Debate negative argument strategies and effectiveness

Negative Argument for Debate

Negative Argument

Government should NOT turn away from fossil fuels

Installing solar collectors on rooftops and insulating homes in America will not provide citizens and businesses with the energy needed to keep American strong. It is paramount that the U.S. continues to use fossil fuels. It's a no-brainer, friends: if we shut down fossil fuel electrical generating plants, we shut down American industry; we also shut down computers, schools, hospitals, factories. And, according to the World Energy Council (http://www.worldenergy.org), "cleaner fossil fuel systems mitigate and even neutralize the adverse consequences of the use of fossil fuels ... [and] the technology for these systems is advancing rapidly."

Nuclear Power, wind power and hydro power are not the ultimate answer

Nuclear power is extremely dangerous and nuclear plants can get out of control: The Chernobyl nuclear accident in Russia in 1986 caused an estimated 4,229 deaths in the Ukraine, and unknown number of cancers throughout Europe, according to Dr. Richard Smart, Department of Nuclear Medicine at St. George hospital in Kogarah Australia. World renowned radiation expert Dr. Helen Caldicott -- founder and president of Physicians for Social Responsibility -- explains that plutonium, a by-product of nuclear fission, is "so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo even distributed could cause cancer in everyone on earth." Also, five kilos of plutonium in the hands of a terrorist can make a sizable nuclear weapon; currently, there over 1,200 tons of plutonium are stored around the world near nuclear plant sites. Additionally, reprocessing spent fuel "causes deadly radiation releases into the environment that are a threat to public health" (Suzuki, 2004), according to Greenpeace of Japan.

Windmill farms, like the one proposed for upstate New York 60 miles south of Rochester, are not the solution when they are built near communities. Putting up 53 windmills, each 400 feet high, "could dominate a landscape ... And drop property values 20 to 40%," according to journalist Jack Spula of the Rochester City News. The noise from the spinning of the huge blades "can induce headaches and other health affects" for people living near them. The blades also kill "large numbers of birds" and create "dangerous ice throws," Spula writes. Meanwhile, each windmill requires 2 acres of land, and also, requires access roads, transmission corridors, and they need to be networked together for effective delivery of electricity to the grid.

Hydro power is on the way out: Daniel Beard, head of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "declared in 1994 that the era of large dam construction was over," according to energy expert Gavan McCormack, writing in Ecology and the World-System. Beard also said it would be "a serious mistake for any region of the world to use what we did on the Colorado and Columbia Rivers as examples to be duplicated." Yes, Japan and China and Vietnam are building humungous dam projects, but in Japan, for example, McCormack writes, "the costs of dam development over the last 40 years have greatly exceeded the benefits ... "

Global Warming Myths Exposed

Global warming is not going to get worse than it is (how bad it is now can be and should be seriously challenged anyway) because of a little drilling in a very tiny patch of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR).

Patrick J. Michaels, writing in The Washington Times, points out how absurd the March 22 press release from the Green Party was: "Green Party members noted that new drilling not only threatened local lands and wildlife in Alaska, but also risked accelerating the advance of catastrophic global warming," the release announced.

But Michaels, a Cato Institute fellow for senior environmental studies and author of the book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media, does the math on the topic. "Even if we grant all the globe's average annual warming of 0.017 degrees Centigrade (C) in the last 10 years was due to increasing carbon dioxide -- and that's quite a concession -- the numbers on ANWAR are a drop in the barrel" (Michaels, 2005), he points out.

To wit: The Energy Information Administration says that petroleum accounted for "about 42%" of the total human contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the last ten years; that translates to oil-related warming of about 0.007 degree C. annually; the yearly global consumption of oil during that period was 26.6 billion barrels; the USGS says the oil in ANWAR that the Bush Administration wishes to pump out is 10.3 billion barrels (which is enough to supply the world for about 5 months or less), or roughly 40% of the annual total of petroleum burned.

With us so far? Now, burn all 10.3 billion barrels of ANWAR oil and get out your calculator: 40% of .007 degree Centimeter per year adds up to "right around .003 degree C, that's THREE THOUSANDTHS, not three or even three-tenths," says Michaels.

While we're on the subject of Global Warming, new research shows the earth was warming during the Middle Ages than it is right now. According to U.K. Telegraph and Environment & Climate News, a UK newsmagazine, though environmentalists have claimed that "temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before ... such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years" (Matthews, 2003). A review of more than "240 scientific studies" shows, according to Matthews' story, that "today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather."

Dr. Peter Gell, writing in Snowy River Mail (Gell, 2001), insists that 6,000 years ago, in the "Interglacial Maximum," the earth "was 6 degrees C. warmer than it is right now." Grapes, he writes, "were grown in Norway and Greenland was in fact lush and green ... swollen rivers ran through the Sahara Desert leaving wide and deep channels, now dry river beds called 'wadis.'"

Global warming is not occurring

The techniques that have been used to calculate atmospheric temperatures above the oceans of the world "have resulted in a 40% exaggeration of 'global warming' according to an international study by scientists," according to Insight on the News (Elvin, 2001).

