|
This is a very very hard side to argue now the evidence is (in truth) overwhelming that global
warming is occurring.. However you do have a couple of options:
1. Sunspot theory. There is a credible (if highly minority) point of view that sunspot activity
follows global temperatures better than CO2 emissions, you could argue that therefore the warming is
natural and likely to decline in the future.
2. Cost/Benefit Argument. There are more credible figures (from the UN's own models and predictions,
the IPCC said this stuff) to argue that it would cost far too much to save the environment, and
would be better off adapting to the changes, not stopping them. Essentially you say that Kyoto is
predicted to cost the world 0.5% of GDP per year (on average) until 2100 but even if we fulfil Kyoto
then by 2108 the globe will be as hot as if we will do nothing. Then in 2108 it will cost us 0.5% of
GDP per year to adapt. You argue that we would be better off adapting now and cheaper and abandon
the climate. After all the likelihood of a catastrophe like huge sea level rises or a Venus-like
runaway effect are very low (this is entirely true, just look up the models, the worst worst worst
case scenarios are the ones we hear about, the far more likely models are fairly mild (if still
significant, 0.5% of Global GDP to adapt remember).
I'd go with argument 2, or maybe both. Personally I think Argument 2 has strong merit to it and is
my personal belief (slightly modified to fit this debate).
Good luck! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It does not need saving, because it is not yet destroyed.
It's getting there though, it needs protecting. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Preventive measures are easier at this point in time. It's much harder to "cure" the environment. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This reminds me of my Civics class from Middle School, in which I was made to select a random piece
of paper on which was written what I had to argue in favour of. I think I had to defend the British
in the U.S. Revolutionary War while a luckier person got to defend the colonies' secession. How
could I ever win? That's so stupid. I lost before I ever started.
"The environment does not need saving" is the same level of stupidity. The ones in favour of the
environment WIN before anything starts. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
They wouldn't be able to fix the problem anyways they just trying to slow down the process of our
earth just being destroyed they cant fix the ozone layer were never gonna get millions of people to
planets with water light years away but one thing for sure water will never disappear its here to
stay |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
15 Jun 2008 16:50
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
