Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Global warming, binding emission targets for
Section H. Health, science and technology

There have been numerous global attempts to agree on limits to greenhouse gas emissions, but thus far, nothing on the global scale has succeeded; the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the USA, withdrawn from by Canada, and had not imposed binding targets on the developing world anyway. The closest thing to a serious inter-country accord was the European Union’s cap-and-trade scheme, but that was largely disastrous, with limits set too high to be effective. This debate represents a radical departure from existing practice, to impose internationally binding obligations that require immediate action.

Pros

[1] The pollution we have pumped into our atmosphere since the industrial revolution threatens to cause long-term climate change. In particular, CO₂ from the burning of fossil fuels is thought to build up in the upper atmosphere and act like a greenhouse — letting sunlight in, but preventing heat from escaping. Projections show global temperatures rising by 3° Celsius in the next century, sufficient to melt the polar ice caps and cause widespread flooding. The four hottest years in recorded history have been in the last decade. Extreme weather phenomena have become more common, from droughts and floods in sub-Saharan Africa to water shortages in South-East England. Countries such as Bangladesh and some of the Pacific island states are in danger of being totally submerged in the near future if current levels of global warming continue. Binding targets are necessary to solve this problem.

[2] Tighter controls on emissions must be introduced, but this need not sacrifice economic growth. Western countries should be allowed to ’buy’ the emission quotas of developing countries that succeed in bringing their levels down. This will reduce total global emissions while also providing investment in, and financial incentives for, ’green’ forms of industrial development in developing countries.

[3] When the potential harm is so great, we cannot sit around waiting for ’certainty’. Putting economics ahead of the environment will mean that some countries cease to exist — presumably the worst economic scenario for any nation. The environment is fundamental to the flourishing of life from the most basic to the most prosperous and must be our number one priority. Also, pollution controls have many beneficial side-effects — improving the quality of life for people choking in polluted cities and encouraging energy conservation rather than consumption.

Cons

[1] The environmental lobbyists have been prophesying doom for decades, but the world still seems to continue with relative stability. There have always been natural climactic cycles — ever since the last Ice Age, the world has been getting warmer. There is no conclusive evidence that man is responsible for the current change — in fact, the earth’s temperature fell between 1940 and 1970 despite a rapid injection of CO₂ into the atmosphere, and there has been no warming in the Arctic despite ’computer predictions’. So binding targets are simply unnecessary.

[2] The West has built its prosperity upon industrial growth. Pollution controls will have the effect of preventing such growth in the developing world — such controls amount to environmental imperialism. It is inevitable that at this economic stage, emissions will be greater and it is hypocritical of the West to insist that developing countries do not do what they themselves have done for centuries. In the absence of hard evidence for the causes of global warming, emission limits should not be further reduced.

[3] Environmentalists wish to destroy jobs and reduce our nation’s wealth on the basis of an unproven theory. Their scaremongering and indoctrination (particularly of children) threatens our very way of life. Energy conservation and pollution controls should be encouraged up to a point (as they already are), but economic productivity and improved standards of living must remain our number one priority.

Possible motions

This House supports internationally binding emission targets for all countries.

This House believes that only binding emission targets can save the planet from global warming.

Related topics

Cars in city centres, banning of

Environmental responsibility, developed world should take more

Vegetarianism