
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a neat and timely response.

"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"

Moral obligation - (n.) an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.[1]

As you can see, we cannot even decide whether it is right or wrong because we do not even know if global warming is real. Just look at [2].

"2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating."

This debate about the moral obligation to mitigate, and they also created some mess and why do not they have the moral obligation to do it?

"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."

I am saying that all nations have the obligation (from round 1) and not just developed nations, but the topic says "developed nations".

"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."

I'll restate my argument before starting the rebuttals. It is: "The government does not need to take action. As oil prices rise due to it being scarcer, the people start to invest in alternate fuels."

The main thing is not about oil companies losing business.

"1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related."

Yes, it is related to the mitigation of climate change, but not related to the moral obligation to mitigate it.

"2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. "

Well, terrorism is based partly on oil, but there are many other reasons, for example: race differences, religion differences, etc.; so removing oil does not necessarily prevent 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. "

However, this is about the nations themselves, not individuals! My argument "The government does not have to take action" still stands.

"Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention."

I assume that by our first contention, you meant:

"Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating.
Since today"s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to 'adapt' to the effects of climate change.According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death.
One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a
child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually.
The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate."

Adapt-To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation.[3]

Mitigation: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate. [4]

You only proved that we have a good reason to adapt, not we have a moral obligation to do so. Plus, this is another topic. Adapting and mitigating are two separate, but somewhat connected things, as I showed you.

Moral obligation - (n.) an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.[1]

And you only provided reasons, and not a consideration of right and wrong.

[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://debate.org...
[3]http://www.answers.com...
[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
WesternGuy2

Pro

Thanks opponent for a nice argument.

i would like to point out that my opponents are bringing up unreliable evidence like the wikipedia, answers.com, free dictionary, and many others. Since we do not have the reliability of these, sources, you, the Judge, can disregard them.
Adapt- Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new concern, but it can call on a rich tradition spanning many decades of practices to reduce disaster risks. [1] is more reliable.

This specifically says to reduce. Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation are the same thing.

Second, my opponents bring up the moral obligation point
If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition.
As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none.

Since we have the moral obligation to save lives, we should win.

Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. Thus we have have the moral obligation to save lives from terrorist, (12,000) whether the people do it, or the government does it. The government has talked about switiching to alternative fuels. already.

Thanks and please vote pro
[1]- http://www.unisdr.org...;
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a nice debate!

1. The only thing I got from your source is "The requested URL /files/11775_UNISDRBriefingAdaptationtoClimateCh.pdf" was not found on this server."

2."If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition.
As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. "

First, we do not even know if global warming exists. It is like trying to save a house from burning down while not even knowing if it is burning or not. I addressed this several times and my opponent did not refute it at all.

Second, as we do not even know if global warming exists, we do not even know if we can save any lives at all.

3."Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. "

Again, oil, terrorism, and the moral obligation to mitigate climate change are separate topics.

Oil is related to global warming, (Which we are not sure if it exists.), and related to terrorists, but this is nowhere linked to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change.
Debate Round No. 4
WesternGuy2

Pro

WesternGuy2 forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
I understand that you have school homework to do. Thank you for a great debate.
Posted by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
WesternGuy2
I am sorry about the forfeited round,
I had a lot of school homework
Thanks for your consideration and thanks for the great debate jh1234l
Posted by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
WesternGuy2
Thanks Muted, I will try to work on it
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Bad grammar from Pro. Keeps referring to himself in singular and plural
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
WesternGuy2jh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF