The Instigator
lord_megatron
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

global warming (pro) vs fuel crisis (con) which is more important?

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: 5/22/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 91648
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

lord_megatron

Con

Currently, it would take more time for global warming to become extremely lethal than it would be for the fuel crisis. We must work on devising alternative clean and efficient sources of energy rather than JUST planting trees. Moreover, dealing with the fuel crisis will reduce global warming as well as vehicles cause pollution.
Also, some of these links believe global warming may not be true-
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
http://www.friendsofscience.org...
http://www.globalclimatescam.com...
David_Debates

Pro

Seeing as you took the liberty to post an argument in round 1, I will as well. Beginning with definitions:

Fuel crisis: a great bottleneck (or price rise) in the supply of energy resources to an economy.
Global warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.

Now, I'll refute your arguments.
1) Currently, it would take more time for global warming to become extremely lethal than it would be for the fuel crisis.
The fuel crisis will also take a long time to become extremely lethal. I don't see a lot of death when it comes to the fuel crisis. As defined above, this means if there is less supply, and the same demand, prices will rise. Until Mad Max becomes a reality, no one will be killing each other over a gallon of gasoline or a watt of electricity.

2) We must work on devising alternative clean and efficient sources of energy rather than JUST planting trees.
I agree. We shouldn't be focused on "JUST planting trees." Global warming is a way bigger problem than can be solved by planting a few saplings. According to Scientific American, "...A new study, however, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that forests' other climatic effects can cancel out their carbon cleaning advantage in some parts of the world. Using a three-dimensional climate model, the research team mimicked full global deforestation and also studied the effects of clear-cutting in different regions of latitude, such as the tropics and boreal zones. Apparently, these natural carbon sinks only do their job effectively in tropical regions; in other areas, they have either no impact or actually contribute to warming the planet. In fact, according to this model, by the year 2100, if all the forests were cut and left to rot, the annual global mean temperature would decrease by more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit (1)." Trees are not the primary factor when it comes to decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I could get more into this, but I'll move onto your third point.

3) Moreover, dealing with the fuel crisis will reduce global warming as well as vehicles cause pollution.
Or will it? Studies done by the EIA (Energy Immision Administration) indicate that cars create approximately 29% of CO2 emissions (2). The rest? Factories, businesses, and other modes of transportation. Vehicles altogether count for only 34.9% of man-made CO2 emmisions (2). Attacking the fuel crisis alone would be to ignore 65.1% of other man-made scorces of CO2!

4) Also, some of these links believe global warming may not be true-
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com......
http://www.friendsofscience.org......
http://www.globalclimatescam.com......
First off, links don't believe anything. The people who write them do. Secondly, your first link redirects me to an article that tells me, "Here are the top 5 arguments for and against global warming." In other words, the article does not affirm or deny global warming.
Your second article redirects me to a couple, as the site calls them, "COMMON MISSCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING." In response, here is a site on facts about global warming: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
Your final site redirects me to an article written by the one and only expert on the subject: ElmerB. I recommend you read this article in it's full extent. He goes on to discuss how polar bears are thriving, why snowfall means it isn't really that hot, and moose are "making a comeback."

Vote Pro.

(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(2) http://www.eia.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Con

"1) Currently, it would take more time for global warming to become extremely lethal than it would be for the fuel crisis.... No one will be killing each other over a gallon of gasoline or a watt of electricity."
Yes, the fuel shortage won't kill lives, but it would make survival difficult, as energy production would be severely affected. However, currently global warming isn't killing anyone as such, yes the Polar bears are losing some habitat, but according to my sources Arctic ice had increased from 2010, which is contrary to the expectations of global warming experts. For the temperature to be above the limit for our survival would take a lot more time than for fuel sources to be drained.
"2) We must work on devising alternative clean and efficient sources of energy rather than JUST planting trees."
You have agreed to this point.
"3) Moreover, dealing with the fuel crisis will reduce global warming as well as vehicles cause pollution"
You say vehicles cause 34.9 percent of co2 emissions. What do factories and businesses use? Fuel, or in short electricity. Electricity production happens through clean sources like dams, solar panels and stuff, but also through nuclear reactors and generators. Generators take fuel. That adds up as well. Plus, does gasoline count as a fuel source? If it does, then its burning and production also cause pollution. Dealing with the fuel crisis will definitely impact global warming.
4) Also, some of these links believe global warming may not be true.....Your final site redirects me to an article written by the one and only expert on the subject: Elmer B. I recommend you read this article in it's full extent"
I read the article, it gives ten reasons why climate change is a hoax.

