The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
planck
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Canada should be pro global warming

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 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 79270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

imabench

Pro

Reasons why Canada should be Pro the warming of the Earth:

1) Opening of the Northwest Passage.

The Northwest passage is a supposed water route between Europe and Asia through the northern waters of Canada that has long been sought after by explorers. Ice sheets that froze over the oceans naturally prevented such a passage from ever being open, but that changed in 2009 when global warming opened up the Northwest passage for the first time, albeit only briefly during summer

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Should global warming continue though, more and more ice in the northern hemisphere will melt, allowing for the Northwest passage to open up even larger, allowing for massive shipping between Europe and east Asia. A northwest passage would actually reduce shipping times between Europe and Asia by 40% due to the curvature of the Earth! This is great news for Canada as this would make Canada a global shipping hub and center for international trade

http://www.fednav.com...
http://www.reuters.com...

2) More natural resources for Canada

Canada is a mineral and resource rich land (it is the second biggest country int he world after all) but a good chunk of hose resources are unaccessible due to ice and frigid temperatures that makes extracting those resources impractical or financially impossible. Global warming though could remove these natural barriers and allow Canada to turn into an incredibly resource-rich nation, as tons and tons of resources like oil, coal, and natural gas become increasingly accessible due to global warming. The prices for these goods naturally will be much higher in the future as well, meaning that Canada would benefit greatly from global warming in terms of resource mining and drilling

http://www.ctvnews.ca...

3) Would bring forests to parts of Canada where they couldnt grow before

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Canada's forests have been cut down pretty frequently but have not been able to grow back due to how cold the country is, as the frigid temperatures simply don't allow for enough rainfall for trees to take route and grow. Global warming though on a large scale could change that, meaning that Canadian forests would grow at record amounts and in places trees havent grown for thousands of years, which would benefit Canada since recent polling indicates that trees are good.

4) Huge increase in agricultural growth

In addition to trees, other forms of plant life would also greatly benefit in Canada from global warming, such as crops grown as food like corn. Canada has a cold climate and the window for growing crops is substantially small, but a warmer climate would allow soils to become more fertile, crops to have more time to grow before harvest. Canada could turn itself into the new breadbasket of the world should global warming be allowed to proceed and the climate allowed to grow warmer. This benefits farmers and would turn Canada into a food exporting nation rather than a food importing nation, in addition to one rich in mineral wealth and also a gigantic trade hub.

5) Misc benefits:

Global warming would allow Canadians to save money on heating bills, it would make Canada more of a tourist destination as cities like Toronto and Montreal become more inviting as notoriously cold temperatures become a thing of the past, summers in Canada wont feel like they last 37 minutes, farmers of course would benefit tremendously at increased production and make more money, the population growth would likely pick up since warmer places correlate to higher birth rates
planck

Con

It's very unclear as to how any of the factors mentioned by Pro will improve living conditions for Canadian citizens. Opening of the Northwest passage will, indeed vastly increase the amount of shipping across the top of Canada, but it will also bring Canada into confrontation with Russian interests who have laid claim to a large portion of the Aortic. At this time, Canada has no need to defend it's Northern border, either from military incursions or environmental damage. Opening the Northern Passage will require exactly that.

Allowing a quantum increase in the amount of natural resource extraction in Canada will destroy much of what makes Canada a desirable place to live. Canada is known for it's natural beauty and pristine wilderness areas that makes it a wonderful place to visit and to reside in. Making much of that land look more like the current oil sands extraction project in Alberta wouldn't seem like an improvement to anyone, except, perhaps, a stockholder in the extraction venture.

Trees that are currently growing in Northern Canada have evolved to flourish in the existing climate. When one is cut down another, if undisturbed, will grow in it's place. It's incorrect to say that the current climate will prevent current growth from continuing. What global warming will do is to change the type of trees that are currently there to others that are more suited to warmer temperatures. That will change the entire ecosystem, destroy much native species of plants and animals, and have unknown effects on the human population.

