[eDebate] new topic paper on Global warming Ans. Steve
helwich at macalester.edu
Wed Jun 20 17:21:34 CDT 2007
I am not opposed to an enery policy/climate change resolution--thought it was interesting, and almost as fun as the treaties topic (can we have a do-over on that one, btw?)
However, I do disagree somewhat with Scott's contentions:
1. I saw many warming debates. I'm not sure if Mac is a "big backfile" team, but we did a ton of research on warming good/bad and frequently initiated the debate on the aff and neg.
2. Any lack of warming debates is likely more explanable by the nature of warming impact scenarios than a community ignorance of the importance of climate change. It is hard to win a short timeframe impact to any warming advantage that is solvable by even drastic emissions cuts. Contrast this with the relatively fast timeframes on the variety of high-magnitude negative oil/coal/gas price/consumption disadvantages, and it makes sense that smart affirmative teams would build their cases around equally short timeframe, high-magnitude economy, competitiveness, and geopolitical advantages.
I am hard pressed to think of an energy policy or climate change resolution that would change this strategic dynamic, which, based on my reading, is a fairly accurate reflection of many policy debates on the subject.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Subject: [eDebate] new topic paper on Global warming Ans. Steve
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:33:42 -0500
More information about the Mailman