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

Incinerators (Pro) are better than Landfills (Con)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,190 times Debate No: 64148
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




1. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference.
2. No insults or discriminatory comments may be made.
3. No foul language is allowed.

First round is for acceptance.


I accept your terms in the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for accepting the debate.

So here I will make my points:

1. Incinerators cost less than landfills
Firstly, it should be obvious that incinerators require less land than landfills. With a growing population, land is becoming more and more of a concern. Modern incinerators reduce waste to between 6-13% of the original volume, while landfills do nothing to reduce the volume of waste. This alone saves a lot of money as land is very expensive. Additionally, landfills need extensions more frequently while incinerators do not. Secondly, incinerators cost less in the long run. Hong Kong executive council member Bernard Chan says that "the cost of (processing) each bag would be 'less than HK$1 each' ", thus reducing the heavy burden of $1400 million of waste management per year in Hong Kong.

Incineration is a practical method of disposal that saves a lot of money on transport of waste to landfills. This is because garbage is transported long distances, to multiple collection and transfer points before ultimate disposal.

A 250 ton per day incinerator can produce 6.5 megawatts of electricity per day and this itself can save about $3 million per year.

Let's look at an example: TeamTec-an incinerator company. While each company does indeed try to advertise or even exaggerate the advantages of their products, the facts and numbers are indisputable. "TeamTec incinerators are all controlled by a state-of-the-art PLC ensuring a simple and reliable operation, maximum capacity utilisation and minimum fuel consumption. Minimum attendance is needed during operation and remote supervision is possible." So here it is seen that incinerators do not need as much personnel as landfills do, since automatic control is possible. This is indeed true. Take the Lincoln Avenue Plant as an example. A total of 15 men are needed for the first shift, 11 for the second and 10 for the third. On the other hand, landfills require many more drivers (transfer of waste to collection points is needed) and supervisors, thus adding to the cost.

2. Incinerators do not add to the growing problem of global warming
Landfills produce landfill gas, which is about 40% to 60% methane, which is a greenhouse gas. On the other hand, incinerators do not produce or release any methane. Additionally, with less transportation needed (please see above), the carbon footprint that such transport leaves behind is less than that of landfills.

Studies have shown that solid waste incinerators produce less pollution than landfills. One study in particular, conducted during a 1994 lawsuit in the United States, showed that a waste incinerator site was more environmentally friendly than an equivalent landfill. (Both were 1,500-ton-per-day facilities.) The study found that the landfill released higher amounts of greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, nitrogen oxides and dioxin than an incinerator. Landfills further leach dangerous chemical into the underlying groundwater, which can contaminate underground water systems.

3. Incinerators are cleaner
Toxic substances from landfill waste often reach underground water supplies and surrounding land areas, causing water pollution and land pollution. These lead to soil erosion, which lowers the productivity of agriculture land, affecting not only the livelihood of farmers but the food supply and generation of the area. In the worse cases, soil erosion can even bring about desertification. And with an increasing world population and higher demands for food, land degradation at these rates will magnify problems of food shortages and malnutrition, especially in the poorer third world countries. However, incinerators do not have such effects on the environment as all waste is burnt to ash and no toxic substances will reach underground water supplies or surrounding land areas.

Incinerators burn waste at over 850 degrees Celsius, thus ensuring the destruction of pathogens (e.g. fungi, bacteria and viruses) and hazardous pollutants (e.g. volatile organics). On the other hand, landfills cannot kill germs or bacteria.

Landfills come with many problems such as pests, insects and leachate, which incinerators do not come with.

4. Incinerators are an alternative power source
Incinerators can generate electricity at the same time while burning waste, and is a renewable energy since waste will never run out. Landfills do not have this added benefit. This waste-to-energy policy is used successfully in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Japan.

5. Incinerators are more sustainable
Landfills are unsustainable. There is only so much land in the world, and every year about 175 million tons of waste enter landfills. While some matter will decompose in landfills, other materials, like plastic and Styrofoam, will last millions of years. Every year landfills take up more and more space. There is no such land requirement for incinerators, however, and thus they are much more sustainable and a long-term solution to our waste problems.

