Odd even days car formula will be success full in reducing pollution in Delhi for long run
Debate Rounds (3)
Though it will HELP decline the pollution it is not a means to an end but along with other programs that the government will be putting in place such as plans to shut down one of the oldest and least-efficient power plants, a temporary ban on the sale of large diesel vehicles, a stiff toll for pollution-spewing trucks entering the Indian capital, the Supreme Court earlier this month also banned trucks from entering the city if they are over 10 years old, PLUS taxis have to switch to compressed natural gas by March 31, all TOGETHER will reduce pollution in Delhi for the long run. May be not to WHO standard of 20 but with an average PM2.5 levels for New Delhi at well over 297, 15 times the minimum standard, its a start and you got to start some where. Japan, Paris, Bejing, and other cities have implemented such measures now and in the past to combat city smog/pollution to success. The problem was that once the pollution cleared it was back to business as usual and inevitably the pollution came back so critics ( gasoline companies and those media/scientists backed by them ) used that as a negative, not following the logic that where there is burning there is smoke aka burning fossil fuels = pollution
A step further and even better would be to convert ALL the cars to electricity or biofuels, especially biofuels that are made from used cooking oil as India and many countries are greatly fond of fried food and with their warm climate biofuels are easy to maintain as cold weather freezes biofuels and cost extra to heat to be made usable. America could become a leading energy exporter if we converted all the used cooking oil we produce everyday into biofuel, instead of us depending of foreign oil and paying others to import, especially since it is a proven fact that oil levels are dwindling and will eventually all dry up.
The 15 days is because it is a trail period as each city following this program has other factors particular to each city contributing to it pollution in total. If a cost analysis reduction in pollution levels satisfies their Paris agreement commitment, it is highly likely they will either full time implement the program or they will at least do it throughout the year in order to meet their goals and then will have long term success in reducing pollution levels.
I am hopeful that Paris summit would also work properly because i still have doubt on developed countries regarding the same. Power full and developed countries do not want to reduce their own carbon emission but want to restrict developing countries.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by pimpmaster 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had made a few assertions easily rebutted by pro. No sources for anyone, grammar was about the same. Each had good conduct. As a critique for Con, you need to argue your point and not just have a discussion. Your point was about cars, do not inject factories etc. Discuss miles not cars. It doesn't matter if it's 1 car or 100000 cars the same miles need to be covered. Cutting the number of cars in half only means each car needs to go twice as far. Good point on traffic/idle time, show the problem are the poorly timed lights not the number of cars. Discuss lack of emission systems to control pollution and the type of gasoline. Work on proving your point. Keep up the fight you'll get it :)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.