The Instigator
Ariela1a
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
consig
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 10/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,907 times Debate No: 25941
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Ariela1a

Con

My partner and I negate the resolution"Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. A Developed Country is a sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other `less developed nations or one that is highly industrialized. The term " Developed Countries" is too broad. There is a generalization that every developed country emits a significant amount of CO2 and can afford the taxation costs of mitigation. For example, India, even with advanced technology, is in a national debt of $ 345.8 billion. The World Bank classifies all low- and middle-income countries as developing.
We feel it necessary to define the following terms:
Moral Obligation- an obligation composed of morals of ethics and injustices.
Climate change -the perpetual fluctuation in weather patterns in a particular region or worldwide.
However, unlike global warming, which refers to just to the accession in the earth"s surface temperature" climate change refers to alterations in a regions overall weather patterns, including precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover,
Contention I : The cost of mitigating climate change in developed countries will negatively affect the economy.
b In order to mitigate climate change as a government , the country must raise taxes. In Australia, Carbon is taxed at 23 per ton. According to the Australian government"s modeling, this is likely to cause the cost of living to increase by an average of 0.7 per cent in the first year, and another 0.2 per cent in 2015-16. Every year the price will increase by 2.5% until 2015.
Besides Governmental actions, most encouraged ways to control your carbon footprint are inconvenient and expensive. For example, carpooling, hybrid cars, and avoiding reforestation are inconvenient. Most Hybrid cars cost between $2,000 and $10,000 more than a gasoline engine car. To some people, they are not an option because of the higher prices. The average Hybrid has about 15-27 miles per gallon and most new gasoline powered cars get 22-29 mpg. Also, some people cannot lower the amount of gasoline they use.
Not all occupants of a country are economically stable and therefore, our economy cannot afford the cost and taxes of mitigation.
Contention 2: Certain aspects of climate change are uncontrollable and not caused by humankind.
Solar emission and slow changes in the earth"s orbital elements are natural causes of climate change. Solar emission is when magnetic energy in the sun has built up. These are not preventable therefore we don"t have a moral obligation to mitigate it. Also, plate tectonics are not preventable by humans. It is a significant cause of climate change.
Certain climate changes are not preventable. For example, during the ice age, the sea level rose 80 meters. Climate on Earth has changed significantly for over 2.4 billion years, even long before human activity could have played a role. According to the National Ocean Service, "Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth"s orbit around the Sun."
Contention III: The Mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation.
Moral Obligations should not exist. A country must stabilize itself before helping others. The fact is that most developed countries have a high national debt and must work on fixing themselves before fixing the world. For example, even the most developed country in the world, Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion.
The definition of obligation is "A bond of moral duty." However, with the job of an obligation, our priorities are minimized especially economically.
This is not a moral obligation. In fact, saying that developed countries are morally obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change is unethical. The countries should not be morally obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change; it should only be encouraged to people and therefore the responsibility of the people, not the government.
Therefore Mitigating climate change in developed countries is expensive, not all developed countries are stable, and the mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation.
In conclusion, climate change should not be dealt with now because we do not have a moral obligation mitigate it
consig

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariela1a

Con

To begin with, the definition of developed countries is incorrect. A developed country is a highly industrialized country. Your first contention states that developed countries are largely responsible for climate change. However, this is a broad generalization. Many of the countries that contribute to climate change are still developing because of their large debts. Also, there is a generalization that every country release a significant amount of of CO2. My opponent's case focuses on global warming rather that climate change. My opponent is ignoring that climate change is also caused by uncontrollable changes in our orbit around the sun and solar emissions. My opponent's second argument is that Developed countries are the only one's with capabilities to act on climate change. However, most Developed Countries do have a large national debt. We need to focus on the country's success before fixing the world. His last contention states that the greatest impact will come from when the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses make reductions. However, again this is a huge generalization. Not all developed countries release a signifigant amount of CO2 or even can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change. Your example of the US is irrevlevant. The United States cannot afford to cut back on the use of nonrenewable resources. You provide solutions that are inconvenient. For example, what if you live far from work, or couldn't afford organic foods.
My opponent states that cooling the ocean floor only costs $14 billion. However most countries, with a massive debt cannot afford this. For example, take my previous argument that Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. Shouldn't the country try to fix itself before fixing the world? The Norway example does not support the Pro argument. He states that it is more of a reason mitigate the effects of climate change. However, isn't it more of a reason to fix ourselves before the world. My opponent conceptualizes the view of how to mitigate the effects of climate change without providing a valid solution. Obviously $14 billion is not cheap and we should not invest in the world when our own country has economic issues that are not caused by Climate Change. Moreover, the action to mitigate climate change is more of a moral right to an individual rather than a country.
consig

Pro

So my oppenents case is all about attacking me, he has not included any evidence to suppot his attacks, not only this but he also has failed to rebut his own case. therefore you can go ahead and drop his contentions, now onto my own case. for my contention one his only attack on it was that i was ignoring the uncontrollable changes, yet i have mentioned before that cooling the ocean floor would actually solve those "uncontrollable changes" that he has no evidence to support. for his second attack he said that places like norway are in debt alot, but in my conclusion i state that we would actually gain money from this therefore that arguement is no longer valid. for his last and final attack says that climate change is a moral right, yet his definition of it was invalid. he also said that my definition was wrong and didn't offer a counter solution.
Debate Round No. 2
Ariela1a

Con

Ariela1a forfeited this round.
consig

Pro

consig forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariela1a

Con

Ariela1a forfeited this round.
consig

Pro

Nothing left to say i suppose, Vote Aff as my oppenent hasnt showed up the last 2 rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by zachdebate727 4 years ago
zachdebate727
I like the topic. We debated it a few months ago in high school.
Posted by beenybaby101 5 years ago
beenybaby101
no i was asking about the CON
in there contention
Posted by consig 5 years ago
consig
Not sure.
Posted by beenybaby101 5 years ago
beenybaby101
where did the con get the evidence in there first contention about how it will negatively affect the economy
Posted by Ariela1a 5 years ago
Ariela1a
Anyone can join
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
I would accept normally, but erm, it might seem rude.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
extend the period to write to 3 days
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Good topic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.