The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Canadian-In-Florida
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The U.S should slowly ban gas powered cars and invest in hydrogen powered cars.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Canadian-In-Florida
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,425 times Debate No: 28342
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

This debate is about the future of our planet and decreasing Americas and the worlds mayhem in the next 60-200 years. I won't state my main reasons right now but I will say this.

Carbon dioxide emissions are melting the ice caps and Greenland at an incredible rate. If the world of the U.S doesn't do something to slow this down by the next 60- 100 years the sea level is going to rise approximately 6 feet. That means stronger hurricanes many flooded cities including New York. massive migration of people to other states, possibly overcrowding, an increased risk of pandemic and disease,and the destruction of the earths ozone layer. If we don't do something fast to reduce our co2 emissions my generation or the next generation may possibly be the last generation on earth. This is serious issue that will affect ours, and our children's future. Let's not be the civilization that could have stopped its extinction but was so obsessed with money that they practically committed suicide. In 2015 the world leaders are going to have a meeting to figure out how to save our planet. I think my suggestion should be raised at this meeting as something we can do to save our planet. If someone disagrees with this resolution I encourage that person to accept this debate.

round 1- acceptance/ intro
round 2- positions ( no refutation)
round 3- refutation
round 4- refutation
round5- summary ( no new arguments or contentions, refutation allowed.)


Acceptance of this debate equals recognition of the worlds co2 emission problem.
Canadian-In-Florida

Con

I am accepting this debate and introducing myself as a Political Science student and someone that has spent a good deal of time studying and debating international issues and concerns. Environmental issues has always been a favorite of mine to debate.

As this first round is acceptance and intro I will leave it quite simple.

My first statement is that my argument will stem from the idea that the US is not the primary concern when it comes to this issue and that subduing our emissions through banning gas cars is an inherently bad concept that will not solve the problem that my opponent claims we are facing. This debate relies on my "recognition of the worlds co2 emission problem" which, I do recognize that there is a growing level of CO2, however, my acceptance of it as a major concern of the world is strictly for purposes of this debate. I will respect my opponent's wishes and argue from a point that would consider this but my personal acceptance is varied from what my opponent has stated. That being said I look forward to a good debate and wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I am already itching to refute some statements con made but of course I must wait until next round. I believe it is appropriate however that he does not need to believe a position to take it. It's called strawmaning and I don't mind if you do it at all. As long as one actually puts forth effort.



Weighing mechanism

The weighing mechanism should be based on which side presents an argument that is more beneficial for the human race in the near future. Also it should be based on the suggestion that I should prove my plan to be worth the sacrifices we have to make in order to enact the order.



We are drowning in our own stool. It will kill us if we don't do something to reduce our waste.

The co2 emission problem is real and we can't just blow it off and say it's some scam anymore. Global warming is happening and is amplifying everyday with the major contributing action of humans. Ever since the industrial revolution and the double edged sword of fossil fuel burning was discovered we have been massively adding more carbon in the air. The record high levels of co2 that humans put in the air have been the highest in 15 to 20 million years. A change of 100 ppm usually takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. the recent change of 100 ppm has only taken 120 years. Scientists haven't seen these modern and future water levels since the glaciers melted and shifted the earth near the end of the ice age. We are producing way to much co2. Way more than our climate can absorb.

http://www.sciencemag.org...

http://www.skepticalscience.com...


So then one must beg the question of why should I care. Well if we continue burning fossil fuels and release co2 like we have been, global warming is going to melt away large portions of Greenland, and both arctic hemispheres and glaciers within 60-200 years. That would mean a 80 meter increase in water levels. If Greenland melts that's a 10 meter rise it will flood most if not all of New York, Britain, etc.... In the past 20 years 40 % of Greenland has melted faster than in 20,000 years. Besides the flooding there is also the issue of the additional trapped methane gases in the glaciers. If they melt and the super massive amounts of methane stored inside are released into the atmosphere earths magnetic field will disappear leaving us open to solar radiation burning us all into extinction. We would turn into mars or Venus basically and the magnetic field may not ever recover. So the screaming fact of the matter is WE NEED TO CHANGE!!!! My suggestion of my resolution may not fix the problem on it's own, but it is a starting point and will contribute in large way and may possibly spawn the other countries to participate in a global effort.


How Do We Fix This?