6. Incinerators can be operated 24/7 in any weather
Incinerators can operate in any kind of weather, while landfills cannot. Let's have a common scenario to explain why it is so. Let's have a rainy day. Happens often enough, right? Now, waste is not actually supposed to be dumped into landfills when there is rain since the rain would wash toxic substances of the waste down into the ground, forming leachate and polluting underground water sources as well as nearby land. Waste cannot be dumped during strong winds as well for obvious reasons. On the other hand, incinerators have no such limitations. They do not require as much care as landfills when it comes to rain or water since the waste will be burnt and no toxic substance will be leaked. They can also operate 24 hours a day and thus are more efficient in handling waste when compared to landfills.

7. Effective Metal Recycling
When waste burns in an incinerator, metal remains intact due to its high melting point. After the fire has burned out, the operator removes the metal and recycles it. This eliminates the need to separate out any metal before disposing of the waste. When waste goes straight to a landfill, it is likely not sorted, which results in a waste of resources. Using the incinerator makes it easier to find the metal and reuse it.

I look forward to Con's arguments.



Greetings and welcome to the debate

I would like to thank "notyourbusiness" for allowing me to have this debate and congratulate him on an interesting first round. I will now begin my counter arguments as well as my own arguments.

Firstly, in your first paragraph, you stated that incinerators cost less than landfills which the first paragraph of your argument doesn't matter because according to The World Bank, it costs "an order of magnitude greater than" landfills.". Most incineration companies (probably Teamtec included) have forced communities to sign a Take or pay contract which costs just for operating and profit margins. While it also really depends on the type of incinerator, overall, the projects of incinerators outway the amount it would cost if we used landfills.

Secondly, you said that Incinerators do not add to the growing problem of global warming. Are you honestly sure about that? Think about how we start a car and it's energy burns fossil fuels. Now imagine that we are burning garbage that could be ranged from harmless to toxic chemicals that if it got out into the environment, it would have devastating effects. Burning materials such as acids, organics and heavy metals can have severe consequences to the environment. By burning these, you are creating more problems and not solutions.

I would now like to speak my points.

I feel that while burning the trash is important, it's a waste to burn all of the trash. In some ways, you can say that trash is a goldmine. Let me explain. everyone is familiar with the three R's. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle but if we burn materials, what will be left to reuse? We could be recycling so many materials that have been thrown out as opposed to keep spending to create new materials.

Now before I was mentioning contracts. What some contracts do in their local communities is that communities are forced to sign these 20-30 year contracts in which they have to provide therefore not giving incinerator companies incentive to recycle and that's only the beginning. Not only do we rely on recycling, but the entire industry of recycling creates jobs. More jobs than incinerators and where does the recyclables/waste come from? From landfills of course. Incinerators will not and cannot provide this service.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for his quick response.

Concerning Con's Rebuttals:

1. The Cost of an Incinerator is greater than that of landfills
Con has ignored my points about landfills needing less land and human resources compared to incinerators, which makes incinerators cheaper in the long run. I have also cited sources, such as the Hong Kong government, which prove otherwise. Con cites from which does indeed say that the capital costs for incinerators is high, but the source does not mention anything about incinerator costs in the long run. We are talking about waste management here, an issue that will go on for decades if not centuries. We won't be building an incinerator then shutting it down the next year. When divided, costs of an incinerator in the long run are less than that of landfills. It also fails to factor in the economic benefits brought forth by the generation of electricity.

2. Incinerators add to global warming and causes health problems
I believe that Con has ignored my point concerning how incinerators do not produce methane. Methane has a Global Warming Potential of 30, and landfills are the principal anthropogenic sources of methane emissions in the United States, taking up 36.4%. Con has also ignored my evidence from a source, with the cited study finding "that the landfill released higher amounts of greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, nitrogen oxides and dioxin than an incinerator."

