We should avert, rather than adapt to global warming
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 5 votes and 25 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Global Warming - the Earth's increase of temperature caused by human means
Avert - reduce our emissions enough so that Earth's temperature influx is within natural boundaries
Adapt - adjust our lifestyle accordingly to the ever changing climate
We can either adapt to global warming, or avert global warming, one or the other. Oh, and please just focus on Earth, arguments about space colonization (colonizing Mars for example) and similar are discounted.
If we avert climate change, we will reduce our emissions enough so that Earth returns back to it's natural temperature influx. This may take a couple of years, or even a few decades, but in the end, we must assure that the solution is more or less permanent.
If we adjust to climate change, we will have to develop new or existing technologies to keep up with the ever worsening climate (for example flood barriers). We will only have to do this until the year 2100, when then we can try new methods such as averting global warming.
- Why we shouldn't adapt - What are the consequences of adapting to global warming?
- The long term effects aren't so good
- Good for us maybe, but bad for everything else
- Focus on new challenges
- Long term benefits
- Ensures a good future
- The world will open up into a wasteland...
Intense rainstorms, severe droughts, and heat waves are becoming more frequent. Rising seas are damaging homes near the water. Some populations of animals are starting to die out.
- How will we fix the damage?
- A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates it would cost $44 trillion just to switch "from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy" by 2050. 
- According to the United Nations, it will cost $300 billion just to get 20 years to avert global warming. That does not include any steps towards the actual aversion, simply getting the time to do such actions. An additional 20 years would only take us to 2040, still leaving 10 years needed by most estimates. 
- A report from Morgan Stanley analysts finds that the cost of halting global warming and reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 is $50 trillion. 
- According to NASA, even if we shut down every factory in the world and stopped every polluting car, it still wouldn't avert global warming. That act in itself would bring the global economy into a meltdown with unmeasurable economic and fiscal damage. 
key to this debate. [...] whether it can be done, and in what timescale is key to what approach we should take
I also note that you have yourself gone against this assumption by concluding that to adapt to global warming is impossible.
The cost of averting global warming is so astronomical
mankind has been adapting to all kinds of conditions
- Ensures a good future
- We can focus on new problems