The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
manutdredseal46
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points

The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 11 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,878 times Debate No: 5628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (11)

 

wjmelements

Con

As Con, I will wait until my opponent puts out his or her contentions until I actually debate.

A significant effect is considered to be a global differrence in atleast a quarter of a degree in fifty years, which is very merciful considering that some statistics say that the global average tempertaure has increased about a degree over the last hundred years.

The Cap and Trade system is the system that will be employed under both major presidential candidates' administrations. I will let my opponent pick a plan to be specifically debated.

McCain's Cap and Trade: http://www.johnmccain.com...

Obama's Cap and Trade: http://my.barackobama.com...

Unfortunately, neither candidates go into much detail, especially Barack Obama. As we go into further detail, we will quote their debates as to their actual plans.

I look forward to the prospect of this debate.
manutdredseal46

Pro

>I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.

>I will be supporting Obama Cap and Trade.

>Cap and Trade is a fundamentally good idea. As my opponent notes, global temperature has been increasing recently. Cap and Trade would limit these effects by limiting the emissions causing this. To support my point, while global temperature has increased by a degree in one hundred years, ocean temperatures have risen one half a degree since the 1970s. Also, the process has accelerated slightly recently as the 8 warmest years in history have all been since 1998.

>The Obama Cap and Trade is very vague, but the general concepts would be beneficial to the Earth and to the rising temperatures.

>There is not much more I can say at the moment, I await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will start by getting some facts on the table.
The United States is a country on Earth. http://www.answers.com...
The world temperature has supposedly gone up about 1 degree in the last 150 years. http://www.epa.gov...
The human population of Earth is over 6 billion. http://www.infoplease.com...
The human population of China is over 1.3 billion. http://geography.about.com...
The human population of the United States is over 300 million. http://factfinder.census.gov...
The average "carbon footprint" for a U.S. household is 19 metric tons of CO2. http://www.foxnews.com...
There are about 100 million american housholds. http://www.foxnews.com...
The average american household adds 0.0000000000148 degrees Fahrenheit to the global average temperature. http://www.foxnews.com...
China has a smaller carbon footprint than the U. S. http://outside.away.com...
The U. S. is responsible for 27% of the global carbon footprint. http://outside.away.com...

From these facts, we can draw three conclusions.
1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of this.
2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur.
3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on climate.

The basic calculations are as follows:
150 years=1 degree
50 years=one-third of a degree
50 years (just U. S.)=one-twelveth of a degree

The definition of "a significant effect" has been established as "atleast a quarter of a degree in fifty years". However, even if the U.S. were to have no "footprint", the global climate trend would decrease by 1/12 degree.

Further, Obama's plan would "reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." http://my.barackobama.com...
So, the emissions would not even be completely eliminated, but reduced by 80 percent. Therefore, assuming the Obama plan even works, the current warming trend would be reduced by 1/15 degree.

The debate is already won. Basic math discredits that the U.S. adopting Obama's Cap and Trade plan will have a significant effect on climate. I thank my opponent for this debate.
manutdredseal46

Pro

>I thank my respected opponent for his response. It was extremely clever, but I can negate it.

>Please note that for the purposes of the remainder of this debate my opponent has already claimed that we are "assuming the Obama plan even works."

>Facts we both agree on:

All of my opponent's sources and data derived from sources except for EPA on climate change in the last 50 years (I will touch on this right now).

>EPA claims that global climate change has been a 1degree to 1.7 degree increase in the last 150 years. I will average these two numbers to get a 1.35 degree change. It goes on to say that (as my opponent neglects to tell you) the temperature has increased 1 degree since the mid 1970s (I will say 1975 for these purposes).

I would now like to present figure 1:

http://www.epa.gov...

According to figure 1 (which came from my opponent's site) the increase in temperature has been linear since the 1970s. It has increased since 1975. The site goes on to say that the climate change is about 3.2 degrees of increase per century on this linear track. My opponent seems to be basing his information on 50 years so 3.2/2 = 1.6 degrees per 50 year period. Please note that all measures are Fahrenheit.

>Due to my last remarks, my opponent's calculations of the following are moot:

"1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of this.
2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur.
3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on climate.

The basic calculations are as follows:
150 years=1 degree
50 years=one-third of a degree
50 years (just U. S.)=one-twelveth of a degree"

Corrections:

1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1.35 degrees. The U.S. is responsible for 27% of this.
2. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, 73% of global warming would still occur.
3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on climate. The Obama plan, however, is global.

Calculations are as follows:

150 years = 1.35 degrees
50 years = 0.45 degrees

New information:

Barack Obama will take office in 2009

Again, my opponent and I are discussing the next 50 years. My opponent's measurement of a significant effect is a quarter if a degree. This is flexible and can be a quarter of a degree less than what would happen without the Obama plan, not a quarter of a degree colder than the previous years.

More calculations:

2009 + 50 = 2059

2050 – 2009 = 41

50/41 = 1.22

1.22(80%) = 97.6%

The next 50 years will linearly reduce 97.6% of carbon emissions.

>Now the part of the Obama plan that my opponent neglects to mention:

"Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues."

