Evaluating Arguments on Climate Change Policy

In the midst of a heated debate about climate change, Dr. Avery and Mr. Smith present opposing viewpoints on governmental intervention in environmental issues. Dr. Avery argues that, without strong regulations to limit carbon emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise to catastrophic levels, endangering ecosystems and human life. He cites numerous scientific studies linking industrial activity to climate change. Furthermore, he asserts that the economic costs of inaction will far outweigh the expenses related to implementing eco-friendly policies.

Conversely, Mr. Smith contends that government regulations would stifle economic growth and innovation. He claims that the free market can self-correct via the motivations of competition, leading to more efficient and sustainable practices without the need for regulatory oversight. He cites various instances where excessive regulation has hindered technological advancement.

Both speakers provide compelling arguments; however, one argument appears weaker in its basis or reasoning. Based on the discussion, which argument is the most susceptible to criticism?