The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Environmental protection

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 72965
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Round 1-Acceptance
Round 2-Cases
Round 3-Rebuttals
Round 4-defense
I will be explaining why regulations on oil companies will hurt job creation, and how the free market is already finding solutions to the problem.
Debate Round No. 1


I used to embrace the idea of government regulation on oil companies that were damaging the environment. As a liberal, I used to think that the people that were against government regulation were just a bunch of dumb rednecks. This debate will be focused on why oil companies don't need regulation and how if we put regulations, the severe economic downside to that.

1: The Pro would usually be in the stance that nothing is happening to help the environment. That is true. But there are 320 million Americans. In those millions there are thousands, there are hundreds of people that believe in renewable energy sources. The reason why this is important is we first have to understand the free market. The free market insures competition between businesses. The reason why America grew was because of oil businesses competing with each other.
We see this in technology. Apple and Microsoft competed with each other and ended up creating what we use today. The same ideas can be applied to the environment and renewable energy sources. Check out top ten renewable energy. Companies here
If you look at that link you would see that companies are already competing for finding the next energy source.

2:Oil Companies- All of the oil companies provide a total of 400 million jobs., Putting restrictions will harm these oil companies producing economic uncertainty.

3.We are already ahead in energy- If you look at top ten renewable energy producers, you will find that countries are already ahead





Wind Power[3]

Biomass and Waste[4]



1 China China [7] 2014 1300.0 900.0 160.0[8] 42.0 25.0
European Union European Union[9] 2013 755.7 395.5 227.4 51.3 75.6 5.9
2 United States United States 2011 520.1 325.1 119.7 56.7 1.81 17.0
3 Brazil Brazil 2011 459.2 424.3 2.71 32.2 0.0002
4 Canada Canada 2011 399.1 372.6 19.7 6.4 0.43
5 Russia Russia 2011 166.7 166.2 0.018 0.038 0.464
6 India India 2011 162 131 26 4 1
7 Germany Germany 2013 131.6 28.6 51.7 20.2
These are just ten 7 countries that are already paving the way for the future.



Generally, this debate is whether to protect the environment with regulations or not. Specifically, this debate focuses on oil companies in relation to environmental regulation.

Con’s Stand: Oil companies don't need regulation.

My Stand: Oil companies need regulation, not prohibition. (Note: I am not after prohibition, I only want regulation. While Con’s stand is absolute deregulation.)


  1. 1. Free Market will make competing oil companies to develop renewable energy sources.

Response: Obviously, this argument aims at one thing- cleaner environment. Con argued that free market will lead oil companies to develop renewable energy sources because of competition. This logic is flawed.

First, he failed to present any evidence that free market will eventually lead to that. In contrast, regulation on oil companies will actually make that possible. Environmental laws tend to boost innovative environmentally friendly technology. The demand for sustainable technology accelerates as companies and individuals must follow stricter environmental regulations, leading researches and clean energy entrepreneurs to focus on developing technologies.

Secondly, if his aim in this argument is to have a cleaner environment, the answer would obviously to have environmental laws enforced on oil companies. Clearly, his logic is flawed.

  1. 2. Regulation will lead to Loss of employment.

Response: Con did not even give analysis or evidence to prove this argument. This argument cannot be assumed, especially as there are conflicting sides as to whether stricter environmental laws lead to economic laws. In an article by Mark Clayton in “the Christian Science Monitor,” he quoted Michael Porter of Harvard Business School and Daniel Esty of Yale University in a 2002 study of leading industrialized nations as saying that there is no evidence that improving environmental quality comprised economic progress. [1]

Assuming arguendo that environmental regulation is connected with economic loss, still, protecting the environment is more beneficial in a long-term. Without regulation, the worst case scenario is a complete environmental damage caused by excessive and broad oil drilling operation. In the end, loss of lives and damage to the environment must be prevented even it has economic cost.

  1. 3. Ranking of countries in relation with renewable energy producers.

This argument has no value. He failed to connect it with the issue in this debate.


  1. 1. Environment regulatory laws on Oil Companies will keep people safe.

By accepting Con’s stand will lead to an unsafe place to live and will make the following laws/acts ineffective:

Clean Air Act- imposes restrictions and strict controls with respect to the discharge of pollutants, including spills and leaks of oil and other substances, into the waters of the United States.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -Regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

Safe Drinking Water Act -Operations associated with the company’s properties also produce waste waters that are disposed through injection in underground wells. There activities are regulated this act.

