We negate.

We observe that climate change mitigation is a term of art with a functioning legislative definition. According to the IPCC, with respect to climate change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance sinks. This negative argues that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would present substantial global detriments.

As implied by the resolution, this debate should be evaluated using a moral standard. Specifically, we argue that governments ought to employ consequentialist calculus to determine their moral obligations, especially when there is a risk of human extinction. Seely writes, Human extinction is unlike any other risk. No conceivable human good could be worth the extinction of the race, for in order to be a human good it must be experienced by human beings. Thus extinction is one result we dare not-may not-risk. Though not conclusively
established,

the risk of extinction is real enough to make nuclear war [neglecting to

prevent it] utterly impermissible under any sane moral code.

Thus, the standard for acting morally is not causing extinction.

Our sole contention is climate change mitigation threatens to catalyze global cooling.

The media may hype up global warming, but they ignore the fact that an Ice Age is imminent. According to Laurence Hecht of 21st Century Science and Technology, Three independent U.S. studies of solar activity arrive at the same conclusions put forth
earlier by the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia: solar activity is declining; 24, which began in December 2009,

the current solar cycle,

is likely to be a weak one; and the following cycle, beginning

around 2018 to 2020, may be so weak as to bring on a new Little Ice Age.

Fortunately, developed countries have found a method for staving off global cooling, inducing climate change the other way. Data from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change indicate, in the absence of anthropogenic contributions of CO2 and CH4, the climate today would be, in the words of Ruddiman et al., roughly one third of the way toward full-glacial temperatures," which also suggests that
the extra CO2 we are currently releasing to the atmosphere via

the burning of fossil fuels may well be

Hence, even if the IPCC is correct in their

what's keeping us from going the rest of the way.

analysis of climate sensitivity and we are wrong in suggesting the sensitivity they calculate is way too large, the bottom line

for the preservation of civilization and much of the biosphere is that governments ought not interfere with the normal progression of fossil fuel usage, for without more CO2 in the atmosphere, we could shortly resume the downward spiral to full-fledged ice-age conditions.

Mitigating climate change would rapidly result in catastrophic impacts. According to a CIA report, leading climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this

stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of
Wisconsin projects that the (1600-1850)

Earth's climate is returning to that of the neoboreal era

a [freezing] era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the

western world." William Calvin of the University of Washington further elaborates on the impact of freezing temperatures, Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands if only
because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders.

The better-

organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem and could easily lead to a Third World War. According to the Guardian, Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global
stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis.

'Once again, warfare would define human life.

The ultimate impact is extinction. It would be morally impermissible to take action that could spark nuclear war. An article in the American Journal on International Law points out, Even a relatively small nuclear war, it tells us, could blot out the sun and damage the ozone. Because of the smoke, soot and dust it would place in the atmosphere, it would produce literally months of subfreezing

temperatures worldwide, creating an unprecedented climatic catastrophe that would cause widespread agricultural failure and mass
[*1004] human

starvation. With these findings, of course, The Night After, like its American counterpart, helps to focus
responsible attention on the fact that

nuclear war directly implicates human extinction.

Since the ultimate impact of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be so catastrophic, mitigation is not justified, and we absolutely do not have a moral obligation to employ it. In conclusion, we urge the judge to negate.