Instigator / Pro
Points: 14

We should avert climate change rather than adjusting to it

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
DynamicSquid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Nature
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
Points: 5
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Hello Paul! Thrilled to have you here. I wish you the best of luck, and let's jump right into it!

Climate change is no longer some far-off problem. It is happening here, and it is happening now
Those were the words of Barrack Obama. He suggested that climate change is no longer off to the distance, it's right here, and we must take action now. The question is, what kind of action?

Definitions

To avert climate change is to reduce the effects of global warming so that the Earth falls back within it's normal cycles. An example would be to cut down on our CO2 emissions.

To adjust to climate change is to prepare humanity of the impeding effects of it's outcome. Building barriers, relocation, saving wildlife, are all examples.

And lastly, climate change, which is defined as more specifically global warming, and all the causes related to it.

Model

But how are we going to achieve this plan of averting climate change? Well first, we have to limit CO2 population, along with other harmful chemicals. We'll cut the production of fossil fuels, and invest in new cleaner energies like electricity or hydro power. This will undoubtedly take years and years to do, but no more than a decade.

And for the sake of this debate, once you avert or adapt to climate change, you cannot go back or switch your choice. Chose one and stick with one.

Well, with that being said, I proudly present to you my two contentions supporting this argument.



Averting climate change is cheaper

Switching from fossil fuel power to low carbon energy sources will cost $44 trillion from now until 2050. In addition, stabilizing Greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 will cost us another $13 trillion. But the exact same study sound us that we will actually come out ahead in profit. All these renewable and low carbon emission technologies will actually give us a ROI. While it may not be much now, in the future, this massive transition will save trillions of dollars. But how is this cheaper than the alternative, of adapting to climate change?

Once we fully adapt to climate change, it may be already too late to turn back. We have to constantly adjust, improvise, and improve our existing technologies. This could cost us upwards of $300 billion a year in 2030, and $500 billion a year in 2050! And the number will only increase exponentially as the climate gets worse. Even the Green Climate Fund agrees, stating:

To meet finance needs and avoid an adaptation gap the total finance for adaptation in 2030 would have to be approximately six to 13 times greater than international public
finance today

Averting climate change is safer

It's too risky to adapt to climate change. Adapting to climate change is a long term solution, while averting climate change is a short term solution. We cannot afford to risk adapting to climate change. Like stated earlier, the climate may already be too distasteful when we fully adapt to climate change. If we adapt, the climate may never be fixed again, and will worsen and worsen until our own technologies or budget fails us.

While on the other hand, averting climate change is a one time fix. We will only have to avert climate change once, and then we're done. We wouldn't have to constantly stay updated with the climate and correspond with updating our technologies. No. And if fact, once we have created a sustainable clean energy source, there's little to no chance that our climate will go back to what it once was. If there's no factories, then no pollution. And why build more factories when we have already created cheaper and more efficient clean energy sources?



Conclusion

In this round, I have stated how averting to climate change is actually cheaper since it is only a one time fix. I've also stated how averting climate change in undeniably safer. Again, thank you for accepting my debate and I wish you the best. Good luck!


Published:
the winters are hell in Cleveland i'm looking forward to warmer weather also a warmer climate is really helping the wine industry in ohio A LOT WE CAN ADJUST we always have, and to an extent i am fatalistic global warming is a punishment sent by god or nature etc. to punish our gluttony, i say let nature punish our inequity
Round 2
Published:
Hello once again, and I thank you for accepting this debate. In my final speech, I would like to present one more contention supporting this topic, which is how averting climate change will solve many indirectly linked problems. But before I do so, I would first like to clash with some of your arguments.



