Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bhn7

[AFF] Global Warming

Recommended Posts

All you need is one damn card that says that global warming will create a public health crisis, or that it increases malaria-carrying mosquito populations in sub-saharan Africa. You can fight the extra-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how Kyoto is a public health service to Africa.

 

Run something topical. If you want to debate global warming, find a case that scoops it up as an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, just iron-fert some nigerian coastal waters. I like random cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd have to be a development case, or a dedev case. Developing countries do not regulate pollution as much. For instance, in spray cans, chlorofluorocarbons are what cause the can to spray. These are also present in refrigerators and air conditioners. There is a ban on chlorofluorocarbons in most developed countries. Chlorofluorocarbons eat at the ozone. The reaction that occurs causes each chlorine molecule to break down 100,000 molecules of 03( 3 Oxygen bonded) which is causing the hole in the ozone.

Ultraviolet light hits a CFC(chlorofluorocarbon), breaking off a chlorine atom. Leaving CFCL2. The chlorine atom then attacks an ozone molecule (03) pulling an oxygen atom off of it, leaving 02. The chlorine and oxygen atom form chlorine monoxide, CLO. A free oxygen atom then pulls off the oxygen off of chlorine monoxoide and leaves the chlorine atom. This means the cycle happens over and over.

The reaction is

CCL3F + UV > CL + CCL2F

CL + 03 > CLO + 02

CL + 0 > CL + 02 (repeated many times)

And the ozone is ya know, key to prevent all of the harmful radiation from reaching earth and causing all types of cancer. A plan could involve chlorofluorocarbons.

A great book on the subject is "Living in the Environment" Thirteenth Edition, by G. Tyler Miller Jr. Specifically, chapter 18.

 

The development case would find a way for the US to regulate, have incentives for these countries to change, or simply provide them the technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shit, just iron-fert some nigerian coastal waters. I like random cases.
Find me literature that calls that public health assistance, and I'll help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All you need is one damn card that says that global warming will create a public health crisis, or that it increases malaria-carrying mosquito populations in sub-saharan Africa. You can fight the extra-T.

 

you have it backwards, and its more than extra T. Under that interpretation you could run any aff that solves global warming to be topical, which is insanely unpredictable. Additioanlly, that interpretation literally makes topicality an IMPACT of the 1AC advantage, which is retarded

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have it backwards, and its more than extra T. Under that interpretation you could run any aff that solves global warming to be topical, which is insanely unpredictable. Additioanlly, that interpretation literally makes topicality an IMPACT of the 1AC advantage, which is retarded
it's not retarded... it's just called fx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Find me literature that calls that public health assistance, and I'll help.
prompting this response:
Find me literature proving that our founding fathers considered U.S. federal government expenditures for "public health assistance" in another continent constitutionally authorized, and I won't boycott the topic and refuse to judge it.

Followed by negative rep with this comment:

Don't troll. -Tomak
And yet I see no substantive response.

 

We're sinking to a new low of unsavory arrogance when heartfelt viewpoints are expressed and the response isn't to address them, but to attack someone's reputation and label them a "troll."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Tomak is sorry for mistaking your absurd post for trolling.

 

The founding fathers would be cool with it, it's the foundation of our nation. I'd really question America winning the revolutionary war without the aid of the French.

Furthermore, why is this even in question? It isn't relevant to the discussion, and isn't even a mildly strong position to ague in a debate round.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is about global warming affs not your happy corner to shout about your political ideologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have it backwards, and its more than extra T. Under that interpretation you could run any aff that solves global warming to be topical, which is insanely unpredictable. Additioanlly, that interpretation literally makes topicality an IMPACT of the 1AC advantage, which is retarded

 

yup, solvency turns mean you are "anti-topical." game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yup, solvency turns mean you are "anti-topical." game over.
T should not be evaluated based on the outcome of the solvency debate. They are separate burdens, and T should be evaluated FIRST. This is exactly the reason why effectual topicality is illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure Tomak is sorry for mistaking your absurd post for trolling.
Since you and Tomak seem to think the post is a bit too tangential (I'll concede it's generic to the whole topic), I've politely removed it.

 

The founding fathers would be cool with it, it's the foundation of our nation. I'd really question America winning the revolutionary war without the aid of the French.
And my post was "absurd?"

 

France's temporary military assistance (I wouldn't even go so far as to characterize it as an "alliance") during the Revolutionary War is worlds apart from iron fertilizing the African coast to provide other nations with "public health assistance."

 

The rest of your post has more merit, but you're just way off here. Military alliances and treaties are constitutionally authorized (not that that's relevant). Foreign "public health assistance" is not.

 

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

 

and isn't even a mildly strong position to ague in a debate round.
I disagree. Given its nebulous nature (and particularly given how non-unique such spending would be), it would be tough to impact and therefore arguably not the best strategic approach. But the fact that a resolution was chosen under which it could be argued that 100% of cases are blatantly unconstitutional, it speaks volumes about terrible topic selection.

 

Again, I apologize for the "tangent." Tomak's "find me evidence that..." remark (which was valid) evoked my reaction. Since multiple people think it's too off-topic, I deleted the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree that this makes an extremely untopical case. but global warming is relevant to the resolution. if global warming continues all actions taken by affirmatives mean nothing. even if it doesn't lead to extinction, it stills causes climate change, which means that there will be more mosquito-borne disease, bacterial infections, etc. i am writing this as a cp with a nb that turns case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree that this makes an extremely untopical case. but global warming is relevant to the resolution. if global warming continues all actions taken by affirmatives mean nothing. even if it doesn't lead to extinction, it stills causes climate change, which means that there will be more mosquito-borne disease, bacterial infections, etc. i am writing this as a cp with a nb that turns case.

