The Instigator
dddassdd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

It is industries not government to control environmental pollution?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,637 times Debate No: 13483
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dddassdd

Pro

Since no single source of energy is capable of fulfilling the entire requirement at present growing economy; thus we need to think again which source should be used and how to be used to proceed towards a low carbon economy.
Industry mainly needs to play a role in eco-friendly plans where state to the successful implementation of it. Since at present date industries in India mainly involve eco-friendly plan through which the plan is under clean development mechanism. Thus earning carbon credits is also a extra business in it. But also the carbon prices are not comparable with the price required for controlling the carbon emissions.
Overall we can say that industry is here to fulfil the demand and make a fruitful business. Therefore, state should stand as extra hand to the industry; creating awareness among the public, promotions to have R&D and direct investment in the end user efficiency, renewable sources and carbon capture methods.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and wish us both the best of luck.

I will be arguing against the notion that it is Industries, not the government, that ought to take control of environmental pollution. This is slightly altered from what the actual debate topic is, but I believe that I have only altered it to clarify it. If this is different from what my opponent originally wished. We can reach an agreement in the comment section and I will debate whatever we come up with.

I would also like to offer a definition for "control" - power to direct or determine. [1] to lead.

My opponent opens with, "Since no single source of energy is capable of fulfilling the entire requirement at present growing economy; thus we need to think again which source should be used and how to be used to proceed towards a low carbon economy."

This is making the assumption that we ought to proceed towards a low carbon economy. This is an assumption that I personally agree with, however, I would like to ask my opponent to clarify how he believes the industries will move towards a low carbon existence without government lead them in that direction with either incentives (commonly tax incentives) and/or restrictions.

"...earning carbon credits is also a extra business in it."

Carbon credits are a certificate or permit allowing a company to release carbon dioxide into the environment. [3] It really is nothing more then a fee that the government imposes on companies in order to provide incentive and punishment in order to direct industries.

"Overall we can say that industry is here to fulfil the demand and make a fruitful business."

I agree, a business's primary goal is only to generate revenue. Everything else is secondary to that (including job creation, they only create jobs in order to make money). That includes being a low carbon company. A company will (in general) only do that if it believes that it can increase its profits that way. Since low carbon economies are not a priority with companies unless they make money off of it, if we truly feel the need for a low carbon economy, we need the government to stand up, take charge, and provide incentives and regulations to reach the goal.

In all my points I showed how the government needs to lead companies, and so the government needs to control (since leading and directing is controlling) environmental pollution by using incentives and restrictions on industries.

[1] http://www.google.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dddassdd

Pro

From the time industrial revolution has started in the early 19 th century, they are playing a major role in the growth of the economy. From that time they have been involved in the drastic changes to the society. Government always wanted growth as important factor and nothing else from these industries in the early days

In fact during every massive inventions like IC Engines or Incandescent bulbs, government has nothing to do with controlling it or preventing the public from using it, Industries which plays a major part in the design and technology of the product should have foreseen the effects of the invention for next 50 years and what change it will bring on the environment.

Government only can make rules from their side and there part is over. If every government is more efficient the effects of the control pollution would have been controlled earlier.
But no government containing 200 or 2000 employed persons cant control the emissions coming from 2 million industries. If industries are not taking any steps towards it its is so difficult to control in long term

Carbon credits ...Actually the amount spent for creating clean development mechanism is much more than what u can get from it, but as a industries they should show some moral value towards creating clean environment

This earth is home to every humans and it is our duty to maintain. When there any drastic changes it will affect entire human mankind. It doesnt see what industry you are working and how you make laws

If u want to control anything for a matter control at source is the best and efficient method

Industries should spend much on research and development in producing green products and CSR naturally to increase the confidence among the stakeholders

As for example in india mobile industry is fast growing and more mobile towers are set in each run with DG sets for which these companies can easily create an alternate source

It is the responsibility of our generation to protect the environment in better way and hand it over to future younger generation. This generation people who are directly or indirectly employed should help in creating an greener environment with the organisation.

Be it a software or manufacturing or banking sector think of innovative ways in creating carbon free environment in your area of working this will surely promote in green economy of the country

software and banking industries can think of green building and power plants can promote clean methods like coal gasification and other new technologies which can brighten our future
Ore_Ele

Con

"From the time industrial revolution has started in the early 19 th century, they are playing a major role in the growth of the economy. From that time they have been involved in the drastic changes to the society. Government always wanted growth as important factor and nothing else from these industries in the early days."

That is very true, during the industrial revolution, government had very little involvement in industry with regulations and incentives. We also see from that, virtually no environmental consideration by industries during those times. Industries continued to build coal power plants, while it was the government that was investing in hydroelectric power (such has the hoover dam, the grand coulee dam, bonneville dam...).

"Carbon credits ...Actually the amount spent for creating clean development mechanism is much more than what u can get from it, but as a industries they should show some moral value towards creating clean environment."

I fully agree, industry "should show some moral value towards creating clean environment." But the truth is, that on their own, industries have not and will not. And there is a simple reason for this. As stated in the first round, industries and companies have only 1 goal, and that is to make a profit and make money. Their goals are not environmental control, unless that directly makes them money. Therefore, the only way to ensure some kind of environmental protection is for either the government to directly get involved (as was done in the 30's with the new deal), or to take control with incentives and restrictions to steer companies towards environmental control, such as with requiring fuel efficiency, providing credits for solar panels and hybrid/electric cars.
Debate Round No. 2
dddassdd

Pro

dddassdd forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

I will extend my arguements.
Debate Round No. 3
dddassdd

Pro

dddassdd forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

Extend my arguments again.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
dddassdd

Pro

dddassdd forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for the first two rounds, which were most enjoyable.

I will take this opportunity to end with summarizing my arguments. Industries, by their very nature, follow the rules and regulations of the government and the demands of the people. The people tell the industry what they want and the industry makes it. The industry does not lead, it does not take charge, and it does not take control, it merely follows. And because of this, industries can never take charge of pollution control, they can only follow the regulations of the government and the demands of the people.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
dddassddOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01