"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

===== Begin DISCLAIMER =====
This is a Politics debate.

I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore,
---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE
---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate
===== End DISCLAIMER =====

When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate.

It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the political response to it. In Round 2, I will try my first argument that the CATASTROPHE [per your description] allows for the US political response to be putting it at the bottom of our priority list.

In each of the remaining rounds, I will make an additional argument to support my thesis. In all rounds, Please do your best to rebut my arguments.

Climate technically is a big problem. Flooding would be an instant problem, And I know the solution for that is gonna be "They can build walls and stuff" BUT USA is already in debt and needs to repay countries, And to do something like that would take billions of dollars. Plus flooding could cause another problem. Power. "Oh no but we can just add more solar pannels" Yeahhhh. . . But then money. Plus overpopulation is gonna be a big problem and with less land means less homes for people. I'll state my argument here for now and see what you have to say

Thank you for agreeing to the debate.

===We need to keep in mind the real choices before us===
Many people think that the climate choices are:
A) fix the climate, Or
B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE.

In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices:
B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or
C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? )

===Let's review how the three options stack up===
If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets.

If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let"s call these incremental costs "P").

If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let"s call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs.

===Now, I will conclude my Argument #1===
Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q.

Source
(1) links not working. The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017

Anyone Else up for a Debate?

ditto

darn