7/28/2019 Motions AF2012

1/5

1. This House believes that regulation is a more effective approach to reduce carbonemission than market mechanism.

BACKGROUND INFO: Over the past twenty years most scientists and many politicians

have come to believe that mankind is changing the worlds climate. This is often called

global warming, and is blamed on carbon gases being released (emitted) into the air. Climate

change is seen as a threat to mankind because it is likely to involve more natural disaster such

as droughts, flooding and severe storms, as well as a rise in sea level which will ruin the land

on which many millions of people now live. Therefore, carbon emissions need to be cut to

tackle climate change. This debate compares the two main ways that have been put forward

for cutting carbon emissions. Firstly, regulations would involve bringing in new government

rules which companies and families would have to follow. For example, regulations could set

new standards for vehicle fuel economy, so that automobiles use less fuel to drive the same

distance, and so release less carbon into the air. Regulations could require companies and

families to save energy by putting in green technologies, e.g. pollution filters, solar panels,

more efficient heating systems, low energy light-bulbs. Generally those who do not follow

the new rules would be fined by the government. The other proposal is to put a price on

carbon, so that it becomes expensive to release it into the air. These approaches are called

market mechanism. Pricing carbon would give people and companies a strong reason to find

ways of reducing their carbon emissions. There are two ways in which a price could be put on

carbon a tax or a cap and trade system. A carbon tax would make people pay the

government a sum of money for every tons of carbon they release into the air. A cap and

trade system would set an overall limit (the cap part) on the amount of carbon which could be

emitted each year. They would be buying from other companies which had successfully cut

their emissions and so had spare permits to sell (the trade part). This debate contrasts the two

7/28/2019 Motions AF2012

2/5

common methods of reducing carbon emission by taking into account all the possible aspects

and circumstances.

2.

This House would justify nuclear power to produce electricity in everyday life.

BACKGROUND INFO: Nuclear is a clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels "The

future is green, the future is nuclear." (Times Online. October 4, 2009). The most common

method today to produce electricity is through nuclear fission, though other methods include

nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. Nuclear power is generated using Uranium which is

abundant and will last for hundreds of years. All methods being used now include heating a

working fluid such as water, which is then converted into mechanical work so as to generate

electricity. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity derives from nuclear power. It is

currently used in most developed countries in the world and has been considered as

alternative form of energy. As the world energy demand is estimated to grow by 50% by

2030, the main question is whether nuclear energy should be pondered as a main electricity

source of 21st century plans to combat global warming and to help us meet the increasing

demand of energy use. Some people favor nuclear power plants because this form of energy

is considered cleaner than fossil fuels such as coal. However the proponents who object the

use of nuclear power argue that any risk as in Chernobyl or Mile High is intolerable.

Radioactive contamination spreads over 150,000 square kilometers in Byelorussia, Ukraine

and Russia. Therefore, this debate signifies whether or not nuclear power should be used as

the justifiable and common method to produce electricity in everyday life.

3. This House believes that environmental concern should always take precedence overeconomic development in both developed and developing countries

BACKGROUND INFO: The issue of economic development versus environmental

conservation remains unsettled. As industrialized nations; ironically those that are most

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Nuclear_is_only_clean_energy_source_that_can_replace_fossil_fuelshttp://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Nuclear_is_only_clean_energy_source_that_can_replace_fossil_fuels

7/28/2019 Motions AF2012

3/5

responsible for current environmental problems, fear that unregulated economic development

in developing countries in the Third World will have disastrous long-term environmental

effects on the planet. They point out that massive clearing of tropical forests for farmland is

threatening biodiversity and may impact world climate, while a reliance on heavy industry to

fuel economic growth adds more pollutants to the air, ground, and water. Therefore, it could

be said that Nations are losing more from polluting than they are gaining from

industrialization as years of uncontrolled economic development have created serious,

chronic air pollution that has increased health problems and resulted in annual agriculture

losses of billions of dollars. Thus, uncontrolled growth is not only destructive to the

environment, but to economic itself also. On the other hand, developing countries counter

that they must make industrialization and economic development a priority because they have

to support their growing population. In other word, economic growth, even at the expense of

some environmental degradation, is justified by the need to feed the rising population since

they believe that taking care of the millions of people who are starving is more important than

saving natural resources, most of which are renewable anyway. Therefore, this debate leaves

a question of whether or not economic growth, even at the expense of some environmental

degradation, is justified by the need to feed the rising world population.

4. This House believes that countries suffered from natural disaster should receivedebt relief.

BACKGROUND INFO: Debt relief is often discussed as a possible solution to world

poverty. Given the over 34% of the world population still live in poverty on less than $2 per

day, G8 group; one of the dominant international community consisting of the most powerful

nations in the world, made poverty relief one of their main goals during the UNs millennium

meeting in 2000. When looking for solutions for world poverty, debt relief is often seen as an

important element and has thus sparked the creation of initiatives such as the Heavily

7/28/2019 Motions AF2012

4/5

Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). This addresses some of the worlds poorest

nations that face an unsustainable debt burden and seek for debt relief or complete debt

cancellation in exchange for economic and political reforms. 36 of the worlds poorest

countries have already benefited from this initiative. Moreover, at the urging of British Prime

Minister Tony Blair, the G8 summit revisited the issue of debt relief as a way to rid the world

from poverty in 2005. An agreement was reached to provide more aid as well as debt relief to

poverty-stricken countries and had erased the debt of 18 of the worlds poorest nations

(mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa). 70% of this debt was owed to the World Bank and the

remaining debt was owed to the IMF and the African Development Bank. Debt relief for

countries affected by natural disasters - such as the Asian tsunami, the Kashmir Earthquake

and the Mozambique floods is also being discussed as part of this larger debt relief

initiative. However, questions remain as to whether or not debt relief is the justifiable method

for other countries or organizations to provide aids to the countries suffered from natural

disaster.

5. This House believes that the government should legalize natural disaster as groundsfor immigration

BACKGROUND INFO: Migration on a permanent or temporary basis has always been one

of the most important survival strategies adopted by people in the face of natural disasters.

Since the 1980s researchers have linked the issue of environmental change with human

migration, explicitly designating as environmental refugees, people who leave their homes,

temporarily or permanently, due to the threat, impact or effects of a hazard or environmental

change (El-Hinnawi 1985). Although environmental studies have traditionally focused on the

natural world, the impacts of pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, degradation,

desertification and other environmental processes on human beings have also been a source

of both interest and concern to ecological and social scientists.

7/28/2019 Motions AF2012

5/5

The affirmative site may raise the concept of human vulnerability which involves a

combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone's life and livelihood is put

at risk by a discrete and identifiable event in nature or in society. There are fast-growing

numbers of people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of

drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems. In their

desperation, these environmental refugees feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary

elsewhere. On the other hand, the negative side may argue that immigration caused by the

environmental pressure would leads to land competition, impoverishment, encroachment on

ecologically fragile areas and impoverishment. These events in turn cause political and ethnic

conflicts which may precipitate violence and war. The environmental refugees may end up in

urban slums or camps for internally-displaced persons within the country of origin. They may

cause further environmental problems and conflicts, in which the result could be threats to

social cohesion and national identity, leading to ethnic tension and civil disorder (Myers and

Kent, 1995, 151-3). Therefore, this debate signifies whether or not natural disaster is a

justifiable reason/ground for the environmental refugees to ask for the legal migration

authority from the government of a host country.