Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.
zarul: "I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper.
1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises." me: Notice
I said all other things being equal. But I said nothing about whether or not aggregate
demand has increased, just that recycling paper lowers it. So even if demand for tree
farms was rising, it would have been rising faster if there was no recycled paper.
zarul: "2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted
(and these forests are not that good, as proven later)." me; And if you want more
trees you would at least want more commercial forests planted. But the downward push
on demand for tree farms that recycling causes also has a downward effect on profit
margins, and thus leads to less trees. zarul: "3. Because it will end up balancing,
recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null."
Reply: What exactly is being balanced? The point I am making is that government interference
is unintentionally causing harm. zarul: "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." Reply: And what does what the tree turn into have to do with
carbon dioxide? If I planted a tree to cut it down and then changed my mind and thought
I just wanted to look at it, that would But the downward push on demand for tree farms that recycling causes also has a downward
effect on profit margins, and thus leads to less trees. zarul: "3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment,
and this point of the affirmative's is null." Reply: What exactly is being balanced?
The point I am making is that government interference is unintentionally causing harm.
zarul: "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." Reply: And what
does what the tree turn into have to do with carbon dioxide? If I planted a tree to
cut it down and then changed my mind and thought I just wanted to look at it, that
would change how it regulated carbon dioxide in the air? Plus, younger trees would be growing,
thus using more energy and carbon dioxide. Older trees quit growing, so would need
less carbon dioxide. zarul: 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. Reply: No, because the trees
are grown again and again. Trees are a renewable resource. zarul: C. Because these
forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. Reply:
And as said earlier, the trees are continuously grown, so they continuously manage
carbon dioxide levels. zarul: 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. reply: Trees
grown for commercial purposes also have roots. As for soil erosion and tree forests,
the topic was climate change. zarul; 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. reply: Yes, and recycling ensures that less of that land will be used
for trees. And if less trees means more global warming, then recycling paper is bad
for climate change. Plus, there is plenty of land available. zarul: A. This necessary increase in farming
land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. Reply: again,
this is about climate change. But if you want more land efficiency, then you would want to develop genetically engineered super-crops, not recycle. zarul: 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). Reply: You have no reason for believing
that commercials trees do nothing for the environment. The whole point of not recycling
paper is that more trees will be planted. zarul: C. Many native forests will be cut
down, and this will increase climate change. Reply: Native forests get cut down because they are usually in the way of building
something or planting something else. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging
that at least some of that forest that is cut down is grown back. zarul: "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." Reply: A: ? Um, what? The whole point of my argument
is that by not recycling paper, more corporations would be made for planting trees.
B: No, it's not because recycling paper is subsidized by the government, which hides
the true cost. If it were cheaper then paper manufactures would quit buying trees
and collect the paper from your house itself. The only way recycling a newspaper would
be cheaper is if you read the same newspaper everyday. Recycling is a manufacturing
process: Trucks have to come by, pick up the paper, treat it with chemicals, and repackage
it. This is no more better for the environment then just cutting down trees grown
for commercial purposes. The difference is that recycling causes less trees to be
planted, which is bad for the climate change. zarul: 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). Reply: Again, this is about climate change, not third world development, and if it were, ofcourse poorer countries would want
to engage in new commercial industry. That's what makes them poor is lack of commercial
industry. And you have no reason for believing that tree farm trees do nothing for
the environment. Since they are constantly growing, they are using more energy and
hence more carbon dioxide. zarul: D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests
cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. Reply: No, recycling just ensures that less of what is cut down will be grown back.
Since profit margins are lower for growing trees, that land will be used to grow something
else. zarul: "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." Reply: Climate change is global; it doesn't occur in select countries. That's why Al Gore's book was called
EARTH in the Balance, not Vanuatu in the Balance. The environmental movement is what
hurts poor countries because it seeks to take away cheap, abundant energy. Why care
about respiratory problems that develop in your old age if you live on the brink of
starvation and don't live to be that old? I didn't realize we had to give a reason
for people to vote for us (other than our arguments), but mine would have to be: Vote
for me, since I don't base my arguments off of pious superstition and ignore the fundamental
functioning mechanisms of reality.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