2. The environmental impact of Oil (Oil Companies) is extremely detrimental. Deregulation will just make that impact greatly damaging.

Here the issues related to the environmental impact of the petroleum industry (

Toxicity- Oil is "acutely lethal" to fish, that is it kills fish quickly, at a concentration of 4000 parts per million (ppm)[1] (0.4%). Crude oil and petroleum distillates cause birth defects.[2]

Benzene is present in both crude oil and gasoline and is known to cause leukaemia in humans.[3] The compound is also known to lower the white blood cell count in humans, which would leave people exposed to it more susceptible to infections.[3] "Studies have linked benzene exposure in the mere parts per billion (ppb) range to terminal leukemia, Hodgkins lymphoma, and other blood and immune system diseases within 5-15 years of exposure."[4]

Acid rain- Trees killed by acid rain, an unwanted side effect of burning petroleum. Acid rain causes many problems such as dead trees and acidified lakes with dead fish. Coral reefs in the world's oceans are killed by acidic water caused by acid rain.

Climate change
Humans burning large amounts of petroleum create large amounts of CO2 (carbon dioxide) gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere. Also some organic compounds, such as methane released from petroleum drilling or from the petroleum itself, trap heat several times more efficiently than CO2.

Oil spills- Spilt oil penetrates into the structure of the plumage of birds and the fur of mammals, reducing its insulating ability, and making them more vulnerable to temperature fluctuations and much less buoyant in the water. Cleanup and recovery from an oil spill is difficult and depends upon many factors, including the type of oil spilled, the temperature of the water (affecting evaporation and biodegradation), and the types of shorelines and beaches involved.[5] Spills may take weeks, months or even years to clean up.[6]

Volatile organic compounds
- VOCs from petroleum are toxic and foul the air, and some like benzene are extremely toxic, carcinogenic and cause DNA damage. Benzene often makes up about 1% of crude oil and gasoline. Benzene is present in automobile exhaust. More important for vapors from spills of diesel and crude oil are aliphatic, volatile compounds. Although "less toxic" than compounds like benzene, their overwhelming abundance can still cause health concerns even when benzene levels in the air are relatively low. The compounds are sometimes collectively measured as "Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons" or "TPH."[7]

Waste oil
- Waste oil is used oil containing not only breakdown products but also impurities from use. Some examples of waste oil are used oils such as hydraulic oil, transmission oil, brake fluids, motor oil, crankcase oil, gear box oil and synthetic oil.[8] Many of the same problems associated with natural petroleum exist with waste oil. When waste oil from vehicles drips out engines over streets and roads, the oil travels into the water table bringing with it such toxins as benzene. This poisons both soil and drinking water. Runoff from storms carries waste oil into rivers and oceans, poisoning them as well.


[1] Clayton, M. For economic growth, tougher environmental laws? For economic growth, tougher environmental laws? Retrieved 2005-02-24 [2]Prasad, M. S.; Kumari, K. (1987). "Toxicity of Crude Oil to the Survival of the Fresh Water FishPuntius sophore (HAM.)". Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 15: 29. doi:10.1002/aheh.19870150106

[3] "Pennsylvania, New Jersey – Philadelphia Toxic Tort / Chemical Injury Attorneys". Retrieved 2010-05-04.

[4] "Benzene Exposure on a Crude Oil Production Vessel -- KIRKELEIT et al. 50 (2): 123 -- Annals of Occupational Hygiene". Retrieved 2010-06-07.

[5] "Benzene pollution - a health risk in Gulf BP Oil drilling disaster - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)". Retrieved 2010-06-07.

[6] Lingering Lessons of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

[7] "Hindsight and Foresight, 20 Years After the Exxon Valdez Spill". NOAA. 2010-03-16. Retrieved 2010-04-30. |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)

[8] HDOH. "Field Investigation of the Chemistry and Toxicity of TPH in Petroleum Vapors: Implications for Potential Vapor Intrusion Hazards". Hawai'i Department of Health. Retrieved 8 December 2012.

[9] State of Maine (

Debate Round No. 2


Ariesx forfeited this round.


Please Vote
Debate Round No. 3


Ariesx forfeited this round.


Please vote.. thanks
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Pro demonstrated how a cleaner environment and renewable energy supplies will aid people on the big picture. Pro also showed how environmental regulation will save lives, and demonstrated how a life is more important than monetary and economic values. Toxicity must be taken into consideration before stopping environmental regulation, as it takes life and degrades biodiversity. Pro used the only sources.