Instigator / Pro

Novice

1597

rating

debates

65.91%

won

Topic

#3423

On balance, climate change regulations are good policies

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 04.29.2022 01:43PM
Last updated date: 05.14.2022 09:40PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Conservallectual

1417

rating

debates

24.07%

won

Description

Climate change regulations for the purpose of this debate are laws and statues designed or aimed to attack issues of climate change, pollution, global warming, and environmental protection

Good to be desired or approved of.

CON agrees to the terms by accepting the debate

Round 1

Novice

05.04.2022 12:59AM

Pro

FRAMEWORK

As stated in the description: Climate change regulations for this debate are laws and statutes designed or aimed to attack issues of climate change, pollution, global warming, and environmental protection
Good: to be desired or approved of

OVERVIEW

Climate change refers to the "long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns." [1].
"A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%" [2]. We are at a stage in society where it is a scientific consensus that climate change exists, and is largely a result of human activity.

C1: ENERGY & RESOURCES

Climate change policies are good policies because they drive us away from energy scarcity in the long term. One can use basic logic to reach this argument.
Coal, Fossil Fuels, and Oils are FINITE resources. This means they will eventually run out. MET says "it is predicted that we will run out of fossil fuels in this century. Oil can last up to 50 years, natural gas up to 53 years, and coal up to 114 years. Yet, renewable energy is not popular enough, so emptying our reserves can speed up" [3].
Climate change policies ensure that we are producing and expanding our production with renewable energy sources constantly. This is especially important considering that fossil fuel resources will run out THIS CENTURY.
Policies like the Energy Policy Act of 2005, contribute to this cause.

"In accordance with Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. § 15852), each fiscal year the federal government must consume at least 7.5% of its total electricity from renewable sources—referred to as the renewable electricity requirement" [2].

The act regulates federal energy production by mandating that a certain percentage of it comes from renewable sources. This not only reduces our dependency on finite energy sources but reduces pollution by introducing more sustainable power generation benefitting the climate.

SOURCES

Conservallectual

05.04.2022 01:57AM

Con

While I do believe in man made climate change, however I don't believe that:

* It will be cataclysmic( In other words, I don't believe climate alarmists when they say "We have 10 years to save the planet" because they have always been wrong: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

* I don't believe that it's a big deal

* I don't believe that government is the one to deal with it.

Most pollution comes from developing countries like China or India: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/health-sapping.html

The people from these areas are very, very poor and can't live without carbon emissions.

In fact, some green policies have done more harm than good - such as California. California has a byzantine set of green laws that - alongside improper wildfire control - have caused forest fires to get worse: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/02/25/wildfires-caused-by-bad-environmental-policy-are-causing-california-forests-to-be-net-co2-emitters/?sh=4bb7c0eb5e30

free markets are also - in fact - the best friend of stable climate: https://fee.org/articles/in-the-fight-against-climate-change-free-markets-are-our-biggest-ally/#:~:text=If%20the%20world%20is%20to%20stave%20off%20climate,greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20significantly%20more%20than%20non-capitalist%20countries.

https://theconversation.com/why-some-green-policies-can-actually-harm-progress-on-climate-change-130904

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/08/11/how-do-you-tell-if-climate-laws-really-work-start-by-counting-them/?sh=75f351b04e11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWxV0kHa98M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVooYlyl20

Round 2

Novice

05.05.2022 09:40PM

Pro

FRAMEWORK

CON does not dispute or take any issue with my framework, therefore it must be concluded he agrees to it.

C1: ENERGY & RESOURCES

Extend. CON does not address or rebuke this argument about the necessity, importance, and benefits of these policies.

REBUTTALS

Most pollution comes from developing countries like China or India: The people from these areas are very, very poor and can't live without carbon emissions.

But no one is arguing to completely uproot every single fossil fuel at this instant. However, India and China need climate change regulations because one day ALL FOSSIL FUELS will run out THIS CENTURY. They need to have requirements for at least a small proportion of their energy to come from renewable sources otherwise when this happens their country will be devastated and it will be an INJUSTICE to their citizens by creating a worse environment for them to live in as well stranding them in energy shortages. Both the countries you mention understand this!

CHINA: "Accelerating work on 1+N policies for peaking carbon emissions and achieving carbon neutrality. The country has formulated and released a top-level design document for peaking carbon emissions and achieving carbon neutrality and is working on an action plan for peaking carbon emissions before 2030, with implementation plans for fields and sectors such as energy, industry, urban and rural construction, transport, and agriculture and rural areas" [1].
"Its 13th Five Year Plan for Electricity (2016-2020) aims to raise non-fossil fuel's share of total electricity production from 35 to 39 percent by 2020. By 2030, one-fifth of the country's electricity consumption is forecasted to come from non-fossil fuel sources" [3].
INDIA: "India's announcement that it aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2070 and to meet fifty percent of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2030 is a hugely significant moment for the global fight against climate change" [2].

Environmental Historian Steven C. Beda advises on this that "climate change and forest management practices both have contributed to today’s fire conditions, and reducing wildfire risks requires addressing both issues" [4]. When discussing an on-balance consideration you have to weigh both negatives and positives, and ultimately it is the renewable energy and carbon reduction regulations that are the best strategy for reducing global temperature that tends to lead to more fires.
It's plausible and good for us to discuss ways we can spatially amend our forest conservation efforts specifically, but this doesn't change the fact that climate change regulations are what is necessary to attack them.

free markets are also - in fact - the best friend of a stable climate

I agree that capitalism allows people to invent renewable energy and allows for the expansion of energy sources but this is a RESULT of climate change regulations that point them in a direction of innovation.
There isn't anything wrong with capitalism, but for it to function in its best capacity it needs a central government and regulations at times to push the economy in certain directions.
In fact, these results ENABLE capitalism to function. Renewable energy requirements create new power facilities, creating thousands to millions of jobs and expanding markets for capitalism to develop.
For example as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the expansion of renewable energy in ethanol development, "In 2005, the U.S. ethanol industry supported the creation of 153,725 new jobs in all sectors of the economy, including more than 19,000 jobs in America’s manufacturing sector" [5]. Climate change regulations literally empower capitalism and innovation.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS TELL US?

Imagine you live in a prospering city. You know a dangerous hurricane is coming that has the potential to do serious destruction. Should you prepare sea walls, barriers, shelters, and rescue teams, or should you do nothing and allow the hurricane to ravage your beautiful home?
Climate change regulations are the rescue teams, the sea walls, and the shelters. They are measures that MUST be taken to prevent the impending dangers that WILL come with the loss of fossil fuels.

CONCLUSION

Climate change regulations are on balance good policies because as I have shown they prepare us for a future without any fossil fuels which will CERTAINLY run out, while also improving our environment and I think most people should be able to agree on this.

SOURCES

Conservallectual

05.07.2022 09:40PM

Con

Forfeited

RationalMadman

05.07.2022 09:44PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

De facto FF. To me it defaults arguments and conduct but sources were indeed used by Con as was S&g sufficient so I feel that will be wrong to allocate.