Dedev Shmedev

Not surprisingly after a major college team won some debates on Dedev that trickled down to high school and was in vogue at the Glenbrooks. Arguments like Dedev often go away and come back, and generally after they have been gone for 2-3 years when they make a comeback they are successful because the current crop of debaters don’t have experience debating against them and therefore don’t know the strategic ins and outs of arguing against it, so this post is going to offer some tips on dealing with 2 of the more important parts of dedev as it has been run recently- the transition and the warming impact.

 

Lets start with warming. This argument is pretty common for a few main reasons

 

1. Warming is a big impact, and it can be used to turn other impacts

2. There is pretty good uniqueness and link evidence- we are warming now, warming is a result of growth/consumption

3. If an affirmative only reads a short growth impact in the 1AC it is usually a conflict claim (econ decline causes war) and therefore warming is an external impact.

 

Here is the card most teams are now reading for this (you can find it and other cards on NU MV’s wiki )

Short-term collapse of the global economy is the only way to avoid catastrophic warming—delay locks in catastrophic emissions

David Holmgren 13, founder of Holmgren Design Services, an environmental design and consulting firm, inventor of the Permaculture system for regenerative agriculture, 2013, “Crash on Demand: Welcome to the Brown Tech Future,” Simplicity Institute report, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/CrashOnDemandSimplicityInstitute.pdf

Many climate policy professionals and climate activists are now reassessing whether there is anything more they can do to help prevent the global catastrophe that climate change appears to be. The passing of the symbolic 400ppm CO2 level certainly has seen some prominent activists getting close to a change of strategy. As the Transition Town movement founder and permaculture activist Rob Hopkins says, the shift in the mainstream policy circles from mitigation to adaptation and defence is underway (i.e. giving up).13

While political deadlock remains the most obvious obstacle, I believe at least some of that deadlock stems from widespread doubt about whether greenhouse gas emissions can be radically reduced without economic contraction and/or substantial wealth redistribution. Substantial redistribution of wealth is not generally taken seriously perhaps because it could only come about through some sort of global revolution that would itself lead to global economic collapse. On the other hand, massive economic contraction seems like it might happen all by itself, without necessarily leading to greater equity.

The predominant focus in the “climate professional and activist community” on policies, plans and projects for transition to renewable energy and efficiency has yet to show evidence of absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that do not depend on rising greenhouse gas emissions in other parts of the global economy. For example, the contribution of renewable technology installation to reduced GGE in some European countries appears to be balanced by increased GGE in China and India (where much of the renewable technologies are manufactured).

The Jevons’ paradox14 suggests than any gains in efficiency or tapping of new sources of energy will simply expand total consumption rather than reduce consumption of resources (and therefore GGE).

Richard Eckersley in his article ‘Deficit Deeper Than Economy’ identifies the improbability of ever decoupling economic growth from resource depletion and green house gas emissions. He states “Australia’s material footprint, the total amount of primary resources required to service domestic consumption (excludes exports and includes imports) was 35 tonnes per person in 2008, the highest among the 186 countries studied. Every 10 per cent increase in gross domestic product increases the average national material footprint by 6 per cent. By 2050, a global population of 9 billion people would require an estimated 270 billion tonnes of natural resources to fuel the level of consumption of OECD countries, compared with the 70 billion tonnes consumed in 2010.”15

Time seems to be running out for any serious planned reductions in GGE[Greenhouse Gas Emissions] adequate to prevent dangerous climate change without considering a powerdown of the growth economy. The ideas of degrowth16 are starting to get an airing, mostly in Europe, but the chances of these ideas being adopted and successfully implemented would require a long slow political evolution if not revolution. We don’t have time for the first, and the second almost certainly crashes the financial system, which in turn crashes the global economy.

IS TIME RUNNING OUT FOR BOTTOM UP ALTERNATIVES?

