Just in the past two years, world concern about climate change has fallen according to a poll taken Sunday the eve of the Copenhagen climate talks.

Of 27,000 Internet users in 54 countries:

Drop from 41% to 37%

In the United States:

Drop from 34% to 25%

In China:

Rise from 30% to 36%

Highest levels of concern in Latin America and Asian-Pacific countries: 78%

Lowest levels of concern mainly in eastern Europe: 10% in Estonia

I really hope that the Copenhagen climate talks raised awareness about climate change.

Or… Violation of basic human rights??

Currently in Korea, hospitals are non-profit institutions. This means generating profit shouldn’t be the main purpose of hospitals, and that profit shouldn’t be invested in other things. However in reality, hospitals are increasing size or developing specialized services in order to maximize profit. So what’s the difference if we just make profit-hospitals legal?

The people who agree with legalizing profit-hospitals in Korea point to examples of developed countries such as the US. With profit-hospitals, customers will be offered higher quality service at lesser cost. However, in the 2007 produced movie Sicko, it reveals that even though healthcare takes up 22% of US GDP, the majority of its population still doesn’t receive adequate health care.

The same thing would happen in Korea if profit-hospitals were to be legalized. According to the health promotion department of Korea, allowing profit-hospitals would lead to 3% of the population (high-income population) using specialized service at 2~4 times to cost, while increasing healthcare cost for normal citizens at the same time. Top doctors will be attracted to profit-hospitals with higher pay, leaving smaller non-profit hospitals of less developed areas to deteriorate. By that time, we’re looking at health care for individuals based on their level of income. So, if you earn less, you have to stick with lower quality health care?? Whatever happened to equality?

I thought equality and equal health care for every citizen was the nation’s job. Legalizing profit-hospitals is definitely not the way to achieve that goal.

Ok, maybe passing this law may create more jobs and increase the wealth generated by the healthcare sector in Korea… but I don’t want it if it comes at the cost of the lower income population having to give up equal medical service at the local hospital.

 Are the big polluters really realizing the dangers of the rising water levels? They should get back down to earth and see the damage they’ve done.

Their SUVs might be able to keep them out of the water for now, but it will only be a matter of time until the water catches up with them. I doubt they have any idea of exactly how many people and houses have disappeared under their giant wheels.

Get out of your cars, SUV drivers!! come back into the water and see what’s happening!

Then see if you can continue calling people eco’whiners’.

With these two nations among the biggest carbon producers, they will play a big role in controlling what kind of policies will be agreed upon by the end of the conference. Unless these two countries will be able to come to a compromise and agree to certain limits on their emissions, this conference will turn out to be nothing but successful.

In Europe, it seems that countries are agreeing with China’s demands for recompensation but fearful of actually letting it happen. Is it because they see a communist China rising even more as a power and taking over major seats of UN? Are they afraid of losing influence over China? The times when China was colonized and controlled by Europe are long gone. The China we see now can think for itself, and will seek to reap any possible traces of benefits during the conference. The fact that Europe is feeling reluctant to accept China’s demands shows that China has become a big enough power today. Europe must not be afraid of China rising up to their levels, but must focus on the real goal of the conference, which is climate change.

For this conference to be successful, countries must not feel like they’re competing with each other, but must cooperate with each other. Just how many islands must disappear from the face of the earth for these countries to realize that there is something much more important to protect than their individual economies? Of course, protecting the economy is important, and there the question stands- who will make the biggest sacrifice? But this is the WRONG question. The question should be how the burden of decreasing carbon emissions can be proportionally shared by all countries. This is not easy to achieve, but there will never be a starting line unless countries stop thinking for their own advantage.

So many people are depending on this conference to be successful- inhabitants of islands, people living on coasts, hunters on the north pole, rainforesters… And they don’t even get a say in the conference. It’s not just these people that have to be protected, but the entire biodiversity that’s at stake.

A new set of policies to replace the Kyoto Protocol? Lets hope that the conference comes out with any conclusion at all.

Also with rising home sales and rising amounds of construction sites, it looks as if the US is making a slow but sure recovery from the recession.

During past recessions in history, there has always been a new economic theory that emerged-

it makes me wonder what the new theory after this recession will be.

I don’t think Hassan was a Manchurian candidate. He was just expressing his disappointment toward the military. But instead of making big generalizations and turning against every muslim in the current military, US should take care to make peace and lessen the tension right now prevailing in the military.

That way, we can relieve the tension on the war on terror and keep it from being considered as war on Islam.

Labor Unions seem a little far fetched for the topic of pay czars, but the reason I bring this up is because if the president had the power to cut back the salaries of top executives and relocate it to save the recession, labor unions wouldn’t be so stressed to go on strike nor risk their company’s shutting down. Leaving the status quo as it is, labor unions will be forced to take unfavorable action. And especially since the money those executives are receiving is a re3sult of the bail out money given by the government, I believe the president has the right to limit unreasonably fat checks, and therefore prevent labor unions from being forced to take unfavorable actions.