There is no immediate way to fix this. If We, the whole world stop burning fossil fuels it would take one century for the co2 levels to stabilise. However it would slowly but sure dramatically slow down the change in our climate and slow down global warming and the glacier melt down. I truly would like the entire world to stop burning fossil fuels because that way the climate would stabilize faster with a combined effort. If the U.S an stopped the healing period may double in length or triple in time it takes to recover which would not give us enough time to prevent the extinction of earths magnetic field. However for the purpose of this debate I will suggest that the U.S needs to start making these changes and hopefully influence and convince the rest of the world that we will die if we don't use and alternative fuel source than fossil fuels. If the U.S slowly bans the use of fossil fueled powered cars we can dramatically reduce the worlds cumulative carbon emission rate. After all the U.S and China are the largest contributors. This plan is incredibly better than doing nothing and waiting to die. Not taking action now and not latter is basically suicide. Why? because we can do something to stop this. If we die because of laziness or money we would be a disgraceful civilization in the history books. We would be the generation that was so procrasinistic, so obsessed with money, so obsessed with war and how big each other looks that we killed ourselves. If we commit suicide and I read about our generation I would think we were incredibly stupid for not doing something to prevent our avoidable deaths.

http://pubs.usgs.gov...

http://www.dw.de...


The U.S should invest in hydrogen powered cars as an alternative fossil fuel .

The U.S has already produced many many hydrogen powered cars. The only problem is that gas stops don't sell hydrogen fueling stations. We should invest in this and force oil companies to obtain hydrogen fueling stations. Not only would this investment save our world temporarily, but it would theoretically lower fuel prices. Hydrogen powered cars run on 200-300mpg. Why would anyone not want these type of cars? It would save us lots of money. This investment could also result in a so called green age where we actually start using the green technologies in a globalized way to improve our economies. The rest of the world may jump on board to. If this happens on a global level a new age may spurt.
Canadian-In-Florida

Con

I thank you for accepting my position on this. I have debated this issue many times, I was a former president of the United Nations Association at the University of Central Florida and one of the top members of their Model UN team. This was always a hot (not pun intended) topic for us and I was often on the opposing side of the argument compared to that of most members. I do look forward to this debate and seeing how it plays out.

The primary source of my argument is going to reside on disproving the merit of my opponent's call for a complete ban on fossil fuel cars. This disapproval will be based upon, scientific, economic, and political reasons. In addition I will offer alternative methods of potential CO2 reduction that would both be more beneficial and less of a burden on our current system.

#1
We are not drowning in stool, that is an issue that was resolved with modern sanitation and when we stopped dropping our waste out holes in the floor into the river below or beside our houses. Moving on though....

#2
I'm not going to refute my opponent's claims that we're putting record amounts of CO2 into the air in the past 20 million years. In fact, I'm not going to refute that we're putting record amounts of CO2 into the air in the past 20 years. My opponent mentioned the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels as a double edged sword and speaks of it in the past tense. Sure, enough it may have been, however, is that industrial revolution revolution over? The developing world, especially China which has had a major economic and industrial boom in the past few decades, has become more of a problem than the United States. Why is that? Because they're now going through the same phases of development that we did a century ago. In 1900 there were approximately 48 countries (49 with Australia in 1901), the rest of the world was largely colonized or undeveloped while the major powers went through their industrial booms. Now, here we are 100 years later, those empires crumbled and 196 countries are here now, 193 recognized by the UN. All those new countries are now subject to go through their own industrial revolutions at the same time. So now with 196 countries each independently producing and emitting CO2, we have a much higher rate of CO2 emission, rather than when we controlled all that territory and localized our industrial complexes and the rest of the world was mainly agriculture.

#3
Now for some critiquing of my opponent. My first point I would like to raise is that my opponent is misquoting his own sources. While it is accurate on the 80 meter increase if the entirety of Greenland, all of Antarctica, and all ice sheets globally were to melt, he does state that Greenland alone would cause a 10m increase, whereas his own source (http://pubs.usgs.gov...) states Greenland would cause 6.55m. While still significant, that's a 33% difference in his argument vs. his data, do not let my opponent use false data in his text in hopes that the readers will not check his sources. I also ask my opponent to not revert to these tactics as it is very disrespectful.

Now, onto the rest of this area. As I stated, I am coming from a standpoint that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, however, acceptance of this debate was not reliant on my accepting the urgency of this problem. From my opponent's sources, I gathered the information that:
1. In the past 20 years the total rise in sea levels has been a total of 11mm. By that calculation, of 11mm in 20 years to the USGS estimate that 10m rise would displace 25% of the American population, that would take a total of 2000 years, and to reach the total of 80 meters that the total melting would cause would be over 16000 years. Of course, they state it is accelerating but it is far from the 200 year high estimate that my opponent proposed and extremely far from the 60 year estimate. At that rate after 200 years the total rise would be 1.1m. At 60 years, 33mm. Seeing as the US has remained nearly stable in it's emissions rate in the past 20 years (http://mdgs.un.org...=), with a small surge in 1993 but remaining fairly stable since then fluctuating but not increasing or decreasing by any significant amount, I see no reason why within the next 200 years (as it took 100 for the US) much less 2000 years, the rest of the world can't stabilize themselves as well.
2. This data is created based off of satellite analysis started in the past 20 years and as stated in the article (http://www.dw.de...), "20 years is a very short time-scale to draw conclusions about climate change. "We are just beginning an observational record for ice," said co-author of the study Ian Joughlin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington. "This creates a new long-term data set that will increase as new measurements are made." Therefore, by their own admission, this is what may be called a "best guess" as they state themselves that it is a relatively short time to make these estimations.

#4 I love the idealism my opponent has in this next section, however impractical it may be. The truth is we can't just stop using fossil fuels on a dime. Too much relies on it. Now, moving on from that. My opponent states that the US and China are the largest contributors to CO2 emissions and that a slow ban on fossil fuel cars in the US would influence the world and slow things down. Well, let my explain a few things.
1. Fossil fuel cars account for 15% of global emissions
2. The developed world (OECD) accounts for 2/3 of fossil fuel car emissions
(http://www.wri.org...)
While that seems like a lot, lets go by my opponent's suggestion and do the math on this. There are 34 member nations of the OECD, total make up 42.99% of the global emissions rate. So the US, makes up 42% of that 42.99%, so if the OECD countries make up 10% of the car fossil fuel emissions, and the US makes up 42 of that, that's 4.2% of the global emissions rate. However, by eliminating fossil fuels the most logical alternative, especially on a short time scale is electricity. Problem is, they are much more polluting to the environment than fossil fuels. China uses 90% of it's electricity derived from fossil fuels, the US uses 71%. According to an article in Time, (http://healthland.time.com...) this makes electric cars in China 3.6 times worse for the environment per KM. Equate that to the US 71% and that's 2.8 times worse (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore, by transferring to electricity we would in turn make that 4.2% or 380mil Metric tonnes into a new 1.064 billion metric tonnes.

#5
You mention hydrogen powered cars, problem is, they're expensive and they're not made yet, and the rate of production is quite low. Hyundai stated they are planning to make them as of 2015, (http://edition.cnn.com...), but only 1000 the first year and only 10K per year after. In addition there is the issue with refueling stations, which according to the same article can cost over $1mil to build. Being as many fueling stations are privately owned franchises, especially in middle America, that isn't going to be very viable. The article states that by 2025 hybrids will be the choice alternative, those have similar problems to the electric ones as I stated. Fuel cells will take decades and huge infrastructure changes.

#6
I can see the benefits of the transfer to different forms of transportation. However, a ban on fossil fuel cars anytime in the near future would create massive problems. The current economy is not prepared to handle that shift, people can't afford new vehicles and the government can't afford to subsidize it.

I will address alternatives and economic issues in my next round.
Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

frozen_eclipse forfeited this round.
Canadian-In-Florida

Con

My opponent forfeited his round. I'll stand by my points made. Interesting though considering he was "itching to refute some statements con made."
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro

Well this is the first debate I've ever been forced to forfeit in. My computer wouldn't work for a week and is still not working. I'm posting this via phone. I'm not going to post anything else because I can't keep up with large paragraphs via phone. I do however need to point out one thing. MY opponent did not follow the rules nor the structure of this debate. 5herefore he should automatically loose points just for not being able to follow the directions he stated to understand upon acceptance of this debate. I clearly stated in round one and two there is to be no refutation. My opponent clearly violated this rule. I could have tackled all of my opponents claims very effectively but unforseen occurences happened to my computer so the fact that I was forced to forfeit and the fact that my opponent violated the terms of this debate gives me very valid reason to claim this debate to not be a proper debate and should not be voted upon at all. So I ask all of the audience not to vote on this debate due to my technology issues and my opponents failure to follow debate rules. For the reasons just stated above I once again ask all in the audience to not vote on this debate.
Canadian-In-Florida

Con

I admit I did screw up in the rules. That was my fault simply due to not double checking and confusing my initial post and first rounds and all that. Not making excuses and I admit my wrong there. If you wish to knock me for conduct feel free however also note that my opponent is capable of posting via phone whether he makes a post saying he can't debate this round or not he did not login even to mention that. If we're going to talk conduct yes I admit I broke that rule but my opponent also didn't mention his problem until after forfeiting a round yet still managed to write a berating and quite long argument a round after.