I will say for the purposes of this argument that the "world's largest emitters" are the top 10 emitters. These collectively emit 82.4% of the world's carbon emissions.

>I will now make some more calculations:

0.45(0.27) = 0.1215

0.1215(0.976) = 0.118584

0.25 – 0.118584 = 0.131416

82.4 – 27 = 55.4(%)

0.45(0.554) = 0.2493

0.131416/0.2493 = 45.8(%)

>Due to my above calculations, if Obama creates half of the effect he is making in the United States in the other 9 countries alone(it could be even more than this); he will have more than half of a percent effect on the climate in the next 50 years.

>Thanks to my correct calculations, we can say that the Obama plan will have a significant effect on the climate. As my opponent said (though now applying to me), "the debate is already won… I thank my opponent for this debate."
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for a decent rebuttal.

First, we are not assuming that the Obama plan will even work. It may, or it may not. My statisctic, not the debate, assumed that the Obama plan actually worked. W can further debate whether or not the plan will work or not.

The debate, however, based on both people's calculations, establishes that nature automatically puts out a climate change of 0.

Further, this debate does not entail the entire Obama plan for Climate Change, which also may or may not work, but just the U. S. adopting his Cap and Trade program. Therefore, I must only disprove that the U.S. adopting Cap and Trade will (by itself) result in a significant effect on climate (.25 degrees Fahrenheit). The rest of Obama's plan (involving the U.N.) is not part of Obama's Cap and Trade plan.

Assuming that the Obama plan does not stop at 2050, then, yes, we can assume that Obama will continue to constrict the United States' carbon footprint to 2.4% of what it is now. This is the overall effect of Obama's Cap and Trade program.

For these reasons, my opponent's calculations do not apply.

1. I will redo my calculations:

1.35 degrees warming=150 years
50 years= .45 degrees warming
27 percent U. S. x .45 degress warming=0.27 x 0.45= 0.1215 U.S. degrees warming contribution
0.1215 U.S. degrees warming x 2.4 percent left by 2059=0.1215 x .024 = 0.002916 U.S. contribution after 50 years
0.1215 current contribution - 0.002916 remaining contribution=0.118584 warming difference

Therefore, after 50 years, even with my oppoenent's contribution to the statisctics, even making the grand assumption that it will work, Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate.

2. Further, Cap and Trade will not even work to the degree that Obama anticipates it will. Companies would just pay a high amount of money and eventually die out. This would result in power crisis (as the Coal Industry dies out), a transportation crisis (as the Oil refining industry dies out), etc. This is impractical. Power and refined oil would be imported, and thus produced in other countries, especially ones that aren't in the U.N. From this, we know that the other countries would just end up producing everything that was produced domestically, and no emmissions would be lessened overall.
In the meanwhile, jobs go overseas.

I again reassert that Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. My opponent having the U.S. annex the world does not apply to this debate.
manutdredseal46

Pro

>I thank my opponent for his response and continuation of this debate.

>My opponent has notified you, reader, that nature has climate change at 0. For the purposes of this debate, however, climate change at its current rate is about +1.6 degrees Fahrenheit per 50 years (as I have already established).

>My opponent established that the US adoption of Obama Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate ON ITS OWN. He then goes on to say that the rest of the plan cannot be used in this debate. This is where my opponent is wrong. Though the title of this debate is actually "The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate," my opponent cannot prove that the US adopting this will not have an affect on the other countries on Earth. Barack Obama's website achieves this in saying:

"Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families.

Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues."

This is exactly as it appears on the Obama website (http://my.barackobama.com...). Obama obviously wants to achieve one through the other. His goal is to "
Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change" and "create a Global Energy Forum of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues" by first "[Implementing] an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050" (in the US). Therefore, Obama's dealing with the UN are relevant towards this debate.

>I accept all of my opponent's calculations with one addition (which I mentioned last round):

0.25 – 0.118584 = 0.131416

This is the remaining needed amount of climate change (which will be global). Again, as I have already said:

82.4 – 27 = 55.4(%)

0.45(0.554) = 0.2493

0.131416/0.2493 = 45.8(%)

Because the above calculations still apply to this debate, Obama needs to create at least 45.8% of a difference in emissions under the assumption that he plans to create this conference for just 10 countries. If the number of countries is more, the percentage need is less.

>Now that my opponent is apparently at least partially satisfied with the mathematics behind Cap and Trade, we will discuss how it will work and if it will work. My opponent claims that the Obama Cap and Trade plan is impractical because it will be a detriment to oil and gas companies. 4 of the top 5 US corporations in revenue are oil and gas companies (I am counting Shell even though it is technically based in the Netherlands). They can afford to lose some of their billions of dollars of profit to keep global warming in check. Jobs will not go overseas because the income of theses companies would still be extremely high.

>I again thank my opponent for his timely responses and wish him luck in his last rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Con

This is the last round and I will condense this debate.
First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

This is the complete list of disagreements:
1. Is the UN part of the US?
2. Will Cap and Trade work?

If both are yes, then you vote PRO. Else, you vote CON.

1. As we look at the structure of the website, it immediately becomes clear that the section "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." is separate from the section "Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change." http://my.barackobama.com...
All of Obama's goals are not included in Obama's Cpap and Trade Policy. For example, Obama's tax policy is not part of Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a domestic program and has no direct effect on other countries. Its indirect effect is driving our emmissions overseas, which is also part of this planet and therefore has a net effect of zero on the global climate.

Overall temperature difference after Obama Cap and Trade = -0.118584 degrees Fahrenheit.
This is much less than .25 Degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, this effect is not significant.

Though international policy may or may not effect climate as well, this is not part of his cap and trade plan.

The full details of his plan are:
"Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families."

This is his plan. Cap and Trade is, again, domestic (in the U.S. only).

2. Oil and Gas companies were only one example of companies that will just go oversees when taxed out of this country. There is a lessening reason for them to stay here as regulation and taxation increase. A company plans to max out profits. In order to do this, they will go to a country with less regulation and less taxation. No problem. More profits. No matter what country they are in, they cannot go without pollution. A government policy isn't going to change that.

My opponent has also made the claim that oil companies make big profits and would not be effected to a major degree by this program. However, this is not true, either. Oil companies already pay more in taxes than they make as profits. http://seekingalpha.com...
However, some countries do not tax oil companies, but subsidize them instead. So, a smart oil company that wants to maximize profits would...

I urge voters to drop bias and vote CON because Cap and Trade's purpose is lost. It has such a minimal effect on climate and has such a harmful effect on the economy.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
manutdredseal46

Pro

>I again thank my respected and esteemed opponent for this debate.

>My opponent goes right out and asks whether or not the UN is a part of the US. Obviously it isn't but it is influenced heavily by the US. To update the disagreements:

1. Will Obama's work in the US and UN affect other nations enough to create a 45.8% emissions cut by 2059.

2. Will the Obama Cap and Trade plan work?

If yes, then please vote PRO.

>My opponent has clearly noticed that "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." is separate from the other sub-point "Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change." Apparently, however he has not notice that they are BOTH underneath the larger title "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050." Therefore, they have been grouped together. I would now like to prove why this is true:

Separate: unconnected; distinct; unique

Together: into or in one gathering, company, mass, place, or body

As the Obama website (http://my.barackobama.com...) clearly says, these are both grouped together into one gathering under "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050" and are not unconnected, distinct, or unique.

The above negates my opponent's claims of separation and in fact proves that these two sub-points are together.

>My opponent has obviously used the logic of "can't do it here" Do it there." To take his logic one step farther, the Obama plan is global. Because it covers the entire Earth, no matter where these companies go, the Obama plan will metaphorically follow them with its wants to cut emissions around the world.

My opponent has said that oil companies pay more taxes than they gain in profits. While this USED to be true, it is no longer. I would like to present figure 2:

http://www.taxfoundation.org...

According to figure 2, while what my opponent said used to be true, at the moment oil and gas companies DO have more money each year than they started with. Due to this, emission caps on these companies WILL, in fact, work.

> So,

Disagreements (myself and my opponent):

1. Will Obama's work in the US and UN affect other nations enough to create a 45.8% emissions cut by 2059.

YES

2. Will the Obama Cap and Trade plan work?

YES

>I thank my opponent (last time) for this excellent debate. I urge all voters to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
The votes got adjusted somehow. I ended up winning.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
This is why you can't take seriously any win or lose on this website. I've found that you can tell whether or not you've won the debate based on the comments that people leave and in their reason for decision.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
wjmelements, I feel your pain. I have been asking for non-anonymous voting for some time now. It won't stop the lack of explained votes, but at least you could view the voter's profile and determine whether or not they're likely to be voting the preferred ideology.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
There have been 11 votes, and none of them bothered to comment except magpie and KRF.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Understood. I've run into other systems that I didn't quite get. My feedback was really meant constructively as I myself have encountered situations in which people felt I was being more obscure than I intended. I might certainly be in the minority as far as your style is concerned.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
I'd just like to respond to KRFournier. My arrows are not meant to confuse, they just start my thoughts. All the stuff under them are related. Sorry if you found it confusing...
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
They have a common reason. They saw Gore's movie, they believe the hype, they vote their fear.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Now can we get someone who voted for PRO to leave a reason?
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie - Both sides exhibited decent debate etiquette

Spelling and Grammar - Con - Pro used arrows for many paragraphs, but not all, which threw me off. Sometimes I thought the paragraphs without arrows meant he was quoting Con, but it turned out not to be the case. Consistency is key when guiding the reader's thoughts.

Convincing Argument - Con - Pro did a good job refuting Con's initial argument, and for the most part, the mathematics came to a stalemate since they relied on whether or not the C&T plan would be global. This is were Pro lost me. He never explained why I should be convinced that Obama could possibly create global policy of this magnitude.

Sources - Tie - Con provided lots of resources to back his claims, but some of them ended up working in Pro's favor and evened out my vote.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Someone leave an RFD.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by FeatherintheWind 8 years ago
FeatherintheWind
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Bellalouise 8 years ago
Bellalouise
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by DrumBum1234 8 years ago
DrumBum1234
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60