The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 24810
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than on climate change.note am a new debator


I kind of want to discuss the vagueness of the resolution.

But on the other hand, contextually, it's obvious what it is arriving at, in topic matter.

So with that I hand it over to South Africa:
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you jwesbruce for accepting my challenge.first of all i would like to define the word climate change.climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of may be a change in average weather conditions or in the distribution of weather around avarege main point on this issue is that climate change comes before the global economy so the world should focus on climate change.because if we do not focus on climate change it means that our land will be affected.e.g what if we have things such as global warming?that will be a case of one country but the world as whole will be affected.i would like to give you a very good axample by one country.let it be Zimbabwe.if there is global warming in Zimbabwe that means Zimbabwe can not produce the products it was manufacturing before because we manufacture products from raw materials.the country will have to depend on the other countries.that means there is no state income for that country.that is a process ,the economy that you were focusing on it start to decline.that will force you to go back and come with ways of ending global warming.because the economy of a country is sustained by the primary can you plant your seeds without the ground?and now where is people those are living in that country?is poverty not there?some firms will be closed up and people will be unemployed


As a brief road map I will 1) Discuss the implications of the resolution, I will then 2) describe the global economic crisis and it's implications, then 3) I will discuss Franlinpoet's understandable concerns that he mentions above. Finally, I will end with an emotionless conclusion.

Resolution reads, "The world should focus on climate change than on global economy."

It's only safe to assume that this resolution is regarding now and not later and not forever. So the resolution is a call for action either for economic policies or environment policies to become the focus of the legislative groups of various nations.

Thus it is not the job of either Franklinpoet or me to state that the economy or environment should always be the main focus. This debate is only focused on determining what governments should be focused primarily on in their upcoming legislative meetings.

Should they begin the process of cooperating with scientists and cleaning our good, green Earth?


Should they continue the process of repairing our damaged infrastructure and economies?

And it is this valid question that begins our debate today.

The Biding Shackles of the Economy

" The global economy is in the worst shape since the dark days of 2009.

Six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession. The U.S. economy is struggling again. And the economic superstars of the developing world — China, India and Brazil — are in no position to come to the rescue. They're slowing, too. " [1]

1) Europe is in a crisis in the status-quo, as illustrated through [2]:

A) Spain. In the city Castilla La-Mancha sixty-nine percent of homes built in the last three years are still unsold. Their mega company Martinsa Fadesa declared bankruptcy at the dawn of the recession. Unemployment has risen by 425,000 people. Subsequently sales have fallen 9% and 18% with household goods. The Finance minister called it the worst national recession in a half century.

B) Greece. Poor thing, their GDP is now 16% below the pre-crisis peak. 16% is astronomical. Their streets have been covered in riots. The political situation has been malicious and and has become literally violent. And with their wanting economy their carrying the rest of the Euro with them, this has a great effect on the entire continent.

received the cold shoulder by Moody's investor when they knocked their rating from Aa2 to a dismal and greatly implicative A1. In 2011 the Prime Minister announced on television that the country had to take immediate steps due to the fact that their nation altogether was facing bankruptcy.

D) Iceland. The government collapsed on January 27th, 2009. Enough said.

The list goes on and on. The U.K., specifically Ireland, Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, were all hit very hard. The common denominator of all this is millions upon millions of people have lost their jobs. Once successful nations, like Iceland, have corroded within themselves. This is a global epidemic, as the same has happened in Asia. And this, this is happening right now. Not hypothetically tomorrow but visible through your window. Real. Factual. Tangible.

2) United States [3]

The sucker that started it. I'm a huge fan of the Economist and a couple months ago they wrote a phenomanel analysis on America's situation. Basically, what it concluded is that America's middle-class is becoming swiftly non-existent. The reason being is they have abandoned their innovative, manufacturing roots. It has been dispersed to other nations, or other nations picked up the torch on such things like innovation (China, Japan.) The 2008 crisis only worsened the situation by making the dwindling of the middle class even more expediate. Without a middle class the economy of the United States is in big trouble. And the way global economy is set, intrinsically, places America as the influencer, hence why America started the Great Recession and it spread like a wild-fire to the rest of the world. If this problem is not fixed with a sense urgency then this Recession has no end in sight. [2]

The middles class
must be buffered
if this recession is to have an end in sight.

" In today's interconnected world, we can no longer afford to look only at what goes on within our national borders," IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said earlier this month. "This crisis does not recognize borders. This crisis is knocking at all our doors.

If government establish the economy as the main priority then you solve for re-establishing innovation and infrastructure because with a healthy economy--healthy investment is inevitable.

Investment pays for the scientist's job who is trying to stop the ambiguously quantified climate change problem.

You solve for the economy then you easily solve back for the environment.

The Franklinpoet Concerns

The first thing I would like to mention is that there is still debates among people much more qualified than us on whether people are actually the cause of climate change. If we aren't then Franklinpoet has no solvency. So there's already uncertainty to his solvency with that matter.

The second thing I would like to discuss is that Franklinpoet attempts to answer back for the economic crisis with his Zimbabwe analysis. Well actually he doesn't even solve for it, he just states if global warming happened in Zimbabwe then the economy would get even worse. So there is actually no solvency for the economy in Franklinpoet's paradigm, he just attempts to solve for one thing which probably won't happen hundreds of years from now, if that. But his plan is not comprehensive at all to the world's comprehensive problems.