Your link -http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
It says that temperature rose by 0.8 celsius in the past century. It doesn't say which two years are being compared. And even if it is true, just see how much time global warming has before it affects us severely. Temperature increase in different localities are different as well.
The facts on this site are mostly predictions about the future effects of global warming, and data from the previous century that could have been moulded due to outliers, such as location and the weather cycle.
Some more links (or people) that are against global warming-
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
http://www.techtimes.com...
http://townhall.com...

Anyways, I would say that there is no concrete measurement of the intensity of global warming. Our weather prediction is bad enough as it is, what makes the people believe in global warming all of a sudden? Global warming has been overhyped due to media attention and the media should give more focus to the fuel shortage.

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk...
Here's a link that shows the predicted rate of fossil fuel depletion. Yes, it may not be accurate, but the fact that fossil fuels take millions of years to form is accepted everywhere, and that once we are out of fuel, we may have no way of getting it back anytime sooner. Worse still, there are oil deposits in the Arctic, and if extraction takes place, it will have a negative effect on global warming. But if the fuel crisis is dealt with, there will be no need to melt the ice. Rather than looking at solving global warming before the fuel problem, we must solve the fuel shortage before global warming. Just look at the time spans. Fuel would run out roughly in a 100 years, global warming would only increase 2 celsius average in a 100 years, if the emissions double from the present.
David_Debates

Pro

1) Yes, the fuel shortage won't kill lives, but it would make survival difficult, as energy production would be severely affected. However, currently global warming isn't killing anyone as such, yes the Polar bears are losing some habitat, but according to my sources Arctic ice had increased from 2010, which is contrary to the expectations of global warming experts. For the temperature to be above the limit for our survival would take a lot more time than for fuel sources to be drained.
First off: "according to my sources Artic ice had increased from 2010, which is contrary to the expectiations of global warming experts." What sources? Who wrote them? Are they up to date? Second, "For the temperature to be above the limit for our survival would take a lot more time than for fuel sources to be drained." Actually, it's not the temperature, it's the water! According to the National Wildlife Federation, "New science published after the IPCC report has shown how global warming is happening faster than anticipated (1)." I recomend you read the article I'll link to this argument.

2) We must work on devising alternative clean and efficient sources of energy rather than JUST planting trees."
You have agreed to this point.

Not exacly. If you look through my Round 1 argument, I say I agree with you when it comes to "JUST planting trees." I then go on to state that trees are not the primary factor when it comes to cleaning up the enivironment. In other words, this statement you made is grossly overversimplfiying the problem that global warming is. Seeing as you may have been confused with my argument in round 1, I'll state it now: I dissagree with this point.

3) Moreover, dealing with the fuel crisis will reduce global warming as well as vehicles cause pollution
You say vehicles cause 34.9 percent of co2 emissions. What do factories and businesses use? Fuel, or in short electricity. Electricity production happens through clean sources like dams, solar panels and stuff, but also through nuclear reactors and generators. Generators take fuel. That adds up as well. Plus, does gasoline count as a fuel source? If it does, then its burning and production also cause pollution. Dealing with the fuel crisis will definitely impact global warming.
And how is that electricity generated, Con? There's a scientific formula, in case you are unaware: Motion + Magnetism = Electricity. The most common way to get that motion is by using fossil fuels. Not hydropower, not solar panels, but fossil fuels. Annother limited resource. According to the EIA, renewables (Neuclear, hydropower, and other renewables) produce 1/3 of all electric power in the US (2). We are already formulating clean energy sources, as you would call them, and yet global warming is still occuring!

