Debate Info

Debate Score:15
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 What is the best method(s) of combating global climate change? (7)

Debate Creator

AngeloDeOrva(298) pic

What is the best method(s) of combating global climate change?

global warming, environment, green, CO2
Add New Argument
4 points

We need to move towards a carbon-restrained economy. To get there we will need effective public policy in place. From that perspective, the best method is to vote for leaders committed to making that change. From a personal perspective, conservation is key.

Side: Public Policy
Cdelvalle(196) Disputed
2 points

That would only take into account the U.S.

What about the rest of the world which is unable to vote?

The best way to combat global climate change is to make advanced technologies cheap enough to spur mass demand from various governments and people. Only then will the world, as a whole, drop emissions.

Side: Public Policy
3 points

Diversification of renewable energy will be key.

Each community will have to decide upon the most environmentally friendly power source that still satisfies its needs. There is no silver bullet that will solve the green power crisis; for every situation there is a different way to solve the problem.

To get communities planning ahead about how it will develop a green power source for the future, local governments must take iniative to encourage local residents and businesses to change their ways. A national green incentives program might help get this process started, but in the end the solutions will come from each locality.

Side: Public Policy
3 points

I think the best methods are not to be left up to other people to carry out. We all say "alternative energy" and stuff like that, but no matter what it is, it's not our field... it's someone else's field of expertise.

I feel like too many people are thinking about this the wrong way, and people who think as I do, are just "weird"... and by weird I suspect they mean "alien".

I think that the best overall method to solve our problems are not, to create better things... I mean, I do think that's extremely important, but whether we think it's the best or not, as a collection of individuals, we don't help. Just because you believe it's best, doesn't mean you are helping. Technology is getting better all the time, for everything, even things most of us could care less about because out there in the world somewhere is someone that has to improve the existing technology to get something that they are passionate about done. They are doing everything they can, already. Now, you might say "yeah, but look at the technology that the auto industry is coming up with now, because we all think it's a good idea, and look at the computer industry going "green" with LED backlit displays rather than florescent lights". It's only getting better because the industry sees that this is what is best. Hybrid cars, there's nothing new to them (in fact the power plants that drive trains are all hybrid diesel and electric), and we're all looking for cars that save us money, so they are doing their part to sell us something that we'll like... good for them. LED's are more efficient, they use less power, don't go out, and put out more light... good for the computer industry.

The best method is understanding your role, figuring out what you can do to help, and sticking with it. It will not be fun, it will not make you feel better as fast as doing something the usual way, but if enough people just do what's best and not what's easiest, there will be change.

We are living in ugly times, things are more complicated, things are harder to see, harder to control, but if everyone would just buckle down for a while technology will catch up. We'll have our 80% efficient solar panels, nuclear power plants that don't leak radiation and cannot melt down will become popular, practical and cheap, Hydrogen power will be domesticated, plastics will be biodegradable and recyclable, and overall your little contribution along with everyone else's will save us the trouble down the road, when the technology is available.

For now, I'm doing my part. I've stopped driving when I don't absolutely have to, I ride a bike. I don't leave fans on, and I don't run the AC, I save on bills and actually get rewarded for it... sure, I break a sweat once in a while, but really, what's a little moisture compared to the i-don't-know-how-many tons of pollution I would be responsible for if I would rather not sweat? I don't support consumerism, seeing as I buy what I need and not what I want. I turn lights off @ work when I'm not using them, when it's slow I'll turn lights off that shouldn't be off, I received a very nice "omg, I've never been so happy with my bills" compliment by my boss and still haven't been complained to. I use windows and blinds rather than lights during the day (I am not blind, I don't need lights during the day). I use my computer to rip off the music industry, so that I don't have to deal with plastic compact disks with plastic cases and wrapped in plastic. I read books via the internets, which saves trees, and time and money. All I have to do now is stop smoking, drinking so much (including coffee), eating foods from places with drive-throughs (which I rarely can "drive" through), and yeah... I'll be happy with myself.

What are you doing?

Side: Being a responsible person
1 point

Should We be Considered an Endangered Species?

If catastrophic climate change is for real and is as devastating as most of the world’s scientists say it could be, most of us would be killed prematurely by its effects.

The naysayers tell us it’s a big hoax; it’s just big corporations finding a new way to make money, and more government taking over our lives.

And anyway, for us to build an entirely new alternative Energy System would create more enormous debt that our children and grandchildren would have to pay back.

And With our present economy the last thing we need is more debt!

But let’s stop and think. What if it is a real and present danger? Can we afford to do nothing or very little? Is our national debt a bigger threat then the possible extinction of most life on earth? These are really tough questions and nobody has complete and perfect answers.

And by the way, the gathering body of evidence from the applicable scientists, is that the really bad part is coming a lot sooner than originally thought. This means that most of humanity will be extinct within 40 to 50 years.

It’s sort of like this is one big scientific experiment: let’s see how much carbon dioxide we can pump into the air before the climate is radically changed and the kind of life that is now on earth will no longer be able to survive. This is basically like we’re living in a test tube, and nobody really knows how the experiment is going to work out.

Let’s look at some possibilities:

1. We do nothing to solve the problem and there never was a problem. O.K., we win.

2. We spend a huge amount of money and we replace the oil and coal Energy System with an alternative nonpolluting Energy System. We may end up ducking the bullet and saving humanity. Maybe there never was a problem and we will never know. We would then have a whole new Energy System that’s no longer dependent on foreign oil and we’ve ended that kind of pollution in the world, not an entirely bad way to go.

3. We spend a lot of money to build a completely new alternative Energy System that is nonpolluting even though it’s too late or beyond the tipping point. We’re all dead and it doesn’t matter if we run up the debt.

4. We do nothing, because we don’t believe there’s a problem, most of life on earth is gone, our young children today and our grandkids of tomorrow, all die.

Side: Being a responsible person
-2 points
Cdelvalle(196) Disputed
1 point

All it does is push oil prices down for one day. Then everyone who didn't buy that day will have to buy the day after... increasing demand.

Yeah, that won't fix anything.

The solution would be dropping consumption... and keeping it low after that.

Side: Being a responsible person