ENVIRO DEBATE TOURNEY: Recycling helps the enviroment!

Sources Instead of addressing my arguments, Pro has decided to attack my sources. Heartland Pro’s issues with Heartland are with studies conducted by Heartland. The article I cited was in the news section. Heartland was just reporting on research conducted by Daniel K. Benjamin, and Heartland’s credibility in no way effects Benjamin’s reputation. (1) Daniel K. Benjamin is a senior associate of the Property and Environment Research Center, in Bozeman, Montana, and a professor of economics at Clemson University. Benjamin is currently involved in research regarding the perception of environmental risk and whether or not those perceptions are bias. (2) NYTimes Pro attempted to mitigate my NYTimes article by citing another NYTimes article by a different author. My article was written by Henry Fountain, and Pro’s article was written by Alina Tugend. Alina Tugend has been NYTime’s biweekly “ShortCuts” columnist since 2005. (3) Henry Foundtain has been a science writer for the NYTimes since 1995. (4) My article has a more reliable writer, with greater ties to the NYTimes. Pro’s author does not even have a bio on the NYTimes website. Video 1 Pro attempts to mitigate from the facts presented in the video by selecting a single quote from the opening. He claims that the quote “not all recycling is good” is an indicator that recycling can be good. Pro completely ignored the fact that most recycling is bad; chemotherapy can be used for good, but that does not mean everyone should be subject to radiation. The resolution is “recycling helps the environment”, as the affirmative Pro has the BOP. The few areas where recycling does not do more harm than good, does not necessarily improve the environment. Simply showing that some recycling is not harmful is not the same as showing recycling is beneficial. Video 2 Pro attempts to mitigate from the facts presented in the video by pointing out that the video mentions that recycling does have benefits. Pro ignored the fact that the benefits stated were not environmental, but rather psychological and economical. This debate is not over whether recycling has benefits in general, but rather if recycling benefits the environment; which it clearly does not. Rebuttals Landfill Space Pro claims that in wales there is no more room for waste. Wales has the capacity to store another decade of waste in their landfills. The best alternative for the landfills in wales is not recycling, but rather to burn the trash. By burning the trash in a controlled facility, they can turn the trash into energy. This is a much better alternative than recycling as it is less harmful to the environment, and it creates an alternative energy source. (5) In 2007, at the Battle of Ideas conference in London, Thomas Deichman made the case that recycling is a waste of time and energy. According to Deichman, studies have confirmed that the best means of dealing with waste is to burn the waste. Deichman has also noted that the debate about waste management has become politicized, where politicians, rather than engineers, are finding solutions for waste management. http://www.youtube.com... It is a false dichotomy to assume that we either have to use landfills, or recycle. The burning of trash, in a controlled environment, with high tech filters, is the most efficient way of disposing of garbage. This is much different from recycling, which is when you remanufacture a material, so it can be used again. The burning of waste is a clean and safe form of energy, which could help Wales secure future energy supplies. (5) Raw Materials Pro did not address my arguments on raw materials; he simply dismissed them as lies and misconceptions. He did not make any arguments for why they are misconceptions or lies, nor did he cite a source for this claim. The Recycling Process Pro ceded that the recycling process can be harmful to the environment. Pro attempts to refute the argument by reduction ad absurdum; Pro claims that this argument would call for shutting down every industry that causes environmental problems. First off, I did not say we should shut down industries simply because they cause environmental problems; I said we should shut down an industry whose purpose is to help the environment, but is actually causing more harm than good. Without Recycling Pro claims that, without recycling wildlife would be effected; Pro cites the Pacific Garbage Patch. Recycling does not prevent the growth of the Pacific Garbage Patch, as the pacific garbage patch is caused by littering, not by landfills. The article Pro cites uses a false dichotomy between recycling and littering. His article claims that if recycling stops, it encourages polluters to dump their trash into the ocean. This statement could not be further from the truth. There is a huge difference between not recycling garbage and polluting; you could recycle and still pollute, and you could not recycle without polluting. Economy The brunt of Pro’s argument is economic, which is not the point of this debate. I will not get into the economics of recycling, as it has nothing to do with the resolution. Landfill Pollution vs Recycling Pollution As I stated in the dropped arguments of my previous round, recycling pollutes more than landfills. As I have pointed out in my above argument, burning the trash in a controlled environment, is the best bet to reduce pollution; controlled burns can also produce energy. Methane gas can be useful, and the methane gas produced by the discarded food can be collected. Recycling fuel You cannot recycle fuel. Pro makes the claim that we should recycle our fossil fuels; he does not provide a source for this claim, because it is impossible to do. Once you use fossil fuels, the energy has been transferred. You cannot reuse fossil fuels, because the energy was already expelled. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; fossil fuels do not create energy, they transfer energy. Dropped arguments Pro has dropped all of my arguments except for the landfill space. Pro chose to dismiss my arguments rather than address them. Since he dropped the arguments, they are assumed true. Recap The BOP rests with Pro, as he is the one making the claim. Pro has yet to meet the BOP, and the brunt of his argument has been economic factors rather than environmental. So far I have proven that Recycling is harmful to the environment. Recycling is more harmful than alternatives. Pro’s main argument is based on the false dichotomy of recycling vs pollution. Recycling can be pollution, and you can use alternative waste management techniques without polluting. 1.) http://news.heartland.org... 2.) http://perc.org... 3.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4.)http://topics.nytimes.com... 5.) http://www.wasteawarenesswales.org.uk...