 

Good luck on the competitiveness debate. You're going to need it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Michael McCarthy, Stephen Castle and Edwin Naidu

 

Existing divisions between rich and poor countries will be sharply exacerbated by the pattern of climate-change effects in the coming years, the latest United Nations report on the effects of global warming has made clear.

 

Africa could be plagued by increased drought, crop failure and disease, a study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.

 

Extreme weather events and sea-level rise are all likely to fall much more heavily on struggling populations in Africa, Asia and South America than on the richer industrial societies, which are best able to afford counter-measures to limit the consequences.

 

Some of the projected changes are horrifying - and only just around the corner: "By 2020, between 75 million and 250 million people [in Africa] are projected to be exposed to an increase of water stress due to climate change," the report says.

 

African agricultural production is projected to be "severely compromised", with decreases likely in the area suitable for agriculture, the length of the growing season and yield potential. "In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 20 percent by 2020."

 

Zola Skweyiya, the minister of social development, said global warming was an obvious threat to the welfare of the poor.

 

"We ought to be educating people and making them aware of the situation facing South Africa and indeed Africa. The lack of water will have a major impact on agriculture - inevitably on food production.

 

"The report shocked me," Skweyiya said, "because, although we know there is deep poverty, we have not delved into the key issues facing us because of global warming."

 

The report says scores of countries will face war for scarce land, food and water as global warming increases. More than 60 nations, mainly in the Third World, are likely to have have existing tensions exacerbated by the struggle for diminishing resources. Others now at peace - including China, the United States and even parts of Europe - are expected to be plunged into conflict.

 

Even those not directly affected will be threatened by a flood of hundreds of millions of "environmental refugees".

 

The threat is worrying world leaders. Ban Ki-moon, the new UN secretary-general, told a global warming conference last month: "In coming decades, changes in the environment - and the resulting upheavals, from droughts to inundated coastal areas - are likely to become a major driver of war and conflict."

 

Ronnie Mamoepa, the spokesperson for Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the minister of foreign affairs, agreed that global warming contained the seeds of a threat to international peace and security.

 

"This is a matter not only of national and regional but international significance," he said, adding that the government would study the report and respond substantially afterwards.

 

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the minister of environmental affairs and tourism, said the report dealt a knockout blow to climate sceptics.

 

"It sharply draws our attention to the many challenges we face not only as policymakers but in our everyday lives.

 

"South African ecosystems seem particularly vulnerable to risk [of temperature rises] with many endemic species identified at risk in the fynbos, succulent Karoo and other ecosystems."

 

He said that adapting to climate change was now a priority.

 

"If we do not see this as a clarion call to action, our legacy to future generations will be massive disruption, loss of human life and species lost.

 

"Those nations, such as the US, that have historically contributed the most to this problem should start to shoulder their responsibility to lead in combating climate change and to assist vulnerable developing countries to adapt to and deal with the devastating impact. The findings released are worse than expected," he said.

 

Aid agencies and environmental pressure groups have called for action.

 

"Governments must act now to stop a catastrophe for the world's poor," said Benedict Southworth, the director of the anti-poverty charity the World Development Movement.

 

Catherine Pearce, the Friends of the Earth International's climate campaigner, said: "Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue, it is a looming humanitarian catastrophe."

 

In launching the report this weekend, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairperson, said: "The poorest of the poor in the world - and this includes poor people in prosperous societies - are going to be the worst hit. People who are poor are least able to adapt to climate change."

 

The study, endorsed by all the major UN member states, was the second part of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, or AR4.

 

The first part, released in Paris two months ago, dealt with the science of climate change and likely future temperature rises. The report goes on to detail the potential effects of those rises on the natural world and on human society.

 

It was released in Brussels only after an argument in which some countries responsible for increasingly high greenhouse gas emissions, led by China, the US and Saudi Arabia, succeeded in watering down the text from its initial draft.

 

However, the picture painted by the final consensus document was stark enough, setting out the dire consequences of global warming, sector by sector and region by region, if strong action is not taken to limit its effects.

 

The effects are already visible, the report says, with significant changes due to rising temperatures now apparent in ice masses, water bodies, agriculture and ecosystems.

 

Changes consistent with higher temperatures have been noted in 29 000 sets of data and 75 separate studies; they range from melting permafrost in Arctic regions to shifting distributions of fish populations and earlier timing of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying.

 

But it is the future effects that are potentially catastrophic. The report sets out changes likely in freshwater resources, food, coastal systems, communities, health and natural ecosystems.

 

Up to 30 percent of all species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global temperatures rise by 1,5?C to 2,5?C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T should not be evaluated based on the outcome of the solvency debate. They are separate burdens, and T should be evaluated FIRST. This is exactly the reason why effectual topicality is illegitimate.

 

lol, i know. that was the point of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
after this year teams have 20 points blocks to fx bad

 

If teams would stop pinning their FX-T hopes on "ground" arguments, those blocks lose a lot of their ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try DRC: illegal logging=global warming

 

 

This sounds cool and all but

 

1. I dont think the illegal logging in just the DRC will make that much of an impact on global warming

 

2. Still doesnt prove its public health assistance, unless u run an environment aff specific to the congo with illegal logging being one specific scenario. But that still would be effects.

Environmental health K to Public Health....FX

 

3. I like the idea though, i may look into bc my team always, for some reason, likes to run affs that arent really t lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...