It is said that "At present, municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) in waste-to-energy (WtE) has confirmed to be an environmentally friendly solution and a common alternative to landfilling, while allowing recovery of a large part of the energy contained in MSW". Incinerators actually have the ability to destroy potential pathogens and toxic organic contaminants. It should also be noted that flute gas cleaning systems typically remove over half of the pollutants (required by law) that Con's cited source ( mentioned. It is very important to note that air pollution induced by MSWI has been strongly reduced by some up-to-date sophisticated air pollution control equipments, whereas nothing can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills. Some studies that analysed in detail the health impact associated to the gaseous emissions of MSWI have revealed that no relevant health problems may be associated to modern MSWI systems, so Con's concerns about the impact of incinerators on human health is unfounded and not evidence-based.

All waste incineration processes are now designed and operated so that residual emissions of pollutants comply with the emission limits set out in the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC). All emissions are measured continuously and online reported to the authority. Additionally the input and the environment are checked by bioindication (sampling of soil, water, plants, animals- showing measurable damages to flora, soil and water fauna)

Thus, emissions from modern incinerators are not likely to put our health at risk, and in reality there are many other far worse emissions from factories, road traffic on motorways, and even home coal and wood fires.

On a side note, Con has ignored my points concerning incinerators being cleaner, more sustainable, an alternative power source, operation hours and it's contribution to effective metal recycling.

1. "I feel that while burning the trash is important"
Con has conceded to Pro here.

2. Recycling instead of burning
Con has yet again ignored my point concerning incinerators' contribution to effective metal recycling. Con also forgets that landfills do not process waste and thus recycling is not an advantage for landfills. This debate is about whether or not incinerators are better than landfills, not whether incinerators are the best waste management method.

Additionally, ash from incinerators are actually used in road-building. Scrap from incinerators are used in the steel industry. Incinerators do not waste primary raw resources as much as landfills do.

3. "communities are forced to sign these 20-30 year contracts in which they have to provide therefore not giving incinerator companies incentive to recycle"
Con has not stated what said communities have to "provide". Con's usage of the word "forced" is also inappropriate. This is a democratic society, and any such decision would have been made by the public where only a majority vote in favour of the motion would have allowed the construction and subsequent operation of an incinerator. Also, what does recycling have to do with all of this? Con forgets that landfills do not contribute to recycling, and thus recycling is not a point that can be used to attack incineration.

4. Jobs
The main focus when comparing waste management methods are their efficiency, impact on health and environment and operating costs. Jobs are not as significant as the many other points I have brought up but Con has ignored, especially since landfills do not create unique jobs when compared to incinerators. For example, truck drivers working in landfills can do the same job for many other industries, whereas engineers for incinerators are professional and thus incinerators create much more unique job opportunities.

5. Recycling (again)
I would like to remind Con that the waste hierarchy works this way: Source reduction and reuse; recoiling/composting; energy recovery; treatment & disposal. Any kind of recycling comes BEFORE treatment and disposal (where both incinerators and landfills belong to), and so the statement that "recyclables/wastes come from landfills" is false. There is no organisation which can legally go to landfills and collect "recyclables" on a usual basis due to safety concerns. Waste is ideally sorted and some recycled before it goes to landfills or incinerators, thus landfills have nothing to contribute to recycling.

My Points:
I would like to extend all of my points from the previous round, and stress upon the points that Con has ignored.

An additional point:
8. Incinerators are able to handle medical waste
With high temperatures, harmful bacteria in medical waste is killed in incinerators. Landfills have no such ability to handle medical waste, which is why 90% of medical waste is incinerated, the rest treated via autoclaves, mechanical/chemical disinfection, microwave and irradiation. Note how landfills are not a method of treating medical waste.

