BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The largest ‘hole’ in the ozone layer is recent

While the Montreal Protocol banned chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform way back in 1987 the ozone hole continued to grow. The largest ever whole in the Ozone layer was on the 24th September 2006.[[http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/]] Scientists also admit that Daniel L. Albritton director of the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory We expect to see year-to-year variations in the size of the ozone hole, because stratospheric temperatures can vary from year to year. In colder years, the same amount of ozone-depleting compounds can destroy more ozone, in comparison to warmer years. [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Antarctic Ozone Hole at Near Record Size This Year, Times Higher Education, 9/10/03, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=184121&sectioncode=26%5D%5D this makes it difficult to see how quickly the whole is repairing.
Not a political issue.

There is no debate about the need to repair the ozone layer, the debate is done and dusted and has political support. 196 countries have ratified the Montreal Protocol and almost as many have ratified its amendments at London (1990: 195 countries), Copenhagen (1992: 192), Montreal (1997: 181) and Beijing (1999: 164) [[http://ozone.unep.org/Ratification_status/]] implying that it would not be a problem to include new things into the protocol if necessary. The ozone layer does not matter because any problems with will be dealt with unlike for example tackling CO2 emissions.
The ozone hole is getting smaller.

The shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer may not be due to an overall recovery. In 2007 it was reported that there was a smaller hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic than there had often been in the last couple of decades, especially compared to the biggest hole in 2006. The ozone loss in 2007 peaked at 27.7 million tonnes, compared to the 2006 ozone loss of 40 million tonnes. However this was due to mild temperatures in the stratosphere during the Antarctic winter. However unlike at ground level as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, temperatures will fall in the stratosphere, increasing the threat of severe ozone holes in the future.[[Antarctic Ozone Hole Shrinking Because Of Mild Weather, Not Recovery, ScienceDaily, 22/10/07, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071021114804.htm%5D%5D This means that any reports that the holes in the ozone are no longer a concern need to be treated with scepticism.
The ozone hole is getting smaller.

In 2006 the hole in the ozone layer was 27.5 million km2[[http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7044]], in 2007 it was 25million km2, in 2008 it went back up to 27 million and in 2009 it was similar to its 2007 size.[[ Ozone hole smaller in 2009 than 2008: WMO, Physorg.com 16/9/09, http://www.physorg.com/news172311361.html%5D%5D Although there is some variation the hole is beginning to close. Scientists predict that it could be closed by 2050.[[Ozone hole ‘set to shrink’, BBC News, 3/12/00, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm%5D%5D
Regulations to reduce carbon emissions will suffer all the problems of government bureaucracy. Whil...

Regulations to reduce carbon emissions will suffer all the problems of government bureaucracy. While market mechanisms will appeal to companies’ and consumers’ self-interest in a transparent way, regulations are always complex and burdensome. A massive and expensive administrative system will be needed to frame and introduce meaningful regulations, and this will impose unnecessary costs upon our economy (and probably raise taxes). Worse, because government is always so bad at regulation, companies will calculate that they need not obey the rules anyway – because poor monitoring means they are unlikely to get caught, and weak penalties mean that even if they are caught the fines will still be less than the cost of complying with the regulations.
Market mechanisms are open ended and provide and an ongoing profit motive for companies, state agenc...

Regulation already exists and has proved effective, so it is unnecessary to try to construct market-based solutions. Pollution and climate change is essentially a result of market failure, and governments need to intervene to resolve this. Regulations are flexible as they can be strengthened and extended over time, building on initially moderate measures. Regulations can also be introduced in such a way that companies are given an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions as much as possible, for example through progressive fines for CAFE vehicle emissions standards in the USA
Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exc...

