The Instigator
RedRiderDUG5702
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should the government enact taxes/laws regulating a companies effect on the environment?

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...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 328 times Debate No: 87172
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

RedRiderDUG5702

Pro

The government should impose taxes, restrictions, and laws discouraging/limiting companies from having a major affect on the environment. One example of this would be a tax on the carbon emissions that a company produces. This would not only discourage companies from producing carbon emissions, but would also encourage them to switch to more energy efficient and environmentally friendly production methods. Likewise, it would help the government produce a budget for enacting other environmentally friendly measures.
Hayd

Con

Imposing what Pro imposes would result in an increased cost to the companies. How will the companies cover these costs? They will lower worker wages. When worker wages are lowered, citizens have less money, and thus spend less money. When they spend less money, buisnesses do not gain as much money. Since they lose this money, they have to lay-off or decrease worker's pay, which adds to the circle until the entire thing is screwed up. Don't do what Pro says.

Besides, Pro has not given any reason to use other means of procuring energy, and why they are better than carbon. He has not even established why carbon is bad. His case is negated
Debate Round No. 1
RedRiderDUG5702

Pro

RedRiderDUG5702 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RedRiderDUG5702

Pro

RedRiderDUG5702 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RedRiderDUG5702

Pro

RedRiderDUG5702 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RedRiderDUG5702

Pro

RedRiderDUG5702 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RadiatedDalek 11 months ago
RadiatedDalek
Though I believe that Pro's heart is in the right place, changing the slightest bit in the whole structure would slowly but surely destroy the economy of the U.S. It's like playing with dominos. Once one falls, they all fall with it.
Posted by Tyler_Putney 1 year ago
Tyler_Putney
The government has the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to do those things. Unfortunately, that organization doesn't have much power, as when they happen to fine those organizations it is simply looked at like pocket change. *cough* *cough* Koch brothers.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I generally stay out of politics but I do believe there is something that already exists that pretty much does what you ask. it the "environmental protection acts" or something like that. I don't know the specifics.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
RedRiderDUG5702HaydTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeiture.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
RedRiderDUG5702HaydTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
RedRiderDUG5702HaydTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.