args

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. The impact of recycling simply is not that great on the tree farming industry. Even recycled paper requires a certain amount of new pulp to be added. As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. I was saying that with the rising demand, the amount of trees would either slowly grow, or at least stay neutral. 2. Onto the subject of natural forests v. farmed forests. A. When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment. B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. C. Cutting down forests will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they use, if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. E. If more soil erodes, then there will be less trees/plants. Farmed forests do not have the developed root system to prevent this. Erosion leads to less land for plants/trees to grow on, which means the forest will be using up less carbon dioxide (and therefore less beneficial to the environment). F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. 2. I don't think you understood me, so here I go: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. B. These countries tend not to replant the forests, and if they do not recycle, they will simply cut down more and more. C. Recycling is the key to protecting these developed native forests. These forests also have great amounts of plant life that will be lost if the trees are cut down. The loss of all these plants/trees is bad for the environment, and this clear-cutting will create a sort of desert, one where erosion occurs, and it becomes even more difficult to replant. Continuation of 2. : Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. I never said that commercial forests do nothing for the environment, simply that established forests do more, and you have not been able to refute this. You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved. 3. Recycling is cheaper than manufacturing A. Recycling is simply cheaper than manufacturing. Commercial forests require massive amounts of fertilizer and water. This costs a great deal of money, as well, these commercial forests must have their wood transported as well, and then processed. B. [What you say the recycling process is: Recycling is a manufacturing process: Trucks have to come by, pick up the paper, treat it with chemicals, and repackage it] Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. D. Also in your refutation, you say that commercial trees use up more carbon dioxide. I have already refuted this, but I shall again. When cut down, the capacity for these commercial trees to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen is reduced. That means that for a substantial part of the year they will have limited use in regulating carbon dioxide. As well, you claim that they will use up more carbon dioxide as they are growing, but you fail to recognize that old forests are constantly growing as well. E. (applies to D.) Recycling as I've said, will increase efficiency and preserve old, important forests. Most of these countries don't have room for giant tree farms, and recycling is a must, or we'll see the end of the massive forests which truly regulate carbon dioxide. Final: First of all, there's no reason to be rude. And let me say that it's been a good intelligent debate, better than what I see on most sites. Now onto my points, what I was saying previously was that you were not really calculating the costs of not recycling in other countries, particularly those without commercial tree farming. And as I've already explained, it really isn't that hard for countries to recycle (it's far less demanding than most regualtions placed), recycling IS cheaper than growing new trees. That's what will count in poor countries, the lower cost. Finally, I included the voting thing because I'm a policy debater, and it's kind of a habit (in my state there's some damn lazy judges, you've got to do their thinking for them). And honestly, I'm not following any sort of pious superstition, I'm looking at reality, I'm looking at the facts.