Because it is not possible to achieve a perfect market in carbon emissions, regulations are to be preferred. Firstly, some types of emissions are more damaging to the environment than others, but this is hard to recognise in a carbon tax or trading system. Regulations can be more targeted in order to deal with the biggest problems first. For example, government policy has required vehicle exhausts to become much less damaging to the environment over the past few years, and can also demand that companies (e.g. power generators) update their equipment and working methods. The deadlines and potential sanctions accompanying such government demands can also focus investment into research and development which the market alone would not provide. \ Secondly, the existing global marketplace is quite imperfect. Many countries (e.g. China, India) lack the kind of open economies needed for market mechanism to operate effectively. Unless efforts to curb carbon emissions are to be put on hold until their economies are sufficiently reformed for market incentives to have a chance of working, regulations will have to be the main method of emissions reductions in such places. And on a global scale market incentives are hugely distorted by such oddities as the exemption of aircraft fuel from taxation.
Using market mechanisms is likely to have a greater impact on people’s behaviour than regulation alo...

Market-based proposals can sound great in theory but economists fail to recognize the way in which people actually live their lives. Because people value the personal freedom their motor vehicle gives them, and feel that they have no choice but to use it to get to work, take the kids to school, etc., they will swallow very high increases in fuel taxes without changing their behaviour. Similarly, making your home energy efficient can involve a lot of initial expense, and even if this investment would pay for itself in lower bills or taxes over a number of years, many people will not feel the investment is worthwhile. Only by regulation requiring people to change their behaviour can this inertia be addressed.
Market mechanisms such as carbon trading allow the greatest reduction in emissions at the least cost...

Market mechanisms like carbon trading can act as a way for the rich countries historically responsible for causing climate change to avoid their responsibilities. By allowing developed countries and their businesses to purchase carbon offsetting credits in the developing world, they can effectively export their obligation to reduce carbon emissions. This is not morally justifiable as the problem was largely created by developed nations, so they should be required (by regulations) to make sacrifices to deal with it. Furthermore, as such market systems often trade virtual carbon reductions, whereby schemes in the developing world are meant to prevent increases in emissions which might otherwise have taken place, they do not reduce the actual amount of carbon emitted into the earth’s atmosphere. Questions have also been raised about the potential for fraud and corruption in many carbon offset schemes in the developing world.
Badly designed market mechanisms will not promote effective emissions reduction, but that is also tr...

Regulations are more stable and effective than carbon markets. The European Union’s recent experience of running a cap and trade system for carbon emissions does not inspire confidence. Allocations of permits to pollute have been politicised amid competition between member states, so too many permits have been handed out, often to the wrong industries. As a result the carbon price was initially extremely volatile before settling at a very low level – neither of which is likely to inspire any company to make big investments in green technology. Given that the level of any carbon tax is also likely to be highly politicised, the predictability of clear emissions standards is much the best way to promote emissions reductions.
Consumers are not unfairly punished by carbon taxes or by higher energy prices as a result of cap an...

Carbon taxes unfairly punish consumers of energy by raising the cost of heating their homes, travelling to work, etc. Hard-working families already face a very high tax burden and so-called “green” taxes are just another excuse for politicians to dip into their wallets. Cap and trade is little better as it puts energy consumers at the mercy of volatile markets, making ordinary families prone to the same unpredictable price spikes and supply failures which affected California a few years ago. Regulations force those really responsible for carbon emissions – power generators, the auto industry, fuel companies – to face up to their responsibilities and to invest some of their vast profits in green technology.
Regulations to reduce carbon emissions will suffer all the problems of government bureaucracy. Whil...

Regulations such as efficiency standards will be easier to introduce than market mechanisms. In a democracy the public need to be convinced of any major new policy initiative, and polls suggest the public would prefer more stringent emissions standards. By contrast market mechanisms find little favour with the public, meaning that any attempt to introduce them may be doomed to failure, along with the politicians associated with them. Carbon taxes are unpopular because the public very reasonably sees them as another way for the state to take money off them; politicians’ promises to offset the impact with reductions in other taxes are not believed. Cap and trade systems are so complicated to explain that it is unlikely the public would ever learn to understand and trust them. What the public will see is that cap and trade schemes would require a large and costly bureaucracy of their own, but at international level, so that our sovereign independence would be threatened by some global body.
Market mechanisms are open ended and provide and an ongoing profit motive for companies, state agenc...

