That recycling certain types of rubbish should be mandatory

IncorrigiblePerspective (PRO)
In an event that went largely unreported last year, a group of young plaintiffs aged mostly in the low teens decided to try and sue the most powerful government in the the world. Hailing from a small Oregon town, their assertion and indeed their case at large was that the US government had systemically and deliberately failed to prevent the realisation of severe climate change, degradation of natural resources and destruction of natural habitats, and in doing so failed in their basic responsibility to preserve the land for future generations. Predictably, the lawsuit never amounted to much, with a grey, dusty old lawyer likely filing a curt response highlighting this Administrations' laudable efforts in combatting the charges in question. What was interested, however, was the response it garnered from wider sections of society; at least those who had heard about it. Fundamentally, the question can be posed of all of us...

'are we taking responsibility for the world we live in, and if so, are we culpable in it's destruction?'

That, I believe, needs to be the question at the heart of this debate. Recycling may only be one facet of a complicated issue, but it is also a critical one. If we expand recycling to it's logical 'x', it can be stated clearly that any issue relating to the 'toxification' of waterways, the plastic in the oceans, a large chunk of our carbon emissions, et cetera et cetera, can all be linked back to the decisions we take as individuals; as consumers, as recyclers, and as electors.

So to the motion here. The reality is that the proposition really only calls for modest goals to be realised here. That 'certain types' of rubbish should be recycled is not a new or even particularly onerous requirement to impose, by any standards. There is not requirement there for 'all' or even a 'majority' of rubbish to be recycled, only that some is. In practical terms, this could mean that we could be mandated to alway recycled batteries into a trash can that would be collected periodically by the local refuse collectors. Hardly taxing, is it? I would hope in 2016 everyone could agree that such small effort would not be requiring too much of anybody.

What is the scale of the problem? If we look at the United States alone, since 2001 and average of 570 billions tons of municipal waste is disposed of per year. Thats 570 billions tons that ends up either in landfill, in the ocean or incinerated. If we look at landfill alone, the figure averages out at around 1000lbs of rubbish per American, per year.

I'm am hoping that in this debate I will not have to debate the science relating to the impact of trash on the health of our planet. The scientific community is unequivocal in its' consensus on the damage to the environment from garbage, whether through chemicals such a lead, mercury, CFC's and others leaking into water systems to the effects on climate change caused by burning of hydrocarbons. On these matters there surely can be no debate.

I will attempt to win this debate by positing two binary statements; that is to say that they intrinsically linked. I will present arguments that support both of those statements in my attempt to show that logically, ethically and environmentally, making the recycling of some rubbish mandatory is the most common-sense position to take.

The aforementioned statements are as follows:

1. 'Recycling greatly improves the lives of individuals and society at large by providing an important piece in the answer to combat climate change and provide a safe and clean environment for future generations.'

So...

2.' Making the recycling of certain types of garbage 'mandatory' - that is to say compulsory either through law, local rules or guidelines, is the only way to realise statement 1.

I look forward to stating my case and debating this with my opponent.

Return To Top | Posted:

2016-05-04 06:16:50

| Speak Round