References: (Margarida J. Quina, Jo"o C.M. Bordado and Rosa M. Quinta-Ferreira (2011). Air Pollution Control in Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators, The Impact of Air Pollution on Health, Economy, Environment and Agricultural Sources, Dr. Mohamed Khallaf (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-528-0, InTech)
Sources used in the previous round


1. There have been sources which I have provided that have said that landfills and the recycling process which has created more jobs that incinerators ever will. As to your point for landfills needing less land, I see that as a good thing because the less, the less the city has to pay for it and the less citizens complain. The Hong Kong economy to how much incinerators cost there is not the same as what it would cost us here so bringing up a reference from Hong Kong is irrelevant and unless explained in thorough detail, it's just assumed as irrelevant because Hong Kong's cost for incinerators is not the same as the Untied States or Canada's.

We are not talking about waste management but rather which one is better as the title of this debate suggests. Specifically on this point, were talking about which one is more cost effective. Incinerators are more costly than landfills therefore I think this point goes to me. Were not talking about costs

2. Throughout this entire debate, you felt that I ignored your points. I didn't ignore your points. I just chose not to care about them because most of the points that "Notyourbusiness" points out are almost meaningless. "Notyourbusiness" was referring to methane being a very dangerous gas but we know that landfills have methane problems. I'm willing to admit that but that's why plenty of methane extraction systems are built into the Landfill. You are confusing Landfills for dumps. that allow less and less methane to be released in the atmosphere.

I don't concede to that one point just because I've said that burning trash is important. It is but to an extent. For example, flaring is also an option but it's not the same as incineration. Also for someone who claims that I'm ignoring your points, you really need to look into a mirror because how is it that you ignored the fact that we need that trash in order to reduce, reuse and recycle.

That's not what waste is. All waste is is garbage and needs to be put somewhere or something needs to be done with it but recycling is not exclusive and could only be burned. There's plenty of other materials that could be recycled that don't need incineration. You've also mentioned on your rebuttal on point 2 that this is not debate about incinerators are better than landfills not whether incinerators are the best waste management method. I would like to criticize your definitions and your intentions. First of all, having a place to store waste so that it could be recycled later shouldn't be dismissed out of the debate. "Notyourbusiness" Is using very naive tactics saying that if they don't fall in line with getting rid of the trash immediately then, it should be dismissed. Let's criticize the definition of better

Definition: Better (according to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition.
A)To make more tolerable or acceptable.

More tolerable to what though? So this leads us to finding commonalities between incinerators and landfill. They are both waste management methods therefore, this is both a which is better as well as waste management method.

3. Clearly "Notyourbusiness" has not read between the lines. First of all there are ways that you can be forced to sign these contracts. For example, you either a) sign the contract, costing millions of dollars more than incinerators, around their local communities, having these incinerators usually around municipal urban areas making conditions uncomfortable and the community having a false sense of achievement or the city says no to contract and they don't provide the service and sometimes, large business will threaten to leave the country in search of other countries that are willing to allow incineration. Also, unless you are living in a direct democracy which the majority of countries do not(unfortunately), it's not decided by the public. It's decided by the mayor and council members of the city(which can be bought off) and personally as a Community Worker that graduated from my program, I know what you are saying is absolutely contradictory to fact so I know what I'm talking about.

Another thing to mention, you've also ignored the fact that companies have no incentives to recycle because incineration companies have a quotas that require them to burn a certain amount. They are more focused on burning trash rather than saving it for recycling which is why landfills are useful because they store waste that can be reduce, reused and recycled.

4. It's seems that "notyourbusiness" has made a quality over quantity where I take the opposite approach. The reason why it is better to have more jobs than specific jobs is because usually specific jobs have usually very few spots available therefore leaving the rest of the applicants, jobless. So it makes sense to hire people for a jobs while not specific but can get as many people working as possible.

5. I would like to mention that recycling happens before and after and not just before. There's plenty of materials that are dumped in out of pure random. Do you know how many people dump paper into landfill despite us having recycling bins? The reason for this is because people are lazy so it will go to landfills either way which is why I said before that it is a goldmine that could be used for recycling purposes. Even if there's no way to save the materials, there are many other uses for landfills other than just recycling. It could be used to create golf courses, parks, airport runaways and etc.

