Resolved: Countries should prioritize climate change adaptation over mitigation.
[Contention 1] Mitigation would cause a stable society.
By decreasing the climate change, people wouldn’t have to deal with the problem anymore after mitigation. Building a sea wall would not help with climate change. What if the sea wall is Brocken and the water rushes down creating floods? It wouldn’t help and it would cause even more rumors, which is bad. If, on the other hand, mitigation was used, then there wouldn’t be rumors because the cause of climate change rising back up wouldn’t make such a worst problem then building a sea wall or adapting to climate change. There would be less rumors and creates a more stable society if mitigation was used.
The cause of climate change would grow rapidly and almost at the same rate of the growth of climate change itself. If people mitigate the climate change problem now, it would not affect the future generation as strongly as it would without mitigating it. According to Global Climate Change, “If we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations. In this way, humanity is “committed” to some level of climate change.” IF we don’t use mitigation, the future generations would be spoiled and it would create chaos with natural disasters created by the lack of ability of decisions their ancestors had.
In a technology world, the peopled countries should not be behind on the technologies. Mitigation encourages the people to use technologies if they already have, or invent technologies in order to keep pace with the modern countries and use mitigation as their system for climate change. According to BBC news, “Mitigation may require us to use new technologies, clean energy sources, change people's behaviour, or make older technology more energy efficient.” With more technologies, the connection between countries would be closer. It would increase trade and more treaties between countries. All of the countries would cooperate in completing mitigation of countries because climate change is not only a problem of one country, it is also a unsolved problem for all of the countries. This can lead to stable society of many countries.
Also, the process of mitigation wouldn’t require any use of fossil fuel, which is beneficial to the environment. Again according to BBC news, “Experts would like to reduce its impact primarily by producing less but also recycling more and treating waste in a way that is less harmful to the environment or even using it as a sustainable energy fuel source. Mitigation also extends to the protection of natural carbon "sinks" like the forests or oceans. New sinks can be created through, for example, forest regeneration.” (See 2 for citations) The less use of fossil fuels wouldn’t create an economic problem to the society, leading to a stable society.