The third issue I would like to discuss, is who exactly is the enforcement in Franklinpoet's advocacy? I hope it's not government, as that process of cleaning the Earth, through gov., would be slowed down with so much red tape, it would be completely futile. So inevitably Franklinpoet's enforcement would be the scientists from the private sector. How's that private sector doing in today's economy? If you want to seriously combat the ambiguously quantified climate-change, then you need a lot of money and power, especially since you'd have to combat nations like China, who wants nothing to do with greenness. Right now, though, there is not alot of excess money to be had. Franklinpoet's advocacy is genuine and good and completely understandable but it's slightly putting the cart before the horse.

In other words, you wouldn't try to cure a dog of cancer when it's choking on a bone.

To warrant my claim here are the numbers,

" Only 14% of those with a PhD in biology or the life sciences can find an academic post within 5 yrs.

Pharmcos also have been consolidated and jobs slashed—a 300,000 job “bloodbath,” as described by one expert.

Just 38% of new PhD chemists are employed.

If you want to fix the environment, then give them more man and financial power, and that starts with curing the financial landscape.

The harms of climate change that Franklinpoet lists are slightly entertaining because they are 1) homelessness, 2)Poverty, 3)Unemployment, 4)Private sector downfall.

My advocacy solves for these harms, granted governments make the right choices when they do focus on the economy, but these are the exact harms that are occurring right now, in today's world by the global economic crisis.


So it comes down to this:

Franklinpoet: Start working on the environment because if not, it could be devastating to economies, time period unknown.

Bruce: Keeping working on economic solutions because our economies are currently going through devastation, and a healthier investment basis solves back for the environment.

*Blob, yes, numbers legit, albeit. I observed the same numbers from multiple sources.*
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you bruce:you mentioned that six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession and the U.s economy is struggling again.on the above round i mentioned that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? Sixty nine percent of homes built in last three years are still unsold;we can not be suprised because where there is no employment there is no money.go back and look on the primary sector of that country.the Greece's GDP is 16% below the pre-crisis that is good you.GDP generally is defined as the market value of the goods and services produced by a can ask him self that why one country can produce more products than the other country.i wonder why did Greece obtain such a less percent of means that the primary sector of that country is not doing well.when we look such many things are manufactured from farming.the problem may be with the land nor the farmers.the Philippines is one of the countries that suffer the most from extreme weather events which exact a high death toll and economic losses.analyzing data from 1991 to 2010,germanwatch,a climate and development organization,said the Philippines ranked 10th among countries when it comes to exposure and responding to severe weather caused by climate change.all the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ,the study noted.aside from the philippines,there were Bangladesh,Burma,Honduras,Nicaragua,Haiti,Vietman,the Dominican republic,Pakhstan and north korea.what about these identified countries? Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change?when can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition.this year's analysis underline that less developed countries are generally more affected than industrialized countries,according to the climate risk index.with regard to future climate ,the climate risk index can serve as a warning signal indicating past vulnerability which may further increase in regions where extreme events will become more frequent or more severe through climate change.


To warrant putting the Great Recession on the side, these would be nice answers to have. I'm going to keep this round rather brief and, hopefully then, concise. As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^

The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case

Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ...

"All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. "

It should not be ignored that our environment is always in a state of flux, for this is the natural way of the world. Our world started as molten rock, now it's tropical (relatively), and later it will, scientists speculate, look quite like Mars. Climate Change cannot be stopped. It's a perpetual process. Humans no more caused it [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] then they can stop it. It should also not be ignored that the human experience is destined to become, one day, as finite as the dinosaur. However, what we do have control over is our well-being. And economics, as dull as it proves through a teacher's mouth, is a very considerable determinant of a person's well-being. And that very same economics right now is putting a lot of working fathers and mothers on the street. This debate has been rather general, thus far. But let's not forget it's reach-in-topic is real. Millions of people have lost that state of well-being, and that's one thing that we have control over to fix. We should not give up that attempt for the sake of something perpetual in nature. In the truest sense, the economy ought to be taken care of first.

In Conclusion

That's all for now, I'll hand back over to Pro [1][2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10][11] [12]

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you jwesbruce.well we can not stop climate change but we can reduce it.i find it useless to focus on the economy than on the world am living on it.jwesbruce you said that climate change cannot be stopped its a perpetual process....what we can have control on is our well will never be healthy if the world around you is affected.thats so lame to take economy as a first thing because what sustain the economy is the primary sector of the economy.we can reduce climate change.what if you can replace a regular light bulb with a compact fluerescen one?that saves 150 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.walk,bike,carpool,take mass transit,and or trhp chain.all of these things can help reduce gas consumption and one pound of carbon dioxide for each mile you do not drive.*use less hot water*it takes a lot of energy to heat water.reducing the amount used means big savings in not only your energy bills,but also in carbon dioxide emissions.using cold water for your wash saves 500 pounds of carbon dioxide a year,and using a low flow showerhead reduces 350 pounds of carbon dioxide.we have much power to take care of the world you are living on it a hard thing to plant a tree?a single tree can absorb one ton of carbon dioxide a year.


jwesbruce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Franklinpoet 4 years ago
Atleast you are not still doing grade 11 have to go to school and do school and this big issue
Posted by jwesbruce 4 years ago
This marks the last time I stay up until 5am making a damn argument. Half of my argument is gone, awesome!!! so much frustration just all up in my veins right now. whoaaaa
No votes have been placed for this debate.