May I point out that failure to follow rules forfeiting rounds is not a means for not voting it's a reason for voting a certain way in regards to conduct within the debate. In the comments of this debate my opponent admits the issue he has with his computer to which I state I understand the problem. However he then posts a fairly long post in his next round in which he states he doesn't want people to vote at all due to my misconduct and his technical problems. My question is why was he unable to do this in his previous round, why did he post in both areas, and why should the work we did do be negated due to technicalities. There is a voting option for conduct and if anything it should be left tied because I did break a rule but he also forfeited a round when he clearly did have capabilities of at least logging in to state his problems and while I understand the problems he is having did not impede him from making a long post to not vote and criticize me. By the way I am writing this post on my phone as well and while it is inconvenient it's completely possible to do.

I ask all voters to ignore my opponent's request to not vote and to vote based off the questions it asks. Reliable sources, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, AND conduct. When I see my opponent acting as he just did by calling me out in a long post after claiming he can't even continue the debate because of his inability to write long posts or effectively debate makes me upset. Had he just made a quick comment asking both the readers an myself to nullify this debate then I wouldn't have had a problem but to act unilaterally in attempting to nullify both our work simply due to my breaking of a rule and his technical issues which I now see are not that serious if he can still post, those are actions that as just as if not worse conduct. Because of that I state that this debate should still be valid, no agreement to end it by the parties involved was made and therefore no one should treat it as such. Vote conduct however you choose based on my rebuttals in my first round and his forfeiting and unilaterally calling for nullifying the debate but vote the rest as you would any other debate. If anything my opponent, as he clearly demonstrated his ability to write long posts via phone, should have just asked for an ignoring of grammar in voting, as he stated in his last round that his only problem is keeping track of large paragraphs, I would have accepted that and ignored grammar if that was his problem. Or he could have shown some respect and asked me if we could nullify the debate and ask people not to vote. Instead he chose to call me out on rule breaking and call for it to not be voted on. That doesn't sound like he is having problems, it sounds to me like he just doesn't want to continue the debate. Please consider these facts when you decide to vote or not and when weighing my conduct vs his. I admit I broke a rule and I could have continued to argue my points. My opponent had multiple options from confronting me via a message and asking me to admit my fault and give up a round to making a statement in the last round or a comment and I would have ceded a round out of respect. Instead my opponent makes excuses to nullify our debate. Consider this when you vote.

Now, with all of that out of the way I would continue on and actually post an argument as it really is not that difficult to do so from a phone, as both myself and my opponent have now shown. In addition I could make an argument in this round, my last round I ceded due to his forfeit but seeing as my opponent is fully capable of posting and coul have debated still I usually would still post an argument here especially after all these problems. However, I will cede yet another round and not post any debate as punishment for my rule break. I will also offer my opponent if he can figure out how to write from his phone the opportunity to post two full comments of rebuttal to my opening statements without considering it a problem. And then we can move on to the final round and because we have wasted two rounds we will have rebuttals and closing statements in that final round.

If my opponent accepts this and posts two comments of rebuttals and his final round then I call on voters to tie out score in conduct and vote the rest of the debate as normal. If my opponent does not accept and gives up then please vote conduct to who you feel acted the best in the debate and the rest as usual.

Thank you all and please vote.
- sent from iPhone
Debate Round No. 4
frozen_eclipse

Pro

frozen_eclipse forfeited this round.
Canadian-In-Florida

Con

My opponent forfeited another round.

I leave it in the hands of the voters to make a proper decision.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
And also if we stop burning fossil fuels all together we won't have enough power to run many things. The EPA does not want us to use fossil fuels, coal, or nuclear power. What are our other options besides those.
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Global warming is a scam made up by Al Gore to make money. The science for a lot of it was cheated and over 300,000 scientists world wide say it is fake. This debate will have a lot of facts that are not true so vote con.
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 4 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
Aright, I understand with those kinds of circumstances. Does your computer not work even if it is plugged in? My computer won't charge but it will work if I use it while it's plugged into the charger.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Sorry about that. Unforseened circumstances afflict me. My computers battery won't charge. I'm having issues with it..I'm posting via phone and there's no way in hell that I can keep up with a posting on my phone so sorry..maybe we can debate this later if. You want.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
frozen_eclipseCanadian-In-FloridaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
frozen_eclipseCanadian-In-FloridaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
frozen_eclipseCanadian-In-FloridaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit :O
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
frozen_eclipseCanadian-In-FloridaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lied about something in his sources and forfeited two rounds so conduct to con. One capitalization error my pro in second round. Con destroyed pros arguments and pro had a chance to refute and he did not. Pro also did not have accurate sources.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
frozen_eclipseCanadian-In-FloridaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF