CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
23
What a useless endevour We must do something
Debate Score:43
Arguments:20
Total Votes:82
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What a useless endevour (10)
 
 We must do something (10)

Debate Creator

andrewlinn(18) pic



Trying to combat global warming is useless.

Realistically, is it possible?

What a useless endevour

Side Score: 20
VS.

We must do something

Side Score: 23
2 points

Corporations, industries and entreprises must face this, not us. We can only make some pressure on them, but that pressure is insignificant compared to the their own interests and objectives. Only when those interest and objectives where seriously affected by the global warming, they will take real action on that.

Side: What a useless endevour
Raphae1(3) Disputed
1 point

Only bad managers start to act, when it is already too late. The good one invest soon so they can reap in the future. Global warming, if ignored, would do big economic damage and nobody wants that.

Side: We must do something
1 point

One of the main ways people are encouraged to reduce their CO2 emissions is by constantly reminding them that they are saving money by doing so. This is true. Yet consider what happens when someone 'saves' money. What do they do with this money? They either spend it or put it into a bank (very few people keep their savings at home). Yet by doing either of these things, people in an indirect way contribute again to global warming. Money placed into the banking system benefits the economy, as banks use money to invest. This leads to economic growth, which, at the end of it all, is based upon a carbon based economy which releases CO2. Obviously, purchasing something has a much more direct impact on CO2 emissions - items require CO2 for their production, transport etc.

So it seems that in order to reduce CO2 emissions at all it would be necessary to entirely wean ourselves off oil. No amount of avoidance of CO2 emissions will reduce global warming unless their very source is first eliminated. But the global economy is addicted to oil and fossil fuels. How can we, as a planet, coordinate such a massive project as a conversion to non-fossil fuel CO2 free alternatives? How could countries possibly accept the economic consequences of such an action? We can't and they won't. Any attempts by average people to reduce CO2 emissions are useless, and the problem is nearly impossible to solve on a large scale. What a useless endeavor.

Side: What a useless endevour
2 points

What?!? We should not reduce our emissions, because that would increase our emissions?

We are luckily working on cleaner technologies. They will save us money. This money can be re-invested into research and development and make our technology even greener and more energy-efficient.

Supporting Evidence: Circular reasoning works because... (komplexify.com)
Side: We must do something
Raphae1(3) Disputed
1 point

Even if we are now addicted to fossil fuels, we will have to start a conversion to non-fossil fuel sooner or later. As you know, the amount of fossil fuel, which emerged in millions of years, is limited and we already consumed huge amounts of it. There is no reason to wait until fossil fuels become a scarce and expensive resource, before we start that energy conversion project.

Side: We must do something
-4 points

Combating a natural process is useless, but that doesn't detract from the value of clean technologies. I'm still all for cold fusion, think of all the air conditioners we could run!

Side: What a useless endevour

It's useless because enough people are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Side: What a useless endevour
1 point

The world has been warming and cooling and warming and cooling since it curled up into a big blue ball. global warming is not a hoax, it's a natural occurrence that is sinusoidal with global cooling. That said, mankind should work to minimize our negative impact on this planet or else she'll find a way to do away with us, after which, she'll clean herself off and keep doing what she's done for millions of years. We're entirely too full of ourselves. About the only long term impact we can have on mother earth is to eliminate our ability to survive on her...she'll be fine.

Side: What a useless endevour
0 points

The planet taking natural temperature rises is much ado bout nothing.

Side: What a useless endevour
3 points

Assuming that there is a chance that global warming exists, it would be monumentally stupid to ignore it and go about our lives merrily. If we don't do something now or at least monitor global weather closely we may end up growing gills like some bad Kevin Costner movie.

Side: We must do something

The increased occasions of natural disasters should be apparent to anyone.

Soon countries will start to lose inhabited coastline to the rising sea-levels. Maybe that will convince the doubters of global warming that immediate action is required.

Do what you can right now, to conserve energy and reduce waste. It is the intelligent thing to do.

Side: We must do something
0 points

Many things contribute to the change in temperature of the Earth. If none of them were the result of human interference, then we would merely be at the whim of the universe (fate, God, whatever). However, if there is even the slightest chance that something we do may delay or alleviate the changes, shouldn't we at least try?

Side: We must do something
-2 points
1 point

mmm, Very good and valid points, however I dissagree with your fundamental premise, that CO2 is the main player. Rather, it is the sun, so we should build a dysonsphere with the energy of the said stupid people and use it to colonise mars with the labour of again, the said stupid people.

Side: What a useless endevour
-2 points