Yes, there will be a huge increase in agricultural production, and there will have to be because:

Canada isn't on a planet separate from the rest of the world and will be affected, not to the better, by the effects warming will have on everyone else. Rises in sea level will displace billions of people who will be seeking higher ground. Is it to Canada's benefit to have those huge numbers of people, of vastly different cultures, seeking to get into that country by whatever means possible? For an example of what can happen, see Greece as it tries to cope with the influx of Syrian refugees. Canada is also a nation with a large and economically important fishing industry. One of the effects of climate change is the acidification of the seas, destroying much of the seafood stocks upon which much of the world, and the Canadian economy, depends.

Canada is not a food importing nation in the sense that Britain is - that is to say, without imports it will starve. Canada is a major exporter of products like wheat , meat, and seafood. It's an importer of foods in the same sense that the US is. It imports foodstuffs that are "nice" to have, like mango's, fresh tomatoes in the winter, etc, but not necessary for survival.

The Canadians are doing pretty well right now. They've got a longer life span than Americans, no need for a large military, little poverty, and no real threat from any foreign powers. How the very unstable, nuclear armed world produced by global warming will make Canada a better place is beyond my understanding.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

1) Russia

"Opening of the Northwest passage will, indeed vastly increase the amount of shipping across the top of Canada, but it will also bring Canada into confrontation with Russian interests who have laid claim to a large portion of the Aortic."

When Russia invaded Ukrainian Crimea they promptly felt the wrath of the rest of the world through crippling economic sanctions... And this was over Ukraine. If Russia tried to pick a fight with Canada, the poster child for well-behaved and sensible countries, it would be an act of economic suicide on the part of Russia. Russia would therefore be careful in being aggressive towards Canada since its history of being aggressive towards other, far less important nations proved to be very costly for Russia itself.

2) Resources + forests

"Allowing a quantum increase in the amount of natural resource extraction in Canada will destroy much of what makes Canada a desirable place to live"

Completely false and unsubstantiated opinion.

"What global warming will do is to change the type of trees that are currently there to others that are more suited to warmer temperatures. That will change the entire ecosystem, destroy much native species of plants and animals, and have unknown effects on the human population"

That's only true if the degree of global warming done is so severe that existing species could no longer survive in Canada, which is not necessarily the case. Canada wouldn't be going from Pine Trees to Palm Trees like you are suggesting, global warming would just allow for more trees to grow in areas that used to be too cold for trees to grow in.



3) Refugees

"Rises in sea level will displace billions of people who will be seeking higher ground"

Canada doesn't have a population of 'billions'...

"Is it to Canada's benefit to have those huge numbers of people, of vastly different cultures, seeking to get into that country by whatever means possible?"

What makes you think ALL of these refugees would all go to Canada? The only countries even remotely close to Canada are the US and Russia, two gigantic countries with enough space of their own for refugees to aim for rather then Canada. Any refugee problem caused by rising sea levels would not affect Canada, because there are no regions or countries located close enough to Canada for refugees to come from.


4) Impact on fishing

"One of the effects of climate change is the acidification of the seas, destroying much of the seafood stocks upon which much of the world, and the Canadian economy, depends."

First off only 150,000 people in Canada rely on fishing for their job
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The oil industry in the Canadian Province of Alberta alone on the other hand employs over 500,000 people. More than 3 times what fishing does, and this is just in one province of Canada
http://www.oilsandstoday.ca...

Global warming would open up Canada to more oil reserves that are currently unreachable due to how severe the climate is in some places. Any fishing jobs lost to global warming would more than be made up for by the new jobs made in oil drilling, which pays substantially better than fishing jobs as well.


5) Agriculture

"Canada is a major exporter of products like wheat , meat, and seafood"

And with warmer temperatures opening up more arable land, Canada will be able to create more farming jobs, increase food exports, make more money, etc.

"The Canadians are doing pretty well right now"

The argument is that Canada would do better if the world was warmer, not that they are not doing well right now.