Like many others, I have argued that the bottom up creation of household and community economies, already proliferating in the shadow of the global economy, can create and sustain different ways of well-being that can compensate, at least partly, for the inevitable contraction in centralised fossil fuelled economies (now well and truly failing to sustain the social contract in countries such as Greece and Egypt). When the official Soviet Union economy collapsed in the early ’90s it was the informal economy that cushioned the social impact. Permaculture strategies focus on the provision of basic needs at the household and community level to increase resilience, reduce ecological footprint and allow much of the discretionary economy to shrink. In principle, a major contraction in energy consumption is possible because a large proportion of that consumption is for non-essential uses by more than a billion middle class people. That contraction has the potential to switch off greenhouse gas emissions but this has not been seriously discussed or debated by those currently working very hard to get global action for rapid transition by planned and co-ordinated processes. Of course it is more complicated because the provision of fundamental needs, such as water, food etc., are part of the same highly integrated system that meets discretionary wants.

However, the time available to create, refine and rapidly spread successful models of these bottom-up solutions is running out, in the same way that the time for government policy and corporate capitalism to work their magic in converting the energy base of growth from fossil to renewable sources.17 If the climate clock is really so close to midnight what else could be done?

Economic crash as hell or salvation

For many decades I have felt that a collapse of the global economic systems might save humanity and many of our fellow species great suffering by happening sooner rather than later because the stakes keep rising and scale of the impacts are always worse by being postponed. An important influence in my thinking on the chances of such a collapse was the public speech given by President Ronald Reagan following the 1987 stock market crash. He said “there won’t be an economic collapse, so long as people don’t believe there will be an economic collapse” or words to that effect. I remember at the time thinking; fancy the most powerful person on the planet admitting that faith (of the populous) is the only thing that holds the financial system together.

Two decades on I remember thinking that a second great depression might be the best outcome we could hope for. The pain and suffering that has happened since 2007 (from the more limited “great recession”) is more a result of the ability of the existing power structures to maintain control and enforce harsh circumstances by handing the empty bag to the public, than any fundamental lack of resources to provide all with basic needs. Is the commitment to perpetual growth in wealth for the richest the only way that everyone else can hope to get their needs met? The economy is simply not structured to provide all with their basic needs. That growth economy is certainly coming to an end; but will it slowly grind to a halt or collapse more rapidly?

The fact that the market price for carbon emissions has fallen so low in Europe is a direct result of stagnating growth. Past economic recessions and more serious economic collapses, such as faced by the Soviet Union after its oil production peaked in the late 1980’s,18 show how greenhouse gas emissions can and have been reduced, then stabilizing at lower levels once the economy stabilized without any planned intention to do so. The large number of oil exporters that have more recently peaked has provided many case studies to show the correlation with political upheaval, economic contraction and reductions in GGE. Similarly many of the countries that have suffered the greatest economic contraction are also those with the greatest dependence on imported energy, such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal. The so-called Arab Spring, especially in Egypt, followed high food and energy prices driven by collapsed oil revenues and inability to maintain subsidies. The radical changes of government in Egypt have not been able to arrest the further contraction of the economy.

The effects of peak oil and climate change have combined with geopolitical struggles over pipeline routes to all but destroy the Syrian economy and society.19

Slow Contraction or Fast Collapse

The fragility of the global economy has many unprecedented aspects that make some sort of rapid collapse of the global economy more likely. The capacity of central banks to repeat the massive stimulus mechanism in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, has been greatly reduced, while the faith that underpins the global financial system has weakened, to say the least.   Systems thinkers such as David Korowicz20 have argued that the inter-connected nature of the global economy, instantaneous communications and financial flows, “just in time” logistics, and extreme degrees of economic and technological specialisation, have increased the chances of a large scale systemic failure, at the same time that they have mitigated (or at least reduced) the impact of more limited localised crises.

Whether novel factors such as information technology, global peak oil and climate change have increased the likelihood of more extreme economic collapse, Foss and Keen have convinced me that the most powerful and fast-acting factor that could radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the scale of financial debt and the long-sustained growth of bubble economics stretching back at least to the beginnings of the “Thatcherite/Reaganite revolution” in the early 1980s. From an energetics perspective, the peak of US oil production in 1970, and the resulting global oil crises of 73 and 79, laid the foundations for the gigantic growth in debt that super accelerated the level of consumption, and therefore GGE.

