tecoyah

Participants:

independent_thinker2002 vs ToT

Topic:

Climate Change

Monitor:

star2589


Coin Toss: independent_thinker2002 goes first

FallingPianos

Debate Rules:

Competitors shall take turns. If you have posted a reply, you may not post again until your competitor has responded. If you run out of space, you may post again, but the end of the first post must say "(continued...)". If you do not continue your post within 90 minutes, you forfeit your right to do so.

Competitors must post at least 3 hours apart. The purpose of this rule is to encourage well thought out posts, and to avoid going on tangents as often happens in fast paced debates.

Editing your posts is allowed, but discouraged. You may edit your posts up to 25 minutes after posting. If you edit your post, you must put a brief explaination of the edit at the bottom of the post. Use the Preview Post feature so that editing is unnecessary.

You must cite your sources. All online sources must be free, and must not require registration. A link and page number (if applicable) is sufficient for an online source. For offline sources, a full MLA or APA citation is required. If you would like to use another citation form, or do not know how to use the forms above, PM me.

If the debate does not progress, I will step in and pose questions

All Forum Rules apply.

__________________

FallingPianos

commentary for this debate is here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/contests/11106-debate-6-discussion-final-debate.html

Mods: please PM me or post in the commentary before posting anything here.
Everyone Else: have fun.

independent_thinker2002

There is no debate that the climate is changing. The cause of this change is debatable. Some would say that the earth is due for a climate change and is happening naturally. Some say that we are inducing an unscheduled, so to speak, climate change. This could be debated until the cows come home. We don't have ubiqutious weather records of the planet. What limited history we do have is way to small of a sample of the planet's timeline to draw any conclusions from with certainty. Regardless of the reason, the planet is warming up. The issue at hand is how is mankind's behavior affecting this change. I contend that we are accellerating and intensifying the warming of the planet through fossil fuel comsumption.

Mauna Loa is the world's longest continuous CO2/atmosphere record. Levels have been rising steadily. Here is a graph of the records since 1958 Carbon dioxide is the main ingredient in the greenhouse effect. Our tailpipes have been spitting this stuff out for decades and the growth is exponential. This will keep the heat trapped in the atmosphere and we will see more extreme weather like Hurricane Katrina. The higher temperatures breed more intense storms.

We sorely need leadership to set goals to limit fossil fuel consumption and look to alternative energy sources and technologies. As the number of people inhabiting the planet increases exponentially, so will the consumption of fossil fuels. In turn, this will increase exponentially the amount of greehouse gasses in our atmosphere. It is a vicious cycle that feeds off of itself. With China growing economically there will be a lot more people using fossil fuels in the near future. We need to conserve energy and look to alternative energy sources. This isn't to save the planet. The planet will be here regardless of our course of action. We need to do this in order to save ourselves.

__________________
==]:{o

Trajan Octavian Titus

As for the cause of climate change my opponent is absolutely right, it is open to debate, but for me that doesn't matter, because for me fossil fuel consumption is a national security issue.

Today the country of Brazil is nearly energy self sufficient, France has more nuclear reactors than the United States, and America is totally addicted to oil and I have not seen one serious bill even considered by congress to turn the tide.

In Europe their oil consumption is reduced through the high taxes incurred there for every gallon consumed . . . in the United States we have no such high taxes or disenstives and gasoline is relatively cheap.

This arbitrary increase of taxes was done once in the U.S. under the Carter administration and it was a complete disaster and to this date I have not seen one better idea put forth by congress. This is simply ludicrous considering the agricultural capacity of the United States if Brazil can transfer to ethanol (as they did following the Oil Embargo during the early seventies) then there is absolutely no reason why the United States can't do the same.

Additionally the United States could increase its nuclear power resource which I feel would be a good place to put our excess plutonium and uranium that we have in the bombs still left over from the Cold War. Through nuclear energy we could produce massive quantities of Hydrogen to be used to power automobiles.

Coupled with wind, tide, and thermo energy the United States has the capacity to become fossil fuel independent within the decade but ethanol is not very much better on the environment than fossil fuels and neither, is water vapor, which is the exhaust from hydrogen fueled cars, in fact (as far as the atmosphere) the cleanest and most efficient energy source is nuclear power on its own which by itself could simply power electric cars.

FallingPianos

monitor question:
are humans the primary cause of global warming?

Trajan Octavian Titus answers first

Trajan Octavian Titus

This is going to be a short answer . . . no we are not and I challenge anyone to prove that we are but like I said "fossil fuel consumption is a national security issue for me," rather than an environmental one and regardless if the environmentalists are correct my solution would solve both our problems anyways.

independent_thinker2002

Whether we are the primary cause cannot be determined due to lack of evidence either way. The important issue is what effect we are having on our environment. As someone who had to move away from Los Angeles in 1980 due to the smog and my asthma, I would have to say we are having a detrimental effect on our planet. Due to emissions regulations the air is better there now than it was then. If less poluting emissions are better, imagine what no poluting emissions would be, ideal.

If our country becomes uninhabitable due to global warming, then I would irrefutably say that is a "national security issue". With over 50% of the US population living within 50 miles of a coastline www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov, we have to be concerned about rising ocean levels. I hardly think any terrorist from an oil producing nation has that potential. This isn't a terrorism issue. Even if OPEC ran out of oil we would still be burning fossil fuels and contributing to global warming.

We should embark upon a conservation movement. The govt. should instill higher standards for auto manufaturers concerning emissions and fuel consumption. We have seen that society can't be expected to self regulate. It is not a suprise. Do you expect an alcoholic to just not drink so much? I hope not. You would be disappointed.

Brazil has energy independence due to the fact that they are using sugar cane for their ethanol. They have a higher yeild per acre and a longer growing season than corn does. Corn ethanol is ineffecient due to having to transport it by rail and truck. It has also been suggested that we could possibly grow enough corn to do the same thing.

To think that we aren't effecting the climate is rather naive. Could you only imagine what would happen if we had no regulations. I would think we would be saying, "Good-bye, Blue Sky".

FallingPianos

monitor question

what enviromental effects are in store for us if we continue on our current path?

independent_thinker2002 answers first

independent_thinker2002

There are many climate models that show contradictory results. We can't say with any certainty what will happen. It is funny how people have a blase attitude or are optimists when it comes to the environment. When it comes to terrorism though we prepare for worst-case scenarios. I think we should approach the environment with the worst-case scenario models in mind. There is nothing wrong with the philosphy "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". We need to take care of the latter part of that quote.

Two models show similar results with the relationship between CO2 and rising temperatures. www.koshland-science-museum.org These two models are the GDFL - Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory model and the NCAR - National Center for Atmospheric Research model.

Rising temperatures can mean many things to our envionment. Disappearing ice caps won't irrigate and provide water for people and crops living beneath them. Wet areas may become drier and vice-versa. Melting polar caps may change the ocean's salinity and cause currents to change. Ocean levels may rise. If they do they could displace 50% of our population.

With a warmer climate also brings new pests and diseases. Tropical insects, diseases, and animals will work their way north as the north warms up. We could be devastated agriculturally, financially, and healthwise. And how much do you think a barrel of oil will be going for when that happens? Illegal immigration will have a new meaning to us when we are trying to escape to Canada.