Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.

Hello, my name is [NAME] and my team NEGATES today’s topic…RESOLVED: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.Before we present our main arguments, we’d like provide a proper framework for today’s debate…DEFINITION: "Developed Countries"First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies.OBSERVATION: Possession BurdenSecond, our team would like to make an important observation about the topic, and point out that unlike most resolutions, the words "should" and "ought" don't appear. Today's debate is about possession, not aspiration. Our opponents have the burden of showing you where and how the "moral obligation" currently exists, not that is should or ought to exist.STANDARD: UtilitarianismThird and finally, the standard of today's debate, the most important issue in this round, should be utilitarianism. Today's debate revolves around the moral obligations that the wealthiest countries have to the entire world. Unlike our opponents, we don't believe that some countries should do some good, but rather, that the greatest countries, should do the greatest good, for the greatest numbers.With all of that said, we have 3 arguments...CONTENTION 1: Cannot Predict + No ImpactOur first main argument is that climate change cannot be accurately predicted, and that the impacts are greatly exaggerated.An article by Dr. Gregory Young, a neuroscientist and physicist from Oxford University, points out that the climate "is such an extraordinarily difficult dynamic system" and most climate change prediction models are inaccurate and incomplete. For instance, models cited by the UN's IPCC leave out extraordinarily important variables, such as "solar activity, water vapor... major ocean currents" etc. The article goes on to point out that the UN's 2007 estimates had a "500%-2,000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature." The article ends by pointing out that out of 539 published papers on climate change during that time, none detailed catastrophic climate change due to man.The impact is simple: countries can't be obligated to mitigate a problem they can't quantify and predict, nor should they be obligated to mitigate a problem that the scientific community hasn't identified as serious.CONTENTION 2: No Obligation existsOur second main argument is that no obligation exists, or can exist.There is only one real legally binding agreement between most of the developed countries of the world when it comes to combating climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire. The Moscow Times recently reported that Russia has joined fellow developed powers Canada and Japan in refusing to renew. This is because the U.S. and China refuse to sign-on, who combined contribute 40% of global CO2 emissions. The IPS News Agency also recently reported that the EU disagrees with the current version of the Kyoto Protocol being discussed.There are several impacts here... If a moral obligation truly existed, these developed countries would most likely sign off on an agreement such as the Kyoto Protocol. These countries have chosen to ignore Kyoto, thus they have no obligation. Even if a country believed they had an obligation, Russia's stance points to the fact that action without the participation of large developed countries such as the U.S. is meaningless. Thus, developed countries have no means of mitigating even if they wanted to, and obligation cannot exist without means in the first place. CONTENTION 3: Mitigating Climate Change Kills By Letting Die (Opportunity Cost)Our third main argument is that mitigating climate change kills by letting die.Like real policymakers, we must realize there are opportunity costs to any action a government takes, and the opportunity cost of mitigating climate change, is death. Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School explains...Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat. ...... for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation...By focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realize that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly as a result – because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations.In a different article, Mr. Lomborg details how just $75 billion, if spent wisely, could positively impact billions of lives. This is in stark contrast to the roughly $500 billion per year that the World Economic Forum estimates it would cause to adequately mitigate climate change, with an article in The Times pointing out that even if we capped CO2 emissions at present levels for about the next 100 years, we'd only see an 18% overall reduction in CO2.The impact is clear. Developed countries don't have a moral obligation to let people die today in order to build windmills tomorrow.