The Instigator
Parth67333
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 4/10/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,384 times Debate No: 22717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Parth67333

Pro

Dear Opponent,
Thanks for accepting for this debate.
Let's start the debate.
Fossil fuel has some major impacts in our lifes. It usage has resulted in economic development, job opportunities and environmental issues that is industrial revolution. Today, I will be speaking for the topic. The temperatures have been rising steadily but we have to stop it.rising temperatures is turning the life of living organisms.
I agree that there are other causes of global warming but fossil fuel is the most important one. It's burning have resulted in cheap and in mass way to produce energy but with the cost of our environment. It produces green house gases which pollutes our environment. It is resulted in shorter human life expectancy.
imabench

Con

I accept this argument and will argue why stopping the usage of fossil fuels is not the ONLY way to combat global warming. I will use the following arguments about why it is not the only way

1) Global Warming can resolve itself
2) CO2 only impacts the atmosphere in huge numbers, simply making machines that run on fossil feuls more efficient and less pollutant will do the trick
3) Plants and Ocean bacteria are the biggest contributors to scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere so increasing their numbers would help combat global warming
4) There are multiple high-tech ways to fight global warming, such as launching mirrors into space to deflect sunlight
5) Since cars are the biggest contributors to CO2, making them more efficient will really cut back on Global Warming
6) There is already more reliance being placed on greener technologies and more investment into them will offset the effect that burning fossil fuels has on the environment, meaning we wouldnt have to actually ELIMINATE fossil feul usage completely
7) Technologies such as mass transit severely cut back on CO2 emissions even though they themselves often run on CO2.

To those of you who thinks that global warming doesnt exist or isnt man-made, Im not going to derail this argument with those points of view im staying on topic on this one.

That is my opening round, I now will wait for the Pro to give his opening arguments. Other than that,

Debate Round No. 1
Parth67333

Pro

I agree with my opponent that The technologies are advancing steadily but They are not so economical :

1)I agree it could have resolved itself but due to human activities that have completely disturbed e bio geochemical cycles which are carbon cycle , nitrogen cycle and oxygen cycle- it is not likely possible.

2) it's not to total extent possible at advancing the technology , which we are doing to completely stop the exhaustion of Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

It's will better option for us to use biofuels which exhaust no gas at all and can be used wi current car engines by mixing them to some percentage of gasoline.
Electric car are also a cheap solution and many major manufacturer are putting an effort to get electric cars in market.
Hybrid cars with ability to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water and using hydrogen as a fuel are also developing and are currently present in the market.

3) Plants and Ocean surface bacteria have a major role in carbon cycle.
Human hunt for deep sea fossil fuel and traveling on ships through marine routes have resulted in depletion of half of the ocean surface bacteria from the pacafic ocean which has harmed the whole world in some way or the other.
I have to just conclude here that it is just because of us humans that the situation is getting out of hand and we may not be able to recove r from it if we don't react immeadetely and efficiently.

4) Launching mirror into the space to deflect sunlight is very expensive.it is much cost efficient to just move from fossil fuel which is non renewable source of energy to renewable sources of energy.

To conclude I would just like to say that it is because of the greediness.of us human that the resources which takes millions of years to refurbish which available to us are depleting and we have to take a good cause against money and solve and get out of this situation.
imabench

Con

- 1 - Global Warming could resolve itself
"due to human activities that have completely disturbed e bio geochemical cycles which are carbon cycle , nitrogen cycle and oxygen cycle- it is not likely possible."
Humanity is aware that it is disrupting these cycles though, there is awareness to try to halt activities that disrupt these cycles. For example, the nitrogen cycle can be disrupted when nitrogen based fertilizers run off into lakes and cause algae booms, so farmers now know to be less trigger happy with fertilizers to not disrupt the nitrogen cycle. There are similar initiatives to prevent disrupting these cycles too.

Furthermore these cycles arent something that can be broken, human activities have disrupted them at the most they can still be repaired and be returned to normal patterns.

Lastly, the Earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling. These are not based off of CO2 levels and these periods of warming always have resolved themselves without the help of people. This could very well be one of those periods and now that humans have the ability to impact it, so we dont have to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels completely to fix this period of warming since the Earth has been able to resolve these thins by itself.

- 2 - CO2 only has an impact if emitted in huge quantities
" it's not to total extent possible at advancing the technology"

Thats according to you, right now there are cars that use a variety of technologies to make cars get 40 mpg easy, and some that are hybrids can get up to 50 mpg, like the Fiat 500. Some really advanced cars though like the Nissan Leaf get up to 100 mpg. Basically if 10 people drive Nissan Leafs, it will offset the CO2 made from over 60 other cars that et 10mpg.
http://money.cnn.com...

Another thing, efficiency doesnt have to improve to a point where nothing is emitted anymore, it just needs to be improved enough and implemented in enough places to severely reduce CO2 emissions.

The technology does exist, its only getting better and better, and we dont have to improve efficiency to infinity, it just has to be raised enough to reduce CO2 emissions to a point where it no longer effects the environment.

"It's will better option for us to use biofuels which exhaust no gas at all and can be used wi current car engines by mixing them to some percentage of gasoline."
That sounds like a really good idea but biofuels still give off CO2..... Its fossil fuels with a different profile picture.

"Vehicles running on biodiesel still emit the same amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as they did while running on diesel fuel"
http://thegreatbilby.com...
Also you probably dont know that cars that run on gas cant run on biofuels. Thats in the link too

"Hybrid cars with ability to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water and using hydrogen as a fuel are also developing and are currently present in the market."
Yeah but its easier to combine electric and gas engines in cars because the mpg is still limited to the point where they emit far less CO2 compared to any old gas powered car.

- 3 - Plants + Bacteria in the Ocean fight CO2 the most so increasing their numbers is an option.
"Human hunt for deep sea fossil fuel and traveling on ships through marine routes have resulted in depletion of half of the ocean surface bacteria from the pacafic ocean"
That would be concerning if it were true in any way at all....

As for the plants argument the Pro hasnt touched it at all. Lets face it a single tree can remove more CO2 then all the hybrids in the world because hybrids dont remove CO2 from the atmosphere, they only dont emit any.

If the purpose is to combat global warming, then eliminating fossil fuel isnt the best thing to do because cars that dont burn fossil fuels dont remove CO2 from the atmosphere, nature does though. That being said planting more trees is a hell of a better alternative to fighting global warming then halting the burning of all fossil fuels.

- 4 - High tech solutions to fighting global warming
"Launching mirror into the space to deflect sunlight is very expensive.it is much cost efficient to just"

Read the resolution of the debate. We are debating whether or not stopping fossil fuels is the ONLY way to combat global warming, not that stopping fossil fuels is the MOST EFFICIENT way to combat global warming. Mirrors in space is still a possible option, thus it defeats the resolution.

If we are debating the simplicity of things though lets examine halting the burning of all fossil fuels. Here is a list of reasons of why halting all burning of CO2 may cause problems,
- If we put a ban on use of fossil fuel, economies would collapse, the developing nations of middle eastern countries with large oil reserves would lose their main source of income and revenue while modern countries would struggle in making the transition off of an oil based economy
- It will affect billions of people too since most cars use fossil fuels as their source of energy, removing fossil fuels would take lifetimes to transition off of without causing people to lose all means of transportation.
- A large proportion of the worlds energy comes from coal, and some countries do not have the means to transition to more expensive greener sources of energy.
- Entire industries would be forced to die out which would leave millions unemployed at a time when world economies are still trying to get back on their feet.

And thats just off the top of my head.

Lets examine some other cool ways to fight global warming.
- Making clouds to reflect more sunlight
- Carbon Sequestration (Taking CO2 and shoving it underground or in containers)
- Paint roads and roofs white to reflect sunlight
- Build open skyscrapers that only have plants to increase CO2 removal in the same amount of land space
http://knowledge.allianz.com...

- 5 - Making cars more efficient could eliminate the amount of CO2 emitted which, if reduced enough, would have no effect on exacerbating global warming

Unaddressed by the Pro

- 6 - Increasing reliance on greener technology eliminating reliance on coal can also reduce CO2 emissions to the point where CO2 emissions would no longer exacerbate global warming

Unaddressed by the Pro

- 7 - Technologies like Mass Transit reduce CO2 emissions drastically even though they too run on fossil fuels

Unaddressed by the Pro
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Let me make this perfectly clear, the Resolution is that stopping the use of fossil fuels is the only way to combat global warming. That being said,
1) I have shown that there are MANY ways to combat global warming, which defeats the resolution right there
2) I have shown that these ways can be MORE effective then cutting all reliance on fossil fuels since simply cutting reliance on fossil fuels doesnt remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere
3) I have shown how the Earth itself may be able to resolve this period of warming itself since it has done so in the past without human help

I wait for the pro's counter arguments
Debate Round No. 2
Parth67333

Pro

Fossil fuels have been powering the world the industrial development and amenities of modern life that we enjoy since 1700s
But this has not been without any undesirable side effects. Combustion of fossil fuel have resulted in abundant production of carbon dioxide , carbon monoxide , hydrochlorocarbons , chlorofluorocarbons, sulphur dioxide,oxides of nitrogen , particulate matter and the lead components. These gases are commonly know as greenhouse gases. Respiration of these gases in light quantities result in shorter life expectancy.
An average car is driven about 12000 miles an year, and it it consumes about 600 gallon of gasoline .Therefore a car emits 5600 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere a year .
It causes greenhouse effect and is steadily raising the average temperature of the Earth , creating an imbalance in our Eco system and challenging the existence of life on earth.
Urban smog is a large stagnant air mass. It is mainly made up of ground level ozone and carbon monoxide. Both of these gases are posinous. It causes shortness of breat , wheezing, fatigue, headaches, nausea , and respiratory problems such as asthma.

Another gas released by combustion is sulphur dioxide and it causes acid rain which causes damage.to life and property.

Another major gas release from fossil fuel is carbon monoxide which is colorless, odorless, posinous gas. It is emitted by motor vehicles. It deprives the body's organ to get the required oxygen. It is a serious threat to people with heart disease because of the fragile condition of the circulatory system and to fetuses because of the oxygen required by the developing brain.
Chlorofluorocarbons and oxides of nitrogen depletes the ozone layer.
Depletion of ozone layer can cause skin infection and cancer to human beings.
imabench

Con

All previous arguments have been dropped by the Pro.

"Combustion of fossil fuel have resulted in abundant production of carbon dioxide , carbon monoxide , hydrochlorocarbons , chlorofluorocarbons, sulphur dioxide,oxides of nitrogen , particulate matter and the lead components. These gases are commonly know as greenhouse gases."

Humanity has been around for thousands of years longer than cars and other things that make CO2. Humans emit CO2 so much they so it in their sleep, and even though there have been billions of humans in the history of time emitting all of that CO2, The Earth has been perfectly fine. In fact there was a period of 300 years from 1550 to 1850 when humanity was in huge numbers, the Earth even went into a period of cooling known as "The Little Ice Age" where global temperatures took a huge dip.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

To those who people who b*tch and moan about my use of Wikipedia as a source, here are other sources about the Little Ice Age that I am also using to back up this argument, like I do with all my arguments whenever I quote Wikipedia.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu...
http://www.eh-resources.org...
http://www.windows2universe.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.grisda.org...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

That should do it.

"It causes greenhouse effect and is steadily raising the average temperature of the Earth , creating an imbalance in our Eco system and challenging the existence of life on earth."
Heres the thing though, those green house gases are necessary to the survival of most life forms because without greenhouse gases Earth would be much too cold.
http://environment.about.com...

"Urban smog is a large stagnant air mass. It is mainly made up of ground level ozone and carbon monoxide. Both of these gases are posinous. It causes shortness of breat , wheezing, fatigue, headaches, nausea , and respiratory problems such as asthma."
But it is only limited to urban areas and even then it still only effects a small percentage of urban areas enough to cause health problems. Smog is not correlated with population because cities can be cleaner/greener than other cities which fights smog.

The top 10 smog ridden cities in the US are shown in this link.
http://www.fitsugar.com...
http://gothamist.com...

If you look at the list you will see that Visalia-Porterville, California is number 2 overall whereas New York City didnt even make the list. That is because New York City has gone green recently (see the second link). This implies that how green a city is can determine how smoggy it is, not how big the city is.

Point is, smog only affects a few cities and can be combated by using green technologies.

"Another gas released by combustion is sulphur dioxide and it causes acid rain which causes damage.to life and property."
Sulfur Dioxide only causes acid rain if in large numbers and emitted in a highly concentrated areas, the atmosphere can tolerate a good amount of SO2 already so once again we dont have to completely eliminate consumption of fossil fuels to fix the problem, all we have to do is improve efficiency. Improving efficiency of engines is far easier, more logical, cheaper, and faster way to combating the emission of SO2 than eliminating usage of fossil fuels completely

There are problems associated with burning fossil fuels, however just limiting the amount of gases emitted by a little bit is often enough to solve the problem because the Earths atmosphere can and has tolerated all of these gasses for centuries and has done a pretty good job of handling it.

We dont need to STOP the usage of fossil fuels as the ONLY way we can combat Global Warming. There are many other more feasible options such as just lowering their use, or using other solutions completely, to combat Global Warming.
Debate Round No. 3
Parth67333

Pro

"My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle."
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu...