4) Also, some of these links believe global warming may not be true.....Your final site redirects me to an article written by the one and only expert on the subject: Elmer B. I recommend you read this article in it's full extent
I read the article, it gives ten reasons why climate change is a hoax.
I'm glad you read your own article, but what I'm attacking is ElmerB's credibility as an expert on the subject of global warming. Using his article as proof is like finding annother debate on DDO and using their argument. He's a lay witness to the effects of global warming, and his "findings" should not be treated as evidence.

5) The facts on this site are mostly predictions about the future effects of global warming, and data from the previous century that could have been moulded due to outliers, such as location and the weather cycle.
The facts on your site are also predictions about the future effects of a fuel shortage. Have you read your article? You even say it yourself, "Here's a link that shows the predicted rate of fossil fuel depletion." You even add that it is not accurate!
Your link:
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk......

In other words, your arguments have an equal amount of proofs against them. And since you are offering a counterplan, BoP is shared between Pro and Con. I've already shown how global warming is a reality, and you accept that. "If it does, then its burning and production also cause pollution. Dealing with the fuel crisis will definitely impact global warming (Round 2, Con)." You agree to global warming being a problem caused by our pollution.

My plan is to encourage growth of plant life to counteract the effects of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. Specificaly, to fertilize the ocean to encourage growth of algae in the ocean. Lead Researcher Prof. Rob Raiswell of Leeds University, part of a research team devoted to combating global warming through algae, states, "The team will seek to create a massive algae bloom by releasing several tons of iron sulphate into the sea off the coast of the British island of South Georgia. The patch will apparently be large enough to be visible from space (3)." The article also states that "If successful, the technique could be rolled out across vast swathes of the Great Southern Ocean. Scientists calculate that if the whole 20 million square miles was treated, it could remove up to three and a half Gigatons of C02, equivalent to one eighth of all global annual emissions from fossil fuels (3)." Out of all the possible ways to combat global warming, this seems to be the one that holds up.

I await Con's rebuttal.
David_Debates

(1) https://www.nwf.org...
(2) https://www.eia.gov...
(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Con

"First off: "according to my sources Arctic ice had increased from 2010, which is contrary to the expectations of global warming experts."
Sorry, was a typing error, I meant it increased from 2012. The link is http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
"Actually, it's not the temperature, it's the water! According to the National Wildlife Federation, "New science published after the IPCC report has shown how global warming is happening faster than anticipated"
The global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century. The source is http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... and if the rate of rising sea level remains same, it won't be having much effect. Also, it may promote development of underwater cities as they would have to do it for survival.
"And how is that electricity generated, Con? There's a scientific formula, in case you are unaware: Motion Magnetism = Electricity. The most common way to get that motion is by using fossil fuels. Not hydropower, not solar panels, but fossil fuels. Annother limited resource. "
Exactly what I said. We must find a viable replacement of fossil fuels rather than targeting the removal of co2. If production of co2 continues at this level, what will be the use of reducing it through plants and stuff when we can directly attack the source? It is just like instead of plugging a leak in a ship, we take a bucket and keep throwing the water away. First we must tackle the leak, then we can clean up the ship.
"You even say it yourself, "Here's a link that shows the predicted rate of fossil fuel depletion." You even add that it is not accurate"
Yes, but the point I want to make is that fossil fuels are a finite resource and must be saved for later generations, or we will run out of it sooner or later. The predictions may or may not be accurate, but we all know that production of fossil fuel is not possible. We have to drill under the Earth to find their reserves. If there is a way to make sure energy production continues, we must take more concrete steps towards finding new sources of energy.
"I've already shown how global warming is a reality, and you accept that"
Just for this debate. Otherwise it will become a separate debate, and we will divert from the crux of the debate.

