Trajan Octavian Titus

My main objection to my opponents position is that correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. Furthermore; it is widely known that many other factors aside from CO2 play into the causes of global warming. It has, also, been theorized that the particles found in our exhaust actually help to decrease the effects of global warming. While there is no dispute that climate change is taking place there is, however, much debate as to the causes of that climate change and as to the percentage that human actions play into that climate shift.

What we need now is a comprehensive plan to end our oil dependency without destroying our economy and recent plans; such as, the Kyoto treaty fall well short of that mark especially when we take into account the fact that the second and third largest consumers of fossil fuels (China and India) are exempt from many of the stipulations outlined in the Kyoto accord due to their developing nations status.

I feel that we have it in our power to end our oil dependency but only if we are willing to expand our nuclear capacity while simultaneously promoting alternative energy sources; such as, hydrogen fuel, ethanol bio-diesel, as well as, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, tidal current, and thermal power.

FallingPianos

going into open form. you must still alternate posts, but you do not have to wait for questions from me. independent_thinker2002 first.

__________________

independent_thinker2002

It would seem that my opponent wants to turn this into a debate about dependency on foreign oil. He wants to throw away the climate change issue and engage in foreign policy and economic issues.

No, correlation does not mean causation. The cause is really irrelevant. If it is going cause us many problems and we can do something about it, then why shouldn't we? The vast peer reviewed, scientific community has come to the conclusion that we are effecting the earth's climate. No, we can't be certain what the cause of the climate change is, but we do have evidence that fossil fuel consumption is at the very least contributing to the speed and intensity of this change. Where they vary is on models and the size of effect we are having. They do agree that less fossil fuel consumption would help slow or decrease the change.

I am having trouble understanding my opponent's position. He wants to imply that we aren't having an effect on the climate. Yet he claims that the Kyoto Treaty doesn't work because China and India are exempt from many of the stipulations. Does he mean that it would work if they were held to those stipulations? This in fact would confirm my point that we are having an effect on the climate.

Furthermore, the Kyoto Treaty is in place as a measure to protect our environment. The Kyoto Treaty has nothing to do with economic, security, or combatting terrorists. He is arguing from the premise that we should ignore the environment, and get away from oil consumption due to national security issues. This doesn't address other fossil fuels which we consume. We don't import that much Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) 5.6% in 2003-Department of Energy page 2 pargraph 3. Coal imports are small also less than one percent-Department of Energy paragraph 3.

__________________
==]:{o

Trajan Octavian Titus

Well energy consumption overlaps with both the economy and foriegn policy so to come up with solutions to climate change while ignoring the problems that it will create is in my opinion totally negligent.

The scientific community has only been able to present findings that shows a correlation between the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere and global warming they have failed to provide evidence of causation. I don't understand how you can say that we should prevent global warming when you can not even say with certainty that we are causing it. Even if we are partially responsible for climate change then how are we supposed to stop the causes which are totally out of our control?

I do not concede any point I only bring up Kyoto based on the presupposition that if human activities are in fact causing global warming than Kyoto can not possibly be the answer because it does not require the 2nd and 3rd largest oil consumers to oblige by its stipulations.

Kyoto has everything to do with the economy:

Well I feel that we can do away with nearly all of our fossil fuel consumption if we expand our nuclear infrastructure while simultaneosly promoting renewable energy sources, such as, wind, thermal, solar, and tidal current. Of course these solutions will not come over night and for this problem there are no quick solutions and these quick solutions which have been presented; such as, Kyoto are not really solutions at all but rather they are the catalyst for even more problems in the future.

independent_thinker2002

The primary reason for moving away from fossil fuels is the environment. If our environment becomes inhospitable to us we have bigger problems than the economy and foreign policy. Sure economic and foreign policy are factors to be taken into consideration. I am not saying that they should be ignored. They just aren't the primary reasons for moving away from fossil fuels. They take a back seat to the climate.



We don't have enough data to say what the cause is. How many times do I have to say that causation doesn't matter. It is like a dog chasing his tail to debate the cause. Regardless of how we got to this point, what are we going to do about it now?

Fossil fuel consumption is in our control. I have been contending that we must do something about the additional effects that we are having on the environment. Today we may not have the cause isolated. By eliminating fossil fuel consumption we can buy ourselves some time to figure out what can be done to help control our environmental change.

So, if a treaty doesn't solve all the problems it isn't worth doing at all? Yes, Kyoto is flawed. Does that mean that we should do nothing? Of course not! That would be truly negligent. India and China are developing nations under Kyoto. This is the economic/foreign policy issue you don't want to ignore. You don't have a solution to deal with these delicate issues. If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.


Yes, everything has an effect on the economy. My point is that it wasn't the primary cause for the Kyoto Treaty. It was something to be considered. Kyoto was put on the table as a way to counter the effects of polution and global warming. To say that Kyoto is an economic policy is like saying NAFTA is an environmental policy.

So should we sit idly by while we wait for the "magic bullet" solution? I have to wonder if there was ever a policy that didn't cause future problems. If given the choice between future problems and no future, I will take problems. It is easy to criticize Kyoto and not have a plan of your own. Doing nothing is negligent. In this particular case, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Well for me anyone who wants to embark on a radical program; such as, Kyoto that could very well destroy our economy in order to stop a problem that you can't even say for sure we are causing is negligent in the extreme.


If you don't know what the cause is then how can you possibly say that we can stop it? That simply doesn't make sense you want to embark on radical programs; such as, Kyoto that might very well destroy our economy and you can't even be sure that Kyoto would solve global warming, because by your own admission you don't know what causes it.

How can you say that ending fossil fuel consumption would end global warming when by your own admission we don't know what causes it? Please explain that to me, because I'm dumbfounded.

See this is your whole problem you are so wrapped up in your hysterics from the "sky is falling" environmentalists that you have lost all ability to reason, they've got you so scared with their doomsday scenarios that you want to do something anything to stop it even though you can't even tell me with certainty that we are causing it in the first place.

I never said it was an economic policy but this environmental policy would have a disastrous effect on the economy and I find it remarkable that you can want to non-shalantly destroy the economy when you can't even tell us that Kyoto would solve global warming because again by your own admission you don't even know for a fact that we are causing it.

You can appeal to emotion and the irrational fear people have of global warming all you want it still doesn't change the facts that Kyoto would destroy our economy and even if human activity is causing global warming Kyoto wouldn't solve the problem anyways, because the 2nd and 3rd largest fossil fuel consumers are not bound by its stipulations due to their developing nations status. And nuclear energy, as well as, renewable energy sources; such as, wind power, solar power, tidal current, and thermal power are not "magic bullets," they are very real, tried, and true technologies.

independent_thinker2002

You want to embark on a "radical" program also. Unless you don't consider wanting to completely change our technologies and sources "radical". Or is it the motive that makes it "radical"? We need a "radical" change because the status quo isn't serving us well. Talk about "the sky is falling". Kyoto destroying our economy is laughable. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, and the war on poverty are bigger threats to our economy. The question isn't "Can we afford to change our energy policy?", but, is,"Can we afford not to change our energy policy?"


The scientific community's explanation is enough for me. I have yet to hear you disprove my position. You also don't know what causes global warming. You haven't debunked the overwhelming scientific community's theories. They are the experts. On this subject matter I would refer to them before I would refer to an economist. Kyoto is a step in an attempt to curb our effect on the environment. Kyoto's effectiveness is a red herring. Just because that plan may or may not be effective does not mean that another plan could solve the problem. You have proposed no global plan. You seem to only care about US interests. You have said that if the biggest user's aren't "on board" then the plan is a failure. The US acting alone won't be a big enough difference. It would be hardly an effective policy concerning the global climate. It is just like living in a neighborhood. You can take care of your house all you want. If your neighbors don't, then your house won't be worth living in.

If my opponent wants to put words in my mouth, I have a request. I would like some condiments. I never said that it would end global warming. It would slow it down and decrease it's intensity. It would buy us time to determine the cause and/or create a solution to the problem.

No, being wrapped up in hysterics and losing the ability to reason is another debate. It would fall under "WMDs and the Bush Administration". I would submit that the scientific community is more "certain" about global warming than Bush's administration and WMD's. We really have nothing to lose by heeding these warnings. If we don't, we may have more problems than we can handle.