Market mechanisms are open ended and provide and an ongoing profit motive for companies, state agencies, and individuals to reduce emissions, as doing so either creates additional profits (cap and trade) or yields up additional tax reductions (carbon tax). Either is better than a regulatory approach, which only requires cuts to a certain level and provides no longer-term incentive for companies to drive down emissions by investing in new technology – meaning companies will take the minimum action necessary to meet the regulatory standard.
Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exc...

Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exception of the European Union, regulations are set by individual countries so there is a great risk that each state will come up with its own set of regulations in an attempt to limit carbon emissions. Not only will this be unnecessarily complicated and raise the costs of compliance considerably, there is also a risk that states will have an incentive to introduce only lax regulations in an attempt to attract more business investment than other, more demanding jurisdictions.\ By contrast, market mechanisms can provide a more coordinated and effective international response. A cap and trade system will sit alongside existing international financial and commodities markets. Cap and trade also provides incentives for developing countries to participate by offering them a chance to profit by adopting green technologies and preserving their forests. And although an identical global tax level for carbon emissions seems as unlikely as coordinated regulation, agreement on the principle of carbon taxation would be much easier to achieve. Individual countries could set their own carbon tax rates if they wished, but as they will all be taxing the same damaging emissions the overall impact in the market will be to provide a powerful push to reduce emissions.\
Using market mechanisms is likely to have a greater impact on people’s behaviour than regulation alo...

Using market mechanisms is likely to have a greater impact on people’s behaviour than regulation alone. Both a carbon tax and a trading system that prices emissions would raise the cost of fuel and electricity for ordinary people, providing an incentive to reduce their personal carbon footprint. This would have an immediate impact, and would affect all kinds of consumers, whereas regulations mandating efficiency standards for vehicles or homes would apply only to new purchases and not to the huge number of existing automobiles and houses, making any overall progress in reducing emissions extremely slow. Regulations can also have perverse effects – for example, requiring higher fuel efficiency standards may reduce the cost per mile to the motorist and so actually encourage more driving and so more pollution. By contrast, raising the cost of the fuel itself (as either cap and trade or a carbon tax would) will provide incentives for both greater engine efficiency and reducing mileage.
Market mechanisms such as carbon trading allow the greatest reduction in emissions at the least cost...

Market mechanisms such as carbon trading allow the greatest reduction in emissions at the least cost – this damages the world economy less and will ultimately allow more rapid decreases in emissions than costly regulations would achieve. Power generating plants and motor vehicles in the developing world and the former Soviet Union are often hugely more polluting than those in the most developed nations, and it would be relatively cheap to equip them with more modern technology in order to bring emissions down. By contrast, achieving even a tiny additional reduction in more efficient developed world plants and vehicles would be hugely costly, as it would require completely new technologies to be developed. Carbon trading (or an international carbon tax) would encourage firms to direct investment into whatever would reduce their emissions most cost-effectively, either by direct investment in their developing world operations, or by buying carbon credits from such countries. If this means emissions in the rich world stay level while carbon reduction efforts are concentrated elsewhere, then fine – the world as a whole gains from this. And if it transfers money and directs investment into developing nations, then that is an additional benefit of the scheme.
Badly designed market mechanisms will not promote effective emissions reduction, but that is also tr...

Badly designed market mechanisms will not promote effective emissions reduction, but that is also true of badly designed regulations (which are often highly politicised, e.g. US vehicle exhaust emissions standards). The European Union’s system has had problems, but the EU Commission has been much stricter with the second round of permit allocations and there is every prospect that the carbon market will prove successful in the next few years. Already EU companies have been incentivised to invest in carbon-reduction schemes in developing countries, so cap and trade is having a positive global impact. Extending cap and trade to other countries would allow us to learn from the EU’s experience, perhaps by making companies pay for permits to pollute rather than giving permits to them for free. On the other hand, many economists argue that a carbon tax is preferable to both regulations or cap and trade, as it is much more transparent in the way it creates incentives to reduce emissions.
Consumers are not unfairly punished by carbon taxes or by higher energy prices as a result of cap an...

Consumers are not unfairly punished by carbon taxes or by higher energy prices as a result of cap and trade schemes. Ultimately climate change is caused by all of us, and ordinary people will have to change their behaviour in order to tackle global climate change. But there is no reason to think that market mechanisms will create victims – carbon taxes can be offset by reductions in the level of other taxes, so that their overall impact is neutral. And regulations do not just affect big businesses – they create costs which industry passes on to consumers in the form of more expensive electricity, vehicles, gasoline, etc. In fact, regulations often favour particular industries over others for political reasons, which is far more unfair than using market mechanisms to send green price signals to consumers.
It teaches social responsibility

The vast majority of young people in schools use social media and social networking sites, whether they like to keep in touch with old friends or make new ones, they are vastly popular, and no amount of scolding from teachers will deter them. They've heard it all before. Having a Facebook account or what have you teaches young people the importance of internet safety. It teaches them to be responsible with the amount of information they put up, the photos they publish, the things they write, etcetera. However, some children only learn this the hard way- perhaps, when they or someone close to them has been a victim of online identity theft. If social media was part of the curriculum they would learn the importance of it right from the beginning, and not wait until something forces them to.
YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc

YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc. and if social networking was a part of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also I feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!
Social media relates school to life.

School is supposed to prepare children for life and yet it is completely disconnected from it. This is necessary to a certain extent so that pupils are safe and can concentrate on their work but it is taken to the extreme. Pupils are hardly allowed to socialise and frequently can't even discuss work with each other during lessons. Social media sites are a good bridge between school and the outside world because you can still focus the class on useful learning activities such as finding the latest news and reactions to it, or submitting work to be reviewed by a wider audience.
Social media creates a positive atmosphere in the classroom.

Social media sites have positive associations for school-age children, so they will appreciate its use in schools. They will respect teachers who know how to use social media properly. As well as being an enjoyable activity for them, they will also feel more motivated because they already know something of the subject and because their online identity is one they choose for themselves and where they are equal to everyone else on the Internet, not the stifling conformity of a classroom.
YES !

i think this because, many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook .. etc. and if social networking was apart of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also i feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!
Enlargement will undermine the Common Agricultural Policy, but this should be welcomed. The CAP’s s...

Expansion could devastate farming in western Europe where land and labour costs and environmental standards are much higher than in the east. The prospect of new entrants receiving vast subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (current cost $48 billion per annum) would make this danger worse, while the collapse or reduction of the CAP under the strain of expansion would be catastrophic. Not only would a collapse of the farming industries of current members be an economic and strategic disaster, it would have grave environmental consequences.
The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, drivin...

Public opinion towards the EU among current members ranges from lukewarm to mildly hostile. There is a risk that expansion could turn this lack of enthusiasm into active hostility, as citizens see their tax-euros going east and poor job-seekers flooding west, while aid to their own depressed regions is cut, destabilising the EU and endangering the benefits it has brought over several decades.
Morally right. It is right to extend to Central and Eastern Europe the economic and political benef...

Morally right. It is right to extend to Central and Eastern Europe the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members as they recover from the “dead hand” of a communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. It would be hypocritical for a European Union not to embrace the geographical scope it claims within its own name.
Good for current EU members politically. It will extend to almost all of continental Europe a projec...

Good for current EU members politically. It will extend to almost all of continental Europe a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, as has been demonstrated by the negative examples of recent Balkan conflicts, which have involved other European nations in (expensive) military and humanitarian missions, and have created major refugee problems.