Hello PoliceSheep and thanks for accepting this debate. Let's jump right into it...
Side Note - For the sake of this debate, we are going to assume that it is possible to adapt or avert global warming; so questioning the realistic side of averting or adapting are off-topic.
A) OUTLINE
Round 1 - Presenting my first argument
Round 2 - Some clash, and presenting my second argument
Round 3 - A lot of clash, and summary
- 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
- Why we should avert - What are the benefits to averting global warming?
- Focus on new challenges
- Long term benefits
B) ARGUMENT
Why we shouldn't adapt - What are the consequences of adapting to global warming?
- The world will open up into a wasteland...
We will stop adapting to global warming by the year 2100, and until then, we can try new methods. But it's already too late. Top researches say that we will be too late to stop climate change, and some others say that it's already here! So why shouldn't we adapt? Won't adapting be faster? Won't it be less risky?
Yes. In the short term it will. But adapting to global warming is not fixing it. It's fixing it for us, but once that safety bubble breaks, all we have left to do is to suffer our consequences. Oh, and thousands of homes will be underwater.
Temperatures will rise 3-5 degrees (Celsius, always Celsius; no one likes Fahrenheit, by that's a topic for another debate) by 2100. Now that may not sound like a lot, but think about it this way. What's the difference between 0 and 1 degree? Ice and water. Need examples? Since 1880, the world temperature has risen 0.8 degrees. And as said by
Climate Reality Project:
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.
And that's less than 1 degree!
Ice caps gone. Santa Claus gone. Low lying cities underwater. Atlantis rises. Droughts and fires spread. Adorable little cute fluffy baby pandas that roll over happily and eat bamboo in the most cute way die.
This also brings up a good point. We can adapt. Can the rest? Animals and plants are not well know for adjusting to rapid changes in temperature over a short period of time, and if we help them adjust, that would be even more expensive and time consuming! But, for the sake of the debate as mentioned earlier, we can do anything.
We'll help animals adapt too. Good. Problem solved.
No.
Relating back to my first point, once we stop adapting, we are now living in a hellhole (if you don't mind me saying so). Entire ecosystems will be dead or underwater. Animals will have nowhere to stay, or to go!
- How will we fix the damage?
So we can adjust, but can we fix? Entire cities underwater, ice caps melted, ecosystems torn down. Can we rebuild? Thousands of people, if not millions will have to be relocated elsewhere inland. The Bays on San Francisco, Malibu, California, Florida, Hawaii, and more will all be underwater! Refugee camps and disaster homes will be overfilled, social services will be expended. Charities fighting climate change will be overworked. The political side will be a mess. The list just keeps going on and on.
And all of these relocation and overflowing will be happening during the 21st century's global warming disaster!
So how do we fix the damage?
We can't.
C) CONCLUSION
In this round, I have talked about how adjusting to the aftermath of global warming is impossible. Cities, ecosystems, will all be underwater. Ice caps gone.
In my next round, I will be talking about why we should avert to climate change, and all the benefits that come from it.
I await PoliceSheep's arguents.
Thank you.
Links:
Oh yeah, no problem man.
Thanks for leaving it blank - I'm really sorry for not getting an argument in!
I'll fix it
There, 3 days
I'd take this debate on, but I couldn't do though enough responses in just two days.
Well, without giving to much information away, adapting to global warming could be relocating to inner land, or perhaps creating new farms in suitable climates.
That may be true, I guess I just have a very thin concept of what adapting to global warming would necessarily be.
If he tells you he is giving an argument to you.
What would you say is an example of adapting to global warming?
Yes, we should definitely do both, but for the sake of this debate, you can only chose one option.
Although I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances of significantly averting climate change's worst effects, I think we should be doing both. The debate's premise sets up a false binary.