Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

Thanks to my opponent for a neat and timely response. "1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation" Moral obligation - (n.) an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.[1] As you can see, we cannot even decide whether it is right or wrong because we do not even know if global warming is real. Just look at [2]. "2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating." This debate about the moral obligation to mitigate, and they also created some mess and why do not they have the moral obligation to do it? "3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation." I am saying that all nations have the obligation (from round 1) and not just developed nations, but the topic says "developed nations". "2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business." I'll restate my argument before starting the rebuttals. It is: "The government does not need to take action. As oil prices rise due to it being scarcer, the people start to invest in alternate fuels." The main thing is not about oil companies losing business. "1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related." Yes, it is related to the mitigation of climate change, but not related to the moral obligation to mitigate it. "2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. " Well, terrorism is based partly on oil, but there are many other reasons, for example: race differences, religion differences, etc.; so removing oil does not necessarily prevent terrorism. "3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. " However, this is about the nations themselves, not individuals! My argument "The government does not have to take action" still stands. "Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention." I assume that by our first contention, you meant: "Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating. Since today"s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to 'adapt' to the effects of climate change.According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death. One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually. The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate." Adapt-To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation.[3] Mitigation: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate. [4] You only proved that we have a good reason to adapt, not we have a moral obligation to do so. Plus, this is another topic. Adapting and mitigating are two separate, but somewhat connected things, as I showed you. Moral obligation - (n.) an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.[1] And you only provided reasons, and not a consideration of right and wrong. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://debate.org... [3]http://www.answers.com... [4]http://dictionary.reference.com...