R: Sacrifice Your Lifestyle for the Environment

Climate change is an incredibly complicated and controversial issue. What most of us agree on is that the environment is delicate, and nearly every action we take, whether it be our consumption, our travel, or even our internet searches, has an impact on the environment. As conservatives, we care deeply about what we are doing to perpetuate or hinder the good. For some of the body, questions of participation with evil often consume our minds when making decisions about which goods and services we procure and from whom. The combination of these truths makes us ask the question: to what extent are we willing to contribute to climate change? Many of us either flew or drove to school. Most of us eat red meat. Many of us are fans of denim, cotton, and other resource-heavy clothing. We prefer the convenience of having our own car to riding public transit. Some of us may have money invested in Exxon, Chevron, General Motors, or ConocoPhillips. Are these lifestyle choices permissible given the problem of climate change?

Many members of the body may say yes. And if so, what does this ask of us individually? What, as a society must we sacrifice to save our climate? And what are the costs of these sacrifices? Do they outweigh the benefits? I want to be clear that even if you speak in the affirmative of this resolution, that does not mean you must be willing to change your lifestyle, but it might raise interesting personal questions. Those in the negative of this resolution need not be climate change deniers. Economic concerns are very important and bad economies can have life and death consequences. As an example, many climate scientists will point to the increasing severity of natural disasters in their calls for life-altering, economy-killing climate measures. But some will point out that deaths from natural disasters are at an all-time low. Aside from a large spike in 2010 due to the Haitian earthquake, the last decade has seen the fewest deaths of any in recorded history. Why? Many would argue it is because nations had the resources to save lives when disasters struck, and proactively work to mitigate damage. Others in the negative of this resolution may argue that it is the multinational corporations who are polluting that need to change, not us as individuals. Others may argue that politicization has blown the climate crisis out of proportion.

Still, climate change poses an undeniable threat to human and societal welfare. We must ask how much responsibility we individually have to protect our communities, and if we must fundamentally change the way we live our lives to protect the environment.