ENVIRO DEBATE TOURNEY: Recycling helps the enviroment!

Thank you DanT for your last round. Thanks for the debate, GL. Sources Con has conceded Heartland has a bad reputation. The articles author, Professor Benjamin, with PERC, give us a transparent problem. They claim landfills are not a problem but there is traveling cost, some have capacity problems, and they are expensive themselves.[1][2] Modern landfills are not allowed to accept certain materials and are built for disposal of specific types of material. It cost more to make landfills larger for capacity, The Delaware Solid Waste Authority is spending eighty-six million dollars on improvements to raise Cherry Island landfill by 23 feet.[3] I offered a NYTimes article supporting recycling. The article said recycling is productive for our environment but it is not all we must do. It also says that we are using recycling in a improper way. We can take the videos for what they are. I will mention that the videos only show improper uses or procedures in recycling and that is always a way to fail. This does not show that the concept of recycling does not offer help for the environment.[4] Landfills Con starts by saying burning would a be better alternative then recycling. In some instances this would be correct but in some it would not. I am not saying that recycling is the best way every single time as my opponent claims. There can be numerous ways to dispose of materials. Like in Wales, they can burn some but they must also have recycling or another alternative for materials that can not be burnt. Con continues on with a conference held in London but this article says the same thing I am. That recycling is used by advocates who look to profit from it rather than use it for its best use. This again does not show that recycling itself is not sound for the environment if used properly. As so, landfills also have their uses in certain circumstances. Con says landfills are cheaper then recycling but according to 'Wired's report of recycling' supporting the claim made by former US EPA of solid waste. He says, "recycling cost $50-$100 a ton and trash disposal cost $70-$200 a ton."[5] Raw Material I think Con misunderstood what I was saying last round. I did not mean that his argument were lies, just misconceptions. I meant both recycling and their opposition commit lies against one another for their own gain. Con's argument is not that off base because I think recycling is over used and over hyped but that does not mean it is unhelpful for the environment. This contention shows that recycling is beneficial because by recycling we save raw materials for the future. This helps no matter if we are running low on materials or not. If we stop recycling and in the future we run low on materials, we then will be stuck by then can not turn to recycling. We must look to save and reuse materials as much as possible to reserve our raw materials. Con suggest that it is always best for us to use raw material but that is just not the case. Recycling aluminum requires 95% less energy, and produces 95% fewer greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), than manufacturing primary aluminum.[5] Recycling helps conserve important raw materials and protects our natural habitats for the future. The Recycling Process I did not say we should start shutting down every plant that causes harm but that was the impression I was left with by my opponent's argument. He claimed because recycling does harm even though by human aid, we should stop it. This is false, recycling offers to help us in theory and practice and in many actual instances as shown. It is human practice of recycling that is failing. My opponent falsely claims that recycling is simply a industry, it is more than a industry. Recycling is a valid concept and has been shown time and time again to work for us. The industry that uses the recycling concept for gain is not the concept of recycling itself. My opponent attempts to place blame by human error on a valid concept. Without Recycling Con says recycling did not help prevent the Pacific garbage patch but it played a large role in it. I never claimed it was not caused by littering nor did I claim it was caused by landfills. I already mentioned burning is not always a option, landfills don't accept some materials, burying trash causes disease and pollutions, and this introduces recycling as a use among other options. What stops a citizen(s) from throwing materials in the ocean if they are not close to landfills or do not have a recycling center close by? They could anyway but having centers as these close by prevents this type of thing. Burning is not always safe as gases released by trash and wood can cause breathing irritation. Some of these gases are called aldehydes, which cause strong irritation when they contact the eyes, nose, and throat. Aldehyde and other organic gases are the reason why smoke is irritating to the eyes.[6] Economy My opponent ignores this contention but it plays a major role in the environment. I should remind readers and Con our definition of environment. I think the economy most certainly plays a role in our environments. If one part of the environment is changed then parts of the economy are affected. The economy is part of the environment not vice verse. As such, the economy is subject to basic environmental limits.[7]As I have shown, people can profit off recycling and this effects the environment as well as the economy. Environment is a wide term and can include our place of work, home, and daily places we go. Recycling fuel Con claims I have suggested that we can recycle fossil fuels but I have re-read my arguments and never saw where I said this. The only mention of gases or fuels I saw by myself was in the danger of them from landfills. Conclusion Let us all remember that this debate is over whether or not recycling is helpful at all. This debate is not about recycling in the past, present, or future. This debate is about recycling as a theory or concept and by those terms it fulfills the BOP. My opponent has shown us that recycling does get used to much and is used improperly but that is part of my case. Recycling as a concept is not at fault for human error, misuse, or too much use. Do we blame the child for murder if the parent in control taught them to kill? No, we can see problems with a child that would still do such a thing but the blame lands with the one using the child. As so, recycling is not to blame for its use by humans and the problems humans cause because of it. The earth recycles material itself and this shows recycling as helpful for the environment because the earth uses it properly. I thank Con again and I would ask a vote for Pro. Resolution Affirmed SOURCES: [1] http://www.acgov.org... [2] http://www.slate.com... [3] http://www.tommywonk.com... [4] http://www.griffex.com... [5] http://ecowomen.net... [6] http://www.novelis.com... [7] http://www.compassionatespirit.com... [8] http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov...