Should the U.S. increase exploration and development
Debate Rounds (3)
1.) New Resources
subpoint a.) Geothermal energy
2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals
3.) Preservation of Ocean Life
1: New Resources
For years there has been a debate in efforts to move to green alternative energy sources. The ocean offers the U.S. two sources for alternative energy; hydroelectric, and geothermal. For this debate I will focus solely on geothermal energy one of the various types of energy.
Subpoint A.) Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy utilizes the heat within the core of the Earth, making this method a reliable source of energy. This wonder of the alternative energy has several benefits, such as that geothermal energy only gives 1/8 of the emission of carbon of coal, one of the leading fossil fuels used within the U.S. currently. Unlike other forms of alternative energy, geothermal energy does not revolve around fluctuations from day to day being that it's a constant energy derived from the heat of the Earth's interior. Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%.
2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals
Science has searched for alternative medicine from natural sources. It has been found within the oceans surrounding the United States. Various marine plants and organisms have properties that have improved human health. Just to name a few of these organisms: A Caribbean sea sponge's generative compound has been used in medicines such as AZT to treat AIDs and HIV. Skate, a flat fish, has provided clues in advancing poor eye vision. Secosteroid enzymes found in coral are also being used in medicine, and is used to treat arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory disorders. These are just a few of the many organisms currently being used in modern medicine practices, however this isn't the end as scientific tests are being ran.
3.) Preservation of Wild Life
According to the NOAA, 2215 creatures are protected under the ESA. These marine life creatures range from least concern to critically endanger status. However to name a few, lets look at the current population numbers for the top 4 marine mammals on the list. Only 55 Maui dolpjons, 350 northern right whales, and a range of 500- 600 Vaquitas , the rarest dolphin, remain. Without these creatures in existence, food chains would become disrupted and cause an unbalanced diet and cause possible over population.
By allowing the United States federal government to explore the earth's oceans , we could find ways to preserve dwindling ocean life. This would include repopulation efforts or even creating regulation to protect them. In order to avoid the disruption of food chains and extinction, we must understand the causes and find ways to prevent further damage to these animals' habitats and their well-being.
For these reasons I argue in favor of expanding exploration and development.
A) Geothermal Energy
CFCs are to blame for warming.
There are many more disadvantages to doing geothermal energy than advantages. To begin with, chloroflurocarbons are actually causing global warming. Therefore, switching to energy sources that reduce carbon emissions is pointless. (1) CFCs were used in almost everything in the 70's. They are already known to replete the ozone layer, but credible scientists are now trending towards blaming them for global warming as well. If CO2 was to blame for GW, then global temperatures should be rising right now because carbon emissions are also rising. However, since 2002, global temperates have actually been declining in correlation with CFCs.
The energy is too expensive to be practical.
"Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%"- Pro
Just to install the power plant can cost upwards of 20 million dollars. (2) They supply 1- 50 megawatts of energy for a mature plant as compared to 2,000 megawatts for a coal power plant. It cost double or triple the amount of money per kwh to buy geothermal energy. (3) The majority of people can barely pay their energy bill as is. Why would companies choose to build this reactors when they are still an unproved concept? Who would choose to switch to geothermal energy when natural gas and fossil fuels work now?
Nuclear power is clean and an effective energy source. Empirically, it works. It powered 20% of the entire nation. (4) If the Pro really wants alternative energy, then why not do this? The United States should NOT divert spending away from natural gas, coal, and nuclear power to test a concept. More and more Americans are realizing that nuclear power is safe when built in relatively natural disaster free areas like Georgia. On the other hand, few of them even know geothermal energy exists. The amount of funding required to educate them is ridiculously costly and ultimately pointless due to the above points.
B) Underwater Pharmaceuticals
Bioprospecting entails physical disturbance of deep seabeds and native habitats. Alien marine species invade indigenous fish environments. A study by the United Nations University/Institute of Advanced Studies confirms the introduction of pollutions and noise disturbance result in negative consequences for the marine species. (6) The Pro states that he wants to protect Wild Life by increasing exploration, but bioprospecting and other marine research contradicts this.
There is broad consensus within the scientific community that the growing overuse of antibiotics is rendering them useless. More than 70% of all antibiotics are given to animals which in turn ends up in our food. Attempts to limit the use of antibiotics have been weak. (7) Antibiotics also have a capitalism problem. Pharmaceutical companies are drawing out of the antibiotics business. "As it stands today, antibiotics are leaving the marketplace at a rate twice that of new drugs entering it." (8) The United States advocating for more pharmaceutics will not make a difference because companies are already drawing out of the race. Why would we advocate for something that is causing more harm that good?
C) Preservation of Wild Life
Pro actually contradicts his goals again by supporting geothermal energy. This energy is known to release harmful fumes unless they can be contained. Because this type of energy is still not widespread, many accidents will occur. There is not definite way to contain these fumes in the ocean. (5) If Pro really wants alternative energy, then why risk the deterioration of wild life? Why not build nuclear reactors?
Increased exploration is inherently bad for wild life. The more and more scientists poke and probe around natural habitats, the more and more they are harmed. The only thing the United States can do to keep marine life safe is increase fishing regulations for the oceans. I dissent Pro's statement that these regulations fit under the umbrella of development and exploration of the ocean. Increased regulation is pencil and paper; it does not require people to go out into the ocean.
Exploration is not Necessary
We already know why our fish populations are dwindling. We can blame pollution, overfishing, and bioprospecting. Why is more research necessary. As I said before, more development is harmful to the marine species. We already understand why this is happening, and increased action of the government is the response. We do not need MORE development. We know the issues that are happening, and we are now trying to remedy them. (9)
D) More Important Priorities
Why are we concentrating on increased exploration when there are more important things to spend our money on? I have already spoken about nuclear power, but we also have to consider education, transportaion, and NASA(10). NASA may not seem like the most important program, but it has been increasing diplomatic connections between the Middle East and Western scientific communties. Science knows no skin color nor religion; what better way to increase our contact? While Pro's plan is limited to the United States, both nuclear power and NASA can go international.
Just to reiterate, NP trades off wtih geothermal power because they are both alternative energy sources.(11)
The The United States should not increase development and exploration of the oceans because none of the benefits Pro has stated are worth the risk. We should not divert spending from NASA and nuclear power because these things are international priorities. The United States is an international leader, and by doing those two things, we will increase our hegemony. There is no reason to increase our exploration but several reasons not to.
Your turn Pro! :) I apologize for any weird formatting; technology is not my friend!
skyevales forfeited this round.
I extend all of my previous arguments.
skyevales forfeited this round.
I win this debate because Pro has forfeited all rounds.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.