+

What does technological advancement look like ur inventing new to replace existing impact. Like we
invest new technology. Like modifiy climate. Comparative: opp has to defend mechanism that has
harming environment

What does preferring looks like :

- In SQ diliatin showing project yang ada, dan give significally more attention, and etc

Opp best case scenario, is that they still reduce the usage of it, but in the end of the day, it still going to
be a waste, and the usage of it is still exist, even if it is just a small portion.

ARG 1:

Why then technological advancement is the most suitable method to use

Destruction of environment udah parah, jadi kita gabisa pake sesuatu yang ga meaningful. Kalo Cuma
mengurangi the use of plastic, fuel dkk, ga terlalu impactful. Karena kalo mereka tetep exist in the end
mereka bakal tetep harming anyway dan kita gabisa ngelakuin apa apa untuk ngatasi damage yang lebih.
Ini bisa terjadi karena di opp gabisa nge invest ke technologi jadi walopun pipel aware, mereka tetep
gapunya pilihan lain untuk pindah ke opsi lain. Best casenya mereka Cuma nge reduce the amount of
plastic and such but its still going to exist. Its not suitable cuz destruction on earth udah terlalu parah
level of carbon is too high, banyak methane, at best they are only countering the impact and not
reversing the impact into good. This is bad because in the end bakal tete pada orang idup di earth
populasinya tambah banyak, dan orang orang butuh untuk idup day by day. Jadi tiap hari di sisi opp
mereka bakal tetep let fossil fuel, plastic exist, people would have less quality of live. On our side when
we use technology to reverse the impact and to counter it this is where we can reverse the damage ini
karena di kita gabakal create as much as fossil fuel and way lesser. Karena kita rely on sustainable
techno dan ini adalah metode yang paling suits. Argument ini jelasin hal hal kalo yg destructive masi
exist earth bakal ttp rusak, dan walopun orang aware mereka gabisa karena mereka gaada pilihan lain.

Arg 2:

Why then techno advancement has better chance of succeeding

Notice u cant compare our side with sq mechanism, cuz kalo kita nglakuin ini dan di prioritize. Kita akan
dapet duit bantuan dan juga dapet resources untuk ngejalanin ini like scientific research to futher
develop the techno so we can massively produce the techno so that it can be cheaper in the end of the
day. U can do more research to suit more in the condition like in the different areas. Kalo misalnya di
opp: most likely mereka gabisa nglakuin ini karena mereka ga dapet significant funding, attention and
resources, dan walopun exist ini bakal small quantity banget most likely digarap private company. Dan
development gabakal gercep. Ato walopun exist ini bakal mahal banget karena gaada massive
production. Padahal notice this is important karena everyone is the victim of climate change and earth
destruction.

Tradeoff

Tech advancement mungkin mahal, ngga, karena ini bakal massively produced. And its not like kita mulai
dari 0. Kita bukan naruh semua modal dengan gambling without a success gurantee in return. Karena
kita udah data yg signifikan dan udah minimize the scope of research to know what really need to be
fixed so we don’t really need that high amount of capital. Even if this is going to be expensive its okay
cuz this gives the biggest impact towards the people, and when it comes to regulating the fossil fuels,
plastic to the market most likely the benefit is going to be really small because there are going to lose a
lot of meny anyway because to give the compensation to people who become the victim. So even if its
expensive its okay because its going to be equal on both side. And in our side is better because we can
save more people from preventing from the damage.
-

Setup

We just want to counter the existing impact so We want to reduce the amount of fossil fuels, from such
mech like make the price higher, and upgrading the public transportation, so that the usage of private
transportation isn’t that high, and regulating the use of plastic require tax and etc. instead of investing
on geoengineering, and green techno

Point (Sebagus bagusnya invention and etc, it still have a chance to failed dan malah mungkin harming
them blablabla, sementara sq, teknologi yang dimiliki udah cukup dan terbukti jika masih dipakai rig ht
now)

Arg1

Why regulating the existing impact is the most suitable method :

- When it comes to environmental damage, this is the most certain things u can do, bcz u don’t
have to rely on technological advancement and condition of earth to conduct research that are more
complicated. using less amount of plastic is cheaper than using other environtment healthy material. So
its easier to just use 3 instead of 5 plastic. So its very doable for all of the people. Because its cheaper for
them to change from plastic to kain than from kijang to tesla because its more affordable.

- When it comes to managing the cost of environmental damage, u need all people to participate
because this is something that is very macro dan semua orang itu responsible. Artinya semua orang
harus take part to manage the damage. Jadi ini paling likely untuk sukses

Arg 2

It has the most likelihood to success than technological advancement:

- When it comes to technological adv. There is a lot of externality that can impact on each and
every project. For ex: in sq kita udah bisa mantulin cahaya matahari tapi kita gabisa bekuin kutub. These
things are inherently hard to change because u need years of trial and error. Because every each
geographic place itu beda dan kudu coba coba. Karena beda beda iklim, demografi, musim, dkk.

- Why its harmful? Our side lebih simple, dan side mereka itu lebih complicated bcz they need
more research and etc. Contoh : TESLA WITH ITS SUPERCHARGE. Its harmfull because it harming the
work, money, time, and etc to research the technology that are not guearanteed to be successful. For
example, re freeze the ocean apalah itu.

- Now that when the people don’t change and the market don’t get regulated the harm would be
accumulated. And, u don’t have the safety net to the damage its done to the environment.

- Even If it is successful it still bad, because it cost a lot of money and expenses and material. (to
reflect sun, manipulate climate, etc) And it is harming, because ppl in developing countries and etc, cant
really afford it, meanwhile, they are the vulnerable actor in this case in climate change impact. And
when all people can participate like our side, the impact would get a buffer and it would slow down the
impact to the environment. Notice why slowing down the impact bisa work. Ini karena sebenernya
masalah di sq itu adalah problem yang terakumulasi sama things that we do in the past. Meaning when
the behaviour is the only cost of the destruction dan kita limiting behaviour yang destructive meaning
outcome yang destructive juga akan limited. Ini likely buat suksesful karena pipel udah aware how to
use plastic properly and such and responsibility. Dan kalo sisi pro itu kalo comes to technological adv. Itu
butuh huge learning curve and its expernsive so that’s why its more likely to be successful

- Kenapa ini tipping point untuk likelihood sukses, ini karena time sensitive. Karena kalo kita
gaada safety net kita gabisa automate the earth. For u to fix rthe earth u need time. Masalahnya kalo
walopun ada tekno di pro dan kitanya tetep aja ga sadar. Ini akan 0=0 dan ga memperoleh apa apa.
Karena walopun on their side advance tekno, tapi environmentnya ttp rusak apa gunanya?. Ini jelek
karena lu kehilangan opportunity for the people to utilize natural resources and to fix the earth in
general like reforesting and such.

- So, even if teknologi lu bagus lu kudu lebih kerja keras lagi akrena destructionnya juga tambah
gede, karena earthnya ga disiapin to be better

Trade OFF:

- Even if we have to trade the technological advancement, why is this okay? Karena ini itu ga
certain, dan ini ada kemungkinan ga sukses. Selain itu ini gapapa karena in the mean time kita juga
restore the environment. Ini gapapa karena kalopun ada, ini gabakal accessible anyway jadi mostlikely
their best scenario the impact would be really small.

(POINT PENTING: LU CARI KENAPA GAGAL? KENAPA MOSTLIKELY GAGAL? CONTOH GREENTECH GAGAL,
OR HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS)