The Instigator
woojin05
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
llamas123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Developed Countries should 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,918 times Debate No: 26623
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

woojin05

Con

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

This debate would be done in a form somewhat similar to Public Forum debate
N is Negative
A is Affirmative

Rules:
1 N: Introductory statements/ Definitions
1 A: Acceptance/First constructive speech
2 N: Constructive speech
2 A: Rebuttal on N constructive
3 N: Rebuttal on A constructive
3 A: Summary (Refutation on rebuttal)
4 N: Summary
4 A: Final Focus (Why our side wins the debate)
5 N: Final Focus/ Closing statements
5 A: Closing statements

Definitions:
Developed countries are countries that tend to have the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, have well-developed basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society, or a infrastructure for transportation, communications, and energy. These countries, the wealthiest nations in the world, include Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China, India, Pakistan and Russia are not considered "developed"

The definition of moral means right as opposed to something which is wrong. An obligation is a promise, duty or commitment. So we can say a moral obligation is a duty to take an action which is right (moral). A moral obligation does not mean one has a legal obligation but one can argue that fulfilling a legal obligation is a moral obligation. For example I may have a moral obligation to help my neighbor, but there is no legal requirement for me do so. If I choose not to fulfill my moral obligation to help, the police will not be knocking on my door.

Mitigate to lessen, make less severe or painful.

Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions. For example: more or fewer extreme weather events.
llamas123

Pro

Hello Woojin05. I accept your challenge and look forward to our debate and the rounds that will follow! Here we go...

Global Warming is a reality, a problem and our fault. According to the Inquisitition of Climate Science, since 1800, 330 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide have been pumped into the atmosphere due to factories burning fossil fuels creating a "greenhouse effect," trapping sunlight, raising temperatures. This is also the cause for the largest global temperature increase mankind has ever encountered. According to the National Climatic Data Center, in the last century the average temperature has increased 1.33 degrees, and is projected to increase another 2.5-10.4 degrees by 21-hundred. The Institute for Demographic Research predicts that this temperature increase would raise ocean levels to the point where 634 million people living on the coast would be forced to re-locate. It is for this reason, that I support the resolution that Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of Climate Change.
As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue about who is in fact responsible for global warming. According to the World Resources Institue, "industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date". Industrialized countries. Not underdeveloped countries. There is additional evidence to support this. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide tend to stay in the atmosphere for decades. Old injuries dealt to the enviorment from now developed countries" haven"t healed yet. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the countries with the top annual carbon pollution per capita, are all industrialized and developed. Therefore it is developed countries that are responsible for global warming, and from the moral standpoint that this preposition wishes for us to take, it is developed countries who are responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change.
It is essential to understand that climate change can be fixed. According to Royters, we have until 2040 to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible. There is a way to save our planet. However this solution is so obvious that it is often overlooked. Cutting pollution emissions by 80%, and replacing them with natural energy would literally halt the growth of climate change, which would end all effects of climate change. Admittedly, this solution comes with a high price tag. It could cost 1.9 trillion dollars annually to cut our carbon emissions by 80%. However this price tag is nothing compared to the cost of letting global warming continue. According to the Natural Resource Defense Council it is estimated that dealing with the effects of global warming would cost 20 trillion dollars a year by the end of the century, costing 10x more money than it would to just stop global warming.
Each of the top 30 developed countries, have the budget to pay for approximently 4 % of the emissions decrease. This money could be funded by tax increases, charities, or budget cuts. In contrast there is mathematically no possible way of dealing with the effects of global warming without bankrupting the world"s economy.
Now the logical question is: Why can"t developing countries assist in the costs of mitigating climate change? The answer is because they do not have the money. The average annual salary of a person living in a third world country is 730 dollars, or about 2 dollars a day. On top of this between 60-80% of this money is spent on food. There is no conceivable way a government could make money from taxing these people. As proof of this, the U.S."s national budget is around 2.1 trillion dollars per year, whereas Zimbobwae"s national budget is only 2.7 million dollars per year. Their budget is mathematically practically a millionth of the United States"s budget, and Zimbobwae is an average third world country. These countries need every penny they can make, therefore they cannot be obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change. It"s that simple.
It is time to accept a reality and a responsibility. Therefore developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Debate Round No. 1
woojin05

Con

woojin05 forfeited this round.
llamas123

Pro

I extend my arguements. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
woojin05

Con

woojin05 forfeited this round.
llamas123

Pro

Due to my oppositions recent two forfeits I have began to come to the conclusion that they do not have any suitable counter-arguements for my contentions. Therefore, vote pro on today's resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
woojin05

Con

woojin05 forfeited this round.
llamas123

Pro

I am predicting another forfeit, so I repeat: Vote pro on this resolution. As I have stated; developed countries can fix climate change, they are responsible for climate change, and they MUST fix climate change. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
woojin05

Con

woojin05 forfeited this round.
llamas123

Pro

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Why are you pegged as the Con, while your argument is for the Pro?
No votes have been placed for this debate.