Incinerators (Pro) are better than Landfills (Con)

You talk about Hong Kong but you don't talk about how it's relevant in the long run. What he seems to be saying is that land costs the same. No. It does not. Land costs differently at certain places and different times with different variables such as population density, proximity to lakes, cities, etc. You cannot compare Hong Kong with any other location that is interested in having a incinerator and this point that you made wouldn't be so bad if you weren't the one who request that I provide the information. No sir, the BOP was on you to prove how incinerators were cheaper in the long run, the BOP is not on me to say why not? To which no one can prove because it involves the future with too many variables. That's number 1. Number 2, You never stated that you didn't want videos in your conditions and to the audience, welcome you to check out my points from the previous rounds and then I posted a video similar to what I have said so to say that my video is not accepted, I don't care what you think because the video is not in anyway plagiarism. Even if the points that I mention are also in the video, so what? Were not two great philosophers or scientists talking about these ideas for the first time. If it's already been discussed and no one is claiming that this originally came from me, then I think I'm free to reference as I please. What "Notyourbusiness" is saying is if a company promises to make a certain, you should always trust the company which is bollocks. Companies are not interested in telling you the truth and Covanta had said they promised to make this much not guaranteed. To say that because they are offering something, doesn't mean its not bribing. Here's the definition of bribing persuade: (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement. The article that I posted also mentioned that bypass was also used in this case. Bypass is inferring that it's using other techniques to persuade the Middlewich community by of course bribing the council therefore proving my point correct that whenever a incinerator company comes in, they cannot be trusted. While there are some companies that genuinely care about the environment, at the end of the day, it's all about the money. If that wasn't a big deal, in Vancouver, there was a battle between the political officials about putting incinerator when there were bribes. You also mentioned that it doesn't matter how many incinerator companies cause in environmental violations because that's on them. What about Wheelabrator Saugus in Boston? What about the criminal and environmental violations that have been from Thermoselect? My argument is that if it's occurring to the point where it happens everywhere, then it's not just a few bad apples. Another disturbing thought which "Notyourbusiness" has is the fact that he only thinks that corruption only happens on the federal level which is an ignorant statement. Corruption happens not just on the federal level but also provincial, state and municipal level. Companies will ignore the punishment if it means they will be making more from it. As for environmental violations, I will happily put that on the references down at the bottom. They could create really terrible clay ones OR you could use Geosynthetic Clay Liners which are far more superior than regular clay liners. They are able to withstand freezing temperatures, and many other factors. You could also have filters which separate between waste and the drainage layer therefore limiting the the physical intrusion from the waste material which is what most landfills will have. As to "Notyourbusiness' questions of the process of Methane to Natural Gas, I will be happy introduce you those facts which is also in the references. Another thing to mention in regards to clogging, when it comes to using unsaturated conditions and layers involving gravel. My final rebuttal before I get to more of my points is that you act as if landfills are Satan and incinerators are angels when that could not be farther from the truth. While "Notyourbusiness" claims that I'm ignoring the consequences of Landfills, he fails to mention the negative side effects which Incinerators cause. Many of the negative side effects of Incinerators can cause damage in citizens respiratory systems and lots of cardiovascular problems. This is dangerous especially for infants. Also what about the environmental violations. When plastic burns, it releases polyvinyl chloride to the atmosphere which is extremely toxic. There's also the possibility that exposure to metals like mercury and other chemicals like Arsenic are much likely to give you Cancer. My Points in Summary are - Landfills are Cheaper. I.E. Do not need to be Upgraded, Less Expensive than Incinerators - Used to remodel the Land I.E. Made into Parks and Golf Courses - Better Source of Energy Electricity (Landfill Gas which generates up to 1301MW just on Reciprocating Engines) - Less negative side effects compared to Incinerators - Modern Landfills are regulated and are less likely to make environmental violations - We will be promoted a society that will burn recyclables instead of recycling This concludes the debate. Vote Con. Thank you! :) http://www.middlewichguardian.co.uk... http://www.geoeng.ca... http://www.nwitimes.com... http://www.geoeng.ca... http://neighborsagainsttheburner.org... http://www.boston.com... http://www.zb.eco.pl... http://ideaireland.org... http://www.alternative-energy-news.info... http://www.cqs.com... http://epa.gov... http://web.stanford.edu...