The above statement was given in one of the cons source which was completely true.
The cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown, but many people have pointed at the coincidence in low sunspot activity and the timing of the Little Ice. This so called Maunder Minimum2 coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, in particular during the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots were a rare occurrence, as noted by solar observers such as Cassini and Flamsteed3. A minimum in sunspots, indicates an inactive and possibly colder sun and qonsequently less energy output to warm the earth.
It is not necessary that little ice age will affect our climate in the future.

The con completely ignored to main point according to which :
1) Green house effect have been keeping the earth warm from the existence of Earth
2) but due to increase in the presence of carbon dioxide and methane. Greenhouse effect raises the temperature far beyond the required temperature and it is completely dependent on use of fossil fuel.
3) it is currently happening in the world.

Btw according to con by reducing the use of fossil fuel we can fight global warming
But we will still be polluting the atmosphere from it's harmful pollutants.
SO THE BEST WAY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING IS TO STOP THE USAGE OF FOSSIL FUEL.
We can't deny the fact that urban smog is affecting the cities of many countries and it is caused due to fossil fuel , so the best way to stop it is the stoppage of the production of fossil fuel.

Acid rain has been affecting us from the starting of industrial revolution and it is directly related to fossil fuel emission. In this long period human have not able a suitable method to stop acid rain , so , the best way is to stop the usage of fossil fuels.
imabench

Con

" In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.""

The Little Ice Age argument was to show that the Earth naturally and even sporadically creates its own periods of cooling which if the same thing happened today would reduce global warming. It also was to show that the Earth also naturally warms up and cools down despite the existence of humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere through natural respiration.

"A minimum in sunspots, indicates an inactive and possibly colder sun and qonsequently less energy output to warm the earth. It is not necessary that little ice age will affect our climate in the future."
Little Ice ages are correspondent with decreased sunspot activity, therefore if in the future the sun DID decrease in sunspot activity then the Earth would cool.

I mention that because it is expected that the sunspot activity will decrease in the near future.
http://www.universetoday.com...
http://articles.latimes.com...
http://www.wired.co.uk...
http://www.sott.net...
http://tobefree.wordpress.com...

"Green house effect have been keeping the earth warm from the existence of Earth"
Yes and it is vital to our existence because without it temperatures worldwide would be 30 degrees colder and the ecosystem as we know it wouldnt be able to survive

'but due to increase in the presence of carbon dioxide and methane. The Greenhouse effect raises the temperature far beyond the required temperature and it is completely dependent on use of fossil fuel."
Temperatures dont have to be perfect for the Earth to be able to sustain itself. The range of global temperatures possible to sustain life on Earth varies by up to a dozen degrees, and recently temperatures have only risen 1 to 2 degrees despite all the CO2 being outputted for centuries.

http://www2.ucar.edu...
http://www.bitsofscience.org...

Yet life could still go on even if temperatures rose 6 degrees.
http://globalwarming.berrens.nl...

" it is currently happening in the world."
By 1 degree over the past 100 years and we are already taking initiatives to reduce CO2 output.

"Btw according to con by reducing the use of fossil fuel we can fight global warming. But we will still be polluting the atmosphere from it's harmful pollutants. SO THE BEST WAY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING IS TO STOP THE USAGE OF FOSSIL FUEL."

1) Global warming can be stopped in a multitude of ways
2) The Earth naturally removes CO2 from the atmosphere all the time, we do not have to eliminate all emissions to eliminate global warming. All we have to do is cut them enough so that nature can naturally offset the rest that is emitted and then global warming would be nullified
3) We are arguing whether or not stopping all consumption of fossil fuels is the ONLY way to COMBAT global warming. NOT whether or not stopping all consumption of fossil fuels is the BEST way to ELIMINATE global Warming.

"We can't deny the fact that urban smog is affecting the cities of many countries and it is caused due to fossil fuel , so the best way to stop it is the stoppage of the production of fossil fuel."
Pro drops all arguments about how the use of green technology can eliminate smog from cities, meaning that we dont have to cut all consumption of fossil fuels to eliminate smog in cities.

"In this long period human have not able a suitable method to stop acid rain , so , the best way is to stop the usage of fossil fuels."
Yes we have, the atmosphere can absorb a good amount of Sulfur Dioxide without acid rain occurring. Emissions of SO2 only have to be limited to a critical number to prevent acid rain because those emissions diffuse in the atmosphere to the point where they arent in enough numbers to cause acid rain.