Whatever the causes, all economic bubbles follow a trajectory that includes a rapid contraction, as credit evaporates, followed by a long-sustained contraction, where asset values decline to lower levels than those at the beginning of the bubble. After almost 25 years of asset price deflation in Japan, a house and land parcel of 1.5ha in a not too isolated rural location can be bought for $25,000. A contraction in the systems that supply wants are likely to see simultaneous problems in the provision of basic needs. As Foss explains, in a deflationary contraction, prices of luxuries generally collapse but essentials of food and fuel do not fall much. Most importantly, essentials become unaffordable for many, once credit freezes and job security declines. It goes without saying that deflation rather inflation is the economic devil that governments and central banks most fear and are prepared to do almost anything to avoid.

Giving credence to the evidence for fast global economic collapse may suggest I am moving away from my belief in the more gradual Energy Descent future that I helped articulate. John Michael Greer has been very critical of apocalyptic views of the future in which a collapse sweeps away the current world leaving the chosen few who survive to build the new world. In large measure I agree with his critique but recognise that some might interpret my work as suggesting a permaculture paradise growing from the ashes of this civilisation. To some extent this is a reasonable interpretation, but I see that collapse, as a long drawn-out process rather than resulting from a single event.21

I still believe that energy descent will go on for many decades or even centuries. In Future Scenarios I suggested energy descent driven by climate change and peak oil could occur through a series of crises separating relatively stable states that could persist for decades if not centuries. The collapse of the global financial system might simply be the first of those crises that reorganise the world. The pathways that energy descent could take are enormously varied, but still little discussed, so it is not surprising that discussions about descent scenarios tend to default into ones of total collapse. As the language around energy descent and collapse has become more nuanced, we start to see the distinction between financial, economic, social and civilisational collapse as potential stages in an energy descent process where the first is fast changing and relatively superficial and the last is slow moving and more fundamental.

In Future Scenarios I suggested the more extreme scenarios of Earth Steward and Lifeboat could follow Green Tech and Brown Tech along the stepwise energy descent pathway. If we are heading into the Brown Tech world of more severe climate change, then as the energy sources that sustain the Brown Tech scenario deplete, and climate chaos increases, future crises and collapse could lead to the Lifeboat Scenario. In this scenario, no matter how fast or extreme the reductions in GGE due to economic collapse, we still end up in the climate cooker, but with only the capacity for very local, household and communitarian organisation.

If the climate crisis is already happening, and as suggested in Future Scenarios, the primary responses to the crisis increase rather than reduce GGE, then it is probably too late for any concerted effort to shift course to the more benign Green Tech energy descent future. Given that most of the world is yet to accept the inevitability of Energy Descent and are still pinning their faith in “Techno Stability” if not “Techno Explosion”, the globally cooperative powerdown processes needed to shift the world to Green Tech look unlikely. More fundamental than any political action, the resurgent rural and regional economies, based on a boom for agricultural and forestry commodities, that structurally underpins the Green Tech scenario, will not eventuate if climate change is fast and severe. Climate change will stimulate large investments in agriculture but they are more likely to be energy and resource intensive, controlled climate agriculture (greenhouses), centralised at transport hubs. This type of development simply reinforces the Brown Tech model including the acceleration of GGE.

While it may be too late for the Green Tech Scenario, it still may be possible to avoid more extreme climate change of a long drawn out Brown Tech Scenario before natural forcing factors lock humanity into the climate cooker of 4-6 degrees and resource depletion leads to a collapse of the centralised Brown Tech governance and a rise of local war lords (Lifeboat Scenario).

The novel structural vulnerabilities highlighted by David Korowicz, and the unprecedented extremity of the bubble economics highlighted by Nicole Foss suggest the strong tendencies towards a Brown Tech world could be short lived. Instead, severe global economic and societal collapse could switch off GGE enough to begin reversing climate change; in essence the Earth Steward scenario of recreated bioregional economies based on frugal agrarian resources and abundant salvage from the collapsed global economy and defunct national governance structures.

 

This card has a LOT of problems. Before reading ahead to see what I think the problems are with it, read through it yourself and try and find parts you think could become arguments in the 2AC.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but here are some problems I see with it

1. Quals

2. When it does cite qualified “experts” at the beginning its to say we have passed the tipping point. This screws the neg as their internal link is just “reduce emissions”, whereas the aff through tech/innovation can access internal links like sequestration that actually removes CO2 from the air

3. It says economic collapse is not enough, there must be wealth redistribution- good luck winning that globally (in fact it says “On the other hand, massive economic contraction seems like it might happen all by itself, without necessarily leading to greater equity.”)