"How the very unstable, nuclear armed world produced by global warming will make Canada a better place is beyond my understanding"

Well that's because either 1) You choose to ignore the arguments I've made up to this point showing how Canada would benefit, or 2) You are not smart enough to actually understand the arguments I have made
planck

Con

I'll go through this a bit more slowly since Pro doesn't believe I'm smart enough to understand his arguments.
1. Opening of the Northwest Passage: There's no reason to believe that doing so will make Canada a global shipping hub and center for international trade. Ships don't need ports unless they're going to take on or discharge cargo and there's nothing along the extreme northern coast of Canada that requires that service. Whether there might be in the future is purely conjecture. We can see, today, that simply having a lot of shipping passing your coast is no guarantee of economic success. An enormous amount of shipping, for example, goes through the Suez Canal and down the East coast of Africa and those places never became shipping hubs or centers of international trade even before their recent troubles. Back in the 19th century having good port facilities helped make you a trade center, but today it's being centers of banking, finance, and corporate headquarters is what does it.
As regards the confrontation with Russian interests you might take notice that regardless of the "wrath of the rest of the world", Russia was not deterred from it's seizure of some of Georgia, it's annexation of the Crimea, and is still interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs. The "wrath" Pro is counting on doesn't seem very effective.

2. More natural resources for Canada. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has it's cost and the cost for more oil, coal, and gas extraction is environmental damage. Are the profits from that activity worth the cost? That would be up to the Canadians to decide but I think that anybody whose seen what oil sand extraction or open pit coal mines have done to the landscape would have doubts.

3. Resources plus forests. I wouldn't expect palms to replace conifers but you will see species that thrive in more southerly zones to move north. See http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us...
That in itself will produce major ecosystem changes. Also, as Pro has pointed out, the existing forests will expand North. When that happens they won't be moving into a lifeless area but will be displacing the flora that's there now and the animals that depend upon it.

4. Refugees. Does anyone truly believe that the mass migration of billions of people worldwide will have no adverse effect upon any nation? That Russia and the US will, somehow absorb them all? The world is tightly connected. This ain't the 19th Century.

Finally, let me point out that it's reasonable to assume that the sea level rise and the loss of sea life associated with global warming will cause a great increase in global instability. A number of the nations immediately affected like China, India, Pakistan are nuclear armed. Will this increase in instability make Canada safer, even with it's presumed increase access to oil, gas, and coal? I think not.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Northwest passage

"Ships don't need ports unless they're going to take on or discharge cargo and there's nothing along the extreme northern coast of Canada that requires that service"

Not yet there isn't, but that could easily change in the future once the amount of shipping going through the region dramatically increases. This passage isn't just a canal that goes through a narrow part of the country like Panama or the Suez canal in Egypt, this passage goes through the entirety of the Arctic Canadian coastline. Therefore the chances from Canada to capitalize from such shipping is exponentially larger than it would be for Egypt or Panama.


2) Russia

"Russia was not deterred from it's seizure of some of Georgia, it's annexation of the Crimea, and is still interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs."

The economic shellacking they are receiving right now from economic sanctions suggests otherwise, as the economic sanctions and the low oil prices in todays market has caused Russia's currency (The Ruble) to deteriorate in value by about
half.

http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://money.cnn.com...

If invading Ukraine causes this much hell for Russia, antagonizing a more respected nation like Canada over the Arctic Circle would likely trigger substantially worse sanctions and penalties for Russia, and thus incentivize them to NOT mess with Canada.


3) Natural Gas + Oil resources

"Everything has it's cost and the cost for more oil, coal, and gas extraction is environmental damage"

Everything has it's profits as well and the profits of more oil, more coal, and more access to gas extraction is in the billions of dollars. Furthermore if any slight amount of environmental damage could be crippling to a country, than every industrialized nation in the world would have died off decades ago. But they haven't, because environmental damage does not kill nations. Therefore Canada has a lot to gain and not much to lose from more oil fields being tapped into.


4) Timber and forests

"Also, as Pro has pointed out, the existing forests will expand North. When that happens they won't be moving into a lifeless area but will be displacing the flora that's there now and the animals that depend upon it."

It's one habitat being replaced with a different kind of habitat, one that allows for more plant life to actually grow and thrive. The area that forests could expand into may not be lifeless, but a less frigid climate opens the door for more natural life to grow and survive than current conditions allow.