Let me finish with these points,
1) The Earth can already by itself remove large amounts of CO2 and SO2 from the atmosphere
2) We dont have to eliminate CO2 emissions to end global warming, we only have to limit it to a certain amount.
3) There are many other ways to combat global warming besides eliminating all consumption of fossil fuels
4) Stopping the usage of all fossil fuels isnt practical and the Pro hasnt even addressed this argument
5) Temperatures over the last 100 years have risen only 1 degree, and now we have green technologies to exploit
6) There are ways to fight global warming, smog, and acid rain that doesnt require ending all consumption of fossil fuels
Debate Round No. 4
Parth67333

Pro

To conclude I just want to say by taking the effects of pollutants of fossil fuel on life and property are extreme. If stop the use the use of fossil fuel these effects will completely removed.
I hope we all understand the requirement of stopping fossil fuel. It will be put to effect immeadetely.

Ps: iambench, thanks for your participation and opinion in such a crucial topic affecting life.
imabench

Con

" the effects of pollutants of fossil fuel on life and property are extreme. If stop the use the use of fossil fuel these effects will completely removed."
Fossil Fuel powered cars have been around for 100 years and most of them got about 4 miles to the gallon. Trains and steamships used top run entirely on coal and have been around for 200 years and counting. Airplanes have always run on gasoline and they have been around for a good number of decades too. coal power plants were the earliest form of electricity and for a while was the only way to generate electricity in the world.

All this went on for decades and decades, and in response to this abuse that has lasted 100 years, the Earth's temperatures rose just by 1 degree......

The effects of these fossil fuels are benign even in ridiculously large quantities, but their effect can be removed if human actions were cancelled through a multitude of ways that are more practical to implement and more cost effective to work with then stopping all consumption of fossil fuels.

"I hope we all understand the requirement of stopping fossil fuel. It will be put to effect immeadetely."
Which is impossible to enforce, impractical to commerce, lethal to economies both modern and developing, and most of all extreme and unnecessary. We don't need to eliminate all fossil fuel consumption to offset global warming, we just have to go with the flow of making engines more efficient, using greener technologies, and thinking outside the box to fight global warming.

Dropped arguments by the Pro:
- It is not practical to stop the usage of all fossil fuels because it cant be enforced and would cripple economies around the world
- Many countries depend on fossil fuel use to become industrialized and those countries aren't even the biggest consumers of fossil fuels. If the top countries were to go greener it would offset all the other countries that depend on fossil fuel consumption pollution wise.
- Airplanes, cars, trucks, trains almost all run on fossil fuels, if we immediately stopped consumption of them transportation and commerce as we know it would die
- Making cars more efficient and the increased use of public transportation rather than individual transportation can substantially reduce the amount of CO2 produced even though these green machines do run on fossil fuels
- Sunspot activity is expected to hit a low in the near future and since sunspot activity correlates to temperatures on Earth, the best way to stop global warming could quite literally be to wait a few years.
- Millions and millions of people in the world are employed in the mining or drilling or refining or distribution of fossil fuels. They would all be unemployed if we were to suddenly cease consumption of fossil fuels
- There are numerous other green technologies and high tech ways we can fight global warming. Almost all of which are more practical, feasible, and cost effective
- The Earth can tolerate rising temperatures without all life being destroyed. Over the past 100 years temperatures have only risen 1 degree total whereas Earth could still tolerate a rise of 6 degrees. This means that the Earth isn't living on the edge, there is room to work with temperature wise and we still have room to work with to reduce global warming without resorting to drastic measures. Such measures would be stopping the use of all fossil fuels completely
- The Earth is massive, and so is its atmosphere. The atmosphere can absorb large amounts of CO2 without there being a dire effect on global warming so we don't need to penny pinch, we only need to reduce our output or offset it through the use of greener technologies

And most importantly of all

- The Earth naturally has ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis of plants and other producer organisms. We do not need to stop all emissions of CO2 by stopping all consumption of fossil fuels, we only need to reduce emissions enough so that the amount of CO2 produced minus the amount of CO2 that is photosynthesized by plants is either Zero or negligible.

I hope I have satisfied my BOP that stopping fossil fuel consumption is not the only way to stop global warming.

I thank the Pro for a splendid debate and I thank the voters for reading :D
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
+1. Good argument.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
+1. Good argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
Parth67333imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Not only is stopping the usage of fossil fuels not the only way to combat global warming (duh), there is also better alternatives that don't have a horrendous effect on our economy.