args

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change. I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises. 2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later). 3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null. II. Why recycling helps the environment. 1. To begin with, I will say that trees from naturally growing forests are important to the climate whereas those made by companies are not as beneficial. A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper. B. Because of this, they are only temporarily beneficial to the environment, whereas "virgin trees", or natural forests (or any forest that has been established for awhile) are far more beneficial. C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. D. These trees also have spread their roots, and in doing so, can provide more managing of carbon dioxide. As well, this root system helps prevent erosion, and these forests generally have more biodiversity. So in essence, trees grown by corporations are not grown to help manage carbon dioxide, but to be made into paper. Trees that have been planted otherwise contribute more to the environment. 2. The earth's population is in a state of rapid expansion. This means the consumption of paper will continually rise, and, the amount of land needed for farming rise as well. A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. B. Because much of this growth is less developed countries, there will not be companies planting trees (which obviously are not that useful to the environment anyway). C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. 3. This can be prevented by encouraging recycling. A. The affirmative might object by saying that corporations for planting trees should be made, however... B. Recycling paper is cheaper than making new paper. C. These poorer countries would therefore it would be in that countries interests to recycle rather than to engage in a new commercial industry (which again, is not that beneficial in regulating carbon dioxide). D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. III. Finally, it should be recognized that in reality, much of the current climate change is occurring in developing countries, not developed ones. The affirmative totally ignores the non-developed world which does not have these industries. So vote for me. My arguments make more sense, and do not ignore half the world (or even more) as the affirmative does.