5) Refugees

"Does anyone truly believe that the mass migration of billions of people worldwide will have no adverse effect upon any nation? "

I see con has resorted to putting words in my mouth rather than try to rely on his own arguments...

I never said that refugees wouldn't effect ANY nation, nor did I say that Russia and the US would absorb them all either. I'm saying that Canada's geographic isolation spares them from suffering a potential refugee crisis, and also serves as a buffer since the US and Russia would be closer targets for refugees to travel to compared to Canada.

"A number of the nations immediately affected like China, India, Pakistan are nuclear armed. Will this increase in instability make Canada safer, even with it's presumed increase access to oil, gas, and coal? I think not."

China, India, and Pakistan aren't going to nuke Canada for their oil if that's what you're implying...

================================================================

Canada stands to gain a lot from a warmer climate for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to greater access to valuable natural resources, greater agricultural production and exportation, increased shipping traffic, lower bills for heating, potential job creation, etc. It is for these reasons I affirm that Canada should be pro global warming.

Vote Pro.
planck

Con

Pro has used the following arguments supporting his position:
1. Increased shipping through the Northwest Passage will make Canada a global shopping hub and center of world trade. History has shown that merely having lots of ships pass your coast doesn't do that. If it did, Egypt and Panama would be the equivalent of New York and London. What it would do would create huge expenses and risk for Canada due to competition with Russia for artic natural resources as well as the need for increased military and environmental protection expenses to protect a newly accessible national border.

2. More natural resources will be available for exploitation. Oil, gas, and coal will be easier to extract but at the cost of environmental damage. Whether that's a cost that's worth the benefit is purely subjective. The resources extracted will at some point be totally depleted but the environmental damage is, usually permanent. Should anyone doubt that they merely have to look at the ex mountains of West Virginia or the tar sand mines of Alberta. I don't believe the net result is better for Canada.

3. More forests for Canada. Pro never said why that would make Canada better, only that recent polling said that "trees are good". I've pointed out that when trees advance into new areas they displace the existing flora and fauna, eventually driving some species close to, or into extinction. Why is that good for Canada?

4. Increased agricultural production, according to Pro, will make Canada a food exporter instead of an importer. This is a false claim. Canada is now, and almost always has been a major exporter of meat, seafood, and wheat.. In round two he tried to change that claim.

Finally, Pro seems to believe that major global disruptions in food production, coastal communities, and population distributions will have no adverse effect on Canada. To that I can only say that given the interconnectedness of the world, a catastrophe anywhere effects all of us; usually not for the better. A global catastrophe is dangerous for all. A nuclear weapon going off in India drops fallout in Canada, and gaining a northern sea route from Europe to Asia doesn't do much to balance that out.

Pro has not proven his contentions.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fudge_Packer 1 year ago
Fudge_Packer
What's idiotic? You have to first prove your premise.

And what's wrong with my name? I work in a candy factory, supervising the packing of chocolates and other delicious items.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
ouch :P
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Fudge packer if you insist on being an idiot, which your name highly suggests, please do so on some other debate where nobody can listen to you over there
Posted by Fudge_Packer 1 year ago
Fudge_Packer
Liberals must be crapping their drawers. Global warming has not been proved.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
I mean in favor of global warming
Posted by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
what do you mean when you say "pro global warming?"
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
"You would want the rest of the world to get completely decimated so that a bit of ice in Canada melts."

Im not arguing that at all.... Im arguing that CANADA - SHOULD want the rest of the world to get completely decimated so that a bit of ice in Canada melts.

Learn to read before you comment....
Posted by ErenBalkir 1 year ago
ErenBalkir
Seriously! You would want the rest of the world to get completely decimated so that a bit of ice in Canada melts. This debate is just too stupid to accept.

Maybe you meant it as a joke? probably.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Cool...But, I am having dinner with a friend, so I will need to work around that...otherwise you can wait for someone else...
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
I'll manage as best as I can tomorrow
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
imabenchplanckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved that there would be many benefits of Canada becoming Pro global warming. Con didn't seem to understand how Pro's arguments were beneficial and as a result their arguments and rebuttals were not as good as the quality of Pro's. If this RFD needs to be expanded I will do so.