Con Case 1
My partner and I negate the resolution “Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.” We make the following observation:
•Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, explains the idea of moral obligation through the “drowning baby” analogy. Specifically, one has a moral obligation to save a drowning baby, even if it would make one late for work or ruin one’s shoes. However, if the baby cannot be saved or if a significant moral harm, such as the rescuer drowning, would occur, then no moral obligation exists.
The Con will show that this is precisely the case as (1) Developed countries alone cannot mitigate the effects of climate change and (2) Attempting to mitigate the effects of climate change would lead to a significant moral harm from the negative economic impacts and the resulting human suffering.
Contention 1: Developed nations are not morally obliged to mitigate because they do not account for the most carbon emissions and therefore have a low relative impact on global climate change.
According to The Economist, “Most people in the West know that the poor world contributes to climate change, though the scale of its contribution still comes as a surprise. Poor and middle-income countries already account for just over half of total carbon emissions…The lifetime emissions from these countries' planned power stations would match the world's entire industrial pollution since 1850.”
National Center for Policy Analysis stated, “Indeed, it has long been recognized that no policies undertaken solely by Western countries can reduce future global warming, regardless of the developed world's past and current contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Rather, fast-growing developing countries control the climate change thermostat.”
It is immoral to expect developed nations to take on the sacrifice, when they don’t control climate change.
Contention 2: The economic implications of mitigating climate change are devastating, especially from a moral standpoint.
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, at Ohio State University reported that “In the absence of profound technological change, curtailing growth in CO2 emissions would require severe economic contraction, entailing the decommissioning of most of the world’s existing industrial capacity and abandoning the internal combustion engine.”
The potential consequences of mitigating the effects of climate change include the reduction of transport emissions, which sounds okay until you realize that the global economy -especially developing countries- depend on trade. Moreover, manufacturing could be sent offshore, which is detrimental to the domestic economy and wouldn’t even help the environment.
With regards to the alleged green jobs, the Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation stated that “the trillions of dollars of lost GDP and the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs occur even after homes and businesses have made the switch to greener methods. The hoped-for green-job gain is a mirage”.
There is no need to speculate. Spain attempted a green economy, and failed miserably. According to The Seattle Times, Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, an economist with King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, studied Spain's green technology program and found that “each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries”.
Cap and trade, the most cited form of mitigation, is a proven failure. A study by the Heritage Foundation found that “Overall, Waxman-Markey would reduce gross domestic product by $393 billion annually and by a total of $9.4 trillion by 2035.”
Why does this matter? First, the economic well-being of developed countries is crucial to the global, interdependent economy. Second and more importantly, economic well-being is intrinsically related to human quality of life. The repercussions of an economic recession or depression that would be brought about by mitigating climate change include unemployment, homelessness, and health concerns, especially for the underprivileged members of society and underdeveloped countries.
Conclusion:
My partner and I firmly NEGATE the resolution, noting that a moral obligation does not exist if the aforementioned rescuer “can’t save the baby” or a “significant moral harm” would occur as a result of trying.
The Con has proven that (1) Developed countries alone cannot mitigate the effects of climate change, quite simply because they do not control “the climate change thermostat” AND (2) Mitigating climate change would lead to a significant moral harm, from the negative economic impacts and resulting human suffering.
There is NO moral obligation for developed countries to mitigate the effects of climate change.