Another thing to mention is it's not like the landfills are dumps where garbage is on the ground touching. There's clay barriers separating the garbage from the soil and plastic to protect the waste from the rain. Also, we can increase the capture of methane gas to 70% to 80% in landfills.

To close, I leave you with this video on YouTube which is pretty much the points that I've already mentioned. will reduce pollution from Burnaby incinerator engineer/9356442/story.html
Debate Round No. 3



1. Con's point here is that landfills are better than incinerators because they create more jobs. However, as mentioned before, jobs are not the important, deciding factor in concluding which form of waste management is better. Using jobs as a point in comparing landfills and incinerators is as ridiculous as using jobs as a point in comparing religions.

2. Con here concedes to Pro by saying "As to your point for landfills needing less land, I see that as a good thing because the less, the less the city has to pay for it and the less citizens complain."

3. Concerning Con's views towards using Hong Kong as an example, I cannot see how it can be irrelevant. Here we are debating about landfills and incinerators in general, not the Pros and Cons they have in a specific region. Using Hong Kong as an example in fact demonstrates an incinerator's advantage of needing less land as Hong Kong is a very crowded metropolitan city with a population density of 6 650 persons per square kilometre, at the same time being a very technologically developed city with the capability to build and maintain an incinerator.

4. Con contradicts himself very often here. He makes his point stating that "Specifically on this point, were talking about which one is more cost effective. Incinerators are more costly than landfills therefore I think this point goes to me. Were not talking about costs". So he says landfills are better because he thinks they cost less, but then cost isn't a point?

I also believe that Con has yet again failed to acknowledge the fact that incinerators cost less than landfills in the long term. This is due to a multitude of reasons, such as less land required, less personnel required, etcetera.

5. Con here again contradicts himself. He says that " I didn't ignore your points. I just chose not to care about them because most of the points that "Notyourbusiness" points out are almost meaningless." As long as a point isn't responded to, then it is ignored, no? The Merriam Webster defines "ignore" as "to do nothing about or in response to (something or someone)".

Concerning methane, Con has admitted that landfills have methane problems. As for Con's example of flaring, it is irrelevant because we are only discussing incineration and landfills here, not any other form of waste management or disposal.

6. Wate and recycling
As I have mentioned previously, according to the waste hierarchy, any sort of recycling, reuse or recovery comes BEFORE mass disposal (landfills and incineration). Thus, landfills do not actually provide an advantage over incinerators concerning recycling. However, the ash from incinerators and scrap metal left can be used to build roads and used in the steel industry respectively.

7. Concerning "forced" contracts
Con here states a lot of examples, such as mayors and council members being bought off and large companies threatening countries as a whole. These, however, are unrealistic and fear-mongering claims in general. The first scenario, concerning mayors and council members being bought off, is a complicated matter that involves not only corruption of the government but failure of a system itself. Con is worrying excessively, instead of trusting voters to vote for those they in turn trust to govern their country/city, the core of a democratic system or society. Con also talks about large businesses threatening the economy, which I am very sorry to say will not be true. Incinerator companies don't have that large of an influence. The world's biggest companies (judged by wealth, market value, etc, which means they have more economic power and more influence in economy) are ICBC, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, JPMorgan Chase...all the way down to Disney (100th), and UNY Group Holdings (1999th). Incinerator companies such as TeamTec, Maguin, Joseph Egli Ag, Winderickx, etc aren't even on the list. Most influential companies in the world are stated as Apple, Unilever, JPMorgan Chase, Walmart, etc, nothing about incinerators. Biggest industries in the work are listed as the alcohol industry, OPEC Revenue, Global Pharma Market, etc. Incineration, again, is not on the list. Incinerator companies do not have the power or ability to threaten an entire country or economy. Con is merely trying to stir up unnecessary fear.

Concerning landfills storing waste, this is untrue. Once a day of dumping trash is over, the waste is covered with layers of soil and clay. The waste cannot be dug out to be recycled, reused or processed in any way. It is stated that "Each day, a layer of waste is compacted by heavy machinery and buried under a layer of earth or clean construction debris."

8. As aforementioned, waste cannot be buried in landfills then dug up again. Con here states that landfills can be used to "create" golf courses, parks and airport runways. However, Con has not stated the fact that after a landfill is full, used and sealed up, it still can only be used for purposes not requiring excavation, meaning that anything built on top cannot have steel/concrete bases and thus structures cannot be heavy or tall. This significantly lowers land value and is a perfect example of the non-sustainability of landfills. Once a landfill is full, cities/areas will have to find another area for a new landfill. The previous landfill has very limited land uses with a cap on development. Landfills are not sustainable, but incinerators are.

Despite layers of clay and lining or "capturing" of methane gas, water and land pollution from leachate, as well as methane is still a problem, one that is widely acknowledged by governments, scientists and environmental groups (such as WeGreen USA, Green Living, the USA government, the Canadian government...) Thus, it is a scientific fact that land and water pollution along with methane is a problem for landfills, one that incinerators do not have.

9. Youtube video
This is just blatant plagiarism. Con cannot simply Copy and Paste a hyperlink then pass off the points in the video as his own. Thus I will not acknowledge the video as part of the debate.

My points:
I would like to reiterate my points. Incinerators are better than landfills due to the lack of ground and water pollution, lack of methane production, higher level of sustainability, smaller costs in the long term, ability to handle all sorts of waste (Con has not responded to my point concerning medical waste), longer operational hours, lack of pests and lack of "contribution" towards global warming.

It should also be noted that incinerators do not cause as much negative effects to its neighbourhood when compared to landfills. Public consensus has long held that landfills are not a favourable usage of land (Carter, 1989; Adeola, 2000;
Martynaiak et al, 2007). Landfills come with many problems which greatly impact their neighbourhoods, such as odour and pests. An example would be the "Invasion of flies" in Hong Kong, cited below.

Additionally, landfills significantly lower property values in the neighbourhood (A hedonic study of smaller communities in the suburbs of Toledo, OH, found that each addi- tional mile from an active hazardous waste landfill increased property values between 16 and 25% [Smolen et al., 1991]), while incinerators only have moderate effects. The gradient effect of a landfill is $14 016/mile while the gradient effect of an incinerator is $7746/mile, and does not have zonal effects while landfills do.

I thank Con for his quick response and look forward to seeing his rebuttals and points.



Landfills jobs are irrelevant? How is that? If landfills provides jobs and those jobs were caused because of the landfills, then how is it not irrelevant. What the heck are you talking about. This does not in anyway refute my argument that Landfills produce jobs therefore It is relevant.

The reason why your point about Hong Kong is irrelevant is because you are only comparing the cost of Hong Kong money to American money. An incinerator in Hong Kong is not going to necessarily have the same value as in the United States so just comparing The value of the American Dollar in Hong Kong is irrelevant.

You mentioned TeamTec and all those other Incinerator companies but you are of course forgetting one very big company which we know them as Covanta. Covanta has had an interesting history not just with it's environmental violations but also it's known bribes in which they had proposed to many cities. Much like cities in Middlewich, UK. I figured that my opponent was trying to be objective but he fails in this category. Hard.

Leachate and methane though as I've said can be collected and those can actually benefit society as long as the leachate can be caught in the liner and as long as the methane can be collected which can be used as a gas.
Debate Round No. 4


I thank Con for his quick response.

My rebuttals
1. Hong Kong is irrelevant
While an incinerator in Hong Kong may not have the same value as an incinerator in the US, I am only using Hong Kong as an example to prove that incinerators are indeed cheaper than landfills in the long run. The debate on Incinerator vs Landfill is not limited to the US; I mean for it to be a general debate, one on the pros and cons of incinerators and landfills in general, around the world.

2. Covanta
My opponent states that Covanta "bribes" as though they are paying off politicians and doing so illegally. It is not. Covanta had merely stated the advantages of having an incinerator, such as a creation of 3500 jobs and substantial investment, such as more facilities. Covanta is not paying off people or doing illegal things like Con suggests with the word "bribe".

Another issue my opponent brings up is the "environmental violations" Covanta has committed, which is not cited or proved. Environmental violations of a single company, however, cannot represent the entire sector. There are companies which violate environmental regulations in every sector but that does not mean that the entire sector should be scraped and discarded. Covana is only a single company, and the benefits and advantages of an entire technology and waste management method cannot be ignored of because of it. The many other companies I have listed in previous round have had no such records.

Here my opponent criticises my objectiveness. I do not understand this, as I have merely stated plain facts which are properly cited and sourced. It is undeniable that incinerators companies do not have a large influence in politics or economy.

3. Leachate and Methane
Here Con states that leachate and methane can be collected. Con states that "those can actually benefit society as long as the leachate can be caught in the liner", which is a rather bold assumption. There are a few kinds of liners, namely composite (formed by both clay and plastic), clay and plastic. All of them have problems. Natural clay is often fractured and cracked. A number of household chemicals will degrade HDPE (plastic landfill liners), permeating it (passing though it), making it lose its strength, softening it, or making it become brittle and crack. Studies show that a 10-acre landfill will have a leak rate somewhere between 0.2 and 10 gallons per day. it is also known that leachate collection systems can clog up in less than a decade. Leachate is a toxic substance that pollutes ground water and land. Leachate is generated by landfills and not incinerators.

Con here states that methane can be collected and used as a gas. While true, this is not cited and sourced. The availability of this technology, though, does not seem to show in the facts and figures. It is stated that "Global methane emissions from landfill are estimated to be between 30 and 70 million tonnes each year. Most of this landfill methane currently comes from developed countries." It is undeniable fact that methane is a landfill problem, shown clearly in the facts and figures. Methane is emitted from landfills, but not from incinerators.

4. Jobs
Con here fails to acknowledge the economic benefits incinerators has over landfills. While incinerators may provide less jobs, they cost less in the long run and thus is a smaller burden to taxpayers. They also do not have negative impacts on neighbourhood property prices as severe as landfills do. The reason why I said that jobs are less relevant in this debate is because jobs should not be the main focus when it comes to comparing waste management methods.

My points:
I would like to extend all of my points. I would also like to point out that Con hasn't responded to my points concerning landfills' negative impacts on neighbourhoods (drastically more so that incinerators).

Con has not properly cited his sources and has failed to respond to all of Pro's points. Con has also tried blatant plagiarism by trying to include a Youtube video as part of the debate. Vote Pro.

Sources in previous rounds


You talk about Hong Kong but you don't talk about how it's relevant in the long run. What he seems to be saying is that land costs the same. No. It does not. Land costs differently at certain places and different times with different variables such as population density, proximity to lakes, cities, etc. You cannot compare Hong Kong with any other location that is interested in having a incinerator and this point that you made wouldn't be so bad if you weren't the one who request that I provide the information. No sir, the BOP was on you to prove how incinerators were cheaper in the long run, the BOP is not on me to say why not? To which no one can prove because it involves the future with too many variables. That's number 1.

Number 2, You never stated that you didn't want videos in your conditions and to the audience, welcome you to check out my points from the previous rounds and then I posted a video similar to what I have said so to say that my video is not accepted, I don't care what you think because the video is not in anyway plagiarism. Even if the points that I mention are also in the video, so what? Were not two great philosophers or scientists talking about these ideas for the first time. If it's already been discussed and no one is claiming that this originally came from me, then I think I'm free to reference as I please.

What "Notyourbusiness" is saying is if a company promises to make a certain, you should always trust the company which is bollocks. Companies are not interested in telling you the truth and Covanta had said they promised to make this much not guaranteed. To say that because they are offering something, doesn't mean its not bribing. Here's the definition of bribing

persuade: (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

The article that I posted also mentioned that bypass was also used in this case. Bypass is inferring that it's using other techniques to persuade the Middlewich community by of course bribing the council therefore proving my point correct that whenever a incinerator company comes in, they cannot be trusted. While there are some companies that genuinely care about the environment, at the end of the day, it's all about the money. If that wasn't a big deal, in Vancouver, there was a battle between the political officials about putting incinerator when there were bribes. You also mentioned that it doesn't matter how many incinerator companies cause in environmental violations because that's on them. What about Wheelabrator Saugus in Boston? What about the criminal and environmental violations that have been from Thermoselect? My argument is that if it's occurring to the point where it happens everywhere, then it's not just a few bad apples.

Another disturbing thought which "Notyourbusiness" has is the fact that he only thinks that corruption only happens on the federal level which is an ignorant statement. Corruption happens not just on the federal level but also provincial, state and municipal level. Companies will ignore the punishment if it means they will be making more from it. As for environmental violations, I will happily put that on the references down at the bottom.

They could create really terrible clay ones OR you could use Geosynthetic Clay Liners which are far more superior than regular clay liners. They are able to withstand freezing temperatures, and many other factors. You could also have filters which separate between waste and the drainage layer therefore limiting the the physical intrusion from the waste material which is what most landfills will have. As to "Notyourbusiness' questions of the process of Methane to Natural Gas, I will be happy introduce you those facts which is also in the references. Another thing to mention in regards to clogging, when it comes to using unsaturated conditions and layers involving gravel.

My final rebuttal before I get to more of my points is that you act as if landfills are Satan and incinerators are angels when that could not be farther from the truth. While "Notyourbusiness" claims that I'm ignoring the consequences of Landfills, he fails to mention the negative side effects which Incinerators cause. Many of the negative side effects of Incinerators can cause damage in citizens respiratory systems and lots of cardiovascular problems. This is dangerous especially for infants. Also what about the environmental violations. When plastic burns, it releases polyvinyl chloride to the atmosphere which is extremely toxic. There's also the possibility that exposure to metals like mercury and other chemicals like Arsenic are much likely to give you Cancer.

My Points in Summary are
- Landfills are Cheaper. I.E. Do not need to be Upgraded, Less Expensive than Incinerators
- Used to remodel the Land I.E. Made into Parks and Golf Courses
- Better Source of Energy Electricity (Landfill Gas which generates up to 1301MW just on Reciprocating Engines)
- Less negative side effects compared to Incinerators
- Modern Landfills are regulated and are less likely to make environmental violations
- We will be promoted a society that will burn recyclables instead of recycling

This concludes the debate. Vote Con. Thank you! :)
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
I have this for a congress bill and I personally agree with pro I will keep track of debate to see how it goes.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by moneystacker 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't think either one won. I am doing this for a congress bill andi had a lot of info over it already but didn't use it to evaluate this round. IF I would have pro would have won for me but out of the info. presented it is a tie. However pro had better sources and was more persuasive.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con mentioned government corruption, stating that an incinerator company had arranged a bribe, but never really was able to substantiate that claim. Con then went off on a tangent to complain about the level of corruption in government (I assume in the U.S.). While I don't necessarily disagree that there is a possibility the U.S. government is corrupt to a certain extent, if I were arguing against Con, I would want to see some evidence, even "unofficial" (obviously due to the fact that officials accept bribes). Pro at first mentions that "Incinerators cost less than landfills". While it seems Pro was able to prove to me that incinerators cost less than landfills in the long run, I would have preferred the notation of "in the long run" in the beginning. In any case, Con's arguments contained more emotion than substance, to me. Pro's conduct was better because he referred to Con with his position's title, whereas Con did not. I would recommend to Con more research done next time.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides make very very good points in support of their causes, language was clean all around, arguments goes to pro for just out arguing con, and sources go pro as well, pro out did con in sources roughly 2:1