The greenhouse gases make up a very small percentage of the air. In fact, http://www.friendsofscience.org...... claim that water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas and causes the most heating up effect. That being said, 7 billion humans breathe out carbon-dioxide everyday. Should we start killing people? But instead if we tackle the source, naturally even with the number of plants we have right now co2 will be gradually reduced and temperatures would recede to normal. Also, eliminating all greenhouse gas will result in an ice age, and they shouldn't be seen as some sort of dirty pollutants. Co2 is a natural gas that has existed for many years on this Earth. Has co2 really increased that much, or is there another reason? And are the readings of 1900's even correct? Weather science is still flawed and developments are still occurring, how can we rely that readings of previous unadvanced centuries were correct and that this century is really colder than before? Diversion-
Fossil fuels have not been used properly until the industrial revolution, when machines required power that was generated from fossil fuels, and drills were made that could find new reservoirs of oil. "Until Mad Max becomes a reality, no one will be killing each other over a gallon of gasoline or a watt of electricity." Yet we know the unrest in the Middle East is because nations want to take control of the oil reservoirs. Worse still, fossil fuels can't be synthetically produced in lab, at least without wasting more resources than it is worth. Say if there was a way to utilize the energy of fossil fuel without burning it and causing pollution, how valuable and eco-friendly would fossil fuels become? And if a new energy source that would be renewable and cost efficient was invented, wouldn't people remark burning stuff for energy as archaic? We already have a solution to decrease co2, we must at the very least find a solution to meet the energy demands, should we not?
Good luck to pro, was a fun debate, this one.
David_Debates

Pro

Seeing as this is the final round, I will refute and then end with closing arguments.

1) "First off: "according to my sources Arctic ice had increased from 2010, which is contrary to the expectations of global warming experts."
Sorry, was a typing error, I meant it increased from 2012. The link is http://www.conserve-energy-future.com......
As I've shown before, the author of the article doesn't give any sort of conclusion. He gives 5 reasons why it's true, and 5 reasons why it's not. Not only that, but for his "50% more arctic ice" point, he doesn't give us any sources! This is ElmerB all over again!

2) The global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century. The source is http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...... and if the rate of rising sea level remains same, it won't be having much effect. Also, it may promote development of underwater cities as they would have to do it for survival.
But that's the problem, the sea levels are rising faster than they used to be! Instead of 6.7 inches in a year, the article I've linked indicates it will rise far more than 6.7 inches (1). Con also states, "It may promote development of underwater cities as they would have to do it for survival." I thought we were going to try and solve global warming, not run away from it.

3) We must find a viable replacement of fossil fuels rather than targeting the removal of co2. If production of co2 continues at this level, what will be the use of reducing it through plants and stuff when we can directly attack the source? It is just like instead of plugging a leak in a ship, we take a bucket and keep throwing the water away. First we must tackle the leak, then we can clean up the ship.
I have an analogy for you. Let's say your sink is leaky. You find where it is leaking, and you see a hole in a pipe. Instead of just ordering a replacement part, you need to find a way deal with the leak before the replacement part arrives! Analogies aside, who says we can't do both? I've already stated my plan (fertilizing the sea in order to create algal blooms). The U.S. Government is working on converting algae into a bio fuel with success (2). In other words, we can solve the global warming problem, and then harvest the algae once the pollutants are absorbed out of the atmosphere.

4) Yes, but the point I want to make is that fossil fuels are a finite resource and must be saved for later generations, or we will run out of it sooner or later. The predictions may or may not be accurate, but we all know that production of fossil fuel is not possible. We have to drill under the Earth to find their reserves. If there is a way to make sure energy production continues, we must take more concrete steps towards finding new sources of energy.
We are (see above). But these steps are not economically or environmentally feasible yet, and the CO2 we produce is still an issue (3). Also, why do you think we should "save some fossil fuels for later generations?" I thought you wanted to develop different alternatives to fossil fuels altogether.

