Should there be a strong push to save the environment?
Yes
Side Score: 10
|
 |
No
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
yes save our environment, remember its our home planet, without it we dont survive, once its dead and gone destroyed, so will we.. that will be the end of all of us. theres no other planet we can run to , is there? this is the real world only one of its kind.. be kind to it and respect it/ Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
Now, I may be jumping the gun, but when I hear "strong push", I think "government interference". Environmental efforts can have some merit, don't get me wrong. Although, I wouldn't even see it as an "environmental effort" when there is a law banning companies from dumping waste into a town's water supply. That's just directly saving unknowing human beings from being poisoned. The same can't be said for carbon emissions and deforestation, which we all somewhat know the results and aren't provably directly harmed by this. Now, this doesn't mean that a company can just kill off tribes in order to cut down their trees, but that's because murder is... illegal. But cutting down trees in general? go the fuck ahead. Side: No
1
point
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that carbon emissions DID harm us, albeit, as you say, not directly. But within a certain period of time, Global Warming will become a very serious issue. So why leave it until it's too late? If we start now, we can drastically reduce the impact of Global Warming forr a long time. Side: yes
There's very little evidence that: 1. We can successfully reduce a significant amount of carbon emissions (that can end global warming) without making drastic regulations on not only big businesses that can handle it, but small businesses that can't. As well, there's little evidence that even after all that destruction we'd even do anything worth while. Not to mention how the UN fails to get other countrys, like China, to go along with it. China would never do it at the moment just because their economy has flourished greatly recently and they don't want to fuck that up, giving away economic power to another country (like, maybe, India, the US, or Russia). 2. Global warming itself is actually going to cause irreversible damage that only government regulation can prevent. All we're doing when we ask for government involvement to solve Global Warming is a lot of red-tape and restrictions with little to no results. Side: No
1
point
1
point
no, because within the next 100 years or less we will probly be up to 10 billion people and counting. No matter what we try to do to save the environment, sooner or later it's all gonna be gone and be replaced by agricultre, towns or cities. It would be nice to save some envirionment(there will always be state parks and reserves),but sooner or later with the human population increasing like it is, it wouldn't help anyway. Side: No
this debate has a clear answer already,(funny to take this this seriously). WE MUST SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT ASAP! do you know Greenpeace or WWF? you sure know that don't you? though their aims is to conserve endangered animals, but they also tell people to save the environment. there are already tons of propaganda or acts themed 'save our environment, save our life' in several countries, and its aims are clear. if we don't take this seriously, there will be no future for the next generations, they'll just perish because the effect of Global warming and poisonous environment Side: No
I think if everyone understantds that we are sloping down and stop to think only about commercial benefits we will be able to provide some support to save our poluted world. The wish of one person isn't enough to save the whole world, but we can try to persuade our relatives and step by step through support of every person we will be able to stop dying our home planet. According to these words I think this is a strong push. Side: No
|