Clash

the winters are hell in Cleveland i'm looking forward to warmer weather
Did you know that climate change, or global warming actually caused more snowfall, and in some cases, lower temperatures? Hear me out. Global warming evaporates more water from the oceans, causing high levels of moisture in the atmosphere. So in Summer, the evaporated water turns into increased rainfall and therefore can lead to massive floods, totaling up to billions of dollars in damage every year. But relating back to your point about the sucky Winter months, the extra evaporated water would actually cause more snowfall. Oh, and by the way, in a couple of years, the Summers of Cleveland will be unbearable, and potentially bear more mosquitoes?

a warmer climate is really helping the wine industry in ohio
While yes, that may be true in Ohio, it is actually a liability issue around the globe. You see, wine is already is being produced efficiently and effectively around the world in select locations. True, global warming may open up new possibilities for cultivating wine (very low chance), but it will decimate current production. In fact, with global warming carrying out its predicted patterns, then regions growing grapes could drastically reduce by 80% within the coming years!

WE CAN ADJUST we always have
Actually, we can't. It may seem easy to adjust now, but global warming grows at an exponential pace, not at a linear curve. That means that global warming will advance faster than our current technologies, and adjusting to it will soon be impossible.

global warming is a punishment sent by god or nature etc.
Yet you have not provided any information to back up this claim. Please elaborate in your next speech.



Averting climate change can solve many indirect problems

Solving global warming will obviously reduce the number of natural distastes by a huge margin, for example floods or droughts. But it will also open up new solutions to new problems we have here on Earth. We will no longer be dependent on coal or fossil fuels, meaning energy sources will drastically go down. We can now open up new jobs in the renewable energy sector, improving the economy as we go along.

Instead of building high pollutant factories, we can now spend our time and money on construction new, safe, and clean energy productions sites, like hydroelectric damns, or complex solar panel systems. The possibilities for this are endless.



Conclusion

In this round, I have stated how averting to climate change will solve new problems and create better opportunities. I have also disproven my opponents entire speech thoroughly and accurately. Again, thank you for accepting my debate and I wish you the best. Good luck!