"A disturbing pattern of exaggeration characterizes a great deal of scientific reporting by environmental researchers," according to Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, a professor in Denmark and former Greenpeace activist, quoted in Report/Newsmagazine (Byfield, 2002). Lomborg, who published the book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the State of the Real World, believes that the green movement offers "an alarmist misuse of statistics."

According to an article in the Enterprise of Salt Lake City (Chase, 1997), when Al Gore made claims 1994, that global warming would create a disaster for the world, his "errors were quickly exposed on ABC's 'Nightline' by Ted Koppel. The facts are: Warming is not occurring," Chase flatly states. In the late 1990s, there were rumors that oil companies were paying a "small band of skeptics" to pass misinformation about climate change, Chase writes. In fact, he continues, "the energy industry gives far more money to environmental groups than to their critics." Environmentalists received $1,238,450 from Chevron, Atlantic Richfield, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips and Texaco, Chase asserts.

Greenhouse Gases are NOT the cause for global warming

According to research conducted by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html), "Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak." In fact, the NCPA reports a Gallup poll determined that just 17% of members of the Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Society believe that the warming of the air and seas during the 20th Century resulted from "greenhouse gas emissions." That is 83% who DO NOT BELIEVE greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Also, NCPA published the data showing that "only 13% of scientists responding to a survey conducted by ... Greenpeace believe that catastrophic climate change" will result from continuing the use of fossil fuels as we are now.

Costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases "are not justified by the best available evidence," according to a letter signed by "more than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences" (published by NCPA).

Sea Levels are not rising as indicated by environmental "experts"

Yes, sea levels are rising around the planet, but not in any uniform fashion; and in fact, sea levels have risen "more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years," and that is a natural phenomenon in between ice ages, expert research by NCPA indicates.

A spokesman for the American Conservative Union Foundation, Alan Caruba, writes ("Global Warming Myths") about the Conference Board, a corporate business think tank, has published a report citing the rise in sea levels. "Both the rate and the amount of sea level rises are, as with most other climate change patterns," the report concludes, "subject to uncertainty." Caruba says, "in 2001 Cecile Cabanes calculated sea-level rise for the last half-century around the world and concluded that in Bangladesh, for example, in the last fifty years, it has risen an infinitesimal seven-tenths of an inch!" The only uncertainty in the report, writes Caruba (http://acuf.org/issue22/041016gov.asp), "is the level of idiocy the Conference board report reflects."

Temperatures are not rising as fast as some environmentalists say they are

Yes, ground-level temperature measures have risen between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, NCPA data suggests, but "global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the last 18 years."

Larry Mounser of the Sydney Morning Herald writes that, according to a study in Australia by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, while some evidence exists that temperatures have risen in the last 100 years, "the margin for error (0.10 degree C) is twice as high as the reading." In fact, Mounser goes on, the report also indicates that "the temperature of the atmosphere could have actually gone down by 0.05 degrees C."

According to studies gathered and reviewed by the Association of British Drivers (ABD) (http://www.adb.org.uk/green_myths.htm), "accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took 100 years to appear." That alleged warming over the last 100 years, the ABD research shows, "was only one degree Fahrenheit anyway," and part of that one degree was due to "systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the urban heat island."

Oil is the best choice for reliable energy for America

"The only meaningful alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power," according to Detroit News columnist Tom Bray, writing in The Washington Times. "And the environmental left hates" nuclear "even more than oil. But oil will be less and less controversial, Bray continues, when "incremental but steady gains in fossil fuel technology" reaches the point -- through "accelerating digitization of the automobile drive train" -- that there are far fewer emissions.

Will we run out of oil? Not for 1,000 years, says Bray: "oil reserves have actually been rising worldwide as exploration and drilling technology have improved. There is a 1,000-year petroleum supply available from yet untapped Canadian oil shale and a 2,000-year global coal supply, which can be made to burn much more cleanly."

Oil is necessary in all of our lives: and in fact, 99% of the energy "that drives the transportation sector (cars, buses, subways, railroads, airplanes, etc.) comes from fuels made from oil" (Society of Petroleum Engineers [SPE], 2005). Millions of products are made from oil and gas, including plastics, cosmetics, clothing and "life-saving medications," the SPE Web site explains. It is true, the SPE points out, that "Auto manufacturers are developing cars to run on alternate fuels such as electricity, hydrogen and ethanol." However, the electric batteries for those cars need to be charged, and the fuel which will generate the electricity to charge the batteries "may be generated from natural gas or petroleum-based products."

And in areas of the world that are underdeveloped, citizens and businesses are "demanding greater mobility for themselves and their products. World vehicle ownership is projected to increase from 122 vehicles per thousand people in 1999, to 144 vehicles per thousand in 2020." In the fast-growing nation of China, with over a billion people, the number of cars "is growing as 20% per year." More and more airports are being built, and they of course need jet fuel. The population of the world today is over 6 billion, but is expected to climb to 7.6 billion by 2020 -- and that means "a huge increase in the demand for transportation fuels, electricity, and many other consumer products made from oil or natural gas."

In the event the United States is confronted with a serious disruption in oil supplies, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Web site, "the Strategic Petroleum Reserve can provide an emergency supply of crude oil. The oil is stockpiled in underground salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico coastline," the DOE explains, and the Bush Administration is working to make sure the Reserve will be filled to its full 700 million barrel capacity by 2005.