The Instigator
Mark234532123456787654
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
17lukas.carvalho
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
17lukas.carvalho
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 320 times Debate No: 86645
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Mark234532123456787654

Con

No one is denying that climate change is upon us. The present effects of global warming and other forms of climate change are well documented. As we see it, the people of the world have two choices:
--shore up our defenses against the worst effects of climate change and hope that we won"t eventually be incapable of coping with the rising seas, floods, droughts, disease, etc. that are even now threatening communities on every continent, or

--focus our energies and resources on preventing further climate change damage to mitigate the impact on humanity and planet.

Given the ominous fact that there is nothing that can be done to immediately halt and reverse the effects of climate change, humans need to take the long view. Where will we be in 50 or 100 years if we fail to take steps now to prevent even greater climate change? The effects we are feeling now are so threatening to human health and the ecosystems we depend upon that it is inconceivable we could survive many generations at the current rate of damage. The alternative to real and concerted prevention of further climate change, is to accept a future in which the people of Earth who are not killed by heat waves, mosquito-born diseases, floods, famines and the other inevitable effects of global warming find themselves fighting over the few verdant patches of land high enough to escape seas that have risen [find stat] feet once the polar ice caps have melted completely.
The preparation position is a fatalistic one. It accepts the eventual demise of humankind. The only viable position is the prevention of further climate change in hopes of reestablishing ecological balance in the world.
No amount of raising levees, recycling water, or distributing mosquito nets will be sufficient over time to save our race and the world from the climate change damage we have put in motion. Given a choice between preparing for the worst, and attempting to prevent the worst--humanity"s best hope lies in prevention. We must do everything we can, starting now, to halt the shameful dependence on fossil fuels, the destruction of tropical rainforests, and pumping of hydrocarbons into the air.
17lukas.carvalho

Pro

To consider this resolution and evaluate both possible solutions a few things must be established. Firstly, the main value that both sides are defending is the value of human life. The common goal is saving the most possible humans. The pro side will be arguing that preparation is fundamental and necessary to achieve this while the con should be arguing that reducing the damage to the environment is enough.
Before I lay out my arguments I would like to make one clarification: the pro side is not arguing that prevention is the ultimate solution. Instead, we will prove that it should be the immediate and necessary action.

These are our reasons:

1. We will suffer the consequences of climate change. (It will rise above 2 C).

The vast majority of scientists agree that a rise in the average temperature of the world above 2 degrees Celsius from before industrial levels will be extremely catastrophic to the human population. This is a very alarming fact because we have already risen 1 degree above these industrial levels, and from the current course we have set our industries on, it is virtually impossible to prevent going above 2 C. This means we WILL deal with the catastrophic damage of climate change! Now the question is what is the best solution to deal with these consequences such as extreme droughts, flooding, harsh storms, etc.? The solution proposed by the the opposition is completely inviable since switching to green energy or any other measure will not save the lives of the people whose house was washed away by floods or who do not have water to drink. I"m from Brazil and recently we have had the worst drought in 50 years. This made a many people realize the importance of the environment and start taking actions to help it, yet that did not solve the immediate problem. People still did not have water to live! Preparation was necessary and would have remediated the issue. This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world. We need to be prepared to face what is coming, and that is why it should be our main goal.

2. Not all nations will agree on preventing climate change; therefore, nations that do not prepare for its effects will be harmed.

One example of this is China, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases, which has recently stated that it would not maintain its emission control pledges. As a result of that, it is inevitable that significant damage will occur due to climate change. It is nearly impossible to force countries like this to comply with climate change prevention measures; therefore, it would be more beneficial for the other nations to prepare themselves to the effects of climate change rather than spending trillions on trying to prevent it in vain. How can you ask a small country like the Maldives to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions when the sea is rising and destroying their cities? Even if they did agree to take these measures, because other countries like China don"t, the seas will continue to rise. Their main concern currently should be to prepare with the effects of this rise.

3. It would be illogical for a few countries to make the change to green technology because of the magnitude of capital investment in the oil & gas industry.

The oil & gas industry is a billion dollar industry. Only in the time period 2009-13 more than 3000 billion dollars were invested in the oil & gas industry. It is needless to point out the huge negative effects the adoption of green technology would mean for the world economy. The results would be catastrophic and there would be no turning back. Thousands of people would lose their jobs and years of technological developments in the industry would be wasted. It would cost 44 trillion dollars to switch from fossil fuels to green energy. The cost of this is unviable. There are no investors willing to spend that much money on green technology. Logically, the costs would be split. However, given the profits the oil industry brings only a crazy person would spend on green technology. This once again demonstrates how prevention is completely impossible in our world and preparation is the best immediate solution.

4. If climate change prevention does not work, then mankind would have wasted all of its resources into something futile, and we would not be able to survive the effects of climate change.

In order to change the ways of mankind now, we would have to change so many habits that have been ingrained in our society for decades, since the discovery of oil. How we run our factories, how we trade, change all of the packaging on foods, beauty products, even clothing. It is impossible to impede the productions of these items, since nowadays fossil fuels are present all around us. The keyboard you are typing on is made of plastic for example, the case around your phone is plastic as well. It is incoherent to assume that we can slow this process now, so instead of spending trillions on prevention methods that we are not certain can work (they haven"t until now), we must start thinking about the future, and preparing for the worst that can come. One of the largest mistakes that humanity makes is to begin something and not look deep enough into the future to know how to control that something. This is not a fatalistic view, it is a cautious one.

For all these reasons, we are arguing that the preparation to deal with climate change should currently be valued above preventing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arguing that suddenly changing the path we are on will happen and is viable is thinking of a utopian world. It is a completely inviable solution. The main goal of nations should be to prepare, and later, when the mentality concerning climate change starts to shift, prevention can be discussed.
Debate Round No. 1
Mark234532123456787654

Con

Mark234532123456787654 forfeited this round.
17lukas.carvalho

Pro

Please don't forfeit. I spent some time on this. I beg you Mark234532123456787654. Man up and fight.
Cheers.
Debate Round No. 2
Mark234532123456787654

Con

Mark234532123456787654 forfeited this round.
17lukas.carvalho

Pro

Well this was kind of fun.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
Could I defend the point of view that we should prioritize preventing it, and also building protection?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
Mark23453212345678765417lukas.carvalhoTied
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 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
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
Mark23453212345678765417lukas.carvalhoTied
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 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 11 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
Mark23453212345678765417lukas.carvalhoTied
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 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: Forfeiture.