Published:
well look at it this way no one is doing anythng to stop it we may as well get used to the changes because they are now unaviodable
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Got it. Thanks man.
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
It's how you treat your opponent. If you're rude, that's bad. Thanking them for the time and effort is a good way to win conduct if the other person isn't rude, but isn't actively being a good participant either. I probably should have given you the point, but I think your overall score accurately describes how I thought you did. I could have gone into more depth about conduct in my vote, but It was getting long already.I wouldn't personally put as much effort into conduct as making sure you've researched well. Your argument is first and foremost important as it's worth the most points.
#10
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Oh, and I would also like to thank you for your insightful review/vote. It really helped me think about what I have stated and I will certainly keep that in mind for the future.
Question however:
I though conduct was the way you introduce your opponent. Thanking them for the time and effort at the beginning and end of a debate certainly counts, does it not?
Instigator
#9
Added:
Sources for my vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_biodiversity
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1345
#8
Added:
Nah, I agree with you on the grounds of human pollution.
#7
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Hmm... intriguing inquiry. Would you be open for a debate with me on this exact issue about global warming? DM me if you're interested...
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Global warming (and climate change) are loaded words in today's politics. There are natural processes that cause trends of heat and cold over time. These natural processes can't really be averted by any human means I know of. If you're speaking of global warming as caused by human pollution, and you establish it pollution as bad (which it is), then it should obviously be averted. It's an open and shut case. Either global warming is a natural process, we can't avert it, and we had better try to adapt, or global warming is caused by human pollution, as should be averted.
So the real question being asked here is whether humans are causing global warming.
#5
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Paul, I just wanted to respond to your last point.
"well look at it this way no one is doing anythng to stop it we may as well get used to the changes because they are now unaviodable"
The motion is to assume that people are going to do something. The motion is giving us a choice, whether we should avert, or adjust to climate change. It is not referring to the current state of people's wishes. And yet if it were, you have not provided any evidence backing this up...
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Oh yeah, sorry I didn't clarify on that. Climate change more specifically as global warming.
Instigator
#3
Added:
climate change is god judgment on a wicked humanity we cannot escape his wrath for our gluttony
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
what definition are you using for climate change?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con drops all of Pros points in the debate, some of them key points include the cost and safety benefits of averting. Con states that in Ohio the wine industry will prosper. But as Pro points out, there will most likely be less wine production world wide, as well as production of other food plummeting, Pro has completely flipped this argument into his favour. Con also points to humans ability to adapt, but Pro again flips this into his favour by pointing out how obscenely difficult it would be to adjust to global warming which grows at an exponential rate. Then we see Pro's new argument about how adverting climate change may also stop natural disasters get dropped as well. Con wraps up the debate with an unsubstantiated claim that humans can't avoid climate change, which falls flat compared to what Pro offered.
Now for the point by point breakdown..
Food Production-Winner=Squid
Con looks to the new opportunities for Ohio wine production, even though Pro proved hat overall production of wine and other food like grapes would plummet world wide. Con never addresses this, Pro wins.
Cost-Winner=Squid
Dropped by Con.
Safety-Winner=Squid
Dropped by Con.
Indirect Problems-Winner=Squid
Dropped by Con.
Humans Can Adapt-Winner=Squid
Con lays out an unsubstantiated claim about how humans can just adapt, but Pro flipped this by looking to the exponential growth of global warming, Con dropped Pro's rebuttal. Pro wins.
5-0 in favour of Pro for arguments.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
To make things simple for myself, I'm going to summarize the main arguments.
Pro:
1. Aversion is cheaper
2. Aversion is safer
3. Aversion solves indirect problems.
Con:
1 Cleveland winters are hell rn
2 Ohio's wine production is up
3 Humans have always adapted and always will
Rating:
P1. I don't like when a claim is made, but without facts or statistics behind it and you have to look in the sources to actually get the argument. The sources are your corroboration so that people know you aren't just spouting gobbledygook. Furthermore, Pro lists "electricity or hydro power" as alternatives to high carbon energy sources. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. Electricity is not spontaneously generated, but is produced mainly (81% of global energy) through the use of high carbon energy sources such as coal, gas and oil.
3/5 for this argument.
P2. Pro says "Adapting to climate change is a long term solution, while averting climate change is a short term solution." I believe that Pro misunderstands the terms "short term solution" and "long term solution." A short term solution, as Pro labels aversion, indicates a problem that only works in the short term, not solution that takes relatively little time to solve. Similarly, a long term solution indicates a solution that works for a long time, not a solution that has to be constantly applied to the problem.
4/5 for this argument.
P3. The idea that global warming causes more natural disasters is an easily documented fact. Rising sea levels, wetter years, heightened erosion, and more extreme heat are all proven effects of global warming.This is common sense to anyone with a basic understanding of earth science, though an expert might be able to explain greater nuance behind that.
5/5 for this argument.
C1. The issue at hand is global warming, not Cleveland warming, so the argument is mostly irrelevant. Very few people will care what winter is like in Cleveland.
2/5 for this argument
C2 Once again, local effects are not strong evidence in the case of global phenomena.
2/5 for this argument
C3 Technically, yes humans have adapted for as long as they've been around (not always, mind you, but I'll give it to you). This is not strong evidence that they always will. There are an estimated 5 billion extinct species compared to an estimated 2-10 million alive today. Statistics show that the vast majority of species do not always adapt. Pro did not present these counterarguments however. Their counterargument stated that "global warming grows at an exponential pace, not at a linear curve. That means that global warming will advance faster than our current technologies, and adjusting to it will soon be impossible." Which is not supported by any data I know of, and furthermore, I know for a fact that technology does advance exponentially (look at phones over the last 150 years and tell me otherwise)
Since no valid argument was made, and no valid counter argument was given, I'm ignoring this point.
Totals:
12/15 (4/5)
4/10 (2/5)
Arguments to Pro
Sources to Pro as Con used none, and Pros were relevant to the topic.
Spelling and grammar to Pro as Con literally neglected all punctuation and capitalization rules.
Neither participant was rude to the either. Conduct is tied.