should there be a fee for people who dont recycle?
of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Side Score: 24
|
 |
who cares??!!?!
Side Score: 28
|
|
|
|
|
before I answer this, let me ask all the people who said no this: do you want to die? every time you throw something away or loiter you are killing the earth. and by extension, yourself. our waste is polluting the earth and our atmosphere and maybe in the next hundred years, the earth will be dead, and by extension, so. will. we. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
points
2
points
1
point
Of course! Litter has the potential to cause harm to human health, safety, and welfare; it harms wildlife and environmental quality on Earth. Litter can harm the environment in a number of different ways. It is a breeding ground for disease-causing insects and rodents. Its "ugliness" damages the appearance of scenic environments. Open containers such as paper cups or beverage cans can hold rainwater, providing breeding locations for mosquitoes which have been known to cause diseases such as West Nile Virus and Malaria. Uncollected litter can flow into streams, and storm water drainage systems, local bays and estuaries. Animals may get trapped or poisoned with litter in their habitats. Cigarette butts and filters, a threat to wildlife, have been found in the stomachs of fish, birds and whales, who have mistaken them for food. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Before I get to the end consumer and the actual question of the debate I want to make a quick statement. Companies that produce recyclable content should be taxed heavily if they are not producing their containers with a large percentage of post consumer content. People that do not recycle should be fined. However, enforcing such a thing would be basically impossible unless you want the government digging through your weekly trash and leaving tickets on your door. Furthermore, different areas have different abilities to recycle certain items. Recycling is the responsible thing to do. There is enough waste and toxins on earth that there is no reason for anyone to knowingly add to it. Why would you not want to recycle? Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This would be a huge incentive to make people recycle, while at the same time not mandating them to actually recycle. So it's a great dichotomy where everyone can keep their freedom to recycle or throw everything in the trash, while at the same time penalizing those who don't make the environmentally sound choice. That being said, the waste produced by the private sector of America doesn't come close to comparing to the amount of waste produced by corporations and industry, so I think this should apply to factories and businesses even more than it applies to private citizens. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There should actually be fees imposed on those who recycle and those that do not. Recycling costs more than just dumping it. Many recycling techniques leave a larger footprint. The execution of recycling is terrible. There needs to way more regulations and research into actual lower cost (planet and money) techniques. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
point
It would be a good idea, as storing waste consumes huge territories. The garbage buried in the soil is never going to decay , as it does not come in contact with air. The realisation that some of the food waste we throw away will stay forever in the ground is quite disturbing. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
point
|
2
points
1
point
2
points
What laws do I want? Can you people EVER get a point? I used those examples to show the sick priorities of Liberals. They care more for land fills than our children. I do not want more laws coming down from Government. I want a dialog on responsibility and accountability for one's choices in life. Remember the commercials on taking drugs where they fried some eggs in a pan to show you what taking drugs did to your brain? Society is educating pregnant mothers to the possible harm that smoking might do to a child. That's what I'm talking about, people speaking out on the dangers of irresponsible choices in life. NO NEW LAWS! A simple message to our youth of the dangers of promiscuous sex, taking drugs, drinking excessively, spending more money than you make by running up your credit cards. But of course those on the Left hate conversations on accountability and responsibility and definitely any mention of morals. That brings us back to the fact that Liberals do not truly care for people because they refuse to educate them to the harmful choices people are making. They only care for their vote by keeping them addicted to government programs. Side: who cares??!!?!
1
point
"But of course those on the Left hate conversations on accountability and responsibility and definitely any mention of morals." And why have you convinced yourself of this? What is your evidence? "That brings us back to the fact that Liberals do not truly care for people because they refuse to educate them to the harmful choices people are making. They only care for their vote by keeping them addicted to government programs." Remember when you said that you hated how liberals claimed that conservatives don't care about pore people, and how that sort of insult cut more deep than the insults you make? Now look at your own post. You are even more guilty of that which you accuse liberals of, than any liberal on this board. And you are doing so rather maliciously as well. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope. You can't force anyone to recycle. We've been throwing things away for thousands of years, and haven't had any big problems yet. btw, I'm not against recycling. I'm just against recycling because you're forced to or you saw the movie Wall-E too many times... Side: who cares??!!?!
