The Instigator
goddessalive
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

First World countries have the 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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,521 times Debate No: 25913
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

goddessalive

Con

First world countries do not have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
socialpinko

Pro

===Definitions===


First world countries will refer broadly to the U.S., Canada, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most European countries such as the UK, France, Denmark, and Spain. These countries are differentiated from third world countries by their relative wealth and well being of their citizens.


To have a moral obligation implies that one has some legitimate moral duty or a legitimate requirement to take others into consideration under certain conditions. This would be predicated on some conception of right and wrong.


===Framework===


The ethical standard by which I propose to hold the resolution to will be standard utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative philosophy which supports actions which result in overall happiness, or "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" of people. Under utilitarianism, one's ethical duties will stem from whether they are capable of performing actions to bring about net happiness or to reduce the amount of unhappiness. My contention will be that (a) climate change has negative effects in regards to human happiness and (b) that first world countries alone have the ability to mitigate these effects, thereby imposing an obligation to do so.


Contention I. The Reality of Climate Change


I'll try to be brief in detailing the causes and effects of global warming. I'm not a scientist or by any measure an expert on the topic though so bear with me. The basic line of thought goes that rising CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to trap heat which in turn causes more energy to become trapped in the atmosphere then is being released back out to space. This all causes the planet's total heat to increase. Empirical evidence for rising CO2 emissions on the planet[1], the causal relationship between this and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere[2], and the empirical evidence for a rising global temperature[3] is all available and provides conclusive evidence for the reality of climate change.


Contention II. Negative Effects of CC on Humanity


Some may allow for the existence of climate change while still denying that it will bring about any cataclysmic effects. However, scientists at the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the Met Office released a study predicting a global temperature rise of 4C within the next 50 or so years without actions taken to reduce climate change. The effects of such a rise would surely be catastrophic. Such a rise would threaten numerous animal species, raise water levels which would negatively effect coastal areas, and threaten a large portion of the water supply[4].


Contention III. The Position of FWC to Mitigate such Effects


It should be prima facie acceptable that those countries which are better off and have access to a larger amount of resources and international trade as first world countries are would be in a much better position to mitigate the effects of climate change. Lower developed countries more than likely lack the resources to stop the process of global warming even if they didn't have more looming problems to deal with. Furthermore first world countries (especially the U.S.) are in a special position in regards to CC since it is those first world countries that are responsible for up to 48% of global CO2 emissions[5]. Since this is the case, policies or measures taken to reduce those emissions would be better and more easily handled by the U.S. and other developed countries.


===Conclusion===


As we can see, from a utilitarian perspective, the U.S. and other first world countries have an obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Not only is climate change a looming threat which threatens the well being of millions of people, but it is in large part through the actions of first world countries that CO2 emissions are so high in the first place. It is clear that leaving the responsibility for mitigating climate change to poorly developed or developing nations is an unsatisfactory solution since they have a smaller share in the ultimate cause of the problem and because they lack the necessary resources and international pull to accomplish such a task. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro.


===Sources===


[1] http://zfacts.com...
[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[3] http://www.pnas.org... (Figures 1 & 5 seem most relevant)
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[5] http://epa.gov... (Sec. Emissions by Country)
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sky73 5 years ago
Sky73
i believe that pro is winning because con dont have the balls to win
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
DK, it's not like I just said "hurr durr he didn't make an argument vote Pro". I actually took the time to put together what I thought to be a cogent case in defense of my position.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
darkkermit is a cognitively dissonant cretin with a ss teeth!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by awesomeness 5 years ago
awesomeness
goddessalivesocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con did not provide arguments
Vote Placed by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
goddessalivesocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: He was the only one to provide either.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
goddessalivesocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: This one was close..... but I think con won the arguments, everything else to the pro though
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
goddessalivesocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was pretty close. I put the debate in a text-to-speech program and flowed it like a real debate three times. I feel like social took the lead healfway into his conclusion, and he really drove his points home with it. Con did a very admirable job, and demonstrated his rhetorical prowess, but social had the somewhat stronger argument. Like I said, great effort by both, no hard feelings but I give the arguments to Pro, everything else tied. Clearly darkkermit is the real whore.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
goddessalivesocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both PRO and CON are whores. CON basically used this site to get free ideas for high school debate without doing any work. PRO is a whore for boasting his debate record without having to defend anything.