Kohai's avatar

Kohai

Administrator

Member since

ELO 1536 Debates 26 Friends 33
Sign in to follow
Kohai

This House believes that geoengineering is an unacceptable risk.

Kohai · 5 months ago

---Kohai's former vote---
Voted for: tie
test vote will remove
To start, it’s not totally clear what Pro is advocating. (They recommend a few contradictory things, including “bunker[ing] down our nations for the inevitable,” though it’s not clear how that supports the resolution, specifically geoengineering being too big of a risk. However, since neither side defines “risk,” I’m willing to give leeway to Pro to list basically any downsides of geoengineering that could lead to risks further down the road, specifically since the description includes “investing time and resources into [geoengineering]” as a type of risk. Pro’s main point (well, the only one I see that really ties to the resolution), is that geoengineering isn’t super effective and the resources could be better used elsewhere. Pro also links to a source indicating genoengineering could cause some risk from inconsistent cooling. Not a ton of elaboration there, but it at least alludes to a cost-benefit analysis.

Con’s main point is that there are some things that only geoengineering could achieve, like reversing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On the one hand, I think this point is more elaborated on than Pro’s. On the other hand, Pro’s analysis at least made a mention of cost-benefit analysis (i.e. resources being spent here are better spent elsewhere). So even if geoengineering could hypothetically do something well, Con isn’t telling me what I should realistically expect from geoengineering beyond potential. Pro also points out that plants could remove some CO2 from the atmosphere, so geoengineering might not be necessary for this.
To start, it’s not totally clear what Pro is advocating. (They recommend a few contradictory things, including “bunker[ing] down our nations for the inevitable,” though it’s not clear how that supports the resolution, specifically geoengineering being too big of a risk. However, since neither side defines “risk,” I’m willing to give leeway to Pro to list basically any downsides of geoengineering that could lead to risks further down the road, specifically since the description includes “investing time and resources into [geoengineering]” as a type of risk. Pro’s main point (well, the only one I see that really ties to the resolution), is that geoengineering isn’t super effective and the resources could be better used elsewhere. Pro also links to a source indicating genoengineering could cause some risk from inconsistent cooling. Not a ton of elaboration there, but it at least alludes to a cost-benefit analysis.

Con’s main point is that there are some things that only geoengineering could achieve, like reversing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On the one hand, I think this point is more elaborated on than Pro’s. On the other hand, Pro’s analysis at least made a mention of cost-benefit analysis (i.e. resources being spent here are better spent elsewhere). So even if geoengineering could hypothetically do something well, Con isn’t telling me what I should realistically expect from geoengineering beyond potential. Pro also points out that plants could remove some CO2 from the atmosphere, so geoengineering might not be necessary for this.