The use of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change

The argument

Fossil fuels are a huge contributor to climate change, so phasing them out can only be beneficial to society. The use of fossil fuels contributes to global warming through the release of greenhouse gases, which in turn contributes to the melting of polar ice caps. As polar ice caps melt, sea level rises and threatens the safety of coastal cities. Studies show that continued reliance on fossil fuels can lead to a sea-level rise of 1.7 to 4.3 feet in the 21st century alone. Reducing heavy reliance on fossil fuels can reduce the sea-level rise to 0.8 to 2.0 feet. For the removal of fossil fuels to have the most substantial effect on global warming, experts suggest that all fossil fuel use would have to be eliminated within the next 40 years for temperatures to stay below the critical threshold. The goal of the exercise is to prevent the excess release of carbon which will stifle the greenhouse effect, and that is the process by which greenhouses gases contribute to the planet's warming cycle. If one can control the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, it stands to reason that one can also control the rate at which the Earth warms. Without these changes, climate change will continue in earnest.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Fossil fuels cannot be solely to blame for the current trends in climate change, as past data on Earth's temperature tell a different story. Even before the combustive processes used by fossil fuel plants, Earth's temperature has dramatically fluctuated on its own in the past without the contribution of fossil fuels. The most well known of these fluctuations is the Ice Age, which occurred 2 million years ago, which saw interglacial warming periods. In short, the rise in global warming we see today is not new to Earth's history, thus fossil fuels cannot be the sole cause of its occurrence.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The mechanism is stated loosely enough to misdescribe itself. The greenhouse effect is what keeps the planet habitable, so the goal is not to 'stifle' it but to limit the enhancement caused by added carbon — and it is the loss of land ice, principally Greenland and Antarctica, rather than the melting of floating sea ice, that raises sea level. [Rejecting P2] The sea-level figures are given with no source and no indication of which emissions pathway or time horizon produces them, which leaves the comparison between the two ranges impossible to check. [Rejecting P3] The forty-year elimination timetable is attributed to unnamed experts, and the argument moves from 'fossil fuels contribute to climate change' — which is not seriously disputed — straight to a phase-out, without addressing cost, energy access, sequencing, or the transitional and partial-substitution options set out under the rival positions. The assertion that phasing them out 'can only be beneficial to society' is the weakest claim in the entry, since it forecloses the trade-offs the debate exists to weigh. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record does not reach these points: it argues from prehistoric temperature variation that fossil fuels 'cannot be the sole cause', which neither the argument nor the science it invokes claims — natural variation in the past does not bear on attribution of present warming, and this counter is a candidate for replacement.