4. The renewables fail warrant is a trade off claim (reduced consumption one place results in increased consumption elsewhere)- aff modeling claims/tech diffusion addresses this

5. It is largely normative, not descriptive. Take this passage

 a major contraction in energy consumption is possible because a large proportion of that consumption is for non-essential uses by more than a billion middle class people. That contraction has the potential to switch off greenhouse gas emissions but this has not been seriously discussed or debated by those currently working very hard to get global action for rapid transition by planned and co-ordinated processes. Of course it is more complicated because the provision of fundamental needs, such as water, food etc., are part of the same highly integrated system that meets discretionary wants.

 

This doesn’t really explain how or why economic decline would reduce emissions (warrants right? who does that) and admits the author can’t really figure out how that would work since, you know, we need fuel for stuff.

6. Emprirics

For many decades I have felt that a collapse of the global economic systems might save humanity and many of our fellow species great suffering by happening sooner rather than later because the stakes keep rising and scale of the impacts are always worse by being postponed. An important influence in my thinking on the chances of such a collapse was the public speech given by President Ronald Reagan following the 1987 stock market crash. He said “there won’t be an economic collapse, so long as people don’t believe there will be an economic collapse” or words to that effect. I remember at the time thinking; fancy the most powerful person on the planet admitting that faith (of the populous) is the only thing that holds the financial system together.

Two decades on I remember thinking that a second great depression might be the best outcome we could hope for. The pain and suffering that has happened since 2007 (from the more limited “great recession”) is more a result of the ability of the existing power structures to maintain control and enforce harsh circumstances by handing the empty bag to the public, than any fundamental lack of resources to provide all with basic needs. Is the commitment to perpetual growth in wealth for the richest the only way that everyone else can hope to get their needs met? The economy is simply not structured to provide all with their basic needs. That growth economy is certainly coming to an end; but will it slowly grind to a halt or collapse more rapidly?

Oh so you’ve been wrong for decades… great. The way people have selectively highlighted this part is sort of unethical in my mind (Edit- I am not referring to NU’s version of this card, which clearly includes the parts that say “could kill a bunch of people” -What I am referring to are HS teams who small sized all of this to like size 3 font). It admits 2 financial collapses failed to produce change and in fact resulted in worse outcomes due to elite control ( a common aff argument), yet people have underlined this to make it a “transition works” card.

 

Bleh, I could go on all day but I’m going to stop there. Point being- this card is really bad, and not just bad but bad for a de-dev card. The problem is you aren’t going to find a lot of response pieces to the “arguments” people claim this card makes- largely because they are nonsense. So this is a great card where you will need to make some analytic arguments (you can obviously find cards to answer part of it, and there will be examples below, the more extreme arguments being made in it are the ones I’m referencing as hard to find on point answers to).

 

To give an example of what I mean, lets take point 6- empirics. We have had a bunch of economic declines, none of them solved global warming. So how do you make that thesis into a compelling 2AC analytic? The key point is you wan’t it to be well flushed out, so just saying what I wrote there is not really a warranted argument. How do you flush it out?

 

not flushed

We have had a bunch of economic declines, none of them solved global warming

 

Why?

 

Semi Flushed

We have had a bunch of economic declines, none of them solved global warming BECAUSE societal and political forces pushed for re-growth which lead to the same patterns of consumption

Why?

More flushed

We have had a bunch of economic declines, none of them solved global warming BECAUSE societal and political forces pushed for re-growth which lead to the same patterns of consumption-currently elected officials and overall societal attitudes GLOBALLY favor growth, slowing the rate of growth doesn’t alter those beliefs, it reinforces them

 

At this point to make it even more flushed out you can add a bunch of related warrants like

-war from decline would hurt enviro

-less money means dirtier growth

-gov policies enacted to stimulate growth hurt the environment (dereg) and equality (tax cuts)

 

Etc.

 

Adding 2-3 good analytics like this allows you to introduce a lot of arguments that you can then expand on in the 1AR if the neg blows up dedev in the block. This allows you to not read as many cards so you can cover other issues, but still cover your bases on dedev.

 

I don’t want to belabor this point anymore as this is already getting long- so if you have thoughts/comments/an example of an analytic post it in the comments for feedbacks.

 

The second important point I want to make about answering the warming part is this: you can’t just read link turns. A lot of teams do this- they say

-growth solves warming

-growth causes tech/tech solves warming

-our case solves warming

 

etc. The problem here is that many of these 2AC’s read external link turns WITHOUT addressing the 1NC link- this means you are sort of conceding that decline solves warming. What I mean is this: in any link/link turn debate there are usually a number of different factors that affect who wins the direction of the link, these 2A’s are spotting the neg an entire link which means they will have a really hard time winning the link turn. This is the equivalent of getting up to answer politics and reading a bipart or olive branch turn BUT NOT answering the 1NC political capital link. Usually you are going to lose because the neg will conclusively win their link, and at least mitigate your turns.

 

So how do you answer the collapse solves warming part? Pretty easily it turns out. There are a lot of people who have studied this/written about it. Here is an example of a card I found last year on the issue (so you may want to look for more recent ones)

 

Wynne Parry, 12-7-12 http://www.livescience.com/23781-economic-decline-global-warming-emissions.html

A new analysis of data from 1960 to 2008 indicates during economic decline carbon dioxide emissions decline at about half the rate at which they grow when an economy is booming. “In a sense, economic decline only undoes a little more than half of the carbon dioxide emissions that economic growth adds,” said Richard York, a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon who conducted this study. This result indicates that a country’s history — not just its current economic state — influences the amount of carbon dioxide it is pumping out. For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, economic collapse put some post-Soviet nations on par with some sub-Saharan African nations. While these post-Soviet nations did see their emissions drop, they did not fall as low as emissions in poor nations, like some sub-Saharan countries that had never industrialized, York said. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World] York has a theory why economic decline does not reverse the gains in carbon dioxide that accompany economic development. Countries in decline, such as the post-Soviet nations, still have the infrastructure and durable goods — including roads, factories, cars and energy-intensive homes — that come with economic development. People use these things less, but they still contribute emissions. This difference in emissions’ change during decline versus growth may help explain why emissions do not appear to have declined as much as expected as a result of the global fiscal crisis that began in 2007; however, not all economic and environmental data for this period is in yet, he said. York identified the asymmetry by looking at changes in gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced by a country, for more than 150 nations from 1960 to 2008. He separated out the positive change, or economic growth, from the negative change, or decline, for all of the countries, and looked to see how that compared with the changes in carbon dioxide at the same time. York’s work was published online in the journal Nature Climate Change today (Oct. 7).

 

You could track down that Nature article to get the original source material if you wanted to, but it didn’t really produce a better “card” imo. If you want another article this one is pretty good . Reading a card like this is ESSENTIAL to winning your offense.

 

Ok lets table warming for now and move on to “transition”. Here is an example of the so hot 2014 ev people are reading for this

 

They can win transition wars, the post-collapse order might be worse, and the benefits of the chance of transitioning to a post-growth system still outweigh—this card ends the debate

Dr. Samuel Alexander 14, lecturer with the Office for Environmental Programs, University of Melbourne, and research fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute; and Jonathan Rutherford, Professor of Cultural Studies at the University of Middlesex, 2014, “The Deep Green Alternative: Debating Strategies of Transition,” Simplicity Institute, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Deep-Green-Alternative.pdf

As industrial civilisation continues its global expansion and pursues growth without apparent limit, the possibility of economic, political, or ecological crises forcing an alternative way of life upon humanity seems to be growing in likelihood (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013). That is, if the existing model of global development is not stopped via one of the pathways reviewed above, or some other strategy, then it seems clear enough that at some point in the future, industrial civilisation will grow itself to death (Turner, 2012). Whether ‘collapse’ is initiated by an ecological tipping point, a financial breakdown of an overly indebted economy, a geopolitical disruption, an oil crisis, or some confluence of such forces, the possibility of collapse or deep global crisis can no longer be dismissed merely as the intellectual playground for ‘doomsayers’ with curdled imaginations. Collapse is a prospect that ought to be taken seriously based on the logic of limitless growth on a finite planet, as well as the evidence of existing economic, ecological, or more specifically climatic instability. As Paul Gilding (2011) has suggested, perhaps it is already too late to avoid some form of ‘great disruption’.

