args

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Zarul: 1. 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. Reply: No, it's not hypothetical because what is being debated is one variable about demand for trees. If you want more trees, you want the demand for trees to be as high as possible and recycling paper prevents that. What recycling doesn't have an effect on is saving native forests, which I will get to later. Zarul: As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Reply: Go to Office Max, go to the paper section. Recycled on one self, non-recycled on the other. They are competing. Zarul: "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. Zarul: 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." Reply: Yes, and then you plant it again and it grows back. Zarul: 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. …if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. Reply: Yes, they keep growing. But what you are leaving out is that they only keep growing in one direction because gravity takes a toll after a while—That's why trees don't grow to be the size of sky scrappers. Trees have an initial growth spurt where they use the most carbon dioxide (growing in two dimensions) and then level off. Old forests really do little for carbon dioxide regulation. http://www.usatoday.com... Zarul: 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. Reply: 1. Leaves are what regulate carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis separates the carbon from the oxygen and stores the carbon in the wood and roots. 2. The discussion was about climate change, not biodiversity or soil erosion. With breakthroughs in genetic mapping, we don't need nature to be the record keeper of genetics. Erosion is a natural process, but can be accelerated by human interaction. Luckily since about the middle ages we have figured out to reduce this with field rotation, and other modern methods. So for point E: If the land were privately held, the tree farmer would keep it at a minimum to ensure more growth and higher profits. Zarul: 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. Reply: How do species going extinct cause climate change? CO2 is the end product of metabolism. If anything, that would lead to less carbon dioxide. Ofcourse I'm not saying we should kill off every animal because they produce C02, just that you need to think through some more about what climate change is. Zarul: 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. Reply: No, the countries that contribute the most to climate change are Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The number one cause of deforestation is clearing of land for farming. Urban development, mining, oil extraction, and logging are others. Paper has little to do with virgin forests. By making tree farming more profitable, you are encouraging that at least some of that land will be kept for re-growing trees. Zarul: 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. Reply: No, it would most likely be an American or European country that makes the discovery and uses it in lands in other countries. Why this hasn't happened yet is a separate issue dealing with farm welfare in America and Europe. Zarul: "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? Reply: Where the national ones are now. If you are poor and the forest is what stands in your way of planting a crash crop, then you will cut it down. If we didn't recycle paper, trees would be more valuable as a resource, so instead of cutting down the forest to farm wheat, you might be more inclined to cut down the forest and replant it. (ofcourse, there are also some trade policies that affect this, but that is neither here nor their) Zarul: My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. Reply: The burden of proof is on you. Zarul: 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." Reply: Because it is happening now, and the deforestation has little to do with paper and more to do with clearing land for farming other things. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging the farming of trees over other things. Zarul: 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. Reply: But the new wood is picked up from one centralized location—where it is being farmed. To recycle paper you have to have several trucks drive vast distances to collect what amounts to little paper per unit of distance traveled. If it were so much cheaper to recycle, then private companies would have started doing it a long time ago. Instead the government has to subsidies it (with money taken by force), which hides the true costs. Follow the prices. Zarul: 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. Reply: No they won't. We can afford to waste money on recycling because we are rich. Recycling is not an industry. Here is the fallacy of that argument: Suppose I went around every house on my block and broke a window by throwing a rock through it. The person who fixes windows would get a lot of business. Is this helping the economy? No, because the money people spend on fixing their windows means they have to forgo something else—instead of buying a new window, they could have bought some new pants.So you see recycling as creating jobs, so it must be good for the economy, but you are forgetting that by creating those jobs, you are forgoing spending that money on something. That's all I could fit in. Well done, good luck to you.