3
points
3
points
1
point
Show us proof of your claims. I have never seen a single source saying that recycling doesn't preserve resources. And even if that were true, it still takes a hell of a long time for things like plastic to decompose. So in reality, recycling those products would, at the very least, reduce the size of landfills and in turn help reduce their pollution. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One example would be paper recycling. Paper is the most abundant material in landfills by weight (35%). Saving landfill space is a good reason to recycle them. With pressure and new regulations, paper producers plant more trees than they harvest, so that is a good sustainable practice. Burning biomass is different from burning fossil fuels if you understand the carbon cycle. Burning biomass does not introduce new CO2, net neutral, into the carbon cycle; burning fossil fuels does, net positive. So paper producers only introduce new CO2 when they use machines or transport goods. Paper mills generate electricity through burning of biomass. Some paper mills even generate more electricity than they use so they contribute to the power grid. That is a net decrease to fossil fuel consumption. For the transportation of goods, you have to remember that recycled products must be transported as well. This is why the entire paper industry (sustainable and non-sustainable mills) only accounts for 1.1% of the total CO2 emissions. The problem is the recycling process. Paper must be de-inked. All the waste byproducts produce a toxic sludge that can only be dumped in a landfill which is a concentrated poison that can leach into the ground and contaminate groundwater. Landfill paper has the toxic ink on the paper, but the decomposition is much slower and the toxins are not concentrated. The decomposition of sustainable paper is neutral as long as the mill that produced it was carbon neutral. That means no effect on landfill pollution. Another issue is the process of de-inking. It is done by machinery. They burn fossil fuels, because they do not have biomass waste from harvested trees to burn for energy. This is introduction of new CO2 into the carbon cycle. Basically, other than saving landfill space, there is no discernible benefit to recycling paper. There might even be a net increase in GHGs from recycling paper. Onto a good example, aluminium should always be recycled. It is far more energy efficient to recycle aluminium than to produce new aluminium. This is a one of the best materials to recycle to lower fossil fuel consumption. Instead of just bandwagoning behind the idea that Recycling is a miracle and always leads to renewability and sustainability, do a bit of research. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Fees can be a little bit harsh,we should instead use other alternatives way to promote recycling.For example,we can organize a campaign.In this particular campaign we can try to encourage people to do more recycling and talk about the benefits of recycling. "But no one goes to campaigns these days!?"You might say. Yes, that's true.And this is when school kicks in. School can org anise a talk about "Recycling".Though inviting a talker can be a bit pricey,it will be worth it (unless if the student doesn't pay attention to the talk, which I know most of the students will, sadly ://// ).The talker should ask some questions every once in a while to insure that the students actually listen to it.Another way to motivate them to pay attention is to give out sweets as a "gift" to the person who got the question right because who doesn't like sweets! With this method people can have a habit of recycling from a young age. OK dasss it for now I guess,I hoped I helped you! Peace out! Side: who cares??!!?!
1
point
We literally haven’t even scratched the surface of the amount of space we have. Landfills can simply go under the earths crust, where they will recycle themselves. Sure, it may take a few years, but we would not be affected by it, since it is underground. We have near infinite space below our very feet. Side: who cares??!!?!
What, so politicians can gain more money? No thanks, I believe unorganized garbages are the problem of the government for we do our part as the payer of the taxes. Plus do you think the President recycles? Do you think Hillary Clinton recyles ? If they don't then don't Dare commanding us to do it. Just adds to our work. Side: who cares??!!?!
-1
points
There should be a fee for all the control freaks who want bigger and bigger Government making law after law on the people. It's funny how Liberals hate laws that would prevent dead beats from using our social programs and refusing to work. How about laws against teen pregnancy? How about laws against drinking too much? All of these things are a huge burden on society but you say nothing about these things. To you, landfills are more important than children having no fathers at home, or able bodied people draining our welfare programs. I'm for a bunch of hypocritical corrupt politicians staying out of our lives. They are no one to be judging and preaching to others. Side: who cares??!!?!
There should be a fee for all the control freaks who want bigger and bigger Government making law after law on the people. It's funny how Liberals hate laws that would prevent dead beats from using our social programs and refusing to work. How about laws against teen pregnancy? How about laws against drinking too much? So...your point is that government is getting too big and we shouldn't be making laws against teen pregnancy and drinking too much? No. You want to keep government small but put vastly increase the number of offenses to cover everything you feel is immoral. Disgusting hypocrisy. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
points
1
point
What laws do I want? Can you people EVER get a point? I used those examples to show the sick priorities of Liberals. They care more for land fills than our children. I do not want more laws coming down from Government. I want a dialog on responsibility and accountability for one's choices in life. Remember the commercials on taking drugs where they fried some eggs in a pan to show you what taking drugs did to your brain? Society is educating pregnant mothers to the possible harm that smoking might do to a child. That's what I'm talking about, people speaking out on the dangers of irresponsible choices in life. NO NEW LAWS! A simple message to our youth of the dangers of promiscuous sex, taking drugs, drinking excessively, spending more money than you make by running up your credit cards. But of course those on the Left hate conversations on accountability and responsibility and definitely any mention of morals. That brings us back to the fact that Liberals do not truly care for people because they refuse to educate them to the harmful choices people are making. They only care for their vote by keeping them addicted to government programs. Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
points
"There should be a fee for all the control freaks who want bigger and bigger Government making law after law on the people. It's funny how Liberals hate laws that would prevent dead beats from using our social programs and refusing to work. How about laws against teen pregnancy? How about laws against drinking too much?" What? There isn't anyone that wants to prevent people from becoming economically stable and able to support themselves, but many Liberals think that it is better to help people using social programs, rather than abandon them to destitution. Laws against teen pregnancy? How would that work, exactly? Do you want to make it illegal to have sex before a certain age? That would be some of the most massive government I can imagine. Same with drinking too much. You decry big government providing economic assistance, but then you want the government to be able to tell people what they can or can not do with their own bodies. "All of these things are a huge burden on society but you say nothing about these things. To you, landfills are more important than children having no fathers at home, or able bodied people draining our welfare programs." That's a complete strawman. He made no statement about "children having no fathers at home, or able bodied people draining our welfare programs", so it makes no sense for you to bring them up. You are deflecting from the topic rather than giving an answer, which I do not understand at all. Are you incapable of answering the topic at hand? "I'm for a bunch of hypocritical corrupt politicians staying out of our lives. They are no one to be judging and preaching to others." You throw the word hypocritical around a lot, and in ways that confuse me. Regardless, do you recognize that pollution and a refusal to recycle does present a public cost, one that we all must deal with? One person refusing to recycle does still indirectly harm those that do, and unless we double down on programs to prevent such pollution, we will all continue to feel its negative effects. Is that not something worth preventing? Side: of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