Could collapse or deep crisis be the most likely pathway to an alternative way of life? If it is, such a scenario must not be idealised or romanticised. Fundamental change through crisis would almost certainly involve great suffering for many, and quite possibly significant population decline through starvation, disease, or war. It is also possible that the ‘alternative system’ that a crisis produces is equally or even more undesirable than the existing system. Nevertheless, it may be that this is the only way a post-growth or post-industrial way of life will ever arise. The Cuban oil crisis, prompted by the collapse of the USSR, provides one such example of a deep societal transition that arose not from a political or social movement, but from sheer force of circumstances (Piercy et al, 2010). Almost overnight Cuba had a large proportion of its oil supply cut off, forcing the nation to move away from oil-dependent, industrialised modes of food production and instead take up local and organic systems – or perish. David Holmgren (2013) has recently published a deep and provocative essay, ‘Crash on Demand’, exploring the idea that a relatively small anti-consumerist movement could be enough to destabilise the global economy which is already struggling. This presents one means of bringing an end to the status quo by inducing a voluntary crisis, without relying on a mass movement. Needless to say, should people adopt such a strategy, it would be imperative to ‘prefigure’ the alternative society as far as possible too, not merely withdraw support from the existing society.

Again, one must not romanticise such theories or transitions. The Cuban crisis, for example, entailed much hardship. But it does expose the mechanisms by which crisis can induce significant societal change in ways that, in the end, are not always negative. In the face of a global crisis or breakdown, therefore, it could be that elements of the deep green vision (such as organic agriculture, frugal living, sharing, radical recycling, post-oil transportation, etc.) come to be forced upon humanity, in which case the question of strategy has less to do with avoiding a deep crisis or collapse (which may be inevitable) and more to do with negotiating the descent as wisely as possible. This is hardly a reliable path to the deep green alternative, but it presents itself as a possible path.

 

Now, obviously the best thing would be to research specific answers. However, I realize no one does that cause lolz. If you just read the whole thing, and not the other teams underlining, its pretty clear this is a classic “this person doesn’t think we should have economic collapse but does think there could be a silver lining” type card (in fact the article says “It’is’sometimes’stated’that’every’crisis’is’an’opportunity’–’from which’the’optimist’ infers’ that’ the’ more’ crises’ there’ are,’ the’ more’ opportunities’ there’ are.’ This’ may’ encapsulate’one’of’the’most’realistic’forms’of’hope’we’have’left.”).

 

You should obviously go through the same process above- attacking parts of the card, pointing out it concedes billions will need to die in war/famine etc. But you should also invest time in heavily disputing the transition. If you win no transition, you win plain and simple because post collapse we go back to doing the same old thing. Dedev debaters try to frame it as “try or die” ( I will try and avoid going on a rant about how stupid try or die is… no promises) but that framing here is exactly backwards.

 

Neg framing:  We lost transition but…. its try or die to avoid climate change

Aff Framing?: growth is inevitable because post collapse we return to growth, the only impact you can try and actually avoid is our decline causes war impact- it is literally the opposite of try or die.

 

If there is no transition you have FLIPPED sustainability as an argument against the neg. This means you need to spend the time, read the cards, and make the analytics necessary to win this arg. Given the neg evidence FOR transition is pretty weak this and runs contrary to popular judge opinion, common sense, reason, logic… it shouldn’t be that hard.

 

*Yes before everyone points it out I did read de-dev a lot when I debated so I am a hypocrite. The evidence was no better then than it is now, but in order for us to win on it then the aff had to make a mistake just like they have to do now.

**Yes obvi part of the inspiration for this article is sour grapes. So sour, so grapey.

***yes aff econ ev is obviously also terrible , this isn’t a problem unique to dedev

Advertisements

2 responses to “Dedev Shmedev

  1. Regarding decline solves warming, is it really smart to read the collapse doesn’t solve warming evidence in conjunction with the turn about how decline actually increases warming? The Parry evidence says that empirically decline has a minor impact on warming, so that would contradict the idea that decline increases warming.

  2. I think it would depend on the warrants. If you say “decline doesn’t change behavior” and then “decline changes behavior to cause more warming” that is in tension (though not really something the other team can concede out of). If you say “decline doesn’t reduce fossil fuel consumption” and then “decline lowers oil prices causing increased consumption” that would seem to dovetail.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s