5) "I've already shown how global warming is a reality, and you accept that"
Just for this debate. Otherwise it will become a separate debate, and we will divert from the crux of the debate.
Strange, because in every round thus far (including this one), you have linked "evidence for why global warming isn't true." I don't think you're telling the truth to the judges here. Examples:
"Has co2 really increased that much, or is there another reason? And are the readings of 1900's even correct? Weather science is still flawed and developments are still occurring, how can we rely that readings of previous unadvanced centuries were correct and that this century is really colder than before? Diversion (Round 3, Con)-"
"Also, some of these links believe global warming may not be true (Round 1, Con)-"
"Some more links (or people) that are against global warming (Round 2, Con)-"
"according to my sources Arctic ice had increased from 2010, which is contrary to the expectations of global warming experts (Round 2, Con)."

5) That being said, 7 billion humans breathe out carbon-dioxide everyday. Should we start killing people?

No.

6) But instead if we tackle the source, naturally even with the number of plants we have right now co2 will be gradually reduced and temperatures would recede to normal.
"Normal." What temperature is normal?

7) Has co2 really increased that much, or is there another reason? And are the readings of 1900's even correct? Weather science is still flawed and developments are still occurring, how can we rely that readings of previous unadvanced centuries were correct and that this century is really colder than before? Diversion-
Fallacious argument. "There is no way to prove that the sources are correct, and therefore, global warming isn't true." Fallacy of ignorance (they haven't dis/proven it, so it must be true/false).

8) Fossil fuels have not been used properly until the industrial revolution, when machines required power that was generated from fossil fuels, and drills were made that could find new reservoirs of oil. "Until Mad Max becomes a reality, no one will be killing each other over a gallon of gasoline or a watt of electricity." Yet we know the unrest in the Middle East is because nations want to take control of the oil reservoirs.
It is also because some Arabic countries believe Israel isn't entitled to the land they were given by the UN. It is also because of terrorist activity. It is also because of bad rulers, dictators. The article I've linked at the bottom talks about how it is not only oil that causes unrest in the Middle East (4).

9) Worse still, fossil fuels can't be synthetically produced in lab, at least without wasting more resources than it is worth. Say if there was a way to utilize the energy of fossil fuel without burning it and causing pollution, how valuable and eco-friendly would fossil fuels become? And if a new energy source that would be renewable and cost efficient was invented, wouldn't people remark burning stuff for energy as archaic? We already have a solution to decrease co2, we must at the very least find a solution to meet the energy demands, should we not?
See in my round 2 argument on algal blooms and how they a) solve the global warming problem, and b) can be converted into energy once carbon dioxide levels subside.

Now, closing.

Global warming is too big of a problem to ignore.
We pollute this world. My opponent agrees. However, we disagree on how to solve it. Con would like you to believe that focusing on fossil fuels is all one has to do in order to combat global warming. This is far from the truth. We must first combat the emission, and then the source.
We, the human race, are responsible for two million deaths a year due to our carelessness when it comes to air pollution (5). That's not even counting land and water pollution! We must combat the emissions, as they are simply to dangerous to let "gradually reduce," as is Con's plan. Instead, we must focus on absorbing these pollutants out of the atmosphere by encouraging growth of certain plants. See my Round 2 argument on algae being both a solution for global warming and a way to make clean energy for more information. I'm running out of word count.

Thank you for this debate. Wonderful practice against a skilled opponent! Good luck in your future debates!
David_Debates

Sources:
(1) https://www.nwf.org...
(2) http://energy.gov...
(3) http://www.rand.org...
(4) https://www.csis.org...
(5) http://www.livescience.com...

NOTE: This debate does not indicate my personal beliefs, but is simply practice for debating.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.