I doubt that the policy would "destroy" our economy. What was that about "the sky is falling"? While you are obsessed with the cause, I am interested in a solution. There is a definite problem that needs action taken. It doesn't matter what caused it, what are we going to do about it.

You accuse me of appealing to emotion and yet you propose an emotional doomsday financial disaster argument?

Yes, nuclear and renewable energy sources are very real. I am not sure how tried and true they are. They are gaining momentum. I would hardly say we have turned the energy infrastructure on it's head though. As I have stated before, the US acting alone isn't a solution. This is a global issue. It will take a global effort to really matter. You can blast Kyoto all you want. You offer no solution to enact global fuel source alteration.

I find it hard to believe that you want to completely change our energy infrastucture. This would be much more costly than the Kyoto Treaty. You would do this in the name of national security. Mother Nature is a bigger threat to us than any country or terrorist group. Droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, and extreme cold are very real threats. I know we have always had these threats. If these threats happen more frequently and with more intensity due to global warming and we do nothing about it we will deserve our fate. If we do something then we can preserve our planet for our future generations. At the very least, we will have cleaner air to breath. Inaction because people don't want to listen to scientists, whose primary objective is the truth, would be criminally negligent.

Trajan Octavian Titus

I am not proposing radical change at all I am proposing a gradual shift off of our fossil fuel dependency. Like I said the change will not come over night we must take a gradual pragmatic approach to the situation.

It is not laughable sir unlike your assertion that human activities are causing global warming it is well established fact:


No the question should be: "to what extent will ending our dependency on fossil fuels help to shift the current trends of climate change?"

There is no position for me to debunk you have only shown correlation not causation.

That's the whole point nobody does.

The wrong step.

So the effectiveness of the proposal is a red herring? So good intentions are going to end global warming now?

Ya well good luck getting getting China and India on board with a program which stipulations they would actually have to abide by. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but China, India, and yes even the U.S. are still soveriegn nations who will always act in their own self interests, I'm trying to be pragmatic about this situation but you're being idealistic and it's clouded your reason and your judgement.


O.K. then what % of global warming is caused by human beings? To what extent would ending our consumption of fossil fuels curb the current trends of climate shift? These are the questions that must be answered before you go around proposing half cocked schemes that could very well destroy our economic prosperity and global hegemony.

I never denied that global warming is occurring but it is clearly evident by looking at the geological record that the plannet goes through periodic shifts of warming and cooling and has done so long before human beings evolved out of the primordial muck. As for having nothing to lose how about jobs and GDP growth for starters?

Umm don't you need to know the cause of a problem before you can propose a solution to that problem? I mean isn't that the very essence of problem solving? As for your assertion that Kyoto wouldn't destroy our economy I have already proven that is a lie.

I'm not proposing anything I'm merely stating the facts and the facts say that Kyoto would have destroyed our economy.

Then why did you refer to them as quote "magic bullets?"

You're not sure how tried and true nuclear energy is? That's interesting.

As for the renewable energy sources that I mentioned they are all tried and true. (see below)

Like I said good luck getting China and India on board a program that they may actually have to abide by. What's your solution?

<<<continued below>>>

Trajan Octavian Titus

<<<continued from above>>>


How so exactly? There is money to be made in nuclear energy initiatives and renewable energy sources. When you speak of Kyoto you speak of heavy governmental regulation and penalties for infractions of the stipulations, I on the other hand speak of economic incentives and governmental investments in nuclear power and renewable energy sources.



We can't control mother nature anymore than we can control the sun from rising.



Again this is just another blatant appeal to emotion that has no basis in reality. The current global warming scare tactics are not truth motivated they are agenda driven and politically motivated. Global warming is big bussiness scientists get grants to promote their pseudoscience and politicians get votes by playing off the fear of the naive unwashed masses. And let's not forget the profits incurred by propaganda flicks; such as, "The Day After Tomorrow," and "An Inconvenient Truth." I propose a pragmatic shift from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, the U.S. can only control what goes on within its own borders unless of course my opponent is in fact proposing global governance which would be right in tow with the leftist tendencies of the radical environmentalists.

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>

Trajan Octavian Titus

From wikipedia as to the usage of renewable energy sources: