North America Needs to go Green.
Debate Rounds (4)
Despite all of the positives associated with oil, it has devastating negatives. These negative aspects include: it is bad for our environment, rising in cost, relatively rare, and running out fast. The Canadian and American governments still rely on oil anyways- so why is this?
Well, sources have said that the cost of making the whole world green would be about $42,000,000,000,000 ($42 trillion). So governments can argue that going green would have catastrophic affects to their nations- but consider this. The day when oil either runs out, or becomes too expensive to purchase will put world governments in a much larger state of catastrophe than $42 trillion ever could.
I ask that somebody can argue why going green/moving away from oil take part in this debate. I want somebody who is serious, and respectful- as I will be towards them. You can consider the above text to be my opening statement.
*No matter what is said during this debate- or the outcome afterward, I would like to thank those that participate and want them to know that I respect and value your opinions.*
Anyways, onto my argument. I will prove in this that "going green" is something you feel that should happen immediately. Therefore I will argue that it is not a task that need be completed immediately.
I will base my position on the financial negatives to "going green" and why it is most certainly not needed in this sense. I will also base my position upon environmental reasons as well, as to why it is not necessary to immediately implement these plans. As the severity of impact of continued usage of carbon-based fuels has not been conclusively determined) Finally I will also base my response upon the limited supply of carbon-based fuels, and how it is not necessary to immediately go green. As even in this country we have untouched/unused resources.
Thank you and I look forward to this debate.
P.S.- I have to ask, why is the character count so short?(1000)
If we were to begin converting our energy sources into renewable ones such as wind, solar and geothermal, we would be ahead of other world nations. This would include Russia, and China who still rely on fossil fuels and oil. This is a huge advantage, considering the stress between Iran and Israel that is present right now.
We know that oil will run out, we know how to go green, and if we develop a plan and go into a bit of debt we can go green "today". Besides the financial downside, there is no bad aspect to a green way of life.
*P.S. I left the character limit low because it is my first debate, and I didn't know who might accept it.
To undertake a 42 trillion dollar project, is foolish as the market will correct itself as people make or find cheaper better alternatives to carbon-based fuels. No government, nor group of governments need undertake this mission, especially considering the recession, as this would result in bankruptcy.
AMok forfeited this round.
AMok forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.