The United States needs to set a concrete goal to cut CO2 emissions

First of all, let me thank you for accepting my challenge and say that I admire your debating skills and wide knowledge of the subject of this debate. I believe that the United States should follow or do more than the Kyoto protocol, which almost every other country in the world has ratified. You need only to look at this graph to see that the United States is almost alone in its defiance of the Kyoto protocol. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yahoo! News says "The United States is the only major industrial nation to reject Kyoto." In other words, I believe that the United States should reduce its greenhouse emissions by 7% or more by 2012 as laid out by the Kyoto protocol. Since I mistakenly put CO2 in the debate title to summarize all greenhouse gases, I shall only debate that the U.S. needs to reduce its CO2 emissions by 7% or more by 2012. As to what you have said about the cooling in the 1970s, there are always scattered theories that will say anything. There was nothing like the complete consensus we have today; only a handful of researchers were afraid of global cooling. These scientists probably noticed short term drops in temperature, temperature drops in their area, or La Nina and noticed that CO2 levels were going up and drew a relationship between the two. The American Museum of Natural History tells visitors that tree rings showed that temperatures were increasing ever since the start of the industrial revolution, when man first started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and while temperatures did not go up on average as much from 1950-1970 they still continued in a general upward trend. You used the American Conservative Union as your source for decreasing temperatures from 1998-2005, but this source has long been known to distort the facts on global warming and is in support of the Bush administrations' steadfast denial and cover-up of global warming. The supposed cooling between 1998 and 2005 stands in direct opposition to the fact that 2005 and 1998 were tied as the world's two hottest years and that most of the years in between and after them broke temperature records. (http://www.ucsusa.org...) (http://www.usatoday.com...) (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) (http://www.theoec.org...) As to what you say about the medieval warming period, while temperature did increase during the medieval warming period the temperatures did not increase nearly as much as of late and they were only in certain areas. The top eleven warmest years on record have still all been in the last 13 years, not last the last 1000. (http://carto.eu.org...) (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...) The only evidence I can find is that of historical records and since the times of the medieval warm period were hotter than the times before, the inhabitants recorded it in their records. They had no way of judging the exact temperature like today, it was simply whether or not they felt it was hot and they could not tell what the temperature was elsewhere in the world. The world is almost completely united on the fact that man has caused global warming. The United Nations has already acknowledged that fact and the vast majority of the world is doing all they can to stop it. Even if it makes no difference alone to stop global warming, if the United States cuts CO2 emissions, it shall not be known as the one stubborn country that blocked all of the other countries progress. The United States would make friendlier relations with other countries and take back its position as a world leader if it spearheads the charge against global warming. The United States desperately needs better relations with foreign countries at this point in time and they should at least look like they care about stopping a threat that almost all of the other countries consider calamitous. If things get worse, desperate countries could start wars all over because lack of resources and it will be blamed on the U.S. and the U.S. will have to go in and stop the wars. We do not need another war to burden our economy even further. You said "Even assuming that the US makes up 23% of the worlds total man-made emissions (which it did prior to the rise of China), the US only made up .69% of the worlds total emissions." Natural processes do put CO2 into the atmosphere but they also take it out. The EPA states: "The primary natural processes that release CO2 into the atmosphere (sources) and that remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sinks) are: Animal and plant respiration, by which oxygen and nutrients are converted into CO2 and energy, and plant photosynthesis by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored as carbon in plant biomass; Ocean-atmosphere exchange, in which the oceans absorb and release CO2 at the sea surface; and Volcanic eruptions, which release carbon from rocks deep in the Earth's crust (this source is very small)." We, however, do not take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just keep pouring it in and upset the extremely delicate balance of our earth. Remember that if just one species dies due to global warming than its predators will have nothing to eat and die out and its prey will spread all over, eat all of their prey and die out. Because of this chain reaction species that are vital for food and the earth's well being will die out and mass extinction will likely occur. The United States can also make a big difference by cutting its CO2 emissions. The museum states that if most of the world uses mostly fossil fuels the CO2 in the atmosphere will double by 2100. That seems like a big impact to me. Cutting CO2 is also good since by doing so, the United States' reliance on Middle Eastern countries for oil will be much less, since one of the only ways to cut CO2 is by using alternative energy sources. Oil is one of the key things countries like Iran and Venezuela use to threaten our country with and it is a way for those countries to hold power over the U.S. The United States' foreign policy decisions should not be influence by Iran or Venezuela, they should be influenced by what is best for the country. Oil prices are also extremely high and the constant importing of oil is draining the Unites States' economy. With alternative energy the United States will be able to export more and import less. Electric bills will also be less. This will probably help the United States' economy, not hurt it. CO2 and temperature go hand and hand. When CO2 goes up, world temperature goes up and when it goes down, the temperature goes with it. (http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu...) (http://environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca...) Now CO2 has risen up to record levels and temperature will follow. It is too dangerous to risk doing nothing. The AMNH states that Greenland could melt and cause 7 meter sea level rise if the arctic temperature increases by as little as 3 degrees and that it has already increased by 2. Temperature changes could release methane, which is five time as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, from the sea floor and accelerate the process. Many scientists also fear that the arctic ice cap could melt by 2012. The list of dangers is too long for me to fit in this post. What would happen if we do nothing and cause the downfall of human civilization? We shall be remembered as the generation that sat around and watched as we destroyed our home. This is not just a threat to a city or a threat to country or even a threat to a people, it is a threat to the entirety of human civilization and we must unite in our quest to stop our destruction or fall bickering over whether or not it is really worth the effort.