Incinerators (Pro) are better than Landfills (Con)

I thank Con for his quick response. My rebuttals 1. Hong Kong is irrelevant While an incinerator in Hong Kong may not have the same value as an incinerator in the US, I am only using Hong Kong as an example to prove that incinerators are indeed cheaper than landfills in the long run. The debate on Incinerator vs Landfill is not limited to the US; I mean for it to be a general debate, one on the pros and cons of incinerators and landfills in general, around the world. 2. Covanta My opponent states that Covanta "bribes" as though they are paying off politicians and doing so illegally. It is not. Covanta had merely stated the advantages of having an incinerator, such as a creation of 3500 jobs and substantial investment, such as more facilities. Covanta is not paying off people or doing illegal things like Con suggests with the word "bribe". Another issue my opponent brings up is the "environmental violations" Covanta has committed, which is not cited or proved. Environmental violations of a single company, however, cannot represent the entire sector. There are companies which violate environmental regulations in every sector but that does not mean that the entire sector should be scraped and discarded. Covana is only a single company, and the benefits and advantages of an entire technology and waste management method cannot be ignored of because of it. The many other companies I have listed in previous round have had no such records. Here my opponent criticises my objectiveness. I do not understand this, as I have merely stated plain facts which are properly cited and sourced. It is undeniable that incinerators companies do not have a large influence in politics or economy. 3. Leachate and Methane Here Con states that leachate and methane can be collected. Con states that "those can actually benefit society as long as the leachate can be caught in the liner", which is a rather bold assumption. There are a few kinds of liners, namely composite (formed by both clay and plastic), clay and plastic. All of them have problems. Natural clay is often fractured and cracked. A number of household chemicals will degrade HDPE (plastic landfill liners), permeating it (passing though it), making it lose its strength, softening it, or making it become brittle and crack. Studies show that a 10-acre landfill will have a leak rate somewhere between 0.2 and 10 gallons per day. it is also known that leachate collection systems can clog up in less than a decade. Leachate is a toxic substance that pollutes ground water and land. Leachate is generated by landfills and not incinerators. Con here states that methane can be collected and used as a gas. While true, this is not cited and sourced. The availability of this technology, though, does not seem to show in the facts and figures. It is stated that "Global methane emissions from landfill are estimated to be between 30 and 70 million tonnes each year. Most of this landfill methane currently comes from developed countries." It is undeniable fact that methane is a landfill problem, shown clearly in the facts and figures. Methane is emitted from landfills, but not from incinerators. 4. Jobs Con here fails to acknowledge the economic benefits incinerators has over landfills. While incinerators may provide less jobs, they cost less in the long run and thus is a smaller burden to taxpayers. They also do not have negative impacts on neighbourhood property prices as severe as landfills do. The reason why I said that jobs are less relevant in this debate is because jobs should not be the main focus when it comes to comparing waste management methods. My points: I would like to extend all of my points. I would also like to point out that Con hasn't responded to my points concerning landfills' negative impacts on neighbourhoods (drastically more so that incinerators). Con has not properly cited his sources and has failed to respond to all of Pro's points. Con has also tried blatant plagiarism by trying to include a Youtube video as part of the debate. Vote Pro. References: http://www.ejnet.org... http://www.ghgonline.org... Sources in previous rounds