2nd speaker- animal torture, saving the environment

REBUTTALS

The first speaker said that we should continue eating meat because it is natural. We, as omnivores, have always eaten meat throughout history, so why should we stop now? Shouldn’t we be allowed to continue our habits?

Well, today’s society has changed significantly enough that people can now judge what is moral and what is immoral compared to the people living in the Stone Age. What had been considered natural for us in the past doesn’t necessarily have to continue to be natural in the present. I will explain further why eating meat should no longer be continued in my constructive matter, but to briefly explain the main points- going vegetarian will save thousands of people living in poverty, massively reduce the risk of heart-related diseases and cancer, help protect the environment, and  most importantly, stop animal torture.

In this argument, the fact that humans are omnivores is an advantage for the opposition since it proves that we actually have a choice in going vegetarian. We can live a healthier, happier life by choosing to eat more greens, and less meat. The earliest forms of human and our close genetically-related ancestors, apes, still remain as herbivores. What happened to us? Also, the fact that we have eaten meat throughout history is definitely not reason enough to continue now. Should we continue a tradition just because we’ve been doing it for a long time? Traditions always change, ladies and gentlemen. Even if its been a part of our everyday lives, we know now that there is so much to risk and sacrifice that we simply cannot accept continuing the status quo. Now, I will lay out the facts in my constructive speech.

 My argument is divided into two parts: that being vegetarian is healthier, and is beneficial for the entire human society.

Firstly, let me clear up a misunderstanding held by the majority of people: that meat is absolutely necessary for our diet, and that we would not be getting the essential nutrients if not for eating meat. This is wrong. We can get these essential nutrients from various alternatives such as milk, soybeans, bean curd, spinach and eggs. Although getting the nutrients from a slice of steak may seem like a more delicious alternative, by choosing to eat meat you’re also letting into your body substances that massively increase risk of contracting various food-borne diseases, such as BSE or madcow disease, Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, and other kinds of food poisoning caused by E coli and salmonella. In addition, risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996, the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely, and if you must, it should be eaten sparingly once every 9 days. The fact that it’s RED meat and and not any type of cooked meat, and the fact that it’s just ONCE for every NINE days clearly shows that meat is definitely NOT a good part of your diet. More importantly, a no meat diet is low in fat, and therefore keeps you from getting overweight. This is probably a part that concerns many people around the world.

It seems like I’m just throwing all of these facts at you, but this shows that our side has that much evidence to support our stance. To go on to my second part of the argument, not eating meat is beneficial to the entire human race. Currently, 70% of the grains produced around the world are used to feed livestock. The US alone grows enough food to feed the world, but it’s being wasted on animals!! 10 pounds of  grain are used to produce 1 pound of meat… instead of  feeding the starving people in thirdworld countries. Can we truly say that we are concerned with poverty when with ever piece of meat we eat, we’re taking away their food?

The bottom line: not eating meat is healthy, equally nutritious if not more nutritious than having meat in your diet. By choosing to go vegetarian, not only will you be able to longer, but you’ll feel more stability and comfort in your life. Furthermore, you’ll be able to save hundreds of people living in poverty. Don’t you think this is the better choice?

It’s a cause and effect sequence:

Industrial Revolution, deforestation, carbon emissions…

Greenhouse effect, global warming…

melting polar ice caps..

rising sea levels…

disappearing islands(and coastal cities)…

Thousands of pacific islanders with nowhere to go…

By the end of this century, it is predicted that up to 70,000 people will have been made homeless. According to UN statistics, currently 5 million people live on either islands or coastal cities, whereas by 2070, rising sea levels up to 19 inches would have forced them toward higher ground.

Already the first inhabited island of Lohachara in India has been wiped off the face of the earth. Next in line to disappear are the Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, Tarawa.. The inhabitants of these islands are battling with the sea even at this moment. Rising tidals leave pools of salt water inland, causing staple food crops such as banana and breadfruit trees to die. Along with the loss of these agricultural products are the extinction of thousands of exotic native species.

The people have only two options: to stay on the islands by building a sea wall around the island, or to migrate to nearby higher ground (such as Australia or New Zealand). However, the first option requires a tremendous amount of money, sometimes double the amount an island country produces in a year. So it leaves the only available option to be migration- but where will all of these people go?

Australia and New Zealand has been tolerant until now about accepting all those who apply for residence. However, now as bigger threats seem imminent, they are worried that any further acceptances may lead to political backlash.

Even if all of these islanders find a new place to reside, their generations of history and tradition, deeply rooted in their homelands, will disappear along with the islands.

What we can do now is to look forward to the climate talk upcoming this December in Copenhagen. Will the US and China finally accept their responsibilities and agree upon carbon reduction standards? Will we be able to prevent the further disappearance of islands from earth?

Kiribati Adaptation Project:

http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P078290

Proposition argument links

1st speaker (동윤)-

2nd speaker (지윤)- lcoiu.wordpress.com

3rd speaker (채원)-

Opposition argument links

1st speaker (유나)- http://hiyuna1993.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/radical-evolution-debate-should-government-impose-regulations-to-limit-science/

2nd speaker (지나)- tuttyfruity2kr.wordpress.com

3rd speaker (마리)-