Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.
I. Rebuttal At this point, demand (part of point 1.) is essentially pointless, it does nothing for either of our arguments. What I was saying
is that not everyone cares whether their paper is recycled or not. So they aren't always competing. Apparently you concede my argument
that demand for new paper exceeds that of recycled, and adding to that, even recycled
paper must be mixed in with some new paper/pulp. A. http://en.wikipedia.org... In
the "importance" section, there is a sourced claim that says: "Old growth forests also store large amounts of carbon
gas above and below the ground. They collectively represent a significant pool of climate gases such as greenhouse gases. Continued liquidation of these forests may increase the risk of global climate change."
Or in other words, when you cut a tree down, gases are released. Commercial forests
become a zero sum for the climate, even if they do use up carbon dioxide, it will
eventually be put back in the air. In essence, it means that trees that are planted,
simply to be cut down, are worthless when it comes to preventing climate change. B. Indeed, I concede that trees use most of their carbon dioxide during growth.
However, trees do continually use carbon dioxide, and since old trees are (or should)
not be cut down, they will not eventually become a zero sum for climate change. C. Without a good root system, less photosynthesis will occur in the leaves (as
there is less water), and there will be less regulation of carbon dioxide. 2. Biodiversity
is important in preventing the climate change. Here in the benefits section, "other ecological services" http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is stated that biodiversity plays a role in regulating the chemistry of the atmosphere
and the water supply (which allows other plants to grow, more regulation, etc.), and
it states that studies have shown that humans cannot artificially build ecosystems
to replace it. Going on, you say that private ownership would not have erosion. Perhaps
in the distant future, but not until the the root system has been well established
(which can vary, but we'll be waiting at least half a century). As well, in many places
where deforestation is occurring, there isn't a lot of private land ownership, so if these governments were
to create the industry, they wouldn't be privately owned. D. I'll be honest with you,
that's a pretty naive view of the worldwide ecosystem. Plants need animals, animals
need plants. If all the animals died, what would pollinate the plants, what would
spread the seeds, what would provide the natural fertilizer? Animals and plants are
inter-related, if you take out one, you take out both. And all of the world's ecosystems
are related in the same why, you take out one, it's going to hurt in other places
too. A. http://news.bbc.co.uk...... That website says that the US, UK, and AUS are
leading in per capita pollution. My point is that the developing world, as a whole, creates more pollution than the developed
world. Your article does not tackle the total quantity issue, just per capita, and
you're not considering the fact that there are more people living in developing countries
than in developed ones. Per capita pollution is important, but in this case the toal is more important. You continue on about the wonders of tree farming, which I have already
proven is zero sum for preventing climate change, it hurts none, yet it helps none. B. Countries are not going to magically get good
crops from the developed world, developing countries have their own agricultural industries.
And if they will do as you say, they will maximize their profit, and giving their
engineered crops to developing nations is only going to decrease their profit. C. Sure, you'll plant trees over the dead ones,
ignoring the other environmental costs which do indirectly contribute to climate change. And then you cut them down again, preventing those trees from being of any use in
preventing climate change. Oh, and let's totally forget that these countries do not have commercial planting
industries. D. I think it's quite obvious, if we recycle, we won't need to cut down
as many trees. Even you support that, in your very first round. E. http://en.wikipedia.org...
In the "Locations of remaining intact forests" cited section, the massive amounts
of these "virgin forests" cut down is revealed. It is highly related to the demand for paper products. By not recycling paper, these countries
are submitting to a commercial forest plantation system, which does nothing to prevent
climate change. F. There are private companies that handle recycling, you haven't provided any source
that says all recycling is done by the government. G. Recycling saves 40% of the cost of making new paper, so
it's an industry. It may be taking away from parts of the industry, but that's not a big deal, as I'll
solidify later. Because recycling saves costs, and is efficient, it will be prefered in places that are poor and need efficiency (the developing
world). II. My Final Case 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "importance" section,
it is stated that old forests have a massive storage of green house gases. Cutting these
trees down will further climate change. A. If old forests have these gases, then new trees would have a lesser amount. When
they are cut down, the release of these gases nullifies any good they did to prevent
climate change. The negative's argument that commercial forests are useful in preventing climate change is completely null. B. The only forests which can prevent climate change are those that stay rooted in the ground, permanently uncut. Commercial forests will
always be cut down, and so will always be zero sum in preventing climate change. C. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "Locations of remaining intact forests" section,
the locations and percentages of old forests left is shown. As it states, the amount of land which these trees are constantly being cut
down, in gigantic numbers. This is in part causing climate change. D. Recycling increases efficiency, the negative has made no attempt to challenge
this specifically. Because recycling increases efficiency, we will be able to keep
more trees rooted in the ground, and that is good for the environment. E. Around 70% of these remaining old forests are in developing
countries, and could be protected with recycling. F. Protecting these trees not only
directly benefits us by regulating green house gases, but their biodiversity and preventing
of erosion indirectly helps prevent catastrophic change. 2. The negative's argument that commercial forests help prevent climate change is wrong, while the affirmative is right. A. From the earlier article, it is said that cutting down trees releases greenhouse gases. This will further climate change. This totally nullifies the negative point that commercial forests prevent climate change. They will constantly be cut down, constantly grown, and never contribute to slowing
climate change. B. Since all the negative proposes for slowing climate change is the planting of commercial forests, it is clear that the negative does nothing to prevent climate change. C. I have not been proven wrong by the negative in that recycling increases efficiency.
More efficiency means more trees left standing uncut, and less climate change. Voting To all the voters, I have proven that commercial forests is zero sum in preventing climate change. In order for trees to prevent climate change, they must stay there uncut. That's as simple as it gets. Recycling gives us more
material, and allows us to keep more trees in place. Finally Great debate negative!
I'm happy this didn't go to ad hitlerum, as internet debates so often do.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
